Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malkinann (talk | contribs) at 06:51, 13 June 2007 (→[[Beelzebub (Sand Land)]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

The Good article review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if Good article listed articles still merit their good article status, contesting former GA's that someone may think were improperly delisted, or request feedback on articles that have not yet been promoted.

Articles on this list are graded against the good article criteria in which an article is checked to be at the GA-Class grade on the article assessment scale. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the article's status. This is not a Peer Review Process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer Review.

These instructions have been replaced by Wikipedia:Good article review/guidelines, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Good article review. This page should be retained for its edit history.

Please review WP:WIAGA before you comment on whether an article should have its status changed or not Criticisms not based on our agreed standards are not actionable.

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

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 [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] in the section heading.
Please avoid the term speedy delist, any editor is free to delist an article, without further reference here; and Wikipedia is not a schoolroom. This is a voluntary process, and suggestions that delisted articles are bad should be avoided.

The Rite of Spring

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

Did you leave a message on the talk page of the article? That's meant to be so that people who are interested in the article (and who hopefully wrote some of it) can know about the review and address the concerns brought up in it. -Malkinann 00:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Sunbeam

This might not be the best moment to post an article for GA/R, but I really need third-party opinion. This article was nominated by me and subsequently reviewed by User:Jazznutuva, who subsequently failed it for it being written basing on only one source, which he found unreliable. In my discussion with Jazznutuva, I have explained I was nto aware of any GA-related stipulation that would require the article to have multiple sources and explained why I find the source reliable. I would be grateful if you could have a look at both the article and the discussion in Jazznutuva's talk page and tell me whether you also believe this article shoudl be failed - either for the reason stated by Jazznutuva (if you can find relevant regulations please) or for any other. Thank you, PrinceGloria 12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New noms go on the top. LuciferMorgan 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid me... This only goes to show I am not that immersed in this process, but also, that sometimes rather than pointing fingers you could actually walk the talk (whatever has been said in the talk page notwithstanding) PrinceGloria 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List as a GA I had a long review written out saing that the article should fail and why this article needed independant sources. Then I actually checked the source. It looks like an independant source to me, and seems quite reliable in that vein. It appeared from the name of the source that it was sourced to Chrysler itself (which would then be unreliable). But this looks kosher when I actually read it. Given the wealth of automotive trade publications like Motor Trend and Road and Track and the like, I find it hard to believe that NO other sources exist, but given that this source seems independent, and is thus reliable, I see no reason to fail it. As room for future improvement, though, it does need additional sources... Back issues of automotive mags from the 70's could really help flesh the article out, but this is GA quality in my opinion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Now, I believe that although automotive magazines from the period could give some insight, some of the more important background information only saw the light of day years later, when former employees decided to reveal the behind-the-curtain details to eager enthusiasts, which is how the site was created to some extent. So, I think I could add some hardcopy sources (if only I gained access to them, which is not that easy, at least for me), but those would mostly confirm the less-disputable details such as tech data. Perhaps some enthusiasts'/classic car magazines would contain more info, but I think most of what would be contained therein would make its way to the site anyway. PrinceGloria 14:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Oh BTW - I don't think that either MT or R&T have a UK or European edition.
I am not familiar with UK or European automotive publications, and while those mags may not be distributed in Europe, some equivalents I am SURE are.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support as GA I am not convinced that the source cited is truly neutral---but it is more of a history and thus "ok". I think the article is well written and interesting---but the source is very weak. But at this level, I think it is adequate. You wouldn't want to go to A-class or FA-class review as is... but for GA it meets the criteria.Balloonman 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial

I am asking that the article Holocaust denial be reviewed and moved down from its current status as a GA. The reason for this is that the article makes the assertion that "Holocaust denial is the anti-Semitic claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II". I believe the rest of the sentence is reasonable enough, but the first part is a very bold claim which implies directly that all Holocaust revisionists/deniers are anti-Semitic purely by that one quality alone. When you scroll down to the notes at the bottom which are alleged to be its "proof", you will find that they are all, in fact, opinions by people, not actual, factual, documentation showing the conclusive evidence needed to justify the claim that all holocaust revisionists/deniers are by default anti-Semitic.

In addition to this, I would like the entire introduction evaluated for bias, and relevance:

Bias: The purpose of the introduction seems to serve less to inform the visitor about the movement and more to demonize and criticize it before they have even ascertained what it is about later on. Buzz words like "anti-Semitism" and "Nazi" are thrown out as being analogous. This effectively accomplishes the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well" which then effectively creates the situation where the author's perceived antipathy towards the movement is demonstrated.

Relevance: In keeping with the idea that the introduction's purpose is to give a synopsis of the entire page, this one fails not only because it is biased against it from the start, but because it represents nothing which follows it. The page is describing the movement, its ideas, and the people involved with it, not for demonizing it and critiquing it. This, in fact, is done on another page, Criticism of Holocaust denial, where it would be far more relevant and worthwhile to read.

Vissario 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Vissario, who has created an account on Wikipedia solely for the purpose of defending Holocaust denial (or, as he prefers, "revisionism"), seems to ignore the fact that there are a dozen reliable sources backing that statement, and they are unequivocal. For example, the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity says "Holocaust denial is a new form of anti-Semitism, but one that hinges on age-old motifs." In fact, all reliable sources view Holocaust denial as antisemitic; he has failed to produce any that say it is not antisemitic. In addition, he creates some sort of false standard for statements regarding antisemitism; he seems to think there is some "factual" way of measuring antisemitism - perhaps antisemites have a unique blood chemistry, or antisemitic claims are measurable on some sort of spectrometer. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he seems to think there is some "factual" way of measuring antisemitism - perhaps antisemites have a unique blood chemistry, or antisemitic claims are measurable on some sort of spectrometer.

In fact there is. When they go on record as saying (or making actions which lead to the fact that) they are anti-Semites and that they do think Jews are a problem, I can safely agree with you that they are anti-Semites. But as of yet, there is nothing which causally proves that Holocaust revisionism/denial equates to anti-Semitism. What there is, however, is studies and surveys that it might suggest that one is anti-Semitic, not prove. And that is what this review is all about, correcting the flawed logical assumption that holocaust revisionism/denial is automatically anti-semitism.

And please, lay off the ad-hominem imputations that I am some type of neo-Nazi who joined this site for the expressed purpose of promoting anti-semitism, Nazism, et cetera.Vissario 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to "impute" anything about you; your own words condemn you:

...this just reaffirms to me once again that there is some insidious force on this planet which teaches each successive generation that it is NOT okay to question the motives or ideas associated with Judaism or anything even remotely related to it. Why else would the ADL spout the word ANTI-SEMITISM whenever you claim Zionism is little more than fascism and land-grabbing? Why else would the government pour millions of dollars a year into "Tolerance" museums which actively collect and create propaganda? Why else would most major European countries (Including good ol' Canada!) actively censor and repress those with "undesirable tendencies towards racism and contradictory ideas about the Holocaust"?[1]

and

I submitted it to a GA review, but at the looks of it with all of the liberal, Jew-sympathizing PC-nazis, i highly doubt it gets far. This shows once again that people are raised from an early age to present their anus to Jews and not ask why.[2]

Do you have anything to add? Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you bringing a quote by Jayjg from the Holocaust Denial page here, or did Jayjg make that comment in response to this review request? It's not that clear to me whether Jayjg made that comment here or whether you copied it here.... Homestarmy 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made that comment here. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GA. Although I think that the article might be improved in a number of ways, I think that as a whole the article meets the GA criterea and should be kept as such. Personally, I think that the lead would be stronger if "antisemitic" were to be removed from the first sentence, and if a section were added to the body to discuss the antisemitic nature of the phenomenon. But the crafters of the article have put together a comprehensive and (as far as is possible in these matters) balanced account of the phenomen. Bucketsofg 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delist as GA I really wanted to support this as a GA--I think holocost deniers are idiots. But I don't beleive it does meet GA criteria. It is too POV.
  • First, I agree that the word antisemitic should be removed from the first sentence. While I agree that it is generally anti-semitic, I have problems with labelling people who hold that position as defacto anti-semites. Make the argument in the body of the article, the fact that it's in the first sentence clearly demonstrates the POV of the article.
  • there is little or nothing in the way of debate among reputable scholars concerning whether the Holocaust occurred. This sentence opens up a few cans of worms. What is a reputable scholar? Is this POV? Eg is a scholar who denies the holocost by default a non-reputable scholar? Are there scholars who deny it? This and the following sentence are too strong of statements to go without citations---even with citations, it is still probably POV. Again, these statements show strong POV.
  • Revisionism vs denial... all the sources are one sided. It's like the pro-life/pro-choice debate. You can find any number of pro-life sources that state that pro-choicers should really be called "Pro-death" and any number of pro-choice sources that say pro-lifer are really "anti-choice." I've always been of the opinion that you respect what the different party's want to call themselves---and then distinguish between them. But in an NPOV article, the description prefered by the group being described should be used... not the term used by that groups detractors. And let's face it, just as the two parties in the abortion debate want to define the terms used to describe their opponents, so too do people want to do so here. By using the label that paints the opposition in the worst possible position, you are showing POV.
  • By starting every sentence of the section dealing with the position of revisionists with "They claim" you are again creating a feeling that "they" are only making "claims" that can be discarded. By using bullets and failing to make the section into a coherent prose section, the article further detracts from their position and introduce POV.
  • The extensive use of bullets in this section is also not indicative of a GA quality article.
  • There are NUMEROUS statements that need citations. I know they exist, but when dealing with a controversial subject, they are necessary.
  • The section that begins with As Holocaust denial, by whatever name, is not considered to be historical research by mainstream scholars, there has been a substantial debate on the right way to respond to deniers. This reaks with POV. This paragraph would be better presented by stating that there are three schools of thought regarding responses to Holocaust revisionist. 1) The position that views them as deniers and not worth responding to (the position that comes accross in this article) 2) The group that tries to raise awareness of the issues while not recognizing revisionists as valid. 3) The group that confronts them head on.

I couldn't read this any further. The POV of the article is so poignant that this article clearly deserves to be delisted as GA. It is clearly written from the position that revisionists are wrong and not worthy of being listened to---and while that may be true, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to perpetuate that sentiment.Balloonman 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other note about the article. The article dismisses people and scholars who challenge the accepted position. For example "Holocaust denial... is not considered to be historical research" or the statement about "reputable scholars". These statements (and many more in the article) are in fact saying that anybody who questions the holocause is by default not engaged in "historical research." I was trained as a historian (completed the course work for a Masters in Religion (Ma.R.) in Church History) and these statements seriously bother me. It would be comperable to a 19th century scholar being condemned for questioning the existence of Jesus Christ. Most scholars accept that a person named Jesus lived, but today there are serious religious scholars who question that! A hundred years ago, they would have encountered opposition such as I find in this article. A few centuries before that everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe, and anybody who believed otherwise was not a legitimate scientist. When you start attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument, you are not NPOV.Balloonman 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Earth article is written from the POV that the Earth is more or less a sphere, regardless of the views of the flat-earth society. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but where does the Earth article make statements that are as biased as those presented here? EG I didn't see anything in the earth article that attacked people who don't accept the scientific position. So I checked the Flat Earth article. Again, it discusses the Flat Earth Society, but it doesn't attack them. Even the Flat Earth Soceity article doesn't go to this much effort to say that people who hold to that position are idiots. Global Warming is another area where there is virtual unanimity amongst scientists. While most scientist agree that Global Warming exists and most of them place blame on humans, there is not an effort to universally discard people who object to human influenced Global Warming. How about Evolution? Most of us believe that anybody who objects to Evolution does so from a religious bias. But the article on evolution doesn't simply discredit opponents as religious zealots with their heads up their butts. The Creation-evolution controversy states, "while support for creation based alternatives where evolution does not take place is minimal among scientists." This is much more NPOV than declaring anybody who disagrees with Evolution as a not reputable scholar. Nor does the Evolution article make any claims the study of creationism is "not considered scientific research."Balloonman 16:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article simply factually lists what reliable sources say about Holocaust denial. And it is a fact that none of those who support Holocaust denial are reputable scholars, and is often commented on by reliable sources. The closest they ever had was David Irving, and he was discredited in a court of law. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you start defining a position as "by definition" not reputable, then you are ending any possibility of a reputable scholar discussing the subject. You are precluding the possibility of somebody producing any evidence to the contrary. Creationist Scientist are not respected as scientist---their methodology is full of holes. But the articles that deal with those subjects don't simply define creationist as non-reputable/non-scholars---Likewise the Flat Earth Soceity. It may be true, but when you make the statement, "This is the way it is, and anybody who disagrees with this position is by definition an idiot" then you are embarking on POV.Balloonman 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say that "by definition" anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Reputable scholars do discuss Holocaust denial, and they are listed in the article. I don't see the sentences in the article that you are referring to. Regarding the length of those bullet sections, it was supporters of Holocaust denial who kept insisting on lengthening it and adding more and more of their "good arguments". Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply do a find on the talk page for the two sentences I quoted above and it'll take you straight to the two statements that I quote. But it's beyond just those two statements, there are others that are full of POV.
  • Keep as GA
My strong suspicion is that this is a spurious request by an editor with an agenda, but to assume good faith and summarise my reasoning:
1. The opening sentence: Describing Holocaust denial as antisemitic is supported by the sources given. The reasoning is that, regardless of motive, indulging in Holocaust denial is an antisemitic behaviour. The article does not blanket-label all Holocaust deniers as antisemites (although this may well be the case), but rather describes the act of Holocaust denial as antisemitic.
2. The subject: All reputable sources dismiss Holocaust denial as a worthy field of study for reasons explained fully in the article. There are no alternative interpretations supported by sources of similar quality. One can tendentiously argue that this state of affairs is POV, but that's just the way the facts stack up.
3. Balance and POV: There are undoubtedly parts of the article that can be improved. However, if the overall tone is to make Holocaust deniers look like idiots, this is only because that is what mainstream verifiable sources say they are. It is not our business to editorialise in order to water down mainstream viewpoints and promote minorities with an agenda - even if as a result we stand accused of being a majority with an agenda; "balance" does not mean we need to give weight or credence to all discredited viewpoints from discredited individuals. To borrow Jayjg's analogy above, it would be like trying to maintain, in the face of all the evidence, that the Earth might actually be flat (or may one day be proved flat when society and geophysics advances enough to escape from the worldwide Round Earth conspiracy).
If valuing the truth makes me a "liberal, Jew-sympathizing PC-nazi", then I can only say that I'm flattered ;) EyeSereneTALK 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue with you that the person who first nominated this may have an axe to grind, but to address your comments: 1) By including the antisemetic statement in the first sentence you are applying the label that all who challenge the holocaust as being anti-semetic. Now it may be true, but that should go into the body of the article, not the first sentence where it sets the tone and the POV. It says that anybody who defends this is by definition anti-semetic (and I am sure there are some who have applied that label to me because I am critical of the tone in this article.) 2) There are other issues (Flat Earth, evolution/creationism, etc) where the issues are essentially closed for debate. But the articles discussing them attack the position---not the person making the argument. When an article attacks the person, it looses credibility. This is a position where the facts are strong enough to speak---it doesn't have to make ad hominem attacks! 3) Again, the articles discussing flat earthers doesn't attack people who hold to that position. The articles on Creationism/Evolution don't attack people who beleive there is scientific basis for Creationism. You CAN make a strong article without the blanket labels---and I believe the article will be must stronger and less POV if you did so.Balloonman 18:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that the article discusses three groups of scholars who oppose holocaust deniers---the first group simply refuses to recognize those who oppose the holocaust because it might make it "appear a legitimate field of inquiry." The article is clearly in this camp. I am more in the camp of the Nizkor project---the facts stand on their own. In an enclopedic, I believe it it more important to let the facts stand on their own, than to simply discard a position you don't agree with. In order for this article to be GA in my opinion, it needs to be more Nizkorish than We're right they are wrong.Balloonman 18:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as GA The issue seems to be one of POV. It seems that the two ways to establish a violation of NPOV is to show that (1) there are statements made not supported by reliable sources or (2) there are reliable sources taking a different position from the one presented in the article. Since nobody seems to be arguing the former, the issue is what, if any, reliable sources have been ignored. The originator of this challenge would seem to be the person who should provide this information -- it should be presented something like this:

There are a significant number of holocaust deniers who are not anti-semitic. I refer you to the works of Historian Mr. X who has a PHD from University Z who has written substantially in peer reviewed books and journals on the Holocaust. His works have shown that it is possible for persons with no anti-semitic bias to follow generally accepted standards of historical research and conclude that the Holocaust did not occur.

Of course, the problem is that no such person has been cited if, in fact such a person exists. As someone else said, the closest the deniers have come up with is David Irving who now has no credibility in any academic setting.

Defenders of down grading this article need to do better than making allusions to other events in science or religion that have been reexamined. The reality of the Holocaust is based on physical examination of death camps, oral testimonies, and a wealth of documents -- many provided very conveniently by the Nazi bureaucracy. What new evidence do you folks believe will turn up that will overcome this mountain of evidence? What evidence exists now to refute this mountain of evidence? The latter has been addressed through an international examination by a over a half century of legitimate (i.e. credentialed, published, and peer reviewed) scholars examining in detail all aspects of the Holocaust and the evidence is overwhelming.

To accuse the editors of this article with a violation of NPOV you have to show (not simply throw up your hands and say well maybe there's something out there) that there is another POV that needs to be considered. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I encourage the regular reviewers here to review the archives and previous discussion of the article on its talk page. Do a simple search on the term POV and you will see that multiple people (many admins) have been critical of the NPOV of this article. Those voices are squelched by the articles main defenders. Two of my favorite comments so far are "Whether the article is POV or not, it is an accurate statement of the current ( 2007 ) politically correct position." So political correctness overrides POV? And regarding quoting Holocaust Deniers, "They're not reliable sources. You need to quote what scholars of the Holocaust denial movement have said about it." So the subject that is being described cannot be quoted because they are not reliable sources on what they believe.Balloonman 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but this is a misunderstanding of the article's approach ;) The position is that Holocaust Deniers, because of the huge weight of contrary evidence including court cases in many countries, cannot be trusted to represent their beliefs honestly... therefore their reliability as a source is questionable at best. We are right to be concerned to achieve NPOV (political correctness should never override the truth), but I also think we must be prepared to accept that, whilst a worthy goal, in rare circumstances it may not always be attainable or even applicable. EyeSereneTALK 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can reluctantly accept that as a possibility---but I still have misgivings about articles whose sources are all critics of the movement. I am also extremely concerned because a quick review of the talk page will show that numerous people routinely are challenging the NPOV of the article. I do not beleive that it is NPOV---and that the perponderance of people who challenge it is evidence that it doesn't read as a neutral representation of the facts. The talk page reads as a page of people who read the article and find it NPOV---but they challenge that they are overwhelmed by the hardcore editors of the article.Balloonman 20:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I replied to you on the article talk page, it's best in all article if we report what secondary, scholarly sources say about something, rather than primary sources. All the moreso in this case, where the group has been proved in case after case to have deliberately misrepresented the truth about both themselves and the Holocaust. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GA. The article, while not up to FA status, is certainly well-written and well sourced. The few minor quibbles Ballonman has with certain sentences are not enough to remove GA status; nor are the concerns of the editor who fears that "liberal, Jew-sympathizing PC-nazis" are "raised from an early age to present their anus to Jews and not ask why." Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are so many individuals given their own sections, are these people all seriously that notable that the article has to discuss all of them like this? Going at it one person at a time just seems a bit weird to me, though of course if there's an explanation, i'd like to read it, currently, it seems to be making the article much longer than it could reasonably be. Homestarmy 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article actually is pretty good when it starts talking about the individuals. It's the first third of the article that I have POV concerns about (and a severe derth of citations throughout the article.)Balloonman 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be specific about where the article needs citations? I'd say ""deniers" have been criticized for seeking evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.", and the entire section of "Claims of the holocaust deniers" really stand out to me as lacking citations. Its daughter article, Criticism of Holocaust denial is also somewhat under-referenced. -Malkinann 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article. It is actually better than my first impression---once you get past the introduction and first couple of sections. One of the things that I am trying to do is adding {{fact}} where it is necessary. (Of course, when I did so last night my 5 requests for facts was labelled as "excessive tagging is disruptive.")
That's fine, but stop removing sourced fact, ok? Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only sourced fact that I removed was the name of a person that shouldn't be in the intro. But you've decided to undo most of the changes I made (and reverting back to a significant amount of POV.) So,I will keep my objection as delist.Balloonman 04:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it ever a GA to begin with? It doesn't seem to have went through the process for its original GA. Anyway, I think there are certain issues which need to be addressed before GA status is granted. So I don't copy-paste, here is the link: [[3]] .V. [Talk|Email] 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was never nominated on the GAC page and was promoted by User:Matt Yeager on December 27, 2006. Matt Yeager is an experienced editor who has minimal edits (3) (in his last 3000) on any Holocaust pages---2 were when he promoted the article to GA. While I do not believe this article is GA quality, I don't believe the fact that is wasn't passed in traditional manner is a valid reason to delist. If anything it is an indicator that the GA process is broken---I mean, it only takes the opinion of a single editor to pass an article to GA. As a side note, I read the article as it existed on [December 27th], and I would have passed it.Balloonman 04:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the version that had at best 1/4 the volume of footnotes the current version has. You need to start using more objective measures of GA status; it can't just be because you disagree with what the sources say. Jayjg (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My *MAIN* criticism is the POV... not the sources. It needs more sources, but the POV wasn't nearly as pronounced as it is now... and actually I was coming back here to state that I might not have passed it after all. WHen I read that version with this version the POV is less, but it is still there.Balloonman 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The POV in the article reflects the POV of the many reliable sources used. Some people have whined about the article being POV, but not one has ever managed to bring even one reliable source that contradicted anything in the article, much less the stuff they were whining about. Wikipedia is a source-based encyclopedia; time to stop whining, and start bringing reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And herein lies the problem. You see people who are critical of the POV in the article as whining and unable to support their position. An article can be factual and still have POV problems---which this article does. POV comes out in how it is put together and argued. The words chosen. The adjectives used. The way the opposing point is portrayed. I am not disputing the facts, I am disputing the POV in how those facts are presented. This article has been criticized for months for its POV---and I think that's because of the way the facts are presented and how the opposition is discarded and people who question the facts are labelled as antisemites and cast in negative perspectives.Balloonman 05:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people objecting to the "POV" in the article are, like the nominator above, those who also think "that people are raised from an early age to present their anus to Jews and not ask why." I'm tired of the hand-waving. Over a dozen reliable sources say Holocaust denial is antisemitic. Find some that say it is not. Oh, and please stop canvassing for people to come here and oppose GA status, ok? Jayjg (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the people I 'canvassed' are the ones who questioned if this should be taken to GA/R on the page and a person I have previous relations with who just last week compained about the rampant POV on the article. As for 'hand waving' think about how the article is written and you might be able to avoid it. Questioning the Holocaust <> antisemitism. 95% of the time it probably does, and it is safe to state that it is considered an antisemitic activity, but to state that anybody who questions it is anti-semitic not worth listening too is strong POV.Balloonman 06:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raëlian Church

I should ask for this article's failed good article nomination to be reviewed, as there is no basis for the claim that there are image tag problems (which led to quickfail), especially as of now since all the images in the article are in Wikipedia Commons, except the one in the infobox and the picture of Raelian symbols. Nevertheless, in the past four days, I have made significant improvements and additions (over 140 edits) to the article.☺▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the George W. Bush article history and had noticed the number of edits since 16:00 of June 4. It seems I made more edits to my article than all the edits in the GWB article since then.☺▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags, your ref tags should be after punctuation. -Malkinann 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Punctuation includes commas as well as periods. If you do a search on the article right now using (CTRL+F), you'll find many ".[" and several ",[" but no "]." or "],". When you commented, there was only one "]." - an excess period.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also read that it is not required that the ref tag be next to puntucation if it is not at the end of a sentence. Your link says:


◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, there are no violations of "Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags" in the Raëlian Church article.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Is this: "Canadian sociologist Susan J. Palmer has studied the movement for more than 15 years[9] and says the movement intentionally stirs a moderate level of controversy which leads to criticism by both religious and non-religious fronts." in the later citation for Palmer page 77? -Malkinann 07:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I have to admit, I didn't want to have too many footnotes in the lead, but I will add one to that.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙

This image: Image:Symbols (Raëlism).png probably needs a detailed fair use rationale to be on the safe side. This may have been why the article was quickfailed last time.-Malkinann 11:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Belarus

Was denied GA status due to lack of citations recently. So, with the help of Piotrus, citations were added to all sections and to anywhere else I can think of. If there is any other issues with the article, please let me know. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool - good luck the 2nd time around. LuciferMorgan 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could perhaps be longer? (WP:LEAD says roughly that you should distill each major section of the article to a paragraph or sentence, and then put it in the lead) -Malkinann 09:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how long, since pretty much this constitution is like almost all others. Plus, the issues with the constitution I have seen are not because the document is flawed, but by the guy who runs the whole show. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Personally, I don't like George Bush. But I do like the Wiki. That's why the GWB article needs a going over. Someone locked it before this line -- "What do you get when you mix a Bush with a cheny ... One Fucked up country" -- was caught and edited. Have another look at the whole article.

  • comment Articles are not delisted because of vandalism. I trust the GWB article the most, in fact, because so many people are watching for sleeper account vandalism. hbdragon88 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also substantial admiration for GWB throughout the world. He is able to build international partnerships and tackle complex intertnational issues like revamping the Kyoto Agreement or getting missiles into Europe. Most of his problems come from unruly Republicans and noisy Democrats. Sure, he doesn't speak well, but lots of people like and admire him, but this WP article sounds more like it was written by Bush bashers, and I support a wholesale top-to-bottom review 154.20.137.51 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Promiscuous (song)

I failed this article during its first nomination, and I think there are still some lingering problems. The lead doesn't have any summary of the "Critical reviews" section. The "Critical reviews" section is two sentences long; one is seven words, and the other is five quotes thrown into one sentence. Some of the information about its performance in Canada is not covered by the source provided. None of the information about how the music video performed is referenced. The table of chart positions is a complete mess. Number ones should not be boldfaced, there shouldn't be parenthetical numbers, and the number of charts is way too much (see WP:CHARTS). ShadowHalo 07:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some fixing following this review, anything else? igordebraga ≠ 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand the second paragraph under critical reception to like 3 sentences. M3tal H3ad 08:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Cobb

Article fails several GA standards at the moment: It is tagged as being unverified (#2), and it is not currently stable (#5). There is an edit war going on due to an apparent NPOV non-issue for several days. The issue is about whether we can say that Cobb is considered one of the greatest players of all time, which can be sourced but is considered NPOV by a lone editor and is constantly being removed. Wholesale changes were made to the article several days ago because of it, and the lone editor is constantly reverting the article to anything resembling this particular state even though there is a 40% less text and 75% fewer citations then it used to have. The article is just devolving into chaos. -- transaspie 06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get the information correct before you start accusing people of things. I am not the lone editor to make this statement, I'm just the one reverting the information. That statement has NOT been sourced and is being inserted by a person that has been harassing me for days. As I mentioned, I did not intend to remove the content that I did in that specific edit and even said to PUT IT BACK IN. That aside, the article is still in horrible shape and needs to be fixed. Rather than make a POV statement like - He is the greatest, or one of the greatest, or something to the effect .... I would like to show you a piece of text that I helped get into the article on Babe Ruth
  • That type of statement is a MUCH better way of communicating the same information. It is NOT a statement of opinion and can allow the reader to make their own conclusions. //Tecmobowl 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will apologize for any comments I may have made to accuse you of being the only person to claim NPOV, because I can agree with you on that in some ways. Reading through the pre-revert article, there is the statement that "Cobb is considered one of the greatest players ever"...and wouldn't you know it, there is absolutely no part of the article which makes any references to reinforce that statement. In this regard, you are correctly obliged to remove it. A statement like that is perfectly fine in an introduction only if you source it somewhere in the article.
For example, the article on Michael Jordan clearly states that he is "[w]idely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time..." without a cite, but THEN has a section of his legacy which clearly reinforces that statement. That's perfectly acceptable. Nothing written about Cobb in the old article enforces its claim of him being the best. If I had noticed that before, I probably wouldn't have been so rash about it here. I'm sorry for overacting about it.
Beyond that, however, even you admit the rest of the article needs work. If we restored the old longer article but removed that NPOV line in the intro, and trimmed one section you've adapted into its own article, can we roll with that or does it still need work? -- transaspie 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, looks like some very bad instability: [4]. However, if this diff is just because of one person reverting to the same version over and over, which version is closest to the version that passed GA status? If the article has changed radically, it may just be a better idea to re-nominate for GA status, that way, you can be more certain that the article in whatever form it turns into is really a GA. Homestarmy 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Currently not the same article I passed a few months ago. I would say probably reverting back to that version, but I wouldn't want the work to be undone for the many editors who may have contributed more information to the article. But as Homestarmy said, as soon as the article has returned itself to the GA standards, do renominate. --Nehrams2020 05:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A week ago I looked at this article and though it was great. With a bit of work it could be FA quality. I look at it now though and it's in shambles. I don't know what happened but the article's virtually destroyed now and is in need of a complete fix-up. Delist.--Wizardman 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a plea on the talk page to get this article reverted back to the longer, more cited version in an attempt to keep GA status. If I can't get full co-operation on this, then you probably should just delist. -- transaspie 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been reverted for now...it's not exactly the same as it was because one of the initial sections was spun into its own article and one paragraph disrupted the flow of the article and was deleted. It may be slightly unstable in case I deleted good parts of the destroyed article and messed it up in the process. Hopefully, the reverted article is a cautious keep. -- transaspie 03:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the talk page, and i'm not sure I understand, has the article been reverted close to what the article was like when it was first reviewed, or close to a version about a week old? I see there was some talk about trying not to lose a very large number of citations.... Homestarmy 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It resembles the article that was a week old, though I'm discovering I have to clean up some aspects of the larger article, much to my annoyance. (It's VERY cautious keep now) It is similar to the article that was passed for GA, but about 20 more citations were added. The article that was destroyed removed some 70 citations and a lot of them have been restored now. Still, I have cautious pessimism about this article because I'm having to clean various parts of it up and possibly replace an entire section soon (the one section I chose not to revert for some stupid reason). -- transaspie 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Meh, dealing with this whole article has been very chaotic for me lately.)[reply]
          • If the article requires some work, maybe it would just be best to let it not be a GA, and then re-nominate it so you can be sure that whatever changes you make really are consistant with the GA criteria. Homestarmy 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This article is one of the targets of a sockpuppet (a sockpuppet that's not even trying anymore, IMO), which will further damage it's ability to be stable. Add to it that certain aspects of the article are not universally among those that follow the article, and maybe a hopefully temporary delisting would work. It would certainly make me feel better because I have put myself under far too much pressure to fix this article on my own and I wouldn't feel so rushed about fixing it. -- transaspie 18:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (I'm thinking the article is currently between GA-class and B-class)[reply]

cautious keep ooops, no, now it's strong delist oh wait looks like we can keep it now... er wait, delist' it no longer meets criteria 5---stability... regain the stability and I'd be willing to revise my opinion... but as is, I would encourage you to go to RFC. Get people on your side...Balloonman 03:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Matusow

This article has quite a few issues. The lead is incredibly short. The refs are placed incorrectly (i.e. spaces between footnotes, spaces between periods and footnotes, etc.). There are TONS of short paragraphs, and in general, the prose is not up to par. The vast majority of the references come from either CardPlayer results pages or a single article on Matusow- and considering his success and controversial nature, plus the popularity of poker, I'm sure there are dozens of articles from reliable sources regarding Matusow. A few statements are uncited, especially in the "Personal life" section, where sources are particularly necessary. This section also discusses all of Matusow's issues, but doesn't mention other aspects of his life- hell, the article doesn't even tell me if he has a family. Finally, there's an unnecessary trivia section full of short sentences that should be integrated or removed. Overall, I don't feel that this article is currently worthy of GA status and would urge delisting. -- Kicking222 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - The issues with placement of in-line citations seems to have been corrected, however, this article fails to meet criteria. Here are some of the issues I found:
    • The lead is weak. It should be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD.
    • "Matusow suffered from bullying when going through school" - Is this covered by the ref at the end of the paragraph? Speaking of that ref, there needs to be a page specification.
    • The second paragraph of "Early years" is improperly sourced. The ref should be after the claim, not clumped together at the end of the paragraph, as is done here with ref 5 and 6. Speaking of ref 6, Full Tilt Poker should not be wikified as such in the source, it should be fulltiltpoker.com.
    • Under "World Series of Poker", WSOP is used. In order to use abbreviations such as this, you need to first include them in parenthesis following the spelled out use. Meaning: World Series of Poker (WSOP). Subsequent uses should then be the abbreviated.
    • The tiny table under "World Series of Poker bracelets" seems pointless.
    • The first sentence under "Other poker events" needs to be reworded. It seems to be missing an and after the comma, or "earned" should become "earning".
    • Stand alone years and months need not be wikified. In this case, I only see one of each.(Fixed them myself.)
    • I agree with the nomination that there are far too many stubby paragraphs. Many one sentence. These need to be merged together. "Other poker events" is, in particular, very stubby. It reads like a trivia section.
    • I'm also in agreement with the nomination that the claims in the personal section MUST be referenced. Speaking of mental health issues, drug use, arrests, and suicidal thoughts must be proven. WP:BLP is clear about this. The last sentence, about how his view on life has changed, also needs to be referenced.
    • Trivia sections are unacceptable per WP:Trivia.
    • There are not enough sources; there is too much reliance on the same sources. There is also information missing from sources, some which I have pointed out above. Page specifications and dates of articles. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I congratulate Lara on fixing several problems. For the rest, I remind her of the lead of WP:WIAGA: The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are significantly different from the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.
    • Many FA's do not have two or three sources for every fact; on this subject they may not exist.
    • As for the trivia section, WP:Trivia does not require or recommend deletion; it recommends incorporation. Here that would mean a paragraph on "Tastes and lifestyle" or some such; but I don't see that as much of an improvement over the section as it stands. Yet the facts are of some interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Thank you for pointing out the criteria for me, but I know it. And, frankly, I'm not quite sure why you wrote that out considering you're backing my point while opposing it.
        • First, GA criteria does not measure decent articles; it measures satisfactory articles.
        • Second, as noted in the link you so kindly posted distinguishing between FA and GA criteria, "A Good Article must only comply with six style guidelines;" lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation, as listed in WP:WIAGA (emphasis mine).
        • Both require factual accuracy and verifiability, which this article lacks in places. GA criteria 2b requires there be reliable sources for quotes and challengable material.
        • Additionally, I did not recommend that the trivia section be deleted. I know what WP:TRIVIA recommends, which is why I included the link and pasted the template to the section. Trivia sections have the potential to be a dumping ground for inaccurate and/or non-notable information. That is inappropriate for GA. Notable, accurate, and appropriately sourced information should be worked into the article, anything else should either be removed from the article completely, or transfered to the talk page until it can be appropriately worked into the article.
      • While your participation in the process is appreciated, I would prefer you base your votes on the GA criteria. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 05:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep—please remove the trvia section and integrate those one sentence paragraphs. Then it's an easy keep. The second paragraph of the lead section could be expanded a bit, but that point alone wouldn't be worth failing over. — Deckiller 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep—the prose needs a bit of work as well. I went through and worked on the article a bit, but it needs additional work from someone with more available time. It's generally clear, but the tone is a little off in some areas. Some weak verbs are used ("go" and "take"), which usually take away from the prose being clear. It just needs another pair of eyes before it's a definite tweak. Also, the first paragrpah of Personal Life needs a citation or two. — Deckiller 15:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what about all of the other points? What about the entire article basically coming from two sources? What about the lack of citations? What about the incredibly small lead? -- Kicking222 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The short lead is in perfect sync with the guidelines of WP:LEAD an article that has less than 15K characters should have 1-2 paragraphs.[5] This article is 6K characters---thus on the short side and deserving of only single paragraph entry. As for sources---there are more than 2 sources. Granted some of the sources are blogs---but this is one case where blogs is appropriate. They are not simply blogs of some poker fan, they are blogs of some of the most notable poker players in the world. Even blogs by Matasaw are appropriate. In short this isn't one of the best articles, but I have to vote to Keep.Balloonman 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage

There's really very few citations in this article at all. One specific uncited piece of information is shown here. Lack of citations is why I think that GA status should be removed from this article -- while there are sufficient sources listed at the end, the information in the article itself is not sufficiently tagged with citations (as it is in an article such as Electroconvulsive Therapy: if you compare the quality of citations in the two articles and consider the extremely high standards that a "good article" is expected to meet, then it's a wonder why Phineas' article has GA status and the ECT article does not). --24.199.103.240 16:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added one of the links at the botton as a citation for that piece of information; since it talked about the topic.Apart from that I think that you can´t really compare a topic like electroconvulsive therapy to the biography of a person like Phineas Gage: I believe the article has the most important books and journal papers talking about Phineas Gage as bibliography. Of course it doesn´t have as many as electroconvulsive theraphy since the information written about this topic is very small while there are journal dedicated only to electroconvulsive... and the fact that is shorter doesn't mean is not good. --Garrondo 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Several direct quotes are uncited. These need inline citations to the specific book and page number where they appear. The lead could also use to be expanded to more fully summarize the article. Some more treatment in the lead needs to be given to Gage's specific neurologic problems and their wider implication. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Jayron's assessment. Additionally, related texts, references, and external links are messy and inconsistent. Reference 4 does not use the cite template as the rest do. Reference 7 has a future retrieval date and is also included in related texts. --LaraLoveT/C 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the words of one of Wikipedia's oldest mottoes {{sofixit}}. As it says above, it is better to fix an article than delist it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Instead of delisting, I will go to the library, check out all of the cited books, read them and find all cited sentences, then reference each properly citing the page numbers. Yes. That is what GA/R is for. That's what we do... Seriously, knock it off with the ridiculous, harassing comments. LaraLoveT/C 18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You complained of the absence of {{cite book}}, which is completely invisible to the reader. If you think it important, feel free to put it in. The retrieval date is not completely trivial; but it's been fixed. Where in this do you have to step away from the computer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changing the inline citation method (from template to plain text or vice versa) isn't something that should be done without consensus. I've done some fixes myself, above and beyond the call of duty, because in my initial look through the article, I thought it would be easy to fix up, with the assistance of Garrondo. However, I have also found a seeming POV problem with the article that can't be resolved without the help of people who maintain the page, because hopefully they've read Harlow's later papers, and Macmillian.-Malkinann 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've given it a pass over with AndyZ's javascript program, and fixed the future retrieval date. I'd suggest that the reason why the Related texts section (now called Further reading) looks messy is because they're a mix of books and a journal article, but they are at least ordered by author's last name. -Malkinann 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I see a POV concern in the article. The original doctor first said in his 1848 report that once Gage recovered, barring some memory loss, he was remarkably alright, even going shopping and remembering the people around him. The doctor then later changed his mind, in a paper written 20 years later, after Gage's death. (I've only read an extract of the later paper, but I've read the full text of the original paper.) In the wikipedia article, a fair amount of weight is given to Macmillan's idea that the doctor and other writers (who??) embellished the account. There isn't much discussion of the possibility of a deterioration in Gage's health. (whether Macmillian considered it and dismissed it, for example.) Is there any such information available? -Malkinann 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question of style: when you cite a journal article the pages should not be included since they are not usually longer than 10 pages. That applies to this two citings

^ Harlow, J.M. (1848). "Passage of an iron rod through the head". Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 39: 389-393. (Republished in Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience., 11, 281-283) pp.2 of the republished edition. ^ Harlow, J.M. (1848). "Passage of an iron rod through the head". Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 39: 389-393. (Republished in Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience., 11, 281-283) pp.3 of the republished edition.

(and even if they were included the page numbering should be the one of the journal being page 2 page 282 and page 3 383 of the republished article)--Garrondo 09:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the page numbers, but I guess we'll have to wait on someone else to see if we really need the page reference for the (3 page long in the reprint) journal article. Can you shed any light on where the quote from Harlow comes from, (it's not in the paper that's cited) and which page the quote from Antonio Damasio's book comes from? Do you have access to some of Macmillan's works on Gage? This passage makes me a bit uneasy: "It was Harlow's account from 1868, eight years after Gage's death, that introduced the now-textbook changes.[citation needed] Later writers began to embellish even more,[attribution needed] adding drunkenness, braggadocio, a vainglorious tendency to show off his wound as part of Barnum's Traveling Exhibition and an utter lack of foresight — all unmentioned by Harlow.[8][9]" The citations are only to Harlow's earlier work, so you can't really see who the other people are, or what Harlow said later on. Thanks.-Malkinann 10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As someone who has actually checked journal references, I will add that page numbers, when available, are somewhat helpful in online journals, and irreplacable in hard copy journals. Often they are the only determinant which physical issue the paper is in. (You often don't need to specify page within the article - although that can be helpful; but the range of pages which make up the article is part of standard scholarly convention and should be left. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the specific page reference (Doe, J (2032) "Article title" such and such a journal, pages 281-283, and page 282 of this article) was what Garrondo was questioning. Perhaps I was getting a bit overeager by citing the page numbers of the sources that I can get my grubby mitts on. But as Damasio's book is substantially longer than your average journal article, we should get a page reference for that, even if it's in a foreign-language edition.-Malkinann 13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did refer to the saying twice the page. I think the correct thing to do would be to only cite once the text and link the different citings to that only reference. I´ve seen some pages that do it with letters but I don´t know how to do it. Does anybody know? --Garrondo 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the dual citing, but there are still other problems with the referencing (worst perhaps is that the long quote in "Effect on Gage" isn't in the source it says it is) to be fixed.-Malkinann 15:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to get the original 3 papers from people that had direct contact with Gage. The 2 from Dr Harlow and the one from Bigelow. I now that the 3 of them appear in McMillans book; but I dont have access to it. Does anybody have it? I have the first report from Dr. Harlow; but not the original second report; 20 years after the accident. However what I have found is an article in which the 2 most cited pages of this second report appear as an appendix. (If anybody wants it: Kotowicz Z (2007);"The strange case of Phineas gage" History of the Human Sciences 20(1) 115-131). Whith it I can confirm that the long quote in "effect on gage" is from this second article. I procced to change it.--Garrondo 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Damasio quote: Gage's story "was the historical beginnings of the study of the biological basis of behavior" I'm reading the chapters from the book and I can´t find it although there are similar ones. --Garrondo 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I say is almost sure that the citation is from the 1968 text of Dr. Harlow; I tried to change it but I couldn´t do the thing of the letters so not to have twice the same citation. Can anybody fix it?--Garrondo 11:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I Not Stupid

Several comments Jayron32 posted at I Not Stupid's peer review contradict ExplorerCDT's reasons for failing the article. As ExplorerCDT has not edited since 8 February 2007, I did not contact him.

For example, regarding the prose, ExplorerCDT commented: "[It's] not the best it could be. 5 on a 0 (terribly written) to 10 (well written) scale. Too many two-sentence paragraphs, short sections...". However, Jayron32 commented that "GA's [sic] require correct grammar, spelling, and no overt violations of the Manual of Style with regard to article organization. FA's [sic] require brilliant, compelling prose, with a strict adherance to ALL aspects of the MOS. Thus, GA's [sic] may be passed with less stringent requirements on the quality of writing."

Regarding broad coverage, ExplorerCDT commented: "[The article offers] only a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms [sic] Singapore's education system. Does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices, omits a few important themes of the movie." In contrast, Jayron32 commented that "GA's [sic] require only "broad" coverage while FA's [sic] require "comprehensive" coverage; thus GA status may be accorded to articles that are often far too short to be considered Featurable."

Who is correct - Jayron32 or ExplorerCDT? Since both are likely to be correct to a certain extent, who is more correct? Based on who is more correct, to what extent does I Not Stupid meet the GA criteria for prose and broad coverage? Completely, nearly, or way off? Note that ExplorerCDT raised concerns over images, which were not rebutted by Jayron32, so even if Jayron32 is deemed correct on both counts, I Not Stupid would still not meet the GA criteria until the issues with images are addressed. In the peer review, I requested advice on how to address the concerns with images, but to date, I have not received any such advice - could someone post such advice at the peer review?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since I am being quoted, I feel compelled to comment. I see no contradiction between my responses to the Peer Review and ExplorerCDT's comments for the GA nomination. ExplorerCDT noted that he thought the article did not meet GA requirements for being well written; I merely pointed out that GAs have less stringent writing standards; I never said they had NO writing standards. Also, I stated that there was less stringent standards on completeness of coverage; not no standards. Clearly, ExplorerCDT felt that the article, at the time he reviewed it (as noted above, over 3 months ago!) did not meet even GA standards. I am not making any comment on the version of the article that ExplorerCDT reviewed, or on his review; it was some time ago and the article has changed siginifantly since then. Since this is neither a recently failed GA NOR a listed GA with current issues, I am not sure what is to be done here. Since the article is substantially different from the version reviewed, there is no point in taking the issue up here. I recommend that a Renominate at GAC is the best course of action if seeking GA status.
    • Double checked. It was 5 months ago that the article was failed. This article as it stands now resembles NOTHING of the article that was reviewed. The reviewed was handled correctly, it was clearly NOT GA standard at the time. This article is much improved, and would probably pass if renominated at GAC. I still recommend that course of action. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peer Review looks for things which are often very different from the things in GA reviews, i'm not sure the basis for comparison here is very sound. Also, if explorer hasn't edited since February, I presume that means the review was some time before then, and several months have passed, I don't think Explorer's comments then necessarily apply to the article now. Homestarmy 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to GAC - This doesn't belong here. --LaraLoveT/C 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. A comparison between the version ExplorerCDT failed and the version when this GA/R was filed reveals that apart from minor-copyediting and formatting-related edits, the article did not change much during the 5 months (although I significantly expanded the Reception section after this GA/R was filed). This GA/R is a request for clarification on the GA criteria, and to what extent the current version of I Not Stupid meets them, as Jayron32's comments made me feel that ExplorerCDT was applying FA standards when failing the article's GA nomination.

For example, although an article "too many two-sentence paragraphs [and] short sections" would probably not meet the FA criteria of "brilliant, compelling prose", would it meet the GA criteria for prose, which requires "correct grammar, spelling, and no overt violations of the Manual of Style with regard to article organization"? After all, two-sentence paragraphs and short sections have nothing to do with grammar, spelling or the Manual of Style. Is a rating of "5 on a 0 (terribly written) to 10 (well written) scale" sufficient to meet the GA criteria for prose?

Similarly, is "a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms [sic] Singapore's education system" sufficient to meet the GA criteria of "broad coverage"? As it "does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices [and] omits a few important themes of the movie", the article would probably not meet the FA criteria for "comprehensiveness".

Once the outcome of this GA/R cum request for clarification is clear, I may renominate it at GAC. Prior to that, I will address any concerns raised at the article's ongoing peer review. The article could do with another copy-edit and more referenced information in the Production section (due to systemic bias, references are hard to come by). Moreover, ExplorerCDT commented that the images were "terribly placed" and "aesthetically unpleasant", and that there were "too many images per word count [sic]". Is this still the case, and if so, how do you suggest I address this issue?

I apologise in advance if you think I am wikilawyering or overly focused on the wording of the criteria. The Singapore education system is very stressful, and many Singaporean students, including myself, have adopted the habit of studying "for the test" rather than learning properly. Perhaps I'm applying this bad habit to other aspects of life, treating my article as an essay and GA as an exam I hope to pass.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to indict another editor. Given the extraordinary time (5+ months) between nominations, it would be most appropriate to just go ahead and renominate at WP:GAC yourself. While repeated renominations in a short time would be WP:POINT-making (see Talk:Brazil) and not appropriate at all, this one has been cleaned up and changed and it is fine to give another editor a chance to apply the GA criteria to it. If this is meant to be a referendum on ExplorerCDT's particular review, you are not going to get it from me. The article should be renominated, and some other editor will pick it up and review it. It will probably pass. But it should be put through the standard reviewing procedure and not listed as a GA through the "backdoor" like this because Hildanknight has issues with a FIVE MONTH OLD review. If you simply renominated it as I suggested over a week ago, a proper review would have been done and the issue would be gone. The above attempts to get me and other editors to say bad things about ExplorerCDT are a waste of time. I am not going to do it in this venue, and I would think that no one else is either. Renominate it and get it over with already! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close and renominate. 5 months is too long for GA/RBalloonman 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Adams (wrestler)

I quick failed this per the GA review of the Undertaker article. The editor has complained repeatedly on my talk page so I'm putting it here. Basically, the entire article presents his fictional career as a wrestler as a biography, (see WP:WAF). There's no information about his early life, personal life, contracts, motivations behind why he did anything, girlfriends, wives (is he married?), education, where he lived. Basically he was born, he started wrestling, then he stopped wrestling. His fictional career as a wrestler is presented as a biography, although there is ome out-of-universe perspective and its not as bad as the Undertaker, his wrestling career is written largely from an in-universe perspective and the sources are deficient (IMDb.com is used for biographical details and WWE.com, which treats the info from an in-universe perspective is used for all the matches).

For instance, instead of saying "x punched y because y punched x's girlfriend." A wrestling article should say, "McMahon felt x had the charisma to be a champion and so he scripted in scenarios which portrayed him as the hero, while y, who McMahon felt was only suited to be a villain due to his lack of charisma, was scripted to be x's foil and often did things such as punch women, steal, and lie. Y often complained to McMahon about the limitations he imposed on his character. Y felt he could be a charismatic champion, and ten minutes before his bout with x, y nearly refused to go on stage because he was scripted to lose." I'm not saying the whole article should be like this but it should contain more sources that explain why things happened. Unfortunately, these do not exist except is some rare cases. I looked over a couple of wrestling articles today and Montreal screwjob is a decent example, it's not great but a lot of it is written in a correct perspective. Quadzilla99 00:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the editor who didn't like this article being delisted has a very good explanation for this articles lack of information on his non-wrestling related activities, then I Endorse failure, it is nowhere near broad enough for GA status. Homestarmy 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was never up for delisting, I put it for GA Review (not FA Review there is a VAST difference between the two, though it seems sometimes people forget that). The reviewer, stated that the article "quick failed" review based on the Undertaker GA delist review. My "complaining" on his talk page was asking him nicely (4 different times) to explain to me what part of the quick fail criteria the article failed (I did express a little frustration and unhappiness about his objectiveness in my last reply, but I was still very civil). He NEVER ONCE gave an answer or even hinted at any type of an answer to my question on the quick fail; he didn't even refuse to answer the question, he just acted like I never asked him. I've never contented that the article was 100% GA material or that it wasn't able to fail review (though I think it's at least close to passing or I wouldn't have submitted it), I only asked on how to improve the article and why it quick failed. Again, I NEVER received, and the reviewer never gave, an answer on why he quick failed it.
The reviewer keeps saying (on my talk page and now here) that I used IMDb.com and WWE.com as main sources for the article when they were backup sources verifying other information already found in other sources...and even if they are the only source for match outcomes, what better source to use than the organization that put on the match and announces the official decision? Out of 42 total reference citations in the article, only 11 of them are from the two sources he is concerned about, and out of those 11 only 3 of them where not sourced (or able to be sourced) elsewhere (five were match results)...that is hardly the majority of the references used.
The reviewer never mentioned, until his last substantive response to me (his last response only said he was putting it up for review himself), that there were gaps in information in the article. I do see and acknowledge that there is little information outside of his career included in the article, and that is due to the fact that the information can not be substantiated by a source that would pass WP:RS, and rather than including unsourced info I didn't include the info (wrestling articles seem to be one of the most critiqued type of article on wikipedia and stuff that isn't required to have citations in a non-wrestling article is required in a wrestling article...but I digress). So, should I include the info without sources (which is allowable for info not likely to be challenged in a GA article) or leave the info out? I know the right answer, WP:IAR would tell me to put the info there without the sources, but other people on Wikipedia will not allow that for a wrestling article...but I again digress.
I don't know how bringing this article here will tell me why the reviewer quick failed the article...but at this point...I just about don't care anymore...it's not worth getting mad about. Maybe if I'm lucky this process will actually give me something to go on to improve this article so I can move on to other wrestling articles that desperately need improving. - Theophilus75 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A complete archive of our discussion about the GA Review can be found at User:Theophilus75/adams discussion. - Theophilus75 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you several answers, you just refused to accept them. Lets' just let others comment that's why I brought it here. Quadzilla99 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually, Theophilus's explanation, if its true, does sound like a very good reason for this article to not have key biographical information in it, if the information simply isn't there to be verified, then that's that. I'll look at this discussion though to see what else is in it. Homestarmy 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse failure Ignoring the arguments between the two parties and looking at the article itself. The Lead is not an adequate summary, the article is not comprehensive given it focuses solely on his wrestling career, there's unencyclopedic language in there ("gimmick", "and Vega were kicked out the group", should be "of the group" but still kicked out is not encyclopedic), grammar is weak (use of the clunky "would be" construction), "Wrestling facts" looks like a trivia section, a lot of it is written in-universe, and the sources aren't up to snuff. Aaron Bowen 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do you mean by "use of clunky 'would be' contruction," I'm not familiar with that term? - Theophilus75 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of saying "Frank would go on to lose to..." say "Frank lost to..." instead of "Tom would advance to the..." say "Tom advanced to the..." "Would go on to..." is better said as "Went on to..." etc Aaron Bowen 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll remove the word "would" the 3 times it is used and replace it with something else. - Theophilus75 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse failure for the following reasons:
    • Article referenced entirely to primary sources (no secondary sources at all; all refs are merely match results) See WP:RS for a discussion of why secondary sources are preferred to primary sources.
    • Lead is woefully inadequate per WP:LEAD requirements
    • Article is a gross violation of WP:FICT: It treats a fictional character as a real person.
For those reasons, it was right to delist the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your review! First, the references are not "merely match results." If you would look, references 1-5 & 7, are not a list of match results; additionally, unless my understanding of a secondary source is wrong, each of those are also secondary sources. The only primary sources are sources 6 & 8-13 (which account for a total of 8 out of 42 total citations in the article and some of those are double sourced to secondary sources).
According to WP:RS, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." The secondary sources here meet this criteria, ESPECIALLY when taken into the context of professional wrestling.
WP:FICT is not applicable in this article, you would need to look at WP:BIO (that is what concensus is right now and the repeated criteria such articles are held to).
Lastly, WP:LEAD is a guideline, not a requirement...but I do (and have) conceded that it could use some added content. Theophilus75 06:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse failure per above. This really is unfortunate, and has been discussed before. Wrestling articles just don't stand much of a chance of attaining GA or higher. Confidentiality clauses and copyrights limit the number of third-party sources to practically non-existant. And considering the characters are characters, they can't be portrayed as real per WP:WAF. As for WP:LEAD being "a guideline, not a requirement", it's part of the GA criteria that the lead meet standards which, in this article, it does not. That aside:
    • The lead, along with being weak, could use more wikification.
    • The article, as a whole, has inconsistent wikification. "The Undertaker", for example, is improperly wikified. It should be done for the first appearance.
    • There are issues with prose. For example, the first sentence in "Early career" is a run-on (and other sentences in the article are missing commas, particularly around years, and there's at least one misused semi-colon).
    • Under "WWF: The first stint (1990-1991)", "... WWF and immediately became a WWE World Tag Team Champion" uses both WWF and WWE. There should be a consistency. As this was before the name change, and the rest of the article uses WWF, I feel it should be WWF. Also, should "Superslam" be "SuperSlam", as written in a following section? The last two sentences of this section should be merged into one.
    • This entire article could use a good copy-edit.
    • Under "WWF: The second stint (1992-1998)", "In 1993 Crush was injured in a WWF Title Match match by Yokozuna and had to take several months off (kayfabe)." ← What is (kayfabe)?
    • There are two single-sentence sections. This could be merged into one. Not to mention the information is somewhat confusing. Is it the spinal injury of 2003 the same injury that forced his retirement in boxing?
    • "Wrestling facts" is messy and somewhat trivial. This needs to be cleaned up.
    • As for references, I think they would benefit from the cite web template. The addition of more reliable sources would also be nice. Fan sites with bio pages just don't come off as reliable to me. I doubt, however, that there will be much found on the web. I think this would be a library task.
  • Although the article has issues to address, it's obvious that a lot of work has been put into it. If the above issues are addressed and some additional sources can be found, this may actually be able to achieve GA, which would be a success for Wrestling articles in general. Good luck. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, I really appreciate it!!!! Got a question...if it is known that wresting articles have problems finding sources, and WP:RS says, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." Wouldn't it make sense that when it comes to the topic of wrestling that the common sources available (obviously within reason) should be considered to be reliable sources? - Theophilus75 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree that fans do have a tendency to exaggerate, but I believe there is a difference between a "fan site" and (using a wrestling term) a "mark site." ESPN.com is a sports fan site, MLB.com is a sports fan site, Canoe Network's SLAM Sports is a sports fan site (including pro-wrestling). Then there are other sites that are created by Joe Blow who are wrestling marks (or even smarks) whose sites I may or may not consider reliable, that I think could be appropriate to use for finding information that is not likely to be challenged as long as long as there is solid secondary sources from (what I consider) "fan sites" that are reliable. - T-75|talk|contribs 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. When I speak of fan sites, I refer to those created and maintained by fans (aka "Joe Blows"), not professional writers, such as ESPN.com. In this case, I don't necessarily consider "mark sites", as you say, to be reliable. Citations to "fan sites", as you refer to them, would be appropriate, as they are considered reliable. LaraLoveT/C 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus check

The article has been significantly improved. It is requested that it be looked over once more for a possible change in recommendation. LaraLoveT/C 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand the concern about the sources, unfortunately, for this particular topic (more so this particular individual) sources are difficult to come by. The information has been sourced to the best of my ability and I do not believe there is no any info that is likely to be challenged that is not sourced. As for the "in universe" concern, I thought I had done a very good job of fixing most of that. I am going over the article against (and have already made some more changes since your comment), but if it isn't too much to ask, would you mind pointing out (even on my talk page) what parts of the article really seem to stand out to you as in-universe (if you don't have time I understand). My main concern with this article is to improve it the best I can, even if it doesn't reach GA. - T-75|talk|contribs 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rarely would I consider a fan site to be reliable unless it went to extraordinary measures to distinguish itself as a reliable source. EG it had evolved to becoming a recognized brand on the web. Many of today's reliable sources started out as blogs/personal websites, but evolved into notable sources.Balloonman 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every article has some inalienable right to be a GA, if the sources aren't available then that's too bad. I'll give you an example, let's say a friend of mine from high school is a pro athlete, and he made a pro team but never played. I want to make his article a GA but there aren't enough sources, his college website is crappy and has no bios, he never had more than one small interview with a local paper. He plays a boring position like offensive tackle or long snapper. You know what? That's too bad. Same thing with anyone or anything who doesn't have enough sources to make them a GA, an actor, a wrestler, a rock band, a very small city. Aaron Bowen 17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that note Aaron, I totally agree with you (and even said so above)...as a matter of fact, with few exceptions I think I've agree with just about everyone's comments here. I still am curious about your note that the article was too "in universe" and I am still curious if you could point out what needs to be done to fix that. Just because an article can't get to GA at this time doesn't mean it should be abandonded when it can still be improved on. - T-75|talk|contribs 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Hunting Creek

Article was failed due to length, which is not a good article criterion. Specifically, the reviewer questioned the notability of the article, which is also not a good article criterion. If the article is not notable it should be removed; there are no tiers of notability for judging article quality. Some more specific feedback is warranted, such as whether some major facets of the topic have been omitted. Ketone16 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • List as GA, While it is short, for a tributary off of the Potomac river, this seems like a sufficient enough description to be called at least minimally comphrehensive, though I don't really know what kind of standards creek articles go by, or even if there are supposed to be any, surely some creeks don't have nearly as much notability as others? Also, I found the article to nicely fulfill all other GA criteria, although the bottom of the watershed section isn't inline cited, it seems overall well-referenced anyway, and pictures are not mandatory. I'd add in a sentence or two in the lead though about the wildlife and recreation, generalizations will do. Homestarmy 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Fail - The lead is weak. History is inconsistent with website of topic. It is not broad in its coverage. Insufficient wikification. Although images are not required for all articles, images should be included when available. For this topic, images could easily be taken and included; for that reason, this article fails GA criteria 6b. There are some issues with the prose and minor grammatical mistakes (some of which I fixed). It's not a bad article. Impressive referencing, but it still needs some work. LaraLoveT/C 06:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some more detailed comments would be useful. How is the history inconsistent with the website? How is the wikification insufficient? The only problem I found was in the citation dates. What topics would make the article sufficiently broad? What are the grammar and prose errors? The only grammar error you corrected was replacing "3" with "three"; the rest were slight style corrections. Images are not yet available, but perhaps could be corrected. There are several good images of the creek online, but nothing suggests to me that they are in the public domain. The problem with taking photos of LHC is that you generally have to go into someone's backyard or travel by boat (or air) to get a shot of the whole creek, unless you want the view to be largely obscured by trees. You can take a photo from the stone bridge, but the creek takes almost a 90 degree turn after its mouth, so you don't see the whole creek in the shot. You can also take a photo of the stone bridge from a road that crosses the South Branch, but you only get a picture of the South Branch and not of the much wider creek. Ketone16 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Fail - the lead is insufficient (the lead should be a summary of the whole article), it doesn't cover the flora of the region, or the geology of the region, and a couple of paragraphs are only one sentence long. The article could be associated with, and use the style guide of, the WP:RIVERS project. A photo of the stone bridge would be nice, along with text about its building.-Malkinann 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe the lead paragraph is "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, [and] explaining why the subject is interesting or notable" (WP:LEAD). Suggestions are welcome. A geology section may be more relevant for a river than a creek. Perhaps a couple of sentences about siltation in the creek should be added to the watershed section? Some information about flora could be added, but I'm not sure that the creek is notable for its flora. It contains mostly reeds and water lilies, and the banks of the river are ordinary Virginia deciduous forests. I climbed down into the briars and muck to get a photo of the creek -- it's tough to get a good one without going into someone's backyard or getting a boat. I was also lucky enough to get a shot of some nesting bald eagles -- the first time I've personally seen them on the creek. Ketone16 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Fail - the lead lacks, unfortunately.--Manboobies 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the fail The review was inadequate, as no suggestions or specific problems with the article were listed. However, it does seem lacking, there are a few things specifically that need cleaning up, vis-a-vis the WP:WIAGA:
    • The lead has two problems:
      • 1) It includes information that is not part of the article. The lead should not do that; it should only summarize information that comes later in the article.
      • 2) The lead seems to give the short end to some sections of the article: The last two sections of the article, on wildlife and recreation, aren't well covered by the lead.
    • The history section seems to jump 200 years without explanation. Pourquoi?
    • The way that it jumps between measurement units (statute vs. nautical miles) seems random, and there is no metric equivalent given; not every reader of the article comes from a country where miles (either form) are a standard. Pick one unit, and stick to it, and include mile/km conversions where appropriate.
    • There are a few too many 1-sentance paragraphs that need expansion somehow. This might be the length issue that the original review was noting (though, I must agree, that there is NO length requirement at all for GA's, only a broadness requirement). The recreation section, for example, ends with two 1-sentance paragraphs that just hang there without any further explanation or comment.
    • Not that it has any bearing on the GA status, but have you checked any free maping sites (the U.S. Census bureau maintains one) or sought other means to create a map? This article could REALLY benefit from one (though I agree that it doesn't hold up GA status, I just thought it would really help the article in general).
While the review left with the fail looked inadequate, it does appear that the article is not quite GA status yet. It is a good start, if the above fixes can be made, I would recommend renominating it at WP:GAC for another go at it. There's some work to do, but it is not awful... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the detailed comments, Jayron32. I will look into these issues, but it will take a while. The primary reason right now why there are gaps or paragraphs seem short is a lack of sources. The creek became was notable because of George Washington, but I haven't found much that's notable that happened there in the years between colonial times and modern times, when the residential neighborhoods were built. A bridge was built over the mouth of the creek in the early 20th century, so I could add that. Fort Hunt was also built about a mile away, but I don't think the creek figured much into its history. As for the lead paragraph, the sentence on wildlife is written the way it is because that section is primarily a list of wildlife, and I didn't want to reproduce that list in the lead. As for the units, I prefer statute miles over nautical miles (especially because the branches aren't navigable by water for very far), but the U.S. Coast Pilot reference I cited uses nautical miles, so I retained the figure. I certainly can put in metric equivalents and think about standardizing the units. I can also look into other issues you mentioned, such as a map, which might go well in the watershed section. The colonial map is actually surprisingly good, but it doesn't label the branches (or even show the Paul Spring branch) or modern neighborhoods, or show the modern bridge. Ketone16 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Inverclyde Line

This is another train GA passed in March 2007 by anthonycfc. Due to citation issues, I vote speedy delist. LuciferMorgan 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delist Only one statement looks like it is for want of referencing, and the lead needs expansion. I'm not sure that this article needs much else. It doesn't have much references, but I am not sure that it NEEDS much more, since it is likely that all of this information came from a small number of reliable souces, and it does use inline citations where needed. I would like to see page numbers for the print source, and the image needs a better place (it clashes with the notes section). This one is not as bad as other train articles, it needs fixes to remain GA and those fixes are relatively minor. If there is NO editor taking custodial care of it, then the fixes won't be made, and it should be delisted, but it's not terribly far from GA quality. As an aside, if there is an issue with another editor, this is not the forum to discuss it. Please bring it up at that editors talk page. I see no reason to have what should be a personal conversation in a public forum like this.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the editor Jayron, so please don't hint at this. I don't need the hassle, no offence. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant no offense either. Since the Trent Valley Line discussion has been archived, my comments above seem out of context; there were several comments there made by several editors that were starting to degenerate into a discussion of the editor-in-question. My comment takes that into account as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's true, but I'm not questioning the integrity of the editor - I don't even know him. All I wished to know, as Homestarmy did in the other GAR, why he felt this one met the criteria that's all. LuciferMorgan 17:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep if additional references or citations to the references being used are provided. Lead is a little short, but not ridiculously so. — Deckiller 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I formatted the references and relocated the image, as I don't think there are any custodians. Considering the lead is only one sentence, it's in definite need of expansion. Completely unacceptable. You can't summarize an article in one sentence. Past that, I also added a reference for the info regarding the new expansion. Jayron, is that the needed ref you were talking about? LaraLoveT/C 05:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fixed the lead. Expanded it to a full paragraph, which should be adequate given the short length of this article. Since LaraLove fixed up the reference problem, this article seems easily GA quality now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate

Delist recommendation based on the following issues:

  • Lead does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD.
  • Inadequate wikification.
  • Multiple tags and templates for referencing and cleanup.
  • Citations are not consistently formatted.

There may be more, but that's what I noticed from scanning the article. LaraLoveT/C 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a remaining GA issue: ideally, the "Chocolate in popular culture" section should be replaced by a section on "Chocolate in society" which elaborates on the final paragraph of the lead. However, if this section (and the corresponding lead paragraph) were deleted, then the article, while not comprehensive, would still have the coverage needed for GA. Yet, I'm reluctant to delete content, and potential for improvement, just to pass some tick boxes: GAs should have potential for improvement, shouldn't they?
The most compelling reason I can think of for delisting this one is that it provides a torment for those who love chocolate, but don't have any immediately available :) Geometry guy 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsThis article is getting much better.
  • The "unreferenced" banners can be removed: These sections look appropriately referenced now.
  • I agree that in the form it is in, the Pop Cultue section needs to go. It is a trivia section in disguise. If it can be prosified (turned from list into writing) it may make a better section, but as it stands now it is a black mark on this article.
  • And with regard to the external link in the article: In every case, the external links belong somewhere other than the main text: In the case of this one: "(2007P-0085, Copy of 2007P-0085 Appendix C -- search for cacao)" it's a reference and would be better served set off with ref tags. Also this one: "Archer Daniels Midland, are lobbying the FDA to change " contains an external link that would be better served as a reference, with a footnote at the end of the sentance. That is the purpose BOTH of the external links are serving; they are there to back up statements made in the article, thus are references, and thus belong with the other references. Consistant referencing style IS a requirement of WIAGA.
    • References (including external links) can be made in the text. There is no requirement that they should be footnotes (aka ref tags). If you disagree, please educate me in wikipolicy with a link! Please also point me to a link which explains the extent to which consistent referencing style is a requirement of WIAGA. Thanks. Geometry guy 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting" from footnote 2. Also, from WP:CITE "Please follow the style used by the article's existing citations". Look, if it is important to you to have an article that is not as good as it could possibly be, just so you can feel that your one particular interpretation of WIAGA can be right, go ahead. These external links are making the article less than perfect, and it is an easy fix. I am sorry that mediocrity is OK with you, but I am in the interest of making every article at wikipedia better. Poor quality is never "good enough" especially when the fix is easy. Look, I fixed it myself, and it now looks much better. I don't really understand what the insistence is on refusing to improve articles. It just flabbergasts me.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I didn't realise you were asking for such an easy fix as I thought you would have fixed it immediately (instead of complaining about it) in that case. I'm not interested in mediocrity either, but perfection can only be attained in stages and if an article needs to be so close to FA standard to achieve GA, then GA loses a lot of its value as a stepping stone.
In case you think I'm not interested in making articles better, check the edit history of this article. I was not involved in the article before it came to GA/R (so I am not a "custodian"), but I noticed it was close to GA standard, and so I have improved it quite a bit as part of this review, by fixing the lead, finding a tricky citation, removing trivia and eliminating some OR. So I don't understand how you can be "flabbergasted" by my "insistence on refusing to improve articles": I've improved the article far more substantially than you have. I hope you will reconsider the accuracy of your accusation and apologise if you feel you were in error. Geometry guy 09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was not AGFing there. I should have. Please accept my humble apology for that. Lately, there has been a lot of contention at this project by MANY people who feel that since this is NOT FA, it is OK to ignore any suggested improvements to an article with "This ain't FA, so I don't have to fix anything". Many of us here spend a LONG time reading and carefully critiquing articles, and to have our suggestions summarily ignored or rejected with throw away statements like "I don't see that fix being expressly required by the standards page so I am not going to fix it" misses the point. We are working hard to find inadequacies in the articles, and trying to list specific problems that are actionable and that we honestly think will make the articles better. That is my primary goal, not some blank adherance to a set of standards. When someone says "It isn't in WIAGA so I don't have to do it" it's like saying to me "The time you spent reviewing this article isn't worth it because I am not looking for ways to improve the article, I just want that little green plus..." I understand that is not what you were after now. Thanks for all your help in improving the article, and as you should note, I did change my vote to support. This is REALLY getting close to FA. Taking it to peer review is a good next step. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jayron, I really appreciated you taking the time to reply to my comment, and for explaining where you are coming from: I can understand your frustration with the "I just want the little green plus" attitude! As for this article, a peer review for it has just closed, with very few comments, unfortunately. As I mentioned above, I think the main "gap" is some material on chocolate in society. Geometry guy 09:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section could stand to have each paragraph properly referenced.
  • Ref 5 is a plain wikilink. Please expand this to full bibliographic information. Either do it manually or use a template like cite web as you prefer, but it needs to include full information like author, title, work, publication info, etc.
For the record, the fixes this needs now are small, and if the above three fixes are made, I would support this remaining a GA, and change my vote.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a section named "As an addiction"? I highly doubt that this is true (not that it isn't humorous to ponder rehab clinics for chocolate). There are no citations to support the fact that the compounds listed can cause addiction. Teemu08 04:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed: in fact the citations in this section instead support the statement that chocolate is a stimulant, or has other chemical effects on the body. But hey, hang on a minute, apart from the title and opening sentence, this is all the section is claiming. Title changed. Opening sentence tweaked. Problem solved. :) Geometry guy 11:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a GA Struck through vote above. The article now meets all GA criteria, and is quite good. I would highly recommend taking this article to Peer Review in preparation for future FA status, as it is pretty close. Some more relatively minor fixes are needed for FA, but for an article of this length and comprehensiveness, FA is not that far off. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jayron and I have fixed some of the problems the article had which brought it to GA/R. It's still not perfect, but it is pretty good. Let's hope it continues to improve! Geometry guy 09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanamaker Organ

Has only four citations so fails verifiability. Delist. LuciferMorgan 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Promoted without review November 2006 by a Sysop user:DVD R W. Problems I found from scanning the article: Weak lead; Random wikification of stand-alone years (why does everyone do this?); article could use more wikification; copyrighted main image (says non-replaceable in the template, but it still exists, so it is replaceable with a free image); No page specifications for references; Reference 4 is incorrectly formatted; Article as a whole lacks sufficient inline citation. Potential COI: One of the main contributing authors, (User:Adambiswanger1), is the son of Ray Biswanger, proprietor of wanamakerorgan.com and author of Ref 2. The article seems balanced, however. It's not a bad article, but it does need some work, particularly with inline citation. --LaraLoveT/C 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unfortunate. It is a very nice article. It could use a minor tone down on the almost-promotional language at points. However, the main issue is the lack of citations and references. Vassyana 10:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Pretty tidy little article, but I must give another voice calling for more inline citations. Also, two sections are NOT well written, they are very listy and need to be turned into proper prose (those two being "Organists" and "Architectural layout"). Needs some work to be GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain This is that quite usual thing, an article written out of one main reference. I see only one "challenged or likely to challenged" fact here, and that has a separate note, to Whitney. Finding Biswanger, for anybody not related to the author, may be a problem; but I have no doubt where to look for the facts here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that this is the kind of article that WP:GA was originally created for. There is not an awful lot one can say about a particular pipe organ, but this one is notable and worthy of a short article. For such an article the lead doesn't need to be particularly long, and sourcing facts by inline citation is only "preferable for longer articles" in WP:WIAGA. In this case, "more inline cites" would probably amount to adding a bunch of extra links to footnote 2: I don't see that this would add much to the verifiability of the article. It is pretty obvious what the source is.
I toned down the language a touch, fixed the placing of images, and formatted the external link. Other editors appear to have addressed some of the other (minor) issues mentioned, such as the wikilinking of years. I would fix the issue of lists if I agreed with the point: I think this material is easier to read and more engaging in its current format than it would be as prose. Geometry guy 11:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Nomination for delisting: This article currently fails wikipedia GA criteria - WP:WIAGA especially on point 2. There are numerous missing references, many citation request tags and above all an entire section which is under dispute and requires cleanup. The article is on the whole written to a good standard but at present I do not think it meets GA. LordHarris 23:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I actually think this article could be a relatively clear GA with just a little bit of work, the thing about his heart valve that isn't referenced can just be removed, the few other things with citation needed templates don't seem very important either, the Bodybuilding section appears to obviously be covered by like the first five references in the bibliography, and the personal life section doesn't seem to have an active discussion on the talk page, i'm inclined to conclude its not really being disputed by any editors there at present. Homestarmy 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Only the first part of the article is referenced. It needs a lot more to be considered GA class. Zeus1234 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Although it is a well-written article, it is in need of cleanup. There appears to be quite a bit of OR. Although it has an impressive layout of references that isn't often seen, there are still issues, like lack of page specifications for books, newspapers, and PDFs. I think this article has a lot of potential, but it will need to be renominated after being worked on. --LaraLoveT/C 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also think it is very close to a GA. I think with minor work it could pass. I think it is pretty well cited in general although maybe slightly less than important incumbent politicians. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is currently the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Collaboration of the week. I recommending letting this discussion sit until they have completed their work. LaraLoveT/C 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Large amounts of improvement, especially reference-wise, and I can't tell exactly why there are dispute tags over one section. Might want to remove this sentence though, "Schwarzenegger scrambled toward the political middle, determined to build a winning legacy with only a short time to go until the next gubernatorial election.", as it is compleatly meaningless to people unfamiliar with American politics, and it isn't referenced, and "scrambled" indicates to me a lack of neutrality went into this sentences creation. Homestarmy 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still avoiding voting on this one, as it seems like it is still in process, and the first few sections on body-building and acting are quite good; however the entire article from "Political career" to the end still has major problems:
    • As a candidate in the recall election, Schwarzenegger had the most name recognition in a crowded field of candidates, but he had never held public office and his political views were unknown to most Californians. His candidacy was immediate national and international news, with media outlets dubbing him the "Governator" (referring to The Terminator movies, see above) and "The Running Man" (the name of another of his movies), and calling the recall election "Total Recall" (ditto) and "Terminator 4: Rise of the Candidate" (referring to his movie Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines). At first Governor Gray Davis refused to debate or talk about the issues with Arnold, instead only making a flippant reference to the way Arnold pronounced California. As the election came near and Gray Davis realized that Arnold was a force to be reckoned with, he tried to change his policy, but Arnold had already become a strong candidate. It would help if we had a reference or two where the nicknames are quoted. They say only "media outlets". Well, if there use as nicknames was so widespread, references should be easy to find. Get on it.
    • On October 7, 2003, the recall election resulted in Governor Gray Davis being removed from office with 55.4% of the Yes vote in favor of a recall. Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California under the second question on the ballot with 48.6% of the vote to choose a successor to Davis. Schwarzenegger defeated Democrat Cruz Bustamante, fellow Republican Tom McClintock, and others. His nearest rival, Bustamante, received less than 30% of the vote. In total, Schwarzenegger won the election by about 1.3 million votes. Under the regulations of the California Constitution, no runoff election was required. Stats do not arise from the head of Zeus fully formed. These came from somewhere. Where???
    • Schwarzenegger enjoyed a large degree of success and victories in his early governorship, including repealing an unpopular increase in the vehicle registration fee as well as preventing driver's licenses being given out to illegal immigrants, but later began to feel the backlash when powerful state unions began to oppose his various initiatives. Key among his reckoning with political realities was a special election he called in November 2005, in which four ballot measures he sponsored were defeated. Schwarzenegger accepted personal responsibility for the defeats and vowed to continue to seek consensus for the people of California. He would later comment that "no one could win if the opposition raised $160 million dollars to defeat you". Needs many references. There is a direct quote, which is unreferenced. There is critical interpretation ("enjoyed a large degree of success" - according to WHOM?) which is not attributed to anyone. Other terms of opinion, like "unpopular" or "backlash" or "Key among" also need references...
    • Schwarzenegger then bucked the advice of fellow Republican strategists and appointed a Democrat, Susan Kennedy, as his Chief of Staff. Schwarzenegger scrambled toward the political middle, determined to build a winning legacy with only a short time to go until the next gubernatorial election. Unreferenced.
    • The "Personal Life" section currently has TWO cleanup tags that need addressing.
    • "Accidents and medical issues" has a fact tag.
    • "Allegations of sexual and personal misconduct" has a fact tag
    • Overall, the organization could use some clean-up, especially the end, where we jump from issue to issue with no sense of context. This may not be a GA issue, but an article of this size is easily FA ready with some work; and that WILL eventually come up, so there is no reason not to fix it now.
  • If these fixes are not made soon, then I will have to vote delist. This seems a well cared for article, so I hope to see the fixes made. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would be very easy to source and cite everything to bring this up to scratch. Someone more invested should do it because it is a decently written article
  • Delist Given a week to make the fixes needed that I noted above, nothing appears to be done. I am left with no choice but to vote delist here. Its a shame, since parts of this article are well written and well referenced, but the last third is such a mess that it drags the whole article down. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Jayron32's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been on the books here for far too long: it has not been good article collaboration of the week since 3 June. Some parts of the article are so littered with footnotes (even on adjectives) that they are unreadable. In other places, significant facts are unsupported, as pointed out above. The footnotes create a false impression of authority: I counted that 56 of the footnotes were just links to Schwarzenegger.com. This is not verifiability, but travesty. I suggest that the article be politely delisted and encouraged to go again for GAC when editors are condident that WP:WIAGA criteria 1a (clarity), 1b (lead), 2b, 2c and 4 are fully addressed. Geometry guy

Beelzebub (Sand Land)

  • Comment - I'm lost here. Why was it delisted exactly? I don't see how the article can get better than it stands now. Lord Sesshomaru
The comment left with the article says that it's too "in-universe" - that it doesn't really establish Beelzebub's significance or influence from the wider world. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) would be the applicable style guide. -Malkinann 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=137845264"