Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to list high quality articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and anyone can review nominations, passing them if they meet the good article criteria or leaving reasons for the failure. Articles may be delisted if a later reviewer feels they do not meet the criteria. Where editors disagree with a failed nomination or a delisting, discussions to find consensus on given articles' status take place here.

If you believe an article should be delisted If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it: Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself. If you can't fix it, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles. If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below.

If you believe an article should be listed If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be re-listed as a Good Article.

Archives
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

Opus Dei

This was in the good article list from January to May, that's four months, until some ideologues complained it was not NPOV. A mediator from the mediation cabal and another one from the Mediation committee have since then affirmed that the article is neutral. The mediators explained that it is mainly based on established expertise. See the resolution here: [1] Suggested size reduction and expansion of response section have been undertaken. I propose this be given back its good article status. Cabanes 02:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lexus LS

This used to be a good article but has had to much POV sink it-I have tried to remove some, but somehow it still sounds like an advertisment. Signature^brendel 20:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on it, I don't think there's anything about it that cannot be fixed quickly. I'll see about that. Bravada, talk - 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with gerd on this one, most of the vocabulary is rife with pro-Lexus adjectives and whatnot, but if you want to fix it Bravada, I don't see why we shouldn't wait a bit. Homestarmy 13:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if the POV is fixed than perhaps this will once again be a true GA. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

American Meat Institute

My main concern with this article is that it does not have "compelling prose" (it offers fairly dry coverage of the topic) and it is not "broad in its coverage" (it doesn't cover anything beyond basic structure, functions and two events but no controversies). Cedars 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cedars, delist. Homestarmy 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I passed it becuase it may not be entertaining but it covers the subject, is NPOV, well-referenced and has good lead-in. It seems to meet all criteria IMHO. Signature^brendel 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I stopped by as I thought Gerd was saying something about the other article :D From what I can tell, this is hardly the most brilliant article around, but perhaps it does say all that it is to say about a less braod topic in a concise form - that's what GA's were originally meant to be about. BUT, if you can prove there is something about the topic that actually WAS omitted, then it's a sure reason for removal (unless someone can quickly fix it and add an appropriate section). Bravada, talk - 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression that this article pretty much said everything there is to be said-if I was mistaken than this article definitely needs to be expanded. Signature^brendel 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oasis (band)

Not stable by a longshot. Not really warranted considering Oasis releases a new album about once every ice age.

Im not sure about stability, but I do notice many of the paragraphs are filled with speculations and non-notable things, and the article's references are very sparse. I vote delist. Homestarmy 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Passenger vehicles in the United States

I guess this is quite not how it works, as I want to argue that an article should be delisted, but this issue is quite controversial and the article ended up with uncertain status and with editors involved in the GA nomination/promotion process in disagreement over it.

Primary reason

Basically, my concern is that this article, although detailed and in general very good compared to the WP average, acutely fails to comply with GA criterion 3a ("it addresses all major aspects of the topic"). The topics currently not addressed in the article, but important when discussing the subject, are:

• historic perspective with regard to all sections
• discussion of the role of the passenger vehicles in the American culture
• also, the role of passenger vehicles in the US economy is not discussed

The two former issues have been raised a considerable amount of time before the GA promotion, and there was no disagreement on the editors' side that they should be included, rather on the contrary. Nevertheless, no mention of those appeared in the article since then.

Secondary reason

A secondary reason for delisiting would be failure to comply with GA criterion 1 ("it is well written") in general. The article presents huge amounts of statistical data in a narrative from which can be hard to absorb by users, especially those not interested in the topic. Moreover, some of this data at least is not put into any perspective, either temporal or comparative with other countries, which makes it impossible to interpret for users not familiar with the topic. This makes one wonder why the data is cited in its entirety at all (including a rather lenghty table) without appropriate discussion, when it could simply be linked to in external links/sources.

The primary author of the article has also authored another similar one, Household income in the United States, which is basically a discussion of statistical data on the topic, and it does contain graphs, charts and tables that help understand their significance (although one might agree that more background information would enable non-US readers to put the given information in a wider perspective).

Please note that this might be a subjective matter, and it is not that easy to accurately define non-compliance with the criterium there, therefore it is listed as secondary reason only - if the general consensus would be that this reason is invalid and the article does comply with criterium 1, it does not invalidate the primary reason.

The bottom line

The bottom line is that the article does indeed result from dilligent and time-consuming efforts by one editor mostly, and it is only natural for him to seek recognition for his extensive work. Nevertheless, this cannot be a substitute to fulfilling ALL GA criteria, even if this is a bit inhumane and bureaucratic, as the GA nomination process is a purely formal way of selecting articles complying with certain set criteria and not a way of recognizing somebody's efforts. Bravada, talk - 12:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(I was the first reviewer to the article) See it as you may, delist it if you want. After a review of the breadth and the quality of writing (which brought me to re-read the article at least 3 times now because you disagree with the decisions) I still maintain that the article, altough not broad enough for FA process will, if it grows bigger, have its subpages and will be outside of the scope of the GA process. Bottom line : the article merits the GA status. Lincher 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed my primary concern, however. I wonder whether anybody else will read it anyway, so we might not have moved anywhere with that... :( Bravada, talk - 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To address your first concern one has to go back and read the WIAGA which I did and I twice noticed the parenthesis comment beside the 3a rule that states that even if there is a necessity for inclusion of all the major topics pertaining to a certain subject, it is less strict than the FA process' one. I think that in that way, it met the criteria 3a.

Would another reviewer please take a look at this dispute and help in giving their opinion so we can have a clear cut decision on that article. Lincher 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a (second) look at this article. The first thing that stands out to me about it is Bravada's second point: it is very hard to read. try reading Passenger Ratios and I hope you can see what I mean. This section is full of potentially interesting information, but is impossible to read. The fact that this section is so early on in the article will discourage many readers (I know it discouraged me) from reading the rest. This section and the two after it are summaries of reports and not encyclopedia entries.

There are also some grammar errors/typos. These can be easily fixed, but are numerous and widespread.

I think I can see both sides of the argument in the case of the First Issue presented by Bravada. On one hand we want to hold Good Articles to a high standard, but we don't want to hold them to the standard of FAs. If we do this then there is no point to the project. The topics Bravada wants to see in the article, however, seem pretty basic and necessary to this article; the article seems to only deal with statistics and information about companies, not cars' place in the American society or economy.

I don't think that this is a Good Article until these issues have been addressed.

--The Talking Sock talk contribs 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Isle's Torn

According to reviewer, article was failed for being "[l]onger than the subject warranted." As the page has not even reached 30 kb, and attempts to be comprehensive, I am requesting a review. JimmyBlackwing 04:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs more wikilinks to relevant subjects, many paragraphs mention game stats and whatnot that non-gameplayers might not fully understand, and other subjects. But once that's fixed, the only real issues I see is that some parts are not very well-referenced, though that interview mentioned at the bottom might have all the information in there or something. Homestarmy 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Dever

Was failed on the grounds that, quote, "it is longer than the subject warrants". As this is not a real objection, and it is not longer than 34k, and is comprehensive, I am appealing. Judgesurreal777 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography seems shorter than it could be but I don't think that "longer than the subject warrents" is a criteria at all, if it went off-topic that's one thing, but I don't see any of that here. It's well-referenced, NPOV, etc. etc., I say pass it. Homestarmy 20:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it was re-nominated and then failed again, maybe im being too lax? Well if it's been re-nominated, i'd say the dispute kind of got resolved through re-nomination and failure again... Homestarmy 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted several reasons as to why I failed it on the article's talk page. -Dark Kubrick 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart kidnapping

Was recently delisted after months of being listed. Complaint was NPOV. This was not a very specific complaint - no instances or examples were given. I am requesting a review and comment so that it may be relisted if possible. --Overdubbed 11:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would of cited some specific problems, except the entire article is basically one big problem. References are also rather sparse. Homestarmy 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I examined part of the article on the Elizabeth Smart talk page, if anyone wants to take a look. Homestarmy 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Remain delisted; renominate and put on hold: I have just taken a look at the page. The article has several problems:

1. Apart from a few external links, there are no inline references. Especially where quotations are included, we need to document them a bit more formally. Not to do so would be considered plagiarism in some circles. It is also not quite in keeping with WP:OR, WP:CITE and WP:V.

1. I agree that the language, in general, is not neutral. It makes value judgements and statements of facts without citing sources for them, and so has Wikipedia taking positions. For example, in the Abduction section, we state: "This backfired," "Mary Katherine pretended to be asleep," "The man threatened Elizabeth with a gun" and similar things. This, in part, is a language issue. Since this is an encyclpedia, we should be using summary style or news style. It's not that we should be including negative information, look to portray anyone badly, etc. It just we are a tertuary. We summarize or report the words of witnesses see Primary sources or the analysis of others. see Secondary sources. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. However, one matter I think is not correct. You mention: This, in part, is a language issue. Since this is an encyclpedia, we should be using summary style or news style. I think that this is your personal opinion and not a wikipedia standard. If I am wrong I would like you to point to the policy or standard that says otherwise. Please note that I am not arguing tertiary vs secondary vs primary. I am directly addressing the "language" issue you raise. I have looked all over wikipedia to find support for such a view and it just is not there. The best I can find is that an article should be written in a compelling manner. Can you find a place in wikipedia where your view that types of language are good and other types are not? If such a policy or guide or standard exists, I would like to know about it. I do not think that an article has to be written in a stilted style to be a good article. Are we in disagreement on that matter? --Overdubbed 02:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The language issue is not my main problem with the article. The main issues for me are citation (it is not fair to a source not to point out where a quote comes from) and the article taking sides (see an example of what I mean and how it can be corrected at WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements), trying to make the reader sympathetic with Miss Smart and her family. I'd submit that they are inherently sympathic and that anyone reading a neutral account of their story will feel such sympathy without the article attempting to sway them. If these were corrected, I'd pass it. The tone issue is simply my suggestion for improving the article. I believe that, well, an encylcopedia article should sound like one.

On the tone issue, please note in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, numbers 4 and 5, Wikipedia:How to write a great article#Writing, thrid last paragraph, Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, no. 5 and, finally, Wikipedia:Summary style. I'm not the only one who sees it this way. I'll repeat: I do not see this as Good Article failing criteria. It is intended as an idea of where to go next. If you were to write to summary style, I believe the WP:NPOV issues would evaporate. In any case, I do not think it far from GA status, which is why I suggest a renom and a hold to give you all time to adjust it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, but they are not very specific. They do not really help. Here are my feelings on this:

1. You claim the article takes sides. I do not see any "side" to this, but rather the recounting of a series of events.Could you describe the various sides that exist and the side the article takes among those various perspectives?
2. I do not see what you mean being described in WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. What statements do you feel are biased in the article?
3. What statements do you think are inherently sympathetic?
4. I already know that wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The article is composed almost entirely of unoriginal thoughts, all taken directly or paraphrased from other sources. There are no personal opinions or essays there. Yet you indicate that this is a problem. What specifically is the area where personal opinions or essays exist?
5. The article is in encyclopedic style. It is objective (though you do not seem to think so, you do not explain in any detail where it is not objective). It avoids avoid personal comments (except by the actors), It does not use personal forms. I have not checked the grammar yet, but you do not seem to be troubled by grammar so far. I do not understand that objection.
6. The article is already written in summary style. I suspect what you really mean is expository style. I think the article is already in expository style, but it is not as dull as a police blotter report. That may be the problem with it.

I am working on the article and I am seeking to include remedies that I can understand (if you check you will see that is already underway) but I need more specific critiques to improve it.--Overdubbed 05:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• After just reading the Abduction section, the article fails the criteria. Changes to make to that section :

• First of all, all the items in the list should be footnoted.
• POVness or needed cite :
  • Returning home, the family had evening prayers together and kissed each other good night.
  • By listening to the creaking floor as Elizabeth and the kidnapper walked, Mary Katherine thought she could tell where the kidnapper and Elizabeth were, so when it seemed safe she hopped out of bed to tell her parents, but froze in terror when she nearly ran into the abductor and Elizabeth as they seemed to be looking into her brothers' bedroom.
  • Although this caused some problems with crime scene contamination, it was never a major cause for problems in the investigation.
• Using the technology of the Internet and the media, the search for Elizabeth Smart moved into high gear., what is high gear?

  Endorse delisting. Lincher 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have copied these comments to the talk page on that article so that the changes can be made. --Overdubbed 00:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco smoking

The article was removed from the Good Articles list for no apparent reason. It had minor NPOV which were fixed. I have renominated the article as a Good Article. Please review it. --GoOdCoNtEnT 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle

First time I've done this so didn't want to be too bold and de-list it on my own, but this article has no inline citations. plange 02:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the GA criteria doesn't call for internal citations, just some good references. Of course, internal citations are good and necessary eventually, but not for GA, unless something changed while I was on vacation this week :/. Homestarmy 23:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon looking at it again, the references section doesn't read like it was being used in the article, but that books were just thrown in as a "small selection of books on Aristotle", which sounds suspicious and since there are no page numbers, facts would be increadibly hard to check for the article. I think it would be safer to delist unless a whole lot of hyperlinks suddenly appear in the article. Homestarmy

I have to agree, the references were just dumped as a sole purpose to have a reference section and be done with that. Lincher 03:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups

This is not a dispute per se, but is still a review request. Richardshusr nominated Google Groups, an article I wrote, for Good Article. Samsara failed the article, citing "Unsourced section" as his reason. Although I agree that the nomination was premature, I intend to do more extensive work and polishing of the article in August, followed by a Peer Review, so that it will become a good article by September. As the article was written by me completely from scratch, and until now almost all of the content comprises my contributions, the article may still reek of newbie mistakes. Therefore, I wish to know whether the unsourced section is the only reason for failing the article, and hope to get feedback which will help me improve the article in August. To quote Richardshusr: "I would have hoped for a more expansive analysis of the areas where the article needed improvement to reach GA status. If one unsourced section is the only deficiency, then that should be easily addressed." In addition, determining whether the unsourced section is the only problem will decide whether Google Groups becomes an unreferenced GA. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

ECHELON

I believe thee article is mostly a collection of rumors and half truths and factoids collected under the rubric of ECHELON. See my critique on the talk page Talk:ECHELON#Critique_of_article.--agr 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Organic food

The user Zeamays, delisted this article was de-listed without review or discussion. One reason given seems to be disagreement with use of the word "sythetic" which is easily changed. The other is that "the arguments for it [organic food] are illogical and inaccurate." The arguments are verifiable and are from peer reviewed journal articles.

Basically, the these could have used some discussion before a delisting. JabberWok 02:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Im not personally familiar with Organic Food debates, but is what he was saying about the article using words that have radically different meanings true or just an exaggeration? Homestarmy 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Chadian-Sudanese conflict

I have several concerns over this article and wonder if it should stay GA :

• The Lead section could be summarized a bit better.
• The subsection Border town raids in January 2006 should be expanded. I also don't think there is a need for a main article to link too since it is a minor incident in a large conflict.
• Inline external links should be turned into footnotes.
• Too many quotes ... it dilutes the message ... it also means referencing which is sometimes lacking.
• Lastly, it has a current event tag and a not up-to-date tag that states that the article is not broad enough.

Whatever the decision is ... we should afterwards copy the comments on the talk page. Lincher 02:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article isn't up-to-date, i'd say a fair argument can be made that makes it insufficiently broad since, you know, it doesn't cover all of the topic. Homestarmy 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment ... should the article be a GA or not? Lincher 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't up-to-date, then it's not sufficiently broad, and can't be a GA. Homestarmy 19:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Case closed : delist. Lincher 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

User:Coffeemaker removed the above article from the listing because edit war and article not broad in coverage. It's reason is strongly objected and I recomend it to be relisted.

• There actually is no edit war, reasonable users from both a supportive and critical viewpoint of INC agree this article presents all sides fairly and have worked together to make it a good article, something which I am very proud of. Unfortunately, a banned editor has come back using anonymous proxies, in disregard for the rules of Wikipedia and in disregard for the work put up by many of us in the past. I humbly request support for semi-protection once again. --Ironbrew 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree on the reasons for delisting this as a good article. Although the article is not fully covered, GA doesn't require it to be so. The edit wars are from an editor who is banned from editing the article per ArbCom decision. Aside from beliefs, the article suitably covers critisism and origin nicely. I don't believe the article is even close to WP:FA standards, but it meets, and possibly exceeds GA standardes. It should also be noted that the article was delisted one day after it was added.--LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at the page edit history, there appears to be some sort of dispute, though primarily concerning IP addresses. If it's just the activity of one banned user, I don't really think that should count to delist this article. Homestarmy 21:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• As I had seen these minor edits when I juged the article in the first place, I decided to forget about them because they didn't purport big changes to the article as a whole. The criteria added after the review were additions to better the article (in such a way to help the progression). Lincher 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Article will be brought back to GA status. Lincher 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

The reasons listed on Talk:USA PATRIOT Act, Title II are rather specious. The objections are that there are not citations provided for the various commentators of the Patriot Debates. However, Wikipedia:Summary style#Citations and external links specifically states that:

There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article: the "Summary style" article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The "Summary style" article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole.

I would like this article to be reconsidered a "good article", as currently the only thing I can see stopping it from being FA is its length. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)