Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 43)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 41) →

Ruth Martin (Lassie)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review

Result: No action. The article improved during the review and no contributing reviewer now calls for delisting. Geometry guy 21:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article just recently passed GA. However, I feel that it needs cleaning up before it meets the standards of a GA article. The cleaning up can probably be done easily if volunteer editors pitch in at GAR. In my mind, the article has problems meeting the following standards:

• 1 (a) well written - This article is not well written. It contains numerous grammatical errors and the prose is choppy and does not flow. Examples:

• The couple buy > The couple buys

---Done: "the couple buys" ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• As the fourth season approached, stars Clayton and Rettig wanted to leave the show. Clayton wanted to return to her roots in Broadway following the death of her teenage daughter in an automobile accident and Rettig wanted to live life without being recognized as a TV star wherever he went. - repetitious wording - wanted to leave the show > wanted to return to her roots, wanted to live life...

---Done. "As the fourth season approached, Clayton considered returning to her roots in Broadway following the death of her teenage daughter in an automobile accident, and Rettig wanted to live life without being recognized as a TV star wherever he went." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Provost was scripted into episode after episode and proved an audience favorite, often sharing adventures with Lassie that had formerly been Rettig's lot. Rettig hoped the plot would be restructured (allowing his departure) but it was not to be. - this is unclear as it implies that "sharing adventures with Lassie" was a negative experience "had formerly been Rettig's lot" and that a child star was forced to remain in the show: "Rettig hoped the plot would be restructured (allowing his departure) but it was not to be."

---Done: "Provost was scripted into episode after episode and proved an audience favorite, often being the sole principal human partner in the sorts of adventures with Lassie that Rettig had formerly enjoyed. Rettig hoped the plot would be restructured (allowing his departure), but producers were content with the status quo, the show was more popular than ever, and it was hoped the two stars would change their minds and stay." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The plan hit a snag when... - informal prose that is not encyclopedic

---Done: "The plan was aborted..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• With wedding bells for Ellen nixed... - informal prose that is not encyclopedic

---Done: "With marriage for the Ellen character out of the question,..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Lassie was ideated as a children's series with first, Ellen Miller, and then, Ruth Martin being the show's principal human female character during their respective seasons. - "ideated" is not a correct word

---Done: "...conceived..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Under the section "Characterization", every sentence is a new paragraph

---Done: One sentence deleted. Others repositioned to create lengthier paragraphs. This section needs some material about Ruth's relationship with her adopted son. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The role of Ruth Martin saw two performers during the course of the show's run. - a role does not "see" performers

---Done: "Two performers portrayed the Ruth Martin character..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1 (b) complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Examples:
• Although this is an article on a fictional character, the article does not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

• It does not rely on reliable secondary sources. It relies primarily on a biography of Lassie: Collins, Ace. Lassie: A Dog's Life and a book on Lassie collectibles, The Legacy of Lassie

---The article relies principally on one reliable secondary source, Lassie: A Dog's Life by Ace Collins and published by Penguin. The book meets WP's reliable secondary source requirements: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The Lassie collectible book has been deleted as a source. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• There are no sources that are critical reviews or commentary on the series, i.e. legitimate secondary sources. (Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.)

The article has a legitimate secondary sources as noted immediately above. Henry Jenkins has written an essay on Lassie in WOW which may make a good critical review. I'll try to locate it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article does not distinguish clearly between real-world perspective versus "in-universe" perspective. There is no "Plot" section to clearly set for the plot in an "in-universe" perspective to orient the reader as to what the role of Ruth Martin is within the series. Rather, the plot is interwoven throughout the article.

True. Good idea. A plot section should added to the article. I'm wondering if it needs to be sourced? Plot summaries don't usually require sourcing. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• It does not distinguish "Primary information", that is information from the episodes themselves, and information from other sources.

--- I'm confused. Please elaborate. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• It does not contrast the portrayal of the article subject, the fictional character of Ruth Martin as played by different actresses, nor address how this affected the character.

---Agreed. Is this a requirement for a GA award? ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• It does not follow Wikipedia:Layout in that the footnotes are not uniformly formatted, footnotes for the same page or pages are repeated as separate footnotes (named references would be preferable, as not only is it neater, it allows the reader to see that most of the information comes from relatively few pages).

• Books do not uniformly have ISBNs as required.

---Done. ISBN added. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Further, the section headings "Characterization", "Casting", "Cancellation", "Reprise", "Reception" wander between "in-universe" and real world information.

• There is no "Critical acclaim" section to provide critical reaction. There is no "Cultural impact" or "Legacy" section to address the impact of the television show.

---The article is about the character Ruth Martin not the show. Here, a link to the Lassie article and its appropriate "Legacy" section should be sufficient. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• 2 (a) Factually accurate and verifiable Example:

• The references do not clarify the source of information as primary and secondary sources; these appear mixed, just as in-universe and real world is somewhat mixed.

---Sorry, I'm confused here. Could you eleaborate? ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Primary, secondary and teritiary sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sources are listed under "References" that are not used in the footnotes. These should go under a heading such as "Further reading" instead, to separate them from the sources for the article.

---No, all the material listed in "References" appears in the "Footnotes". ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is not clear from the sourcing that there is no Original research.

I'm confused. Please elaborate. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Primary, secondary and teritiary sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• 3 (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail Examples:

• The article appears to wander into relatively detailed discussions of other characters unduly without relating the material specifically to the Ellen Miller character.

---Agreed. Have edited. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The "Cancellation" section is almost entirely about the series in general and not the subject of the article.

---Agreed. Have done some editing to tighten the section up and refocus on the character and performer. Neither can be divorced from the greater scheme of things and so, the events leading to cancelation are outlined. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by the article as I am not proficient at writing articles on fiction and welcome input and suggestions from other editors. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP. Article has been considerably overhauled with in-universe and real world material divorced as nearly as possible. Reference section has been overhauled. New section "Role" added. ItsLassieTime (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse has quit reviewing GAs, so I don't know who closes this. I'll ask. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  This is a community reassessment, so the nominator (in this case Mattisse) would not normally close the discussion anyway. Please comment below on whether you think the article meets the criteria. Geometry guy 11:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. This appears to be much improved thanks to Mattisse's comments, and the efforts of ItsLassieTime. However, I don't think it is GA standard yet.

The roles of the first two sections need to be clearly delineated: from the lack of citations, I assume the first section is the analogue of a plot summary, in which case, it should only contain factual information which would be transparent to someone watching the series. However, apart from footnote 1 and the reference to Provost's biography, the second section is also sourced entirely to the episodes, so the same applies: it should not engage in analysis without secondary sources to support that analysis.

Footnote 1 is an odd choice of reference (a relationship counseling book about female aggression): its entire content on Ruth Martin is: "Donna Stone, June Cleaver, and Ruth Martin were TV moms who wore spotless, neatly pressed dresses, never raised their voices (unless Timmy and Lassie were lost), and always had a pleasant smile, perfect makeup, and a neatly coiffed hairdo." It would be much better to use Collins book to source any analysis in this section, in my view. Geometry guy 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Philcha

• Can't check the refs so will WP:AGF.
• There's a "citation needed" tag on sentence "Lassie was conceived as a children's series with Ruth Martin being the show's principal human female character during her several seasons" in section "Role in Lassie". The sentence makes two statements that need support: "... conceived as a children's series ..."; "... the show's principal human female character ...".
• In principle descriptions of the character's development and comparisons of Leachman's and Lockhart's portrayals would be desirable. However this was essentially a 1950s show, and at the time "Stepford Wives" were pretty much the norm in TV. So sources for development and comparisons may not exist or may be practically impossible to find.
• I like the quotes from Lockhart, they concisely give a strong impression of an actor has to think about career decisions.
• Nevertheless the article has a rather flat feeling. Lockhart said, "Back then I didn't realize the power of my character. I didn't realize the image I had created and what it meant to so many people," but the article does not explain the "power" she was talking about. Can you find any critics' comments on the character and Lockhart's portrayal? --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall: the citation issue needs to be fixed; apart from that, if the flat feeling can be fixed it's a clear GA, otherwise it's borderline. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

( Fixed heading level on this section --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC) )

The citation issue has been fixed. I'd now give it the benefit of the doubt and pass it as GA, as it has no serious defects and the difficulty of finding more sources for a 50-year old TV show suggests it would be unreasonable to ask for much more. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from LassieTime

• I wish I could find some critical reviews from the period or even later but I have yet to encounter any specific comment on the role or the actress. I suppose Lockhart's Emmy nomination will be the closest to critical comment that will turn up at this point. Surely, critical comment exists -- interviews in TV Guide, Life, Look, and grocery store check-out line magazines like Woman's Day and Family Circle. But the show is some 50 plus years old and such material has likely been lost to time. I've merged and re-written the first two sections. ItsLassieTime (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  You have done a great job in removing unsourced analysis. I'm impressed: many editors need a long list of examples! Is there really no analysis of the role in Collins? That's a pity if so. I made a tentative suggestion to redivide the first section to delineate the role from the portrayal of the role, but this can be reverted if it is unhelpful. The article is pretty close to GA standard now, in my view. Geometry guy 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Proposal to close as no action. The article has seen enormous improvement, and I see no consensus here to delist. With "no action", the article would retain its current GA status. If editors believe that this GAR should deliver a stronger endorsement of the current article, that is also an option. Geometry guy 23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with above proposal - The article's editor has responded with a wonderful willingness to work and to accept suggestions. As a result, I agree that the article is enormously improved, and is as close to a GA as is possible for this topic. Its major flaws have been addressed, so I agree with the proposal to continue the article's status as a GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bahinabai

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action. Nomination withdrawn after helpful feedback was received. Please add further suggestions on the article talk page. Geometry guy 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the article here because I could not understand why was Bahinabai failed. The reviewer said "This article is well-written, well-organized and adequately sourced. However, I'm failing it because I don't think it's comprehensive enough." So I suppose, the article satisfies criteria 1 and 2, is agreed by the reviewer. Criterion 3 says "it addresses the main aspects of the topic."

I have covered the whole life summary and literary works. Then the reviewer writes "The biography section is thorough, but ... I want to know more about her legacy and impact on Hinduism and more specifically the role of women in it. It's been almost four centuries since she her life ... have other religious figures drawn inspiration from her, commented on her or whatever. Have feminists? I mean, when I read stories like this I have to wonder about these questions. The article can and should deal with them if it is to be considered a GA." I just could not understand: what Valentine day protests by some Hindu groups have to do with Bahinabai? I have covered her philosophy, that is her legacy. Anyway if one reads the article, one will find "She (Bahinabai) regrets her female birth". Not a role model for feminists, is she? But I just wrote is considered WP:OR in wikipedia articles. Since the references i checked do not discuss feminist views i did not discuss that. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As our conversations on each other's talk pages should make clear, I just would like to see some larger context in addition to a thorough retelling of her life. If others here feel the article is sufficiently broad as is, then I have no objections to those reviewers deciding for themselves it meets the criteria. But I don't feel that it does. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment and question. If Bahinabai's life and works produced a legacy or influence then the article should cover them, perhaps in a "Legacy" section. If not, then the article can forgo such a section. Do reliable sources address her legacy? Majoreditor (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bahinabai is honoured as a Varkari saint and her verses still sung by the Varkaris, like verses of other Varkari saints. Since her works are her philosophy, her legacy. I did not form a different section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that there is enough material from high-quality sources to justify adding a legacy section. Unless someone shows otherwise I'm inclined to say that the article is broad enough in its coverage. However, the prose is spotty. The article needs copyediting: see, for example, how the prose drifts between the present and past verb tenses. Majoreditor (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Google books finds many books about hinduism and feminism that discuss her legacy. A broad article must include this.

"Bahinabai reports a spiritual encounter with the calf." "Bahinabai also comments on the duties of a married woman." "Bahinabai sometimes curses his fate of being born as a woman" Here present tense is used to reflect what she says in her poems. Although present --> past, will be a simple thing to accomplish. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• PASS. It seems to me that reviewers tend to miss the footnote attached to the "broad coverage" criterion of the GA review. Here it is: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and broad overviews of large topics." If you can supply a "Legacy" or equilvalent section, so much the better. But as the article now stands, I vote PASS for GA status. I'm hoping a PASS will encourage you take up the reviewer's suggestion! A "Legacy" section is a great way to wrap up an article. Good luck! ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive response. I have explained my position on the Legacy issue. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fail. The orgiginal reviewer may not have given the best review, but i agree about failing broadness in coverage. The article badly needs sections on her influence, and importance of her works. How does one become a Hindu saint? She just proclaimed herself one? Presumable someone thought her work was extremely important, and it touches on controvertial issues (women's place in Indian society), so it is hard to believe sources do not exist discussing this. Sources on feminism in india don't say anything about a saint married to an abusive husband, an extremely controversial topic in india today? Check google books, there are whole books on this.YobMod 12:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"How does one become a Hindu saint?" I have replied to this before. There is no set rules like the Vatican has. Bahinabai never proclaimed herself to a saint. "Some people considered her behaviour as a sign of madness, while others considered it a mark of sainthood.[8]" This way he was considered a saint in her lifetime. As I wrote before : "one will find "She (Bahinabai) regrets her female birth". Not a role model for feminists, is she?", although a feminist perspective "Bahinabai sometimes curses his fate of being born as a woman, which author Tharu interprets as "her scepticism, her rebelliousness and her insistent refusal to abandon her aspiration for the truth"" is in place. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So where is this information about her not being a feminist role model in the article? Dozens, if not hundreds (thousands?) of people have written about her, so an article should cover this discussion, even if only aiming for broad. Choosing an imprtant subject for GA means they are more difficult to achieve, but that is simply how it is. Any 2-bit pop singer would have a section on reception and controversies - this subject has whole books about her, so needs even more. Try reading the Thomas Aquinas or Mother Teresa GAs for comparison - a good article on a saint should be heading in that direction, but here we don't even get a paragraph on legacy. Why should a reader be short-changed on non-christian subjects?

Also, sentences like: "However, he could do so as he suffered a burning limbs sensation lasting a month, on the day of departure. Finally, he repented and was conceived of Bahinabai's faith in her devotion to God." make me think this needs thorough copy edit by a native speaker of English.YobMod 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fail, poor style, needs severe copy-edit and a legacy section would be good. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw: Thanks every one for the constructive comments. I think this discusion gave me a fair idea of what needs to be done. Certainly, A better idea than the first GA review. Summary of things to do (If anyone finds more, please add to the list):

• Copyedit
• Find more information on "Legacy": I hope I find it, if any. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Withdrawn and renominated. Geometry guy 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This article now meets the good article criteria. This article has undergone massive and agonizing work and improvement. Passionately disagreeing editors have clashed and finally come to a solution for this former good article which is now much better than it was when it was a good article before. The article is comprehensive, yet concise, every claim has a RS reference, the language is as simple as it can be for such a complex topic. A person who has no idea about the subject who reads this article will come away with a good summary understanding of the topic. I feel that aside from minor tweeks no major work is needed on this article in terms of adding any information that is missing, and not covered in some linked article or the other. I am sure this article is not perfect, I am sure it is at least a "Good Article" once more.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's good news. But you can simply renominate the article at GAN. Geometry guy 08:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

oh I thought it has to be reassessed.... I guess this is the wrong place so I will close this reassessment.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist. Article is ripe for improvement and renomination, but not currently GA standard. Geometry guy 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this article was recently passed by a new reviewer, and has significant problems. I have suggested on the the talk page that this reassessment might be a good way to provide advice on improving the article and at the same time allow the reviewer to better understand the problems that were missed in the initial review. Therefore I would suggest that people don't immediately !vote delist or keep, but provide comments and advice on the article, only progressing to !voting if there is no subsequent action.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have noticed a large number of quite major problems with this article:

• There is no requirement for article length at GA, but there is one for an article to be "Broad in its coverage". I am no expert on Agatha Christie, but I am certain that for such an important figure in her literary genre there must be more to say. I notice that only one biography appears among the references, sourced only once. There are also a number of articles in the further reading which make no appearence in the article. The level of research here is far too weak to support an article of this importance.
• The use of references: The number and type of references are inappropriate for an article of this importance. Even at GA, it is expected that an article makes use of available print resources to reference a detailed description of the subject's life. Here only one print resource is used once and as a result we are left with a very patchy description of Christie's life. The references are also improperly formatted.
• The prose is poor: an article should be constructed from organised, developed paragraphs. Here were have a lot of short anecdotes, largely unreferenced and mostly unconnected to one another. There is no sense of Christie's development either personally or in literary terms and a poor description of her literary style and reception.
• There is an "In popular culture" list, which is a huge negative: such sections should be written in prose and incorporated into the text as appropriate.
• From "Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple" to the end, there seems to be a lot of OR and speculation: this must all be properly sourced in the constructed paragraphs described above.
• The lists are inconsistantly formatted and untidy. They also should be moved to another article along the lines of List of works by Agatha Christie as they dominate this one.

There are other issues, but these are the major ones that should have prevented this article reaching GA at this time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your feedback. As the original nominator, I have (and still am) going around fixing things, adding tidbits of information, and formatting/placing references. I'm currently attaining a few biographies about her, so that should beefen her short section about her life. As suggested, I'm moving the works to another page. Again, thanks. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually about to nominate this article for reassessment myself, when I saw that it had already been done. My objections were the same as have been mentioned above: poor and stubby prose, few references, excessive lists. At the moment there is no way this is a GA, but it has potential, and I appreciate the above editor's willingness to work further on it.

Also: has anyone undertaken to contact the reviewer, to give some friendly advise on the GA review process? Lampman (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone has worries about the stubby bibliography, don't worry about it. pure gold. That, and I'll continue when I receive the bibliographies I've ordered...Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This article should be delisted and then renominated at GAC when it's ready; I'm glad that the nominator has decided to work on concerns, but these concerns should have been addressed before the article was erroneously promoted to GA-status. María (habla conmigo) 15:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - I was about to pick this nomination up when I saw it had disappeared from the page. I agree that it needs some significant work to be of GA status. There is much needed in the way of referencing, and the book biographies of Christie should be utilized to a much greater extent than they are now. Also, web references need to be properly formatted with publishers and access dates at the very least. I also agree that the lists of her works should be moved to a subarticle, named, as Jackyd101 suggested, List of works by Agatha Christie. This list can then be linked in the article and a short section or two can be devoted to describing her works in prose form. The current list setup overwhelms the article and makes the already short biography section look even shorter. Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I've already moved some of the works to the subpage; I've found a few newspaper clippings related to this case, as well as the link posted by me above at the nytimes.com. Those should leave me quite busy for a few days. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. I agree with the issues raised, except that the "In popular culture" section was not as bad as the title suggested, and has now been prosified. Concerning references, two print biographies is an excellent start. The main missing material in the article is sourced critical analysis of her life and work. Instead the article has the "Formula" section, which is almost entirely original research, and has got to go unless it a reliable secondary source can be found for it! Geometry guy 17:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you mention that the two print biographies which were "excellent start" and the "In popular Culture" section weren't too bad; I spent a few hours changing them from lists' :/. XD Thanks for the advice/compliment, though. Right now, I just received yet another print biography which I'm going to use to expand the biography section. See [this. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 17:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed: that is what "prosified" means. Also I was referring to Morgan and Wagoner as the two biographies. If you intend to use Thompson as a source as well, even better. Keep up the good work! Geometry guy 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hi,thanks for the feedback, perhaps I was a bit to lenient. The fact that one of the photgraphs said, in the fair use policy, Source: made by me; Author: Me :).Oli ^OR Pyfan! 19:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I mean a LOT too lenient now I look back on it.Oli ^OR Pyfan! 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. Needs far more sourcing, and i agree that she is too imporant for broad in coverage to result is such a short article. Plus there are many instances of single line paragrpahs (often unsourced). The list of works should be moved to the subarticle, only leaving the most important here (per summary style). Needs too much work to reach GA in a reasonable time, unless someone will be working on it full-time (its already had 2 weeks, so i think is going too slowly to keep). YobMod 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. I agree, the article seems quite short on the scope of coverage and truly needs a lot of deeper citation work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist per consensus below that the article falls well short of meeting the criteria at the moment. Geometry guy 09:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaches many of the guidelines for BLPs, including the inclusion of trivial, intrusive and non-encyclopedic information in a way that tends to create a false light on the subject. Given the subject of this article, I felt a community rather than an individual reassessment was more appropriate. In particular I feel there are major problems with the 'personal life' section of the bio (see the article's talk page).Riversider (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call - I think now we can get back to the reality of keeping it clean and NPoV in BLPs and ensure that editors try their best to stick to encyclopedic rather than news styles of writing. Looking much better today already !--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This GAR is going to be fun :) Majoreditor (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not so sure that GAR is the best venue to decide these BLP matters. That said, I wonder if the sentence "Marsden claimed to have learned about the breakup by reading about it on Wikipedia" is too much information for a biography. One could also suggest that that the voluminous material on the date of birth controversey is trivial and adds little to the article, although I'd prefer not to step into that content dispute arena. All in all, it's hard for me to put my finger on a smoking gun violation of GA criteria in this article; rather, I sense these are borderline issues which aren't easily agreed upon. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

<See talk page for reply concerning choice of venue and commentary tangential to whether the article meets the criteria> Geometry guy 12:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This review request is malformed to say the least; which of the Good article criteria is the article accused of not meeting? There is already a discussion on the article talkpage concerning the personal life section. That discussion ought to continue, at its original forum. Skomorokh 16:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Skomorokh, you're right that I should list more explicitly the ways that this article breaches WP:GA.

Specifically, it breaches:

• Manual Of Style guidelines for lead sections, including information that is not important enough to be included in such a section.
• It goes into unneccessary detail in aspects of the subjects' life that are trivial and not relevant to an encyclopedia
• It no longer has (whether intentionally or not) a NPOV,
• it is unstable, being subject to regular re-editing
• it violates policy on BLPs for the various reasons I've listed higher on this page.

If this were not a BLP, I might have been happy to let the discussion continue on the article's talkpage. Given that it was a BLP, and therefore a more urgent priority to get right, I felt a more proactive approach was neccesary. The GAR process is now started, and as I understand it, is therefore now the appropriate place for this discussion.

Riversider (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's more like it. So as I see it, we are investigating the article's compliance with criteria 1 (b), 3 (b), 4 and 5 (meeting BLP is a not a GA criterion, beyond that contentious BLP claims are cited to reliable sources, which would not seem to be in contention for the Marsden claims). Shall we open up subsections here for each of the issues and get down to business? Skomorokh 17:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a way forward. I disagree with you that breaching basic WP Guidelines on BLPs is not a GA Criteria, for reasons of basic logic and common sense, but am seeking further clarification on this matter at the Village Pump.Riversider (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note that GAR assesses the article against all of the criteria, not only issues raised by the nominator. Geometry guy 22:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, it seems that BLP issues need to be taken care of in order to get "Start-class" status? --Malkinann (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

    WikiProject assessments are not, and never have been, part of the GA criteria. Geometry guy 09:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for Lead Sections

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic"

The 'co-founder' controversy is not notable enough to be included in the lead section of the article, and is not an important enough episode in the subjects life to feature in the lead. Riversider (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see no problem with what the lead says about his role as co-founder: Although Wales has been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia since 2001[8], he disputes the "co-" designation,[9] asserting that he is "the sole founder of Wikipedia". The article goes into greater detail on this topic, and its inclusion in the lead is not inappropriate nor does it reflect undue weight. Majoreditor (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• There are two separate issues here: Wales' role in the founding of Wikipedia, and the controversy about it. The article sensibly discusses these separately, and if the lead covers the latter, it should as well. Further, the sentence in question is loaded: "although" is a word to avoid precisely because of constructions like this; also the use of "assert" suggests "contends", another word to avoid. The article, and especially not the lead, should not engage in the controversy: state the facts and let the reader decide. Geometry guy 12:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition this sentence is partially sourced to a Wikipedia edit. It needs to be reworked. Geometry guy 13:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Unneccessary detail"

The article goes into unneccessary detail about several aspects of the subject's personal life, and gives the name of a person only briefly associated with the subject. These details tend to be trivial, gossipy and unencyclopedic. They also tend to focus on negative aspects of the subjects personality and life, tending to portray him in a false light.Riversider (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is uneven in its level of detail. For example, it mentions random, almost trivial elements concerning Wales' brief relationship with Mardsen but largely ignores his relationship with his first wife, Pam. The section on his Wikipedia biography delves into great detail, yet I see relatively little on his administration of the Wikimedia Foundation. IMO the article could do without trivial details on his breakup with Mardsen (per my earlier comment) and will benefit from additional material on how Wales founded, grew and administered various wiki entities. Majoreditor (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Majoreditor. Geometry guy 12:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur; this article suffers of WP:RECENTISM: it focuses on issues that may have recently been of importance to Mr. Wales personally, but most readers would not care about. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Me three. A much higher-quality treatment could be done. There's a favorable but still interesting profile at Life After Trading : The Jimmy Wales Experience, with much biographical information (also has a great line about "his effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it") -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Because of the prurient level of unneccessary detail, explained above, the article loses it's NPOV. The overall tone of the article is unbalanced and therefore does not accurately reflect the life and achievements of the subject Riversider (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unstable Content

"Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute."

Edit records show that the content of the article is unstable, with substantial changes occurring to the text, images and layout on an at least weekly basis.Riversider (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I examined edit history over the past two weeks and don't find significant day-to-day changes. Nor does there seem to be an ongoing edit war at present. Majoreditor (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• This diff over the past month is surprisingly clean. I also see no evidence of instability here. Geometry guy 12:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Comments on sources.
  1. "Early life and education" is almost entirely sourced to the C-SPAN interview (footnote 17). It would be helpful to cite one or two secondary sources. For instance, the Reason magazine article (footnote 24) has assimilated some of this material, although this may not be the best choice.
  2. talk.philosophy.misc (footnote 19) is not a reliable secondary source. At face value it only shows Jimmy Wales announcing his mailing list. Yet it is used to source the dates he ran the list and three unrelated claims. In particular "boredom" at the end of the first section is unsourced and should be removed. I suggest removing the talk.philosophy.misc ref: the mailing list is tangential, and not mentioned in the C-SPAN interview. The three additional cites were a tagging error, which should have been attributed to the Reason (magazine) article. Thanks to Skomorokh for noticing this. Geometry guy 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Three of the controversies are sourced to the Sydney Morning Herald. Care is needed when relying on one newspaper, as a newspaper may have an editorial agenda. If the controversy is notable, a variety of sources should be available. If the SMH is cited because it broke the story, then it should be attributed as a primary source, backed up by secondary reports so that the article does not present a newspaper's editorial spin in the unqualified narrative voice.
  4. The New Yorker quote needs quotation marks. I fixed it. Geometry guy 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  5. The whole birthdate nonsense is self-referential, unencyclopedic, confusing trivia, with barely a reliable secondary source. It should be cut. — Cut. Geometry guy 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy 13:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments on the founder issue. Two key principles of NPOV are: (1) Describe controversies but don't engage in them; (2) State the facts and let the reader decide. "Founder" is just a word. What does it mean to found something? That you had the idea? That you put in the money? That you made it happen?

The article does a decent job with point (2) in the section "Nupedia and Wikipedia": here Wales' and Sanger's input into the early development of WP are described, and the reader can decide for themselves whether Sanger's input makes him a "co-founder". However, the article then goes on to screw it up in the "Roles of Wikipedia creators" section, which engages in the controversy from the very first sentence, where "Larry Sanger's role as co-founder of Wikipedia" palpably tells the reader what is the "correct view" contrary to point (1). It is like an article on Bill Clinton telling the reader whether oral sex counts as sexual relations.

The section is also too long and repetitive. What does it really need to say?

1. Larry Sanger has been described as a co-founder of Wikipedia in a variety of reliable sources.
2. In other reliable sources Jimmy Wales has been described as the founder of Wikipedia.
3. Larry Sanger has stated that he considers that he co-founded Wikipedia, and given his reasons.
4. Jimmy Wales has stated that he considers otherwise and given his.
5. The disagreement has attracted media attention.

That's it. Arguments and suggestions over who is "right" are not only contrary to NPOV, they represent unencyclopedic navel-gazing. Geometry guy 17:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is naval-gazing like trainspotting at sea?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hehe :) Actually this is a spelling error I have made on many occasions. It seems to be a blind spot for me, not sure why. I corrected it (naval->navel). So far, though, no one has disagreed with the substance of my analysis, which makes me optimistic that the article can be fixed. Geometry guy 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Silence != consent. My conclusion, having researched this matter extensively, is that Jimmy Wales's "Sole Founder" contention should properly be regarded as a WP:FRINGE view, in light of the weight of the Co-Founder evidence. Where his position does seem to have an effect in terms of special treatment, is that I believe he would not be given even the politeness and deference granted now, if this were anyone else - especially given the self-editing on the topic. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you spoke up. I agree with you that the "sole founder" view should not be given undue weight, and no such viewpoint should be endorsed. However, that doesn't mean the view of JW as the founder of WP is WP:FRINGE. We should simply report what reliable sources say, what the protagonists say, and what the media say about the disparity. We should not engage in the dispute. Do you agree with that or not? Geometry guy 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the key difference is the meaning of "engage in the dispute" - I would say that WP:UNDUE would be violated with wording that gave equal credibility to what Jimmy Wales states as his personal viewpoint, versus roughly the entire amassed historical references from 2001-2004. His position should be placed in the perspective of the reliable sources, which are solidly against it contemporaneously. The article notes the media coverage of the dispute, which is reasonable. It should not be constrained to echo the extensive PR campaign that Wales engaged in once Wikipedia became his claim to fame. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is the first time I see a link to twitter page and a userpage in a Wikipedia article. I also think that the image of Larry Sanger is not relevant to a biographical article about Jimmy Wales. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Second that. An image of the two together is useful, otherwise just link to the Larry Sanger article. Ottre 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. WP articles often contain photographs of antagonists or associates. I wouldn't think twice about using such a picture in another setting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the twitter link as unencyclopedic. I don't see why the photo of Larry Sanger is a problem: it seems entirely appropriate and well within the GA criteria. Geometry guy 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem as such, just that given the tone of the article it seems somewhat contrived. The subsection marks a clear shift towards the subject's position on issues with the project, yet the portrait of Sanger really does not say much of his professional capacity (he doesn't present like your typical philosopher). Ottre 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sanger photo doesn't strike me as contrived or unusual. Majoreditor (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I noted above, is really the associated prose. Geometry guy 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

←I've seen some improvements in the article, but it still suffers from unnecessary details on his personal life and the date of birth tempest in a teapot. These result in a lack of focus and potential POV problems. The wiki self-references are also a problem, per Geometry guy's comments. I had hoped that editors would discuss these issues on the article's talk page and resolve them. I am leaning toward a weak-delist recommendation unless these concerns are addressed. Majoreditor (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Majoreditors anaylsis and weak delist. I think it also causes more drama than it is worth keeping the GAR open, with more posts here than actual improvments being attemplted. Further improvments can be left to the thousands of people watching his talk page, after delisting.YobMod 08:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. Rereading the page today, it seems that little has been done to address the issue raised here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• There seems to be general consensus that the article does not reach 'Good Article' status in it's current form. I now accept that, by WP standards, the article is relatively stable, but given its clear faults, this is not neccessarily a good thing. I feel slightly sad, because I was hoping that suggesting the article should be delisted would provide the impetus for improvement needed, but instead very little has been done. Perhaps as Yobmod suggests, actual delisting will provide the motivation that still seems lacking, and reinforce the importance of the qualities that we strive for in Good Articles, especially in BLPs. Riversider (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per Yobmod. If this article were on Joe Schmoe, it would not be considered to be close to GA.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delist per my above comments. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist The review appeared perfunctory. Protonk (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, this is a reassessment of the article, not the review. Geometry guy 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

TV Links

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural close. No need for reassessment when renomination is preferable. Geometry guy 09:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we have done some changes since the last review, improving sources and wording, and other adjustments. Do you think we're ready for GA status now? ViperSnake151 04:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• This failed due to no effort being made during the review. I think it should go back to GAN. One thing: the big blue quote marks are deprecated, or so i've been told. They break up the flow too much. Also, i don't think seperate sub-sections are needed for arrest and then release. Good luck at GAN (seems a little short imo, if reviewing, i would look for places needing expansion).YobMod 08:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Yobmod. This should go back to GAN. GAR is for articles that people propose to remove GA status from, or articles that had problematic reviews. I move to close this review and let the initiator renom at GAN as they wish. Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there's no need for a GAR here. Renominate at GAN. Geometry guy 19:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, please renominate at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep. It's not perfect but it's a GA per consensus below. Geometry guy 09:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The article have a lot of "citation needed".

Looks like a write-fan-article and is not clear in all.

The principal autors put reference which says things totally different in the article to create a bulo.

Has a lot of lies. She is not a soprano, and i change that, so an autor undid my revision.

A good article has a good references. Have a good write (o prosa, cómo se diría en mi idioma). This article doesn't all of that.

Thanks. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How is she not a soprano? Her range (I just checked it with a tuner) is almost exclusively within soprano range. Are you saying this because you believe she isn't really using her own voice in the first place? Levalley (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC) LeValley

Comments

• First, please recheck the article thoroughly if it did fail to meet the Good Article criteria. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• There's only one "citation needed" in article, specifically in this line "Spears's parents would often argue, and they eventually divorced in 2002", in which case the first clause might be an original research and the second clause could be sourced. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• The article was revised and perhaps you could also be clear in what instances it looks fancrufty. Please cite lines lines where ambiguity lies. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The principal autors put reference which says things totally different in the article to create a bulo." A singular case which can be removed anytime. Please do not generalize it. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Has a lot of lies" The same issue which can be addressed by opening a discussion at the talk page and not by edit summaries. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• "A good article has a good references. Have a good write (o prosa, cómo se diría en mi idioma). This article doesn't all of that." General comment. The article boasts 185 inline citations and an additional further reading. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• To summarize it all, Keep the article unless the nominator could prove it fails to meet the criteria. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, nomination is poor on specifics. I do agree that the article needs a face lift, but it doesn't need delisting. — R² 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll make some suggestions we should ideally work through. Note, I do not believe the article needs delisting at this stage.

• The lead is a little on the slim side for an article of this size.
• The products and endorsements section should be integrated into chronological positions in article.
• The filmography section needs cleaning up. Surely she can have an article created for this, with just a link to the article.
• No need for Grammy Award grid at bottom.
• 2008-present section is too long, needs trimming, smell recentism.
• Quite a lot of unformatted references.

  Comment Its not a requirement but would be good if uniformly formatted. --Efe (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are some observations. I'll try to do some myself. — R² 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep (full keep if improvments acutally done). Seems comprehensive and informative. Not perfect (agree about filmography needing reformatting, and grammies should be removed, but generally good enough to be Good. Diagree about products and endorsements, having the perfumes al togehter is better than spreading them throughout the article.YobMod 10:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It meets WP:WIAGA. I would keep the Grammy summary and keep the perfumes together.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

York Park

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist. Still contains significant content plagiarized from an unreliable source. Geometry guy 09:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed this article for FAC and found significant issues that I feel also disqualify this article from retaining its GA status. However, I am not a regular GA reviewer, and I feel that my FAC review is likely a conflict of interest, so I think additional opinions are necessary.

Among the issues I found:

• The article uses many unreliable sources, including a large dependence on http://www.tastadiums.8m.com/yorkpark.html.
• Much of the history section is copied almost verbatim from http://www.tastadiums.8m.com/yorkpark.html One example is listed below
  • Source: In 1960 it hosted one of Tasmanian football's greatest moments when a Tasmanian team (mostly made up of Northern players) defeated Victoria's second 18 by 7 points before a long standing record crowd of 15,163.
  • article: In 1960 the ground hosted one of Tasmanian football's greatest moments, when Tasmanian defeated Victoria's second 18 by 7 points in front of a long standing record crowd of 15,163
• Some of the information in the article is not included in the citations which are intended to verify it. For example:
  • You cannot source York Park is a 15–20 minute walk north of the Launceston City Centre to Google maps
  • The source for this sentence Because of near capacity crowds, it was announced that the Tasmanian Government would spend $2 million in roofing for an additional 6,000 seats, resulting in almost all the seating areas being protected from the weather. mentions nothing about the cause being near capacity crowds
  • The source for these sentences York Park's interior is an oval bowl surrounded by several different stands. The largest is the two-tier Gunns Stand on the ground's Western side. This stand originally had a capacity of 2,500 and was increased to 6,000 after a 2005 extension. The $12.5 million Gunns stand now has two corporate box areas; the Gunns Function Centre and the Corporate Function Centre mentions only two corporate box areas; there is no mention of any of the numbers given here.
• There are unsourced sentences that need citations in the Structure section and the Northern Staid development section - these include information on prospective costs, motivations, capacities, etc.

Karanacs (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't open the tasttadiums link (it says server upgrading). Why is it unreliable?YobMod 12:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I was the reviewer who passed the article. In my review I specifically asked for http://www.tastadiums.8m.com/yorkpark.html to be removed as a source, and the passed version of the article did not include it. As long as this source is being used, I would say the article does not meet the GA criteria. The article is only vaguely above the GA criteria, and small changes could pull it down from the throne. There are also some references that seem to be 404, that were working on the review. Personally I do not have a problem with the article loosing its GA status. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  The source has been removed. I would ask reviewers to check for material which needs citation per the GA criteria. Geometry guy 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  I removed the source. I'll try and find other sources. Possibly North Launceston fc history? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 04:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  Nearly there. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "::I aprreciate that the tastadiums link has been removed and the wording has been massaged, but it is still very close to the original text. In a few cases, words have been exchanged for synonyms, but the major structure of the sentence is identical to a sentence on the tastadiums page. More work needs to be done on the history section. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  Some stuff will have to be removed without a ref. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 20:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep. Improvements made, no consensus to delist. Geometry guy 09:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This article should have never been given a "good" rating. It gives undue attention to a trivial topic and is assembled in such a way that it appears to not only actively promote the subject, but also acts as a primary and central source of information on the subject under the guise of neutrality. In actuality, this article could be summarized in 2-3 paragraphs or contained entirely within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Arguments_against_the_Electoral_College

This is not AfD, and the article has plenty of secondary sources. Which GA criteria do you believe it fails and why? Geometry guy 11:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly fails neutrality, it is full of weasel words which mostly promote the topic and, to a significantly lesser extent, argue against it. Several "sources" used to back these weasel words are repetitive newspaper editorials or links to organizations that are actively campaigning to pass the legislation. Additionally, a significant majority of the non-biased sources are contained within the chart that takes up over half the article. Aside from the chart, scientific and actual news sources are few and far between. There is no mention of the sample size in the opinion poll illustrated because it is so small (about 2000) it would detract from its implied significance. The entire article is composed in such a way that wikipedia is being used to give it legitimacy, rather than simply recognize what legitimacy it has. This article contains little information that is not featured on nationalpopularvote.com and is designed to simply gives those ideas the appearance of neutrality. Averyisland (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to be a very important idea, and is well enough referenced (even ignoring the primary sources). The nominator seems to dislike the idea, and thinks writing an informative article about it is somehow taking sides, which it is not. As a foriegner, such articles are very informative. Strong, if not speedy keep.YobMod 12:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that the article is a valuable one to have. As for its good article status, I would note that comments should primarily be based on whether the article meets the criteria or not, rather than agreement or disagreement with the nominator. Geometry guy 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think i covered all the delisting concerns, NPOV ("not taking sides"), RS (well enough referenced) etc. Agreed that it can be improved, but nothing failing the criteria here imo.YobMod 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article fairly represents the issues and debates surrounding National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It accurately portrays the most common arguments both in favor and against the compact and no item in this section has been the subject of controversy. The section presenting these arguments is the most informative section of the article, but Averyisland would have that section eliminated because in the process of summarizing these arguments it cites "biased" articles that take either a position in favor or against the compact. Averyisland's argument is a perversion of the Neutral point of view which explicitly suggests that both sides should be described in a balanced fashion WP:NPOV#Balance. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The article raises some POV concerns by starting off with a section named "Background" which opens with this sentence: Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority of Americans support the idea of a popular vote for president. A better way to structure the article would be to open with the section on "Details of the compact law", followed by "History of the compact". It's best to begin with the most relevent facts and then introduce arguments for and against later, after first describing the proposal. This should be an easy to implement fix. Majoreditor (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that some restructuring would help address neutrality concerns, and would encourage editors to follow independent advice such as Majoreditor's. Geometry guy 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Barrier Reef

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review

Result: Keep per improvements made and consensus below. Geometry guy 09:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this article as a GA in 2006. I do not know if it still adequately meets the GA criteria, especially the "broadness" criterion, which was questioned in its failed FAC. Please note when assessing that this article is regularly vandalised. --Malkinann (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Its not an obvious delist imo, and seems broad enough. I do think it would benefit from a thorough copyedit to rearrange and merge some of the short paragraphs, and some of the single sentence paragrphs do not have sources - i assume from the structure that they are not sourced from other citations. Basically, i would add citation tags to every paragrph without a cite at minimum. Weak delist, but i do think it can be brought up to GA if someone has the time and sources.YobMod 08:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Now Keep after the good work done on it.YobMod 16:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral at this point. I wouldn't give this an automatic pass if it were at GAN today, but it's not that far from GA status. Here are a few thoughts:
  • There are a bunch of deadlinks. See here.
  • The lead is on the short side for an article of this length.
  • There shouldn't be external links in-line, as there are in the Ecology section. These terms really should just be wikilinked - I'm confused as to why they're not.
  • References should be formatted with titles, publishers and access dates at the very least. For example, 83 and 84 are just bare links and 43 is missing an access date.
• Overall, it looks like a nice article. I'm not seeing the referencing issues that Yobmod mentioned above, but that issue may have been corrected over the past few days. And I'm not seeing the concerns with broadness that were addressed in the FAC. Part of that may be the differences between FA and GA criteria - GA requires broadness, while FA requires comprehensiveness. And you weren't kidding about the vandalism - have you considered acting for semi-protection of the article? It would make all the IP vandalism go away... Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of referencing has been done since it got listed here, hence it looking better now.YobMod 15:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Response: YobMod, I've had a go at reshuffling the geography/geology section to better tell the story of the origins. Does that read better? Are there any other surprising facts that strike you as needing a citation? Dana, I've fixed the deadlinks and unbared the links that I added in response to YobMod's concerns. That's a neat tool. Which sections of the article do you think get short shrift in the lead, Dana? The Great Barrier Reef is prominent on the Australian school syllabuses from at least when you're eleven right up until you leave school - so of course the article is a perfect place to broadcast whatever. As such, I was highly impressed when someone said "adding external links to redlinked articles per WP:EL" - the links to the red bass and red-throat emperor. I wasn't sure exactly how they met that guideline, but as it was evidently a good faith edit rather than "HI JESSIE", I was happy. Not sure what I should be doing with those links. I don't think WP would go for permanent semi-protection for the article. I don't even try to do much in the way of vandal fighting on the article - everyone else seems to beat me to it. --Malkinann (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you on this. The dead links look good. Human uses could be bulked up a bit in the lead, and it just feels short to me - it doesn't compare well in length to the article. Partly personal preference here, I think, so I won't fight over it. On the external links, IMO they directly contradict the section of WP:EL that says "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." should be avoided. My suggestion would be to leave them as red links. Red links can be good, since they encourage other editors to create new articles and redirects on useful subjects. Again, IMO, this article would be a great candidate for semi-protection. If you would like, I can request the protection, if you don't feel comfortable doing it. If you're against it, I won't butt in of course, but I think it would be a good idea.
  • At this point, I am going to change my vote to Keep. To be FA, it probably needs expansion, copy editing and a peer review, but it should stay as a GA. Dana boomer (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I've put some stuff in the lead about human uses and have created the fish redlinks. I agree that the human uses of the reef is shorter, but I gather that the Bowens' book could be used to expand that section (to which I have no access). The article has been previously semi-protected, and this is relatively low-volume vandalism. I gather that vandalism on this article really heats up around exam-time. --Malkinann (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Dana boomer's comment. Extremepro (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 180

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 10:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The main source, "Alps' Roads", is a personal site and not a reliable source. --NE2 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about notability, both this and New Jersey State Route 72 are related by history, per the leads of both articles. As both are short articles, IMO they should be combined.Dave (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - According to this discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Alps' Roads, along with a bunch of other road sites, were cleared for use in Good Articles. Steve Alpert uses the state statutes on his site, and they can be cited as a more reliable source. I also have some old road maps that show NJ 180, and I can use them to provide additional verification. As for the notability, I had suggested in the GA review that the article be moved to County Route 50 (Ocean County, New Jersey), as I thought it would be better to present the information about a current county route with a detailed route description and the historical information about NJ 180 in the history section rather than as a decommissioned route that defers to describe the route as it is today. If the article can be rewritten to present detailed information about the route today as CR 50, with additional citations from the state statutes as well as old road maps, then it should be kept as a GA; otherwise, it may need to be delisted and possibly merged back to NJ 72. Dough4872 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That discussion didn't "clear" anything. I also don't see any state statutes for NJ 180, and there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/History notes. --NE2 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Then research the statutes and cite them.  — master son^{T - C} 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Alps' Roads does provide state statutes for the creation of NJ S40 in 1927 and the renumbering to NJ 72 in 1953; those individual statues can be used in verifying those renumberings. As for the creation and removal of NJ 180, old road maps probably need to be used to verify the information. I have a 1969 road map that shows NJ 180. If anyone else has a collection of old maps and can verify the information, then it can be added to the article as a reference. If no one can turn up good information in this regard, the article may not be able to remain a GA. Dough4872 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The state statues can be very tricky. Some are marked as ROUTE NO. - rather than the number. If I remember correctly, that is often done with decommissioned routes. Route 158 was an example of it, or its original designation is not in the statues at all. :| - I would see if we can find the description of the statues on the actual statues site.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I have searched Google, the New Jersey Legislature's statues, and Ocean County's website and could not find any relevant information pertaining to NJ 180. Maybe it would be better if there was a way to contact one of the government authorities in order to find information about NJ 180. Dough4872 (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Did you read the descriptions of the statues?Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
            • I went to the New Jersey Legislature's website, clicked under "statutes", and found several useful links at the top (FAQ, help, etc.) which can provide a description of the statutes. However, I don't think they would do any help for this article as I searched "route 180" and nothing relevant came up. Legislation for the creation and removal of this route may have been through a bill, of which only bills from 1996-1997 on can be found online. Dough4872 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
              • Then I do not support this remaining a good article. If I recall, I reviewed an article earlier and put it on hold because I was not satisfied with only Alp's Roads being the sole source for these histories. This article even further is just a case where notability is questionable Is there enough important history (political, etc) to warrant an article for routes this short?  — master son^{T - C} 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
                • At this point I am beginning to feel that this article was split from NJ 72 just to make an additional article that could qualify for GA status. I had reservations with listing the article as a GA all along, see the GA review. It may just make more sense to merge NJ 180 back into the history section of NJ 72 as all the information in this article can efficiently be presented there, therefore making NJ 72 a better article. Many former New Jersey routes redirect to the article that they were a former alignment of, as New Jersey Route 153 redirects to New Jersey Route 3. Dough4872 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • This is why we can't have silly games. --NE2 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
                    • You are somewhat true in that regard. Both Mitchazenia and I were involved in the USRDCRWPCup at the time the article underwent its GA review and both wanted to get credit for the article passing. In addition, Mitchazenia is involved in the WP:CUP and is trying to get points for GA's there. Dough4872 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not so sure that Alp's meets GA criteria for being a reliable source. That's not to say that it isn't a nifty website. However, this description of its sourcing doesn't inspire my confidence that it meets Wikipedia standards for a "reliable publication process"; rather, it appears to be more of a self-published source. Majoreditor (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the material on the website, such as realignments of highways, may need to be field-checked with historical road maps. However, a significant portion of the information on the site comes from the New Jersey state statutes, which are reliable. It would probably help if we could find out how the contribuitors to Alps' Roads got the material that is used in the website. Dough4872 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist — This article should be delisted as a GA. Its sourcing does not follow WP:RS so the article does not meet the GA criteria, specifically criterion 2b on reliable sources. If the information on the site is reliable, then it can be verified in other sources. These other sources should be used to reference the material included in the article, instead of a self-published source. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge to New Jersey Route 72 - With all the recent discussion at WT:USRD, I changed my mind and feel the information in this article would be better presented in the history section of the NJ 72 article, as the former route is not notable enough and does not have sufficient sourcing to have its own stand-alone article. Dough4872 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per the RS concerns I mentioned above. Majoreditor (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Needs reliable sources, and more of them, to stay as a GA. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tsunami

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist per consensus below. There are numerous statements which need citation per the criteria. Geometry guy 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This article does not appear to meet the GA criteria. I'm not familiar with this process, so I'm bringing it here rather than boldly delisting (which I considered). The article is not well written and is woefully undercited. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The article will benefit from in-line citations. The prose needs to be sharpened in places. Majoreditor (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. Needs significant improvement in references. Lacking citations in many places where statistics and opinions are given. References need to be properly formatted, with titles, publishers and access dates at the very least. What makes "abelard.org" (the first bullet point in the References section) reliable? The See also and especially the External links sections could use a trim. There are a couple of dead external links, see here. The bold formatting in the Terminology section should be removed. Has had a disputed statement tag in place since November 2008. Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist A quick look at the reference column says that the article has far too few in-line citations for its size; the frequent are not a good sign. The external links section needs to be about 1/2 its current size. The grammar and style of the article could be made clearer in some instances. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Needs to be more comprehensive, and the citation is woeful. ResMar 14:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. Layout and sources are not GA-quality. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The pronunciation "/suːˈnɑːmi/ soo-nah-mee" should be removed from the article. Xintian1 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• External links. Possibly use www.sms-tsunami-warning.com in place of www.tsunami-warning.org as web-based tsunami warning system; www.tsunami-warning.org lacks of valuable content.

Santosh Subramaniam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist. Substantial rewriting is needed to improve the grammar and distinguish this article from Bommarillu. Geometry guy 10:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this article conspicuously fails the "well-written" criterion, which the reviewer appears to have narrowly interpreted as requiring only that all of the words are correctly spelled. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than re-assess, why don't you just help improve it? Jeez. Universal Hero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Because I have neither the time nor the interest. Why don't you improve it? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Typical. I'll dot when I have time. What do you want me to do? Check for spelling/grammatical errors? I would love an inch more clarity. Maybe a discusiion topic rather than a GAR? Think about it. Universal Hero (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Typical of what? If you have something you'd like to say, best spit it out and get it off your chest. In the meantime I would point to a representative sample of sentences to support my proposition that this article needs a substantial amount of work to meet the GA well-written criteria:

• "The film primarily revolves around a father and son relationship with the father's dote on his son ironically leaving a bitter taste with the latter."
• "When inquired about his disgust ..."
• "He cites instances where his choices of dressing, hairdo and many others are stashed away by his father’s".
• "When asked for his reason to like Hasini ..."
• "After saving their grace, Santhosh admonishes Hasini for her antics at the marriage."
• "The choice of Genelia was due to her performance in the original, for which she was critically praised and gained stardom with."

I'm afraid that if you can't see what's wrong with this article then there's very little chance that you'll be able to fix it by editing it into idiomatic and correct English. It is not enough that each individual word is correctly spelled. They have to make sense when they're put together as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It'll be complete by the weekend, don't worry. Typical, as in hypocrisy and civil laziness. Universal Hero (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If I cared about your observations on my work ethic or integrity I might have considered opening a WP:WQA to remind you of how you are expected to conduct yourself. As it is though, I really couldn't give a toss what you think. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus here: the article is not well-written, and looks (not be offensive, but) to be written by someone who's native language is not English.

And to Universal: You don't really need to be quite to harsh. There are reasons people can't try to improve a particular article. One the reasons can be that if you try to correct an article you know nothing about, then you can introduce a lot of inaccuracies, because you haven't the movie. That's one reason among others. So please don't be so unfriendly. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies Malleus. Stressful Lives. =D Universal Hero (talk)

As an independent observer here, perhaps Malleus could have presented his/her opening criticism with a little less contempt. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Contempt? I think you ought to think carefully before you make yourself look even more foolish than you already do. If you check the GA review you'll see that my comment accurately reflects the comments of the reviewer. A great many people seem to have a problem with honest criticism around here, very unhealthy. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DeviantArt

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist per consensus below that article is not reliably sourced. Geometry guy 10:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this article meets the requirements for a good article. It is almost entirely sourced from primary sources. The vast majority of sources are from deviantart.com. A few are from Jarkolicious which is the blog of Scott Jarkoff. Of the very few sources that are not primary, not all of them support the content. The Time magazine article gives different numbers than given in the Wikipedia article (i.e., 50k submissions, not 100k submissions). Additionally, I do not think this satisfies WP:NPOV. Much of it sounds like an ad for the subject, probably because it is sourced so much by the DeviantArt website itself. Aleta ^Sing 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, a number of sections do not site any sources at all. The implied source is the website itself, but it is not cited in many places. Aleta ^Sing 18:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist too few in-line cites, needs more 3-rd party cites (most of the sources are from DeviantArt). Several sections are completely unsourced, unacceptable for a GA. Article also has significant POV problems, mainly in the "Features" section. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, mainly due to massive reliance on self-published sources. An article should not be based primarily on such sources. The article's prose isn't up to par, either; too many sections are stubby or list-like. The article's focus is problematic; it concentrates on trivial features and does little to demonstrate DeviantArt's significance. Majoreditor (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist The reference section includes 35 sources; 29 are self-published and four are not RS. Several sections do not cite any sources. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 06:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon I of France

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep per consensus below. No specific failure to meet the criteria has been articulated. Geometry guy 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading the entire Talk page, it seems to me that the invented information about Napoleon's death really needs to be removed from the article. His last words are listed wrongly, following a source that is known to have made them up. His real last words are recounted in a scholarly fashion on the Talk page, with citations that could be followed up. There is also a great deal more specific information about his death on the talk page, which contradicts the version in the article.

Is there a reason why his death comes before his marriages? That seems rather odd, in a biographical article. The marriage section seems to have been written earlier and in a different style than the entire rest of the article, with few citations and what appears to be conjecture or opinion. The rest of the article is good, but to have the last section(s) decay into what they are now doesn't seem to be GA level, to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 March 2009

What do you think the invented information is? What does your source say his last words were and how is that source more reliable than the current source? What source do you think has made things up and what is your reliable source to show that the other source has made things up? When you say decay which version do you think was better? Tom B (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep meets GA criterion in my opinion, Tom B (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely meets all the GA criteria. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Retain as GA. I was happy with the article's treatment of Naopleon's death when I originally reviewed it for GA, and the author has done an excellent job of keeping it balanced and representative while keeping the mainstream views to the fore. This article attracts significant WP:FRINGE attention, and talkpages are not always a reliable guide to the accuracy and veifibility of article content. Further improvements could be made, but I still believe the article comes well within the tolerances of the GA criteria. EyeSerene^talk 13:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Calgary

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted by nominator. Geometry guy 09:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• The article has gone down in standards since it was last promoted. There is a lot of unreferenced material and dead links that need updating and refs.Cheers Kyle1278 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, I agree a lot of dead links, unreferenced material, a small amount of reverting going on, prose needs a clean up. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The following refs are dead.

• Ref 17 is dead
• Ref 19 is dead
• Ref 30 is dead
• Ref 38 is dead
• Ref 41 is dead
• Ref 51 is dead
• Ref 69 is dead
• Ref 79 is dead
• Ref 84 is dead

The following quotes need references.

• "Calgary is well-known as a destination for winter sports and ecotourism with a number of major mountain resorts near the city and metropolitan area."
• "When the Canadian Pacific Railway reached the area in 1883 and a rail station was constructed, Calgary began to grow into an important commercial and agricultural centre."
• "Calgary quickly found itself at the centre of the ensuing oil boom."
• "The subsequent drop in oil prices and the introduction of the National Energy Program (NEP) were cited by industry as reasons for a collapse in the oil industry and consequently the overall Calgary economy. The NEP was cancelled in the mid-1980s by the Brian Mulroney federal government. However, low oil prices prevented a full recovery until the 1990s."
• "The nearby mountain resort towns of Banff, Lake Louise, and Canmore are also becoming increasingly popular with tourists, and are bringing people into Calgary as a result"
• "From the second paragraph in Geography down needs references"
• "Most of the paragraphs below Geography needs references"

I have delisted the article until these problems can be fixed. Once fixed feel free to request a Wikipedia:Good article nominations.Cheers Kyle1278 01:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Slut Night

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. No third party coverage. Geometry guy 09:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page of this article, I've gone into detail on the sourcing problem. The gist is that all references fall into four categories:

• Books and magazine articles that give background information on gender issues, but do not actually mention "slut night". These are valid sources but they don't actually contribute to the verifiability of the topic of this article.
• A bunch of webpages written by the webmaster of butch-femme.com, or by visitors to that site, which were an attempt to popularize "slut night". None are referenced and all appear to be promotional. This site is basically a web community with no third party coverage in the first place, let alone any coverage that says they know what they're talking about.
• Open "club directory" type listings that claim an event called "slut night" was held at various bars on various dates.
• Two works of fiction being cited for original research (the Wikipedia article is arguing that because the phrase sort of appears in those works, that the people possibly got the term from there)

This is very poor sourcing, personally I'd vote to delete at AFD because there's no non-trivial third party coverage... literally the only place in the world shown to have prose information on "slut night" is a random website that advocates people hold these events wherever possible. Even if you accept that it's an important and reliable site, it's still trying to popularize these events and is a primary source on them.

I just don't see how a good article can cite no secondary sources with non-directory information about the topic. Would we accept a good article on a politician that only cited his campaign website, aside from some trivial sources listing nothing but the dates and times he'd made public appearances?

Yes, it's a sex-related topic. But I don't buy that we can't expect secondary sources on such topics. I just read a fantastic 400-page academic book on butch/femme culture in the 1950s ("Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold"). Good sources do exist on sex topics, this article just doesn't contain any of them... and thus, can hardly be considered a good article. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, on second examination, the sources do not seem reliable, as per the nomination. Nikki♥311 23:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, mostly non WP:RS sources, a large number of un-cited statements, evidence of WP:OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist makes sense to delist this due to WP:RS problems. Hekerui (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

County Route 149 (Sullivan County, New York)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No action. Renomination at GAN recommended. If further disagreements arise please bring them to community GAR. Geometry guy 09:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this article about a few hours after I originally wrote this. Its about County Route 149 in Sullivan County, New York - a former state highway too old to receive a state title. I nominated it, along with 2 other articles. User:Rschen7754 failed it claiming three things:

1. Questionable notability - not a valid reason to fail - I've already proved its notability
2. Way too much detail - that's an opinion, not a true fact, because all my GAs usually look like that.He also cited that how he writes it, in a form that would seem very opinionated.
3. No links in the Route description - I fixed this one, but its still not a really good reason to fail. Holding it, I understand.

Now - Other than these, the review was improperly done, as he never filled out an actual page for it, see above my post for that, and also, kept me quiet on it failing. As a bonus, recently at the U.S. Roads' Project Wikitalk, he took about 55-60 GAs that we as a project had accomplished and threatened to GAR them over stupid little things. I don't believe that failing over links, lead issues, notability, and too much detail. None of which are quickfail criteria, None of which are even a reason to fail an article in the first place.

I want to get County Route 149 a valid review, because it was just another victim in his rambling on about it. It feels very bad when he's already criticized about 25 of your already passed GAs and then goes and fails a nominee for the same reasons. I want the community to look this review over, along with the actions going on on Project space that may end up involving this page.

Thanks. Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a beef about my GA audit, this isn't the forum. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is precisely the forum. However, as the article has not received an in-depth review, reinsertion of the nomination at GAN is likely outcome, and it may be easier to cut to the chase if parties agree. Geometry guy 20:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"along with the actions going on on Project space that may end up involving this page." - I think Mitch is trying to do something greater than the reassessment of one GA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy: I figured it would be, but there is a major problem. This page is going to have a flood of Good Articles wanting review just because of an opinion. I don't think delisting 35-50 articles is really necessary over stupid little things, that is my beef with the GA audit. It is really really unncessary to give people a week and threaten them that its coming here when you, Rschen, blatantly have no support. Especially from me. Scream as much as you want at me, my opinion won't change, and I'll make sure those articles aren't coming to this page.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 21:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me say one thing, and let me say it now, in bold and in strong language: the GA process does not, a priori, give a fuck about arguments WikiProjects are having about what makes a GA within their project; the only thing that should matter to GA reviewers is whether the article meets the GA criteria.

These criteria are universal, and apply across Wikipedia. They are not subject to the whims of individual WikiProjects, and are not negotiable. The meaning of the criteria can be informed and elaborated by advice from WikiProjects, but no additional criteria can be imposed. If this is unacceptable to any WikiProject, then that WikiProject is free to disengage from the GA process and not use GA-Class (or invent its own use if it feels bold).

Conversely, if a WikiProject would like to audit its articles and send some for reassessment, it is welcome to do so. Such reassessment will be against the GA criteria, not the reasoning of the WikiProject. Geometry guy 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that my viewpoint will not be given a fair hearing in this forum; therefore I will reluctantly agree to this nomination being relisted, with the caveat that this article will most likely not remain a GA for long due to it not meeting the standards or it being deleted or merged within the week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll fight that too, and prove you are <removed> me. What don't you understand. I have already proved its notability. If I wrote it as New York State Route 284 (1930s) - then the article would be even shorter than this. So think about it.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the article be renominated at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Deus Ex

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No action. No consensus to delist and improvements have been made. Geometry guy 10:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This article became a Good Article in 2007. Now it has numberous problems to it. Problems include:

The Synopsis is too long and doesn't cite any references or sources.

The Development history section is short and has an expansion tag on it.

Two of the references,ref 7 and 8, need to be fixed up.

There's a possibility I may have missed some other problems, but these problems might show that Deus Ex fails the Good Article criteria. Thanks lots. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Refs 7 and 8 fixed right quick.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted trimming the synopsis to bare essentials (and doing that makes me want to go play that game again :-) --MASEM (t) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Generally, it's thought to be unnecessary to cite synopses, unless they contain interpretative statements. --Malkinann (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not usually necessary to cite synopses. My concern with this synopsis is that it wallows in unnecessary details which may cause the article to lose focus. Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Synopsis seems to be of decent length (not too long), though I've never played the game. I'll have a go at trimming it. — Deckiller 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Some areas of the synopsis seemed a bit confusing; perhaps someone familiar with the storyline could go through and smooth it out a bit? — Deckiller 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alberto Santos-Dumont

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist. Fails WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, WP:EMBED. Additionally the prose is poor in many places. The article does appear to have some good sources, but they are not cited in places where citations are required. Geometry guy 10:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article meets the requirements for GA. Edit wars and layout are the main issues.

• Well-written - Several issues dealing with WP:LEAD, WP:LINK, WP:EL, WP:LAYOUT, WP:TRIVIA. The "Legacy" and "External links" sections need a lot of work.
• Factually accurate and verifiable - Every section is in need of additional sources. The flyingmachines.org site is not a RS. The "Controversy" and "Wristwatch" sections definitely need more sources.
• Broad in its coverage - It's fairly broad.
• Neutral- See below.
• Stable - Take a look at the edit history and talk page. The "Controversy vis-à-vis Wright brothers" edit wars have been occurring for quite some time. Certain editors on both "sides" seem to be very passionate about this topic, yet few have provided reliable sources.
• Images - They're fine, but some images need to be moved.

APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, clearly needs more thorough referencing, does not comply sufficiently with WP:MOS, e.g. trivia section and external links. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)