Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 49

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 50)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 48) →

Trimaran Capital Partners

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

Result: No action. Article renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I came to this article thinking it could be brought up to GA quality given the starting place. The article was failed on the basis of references. However, the article is highly referenced. After the initial review, I made an effort to address particular issues suggested by the reviewer. At this point, every statement that could potentially be challenged is referenced/sourced and nearly all of the information in the article was cited as well. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It does look like all of the review points were addressed. I suggest an immediate renomination at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you have been a victim of a "bean counting" review. That said, sentences such as "The acquisition of Argosy marked an aggressive push by CIBC into the U.S. investment banking business." do require inline citation of some sort. Your best option is to renominate at GAN. I propose to close this reassessment shortly on that basis, if no one else does so before I do. Geometry guy 20:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is already listed on WP:GAN. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

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

Result: Delist per consensus and extensive comments below. Geometry guy 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a good article as it is missing several references for races which are easily attainable KnowIG (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Also missing several references to important events like China 07 the Bridgestone comment is unsourced. Particually the back end of 09(italy onwards) and all of 10 so far only has 6 references altogether. that to me does not consistute a good article. KnowIG (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Frequent edit warring and vandalism has been taking place on the article, directly contravening the essence of good article. KnowIG (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: vandalism reversions are explicitly excluded from the good article criteria. 4u1e (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  Er, shouldn't there have been an individual reassessment at the article first, with time given for editors to respond? 4u1e (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  It is fine to open a community reassessment (and preferable if the nominator is involved in the article). Time will be given for editors to respond here. Geometry guy 23:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  OK, although that's very different to what it says at the top of this page. The editor nominating had no involvement in the article before s/he made this nomination.4u1e (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: there are several dead links in the references which I've marked, although I've not checked every link and some of the dead ones are not showing up on the link checker. I'm not familiar with most of the sources used, but are they definitely all reliable? For example, F1Way and crash.net. The lead doesn't seem to properly summarise the main points of the article. I'm also wondering if the article meets criterion #3. Although I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic (I don't know anything about F1), and I know it's already a long article, there are a lot of books about him in "Further Reading", and I'm wondering why they haven't been used. Surely there's a wealth of info in there.--BelovedFreak 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ddelist. A wierd one. All those books, yet they aren't used as sources. Some dodgy online sources in amongst what are certainly very reliable ones (BBC etc). Some uncited paras (someone has tagged them). But I also think it fails criterion 3 "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". There is too much trivia: my favourite piece of irrelevance? Probably "The next weekend at Monaco Hamilton and teammate Jenson Button raced with a diamond encrusted steering wheel. Hamilton's steering wheel had the year "08" placed on it in diamonds and Button had the year "09" on his wheel" (even if anyone other than his promoters cared about publicising this sort of stuff, the text needs copyediting). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment on sources. It is indeed a bit odd that the biographies are not used to source the article - with the exception of Hamilton's autobiography, which is cited several times, and hence not technically Further Reading. Some of the biographies may not be up to date, but it is worth checking for up-to-date editions: for instance Worral's paperback edition was published in 2009, not 2008 as stated. It is particularly important that BLPs are reliably sourced, and tabloid newspapers are not famous for their reliability in this respect! The article relies heavily on Keith Collantine's blog f1fanatic.co.uk - similarly, blogs such as makformula1.blogspot.com and f1wolf.com are unlikely to be suitable sources for Wikipedia articles. Geometry guy 15:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Further comments. This article needs a deep copyedit. Some of the material is unnecessary detail, some is unsourced, some does not reflect what is in the source, and some is unencyclopedic. Here are some specific examples, which I hope will help to improve the article.
  • Much is made of Hamilton's first meeting with Ron Dennis. However, a brief look at the sources reveals some variation. What did Hamilton say to Dennis? What did he reply? Did he write "phone/call me in nine years" or say it? This is a good example of the need for verifiability - in particular direct quotations must be supported by inline citation to a reliable source from which the quotation is taken. In a case like this where sources differ, it may be appropriate to include in-text attribution, especially if a primary source (such as Hamilton, McLaren, or Formula 1) is preferred.
  • The Personal life section begins disjointedly.^{Now improved} His date of birth and father should be mentioned alongside his mother even though this is in the lead or the infobox. "White British" is a UK census term which conflates ethnicity and nationality. Presumably both his parents have British nationality, and this can be sourced.

    Some examples where the source should be followed more closely: "He extended his skills to football" (extended?); "At school Lewis Hamilton was bullied. In order to cope he took up Karate" (in order to cope?); "being described as a "Hoon" [boy racer] by the magistrate" ("acting like a Hoon" according to the source).

    "It was announced in January 2010 that they split up to focus on their respective careers,[26] however they were seen together at the 2010 Turkish Grand Prix". Apart from being grammatically incorrect (there are two clauses here), "it was announced" is vague and does not reflect the source material, and "however" is a word to watch in that it casts doubt upon the previous sentence without attributing such doubt to a reliable source.

    Why is "by the Queen" needed?

    Wikipedia biographies are not the place to advertise Madame Tussauds waxworks. Only include this if reliable secondary sources highlight it as significant in Hamilton's career.

    Why is Hamilton's decision to drop his father as a manager in March only referred to tangentially in an image caption? ^{My mistake, as it is mentioned briefly in the prose. We should be wary of recentism, but this is a significant event in Hamilton's career.}

  • There is a lot of "writing to the moment" in the article. In an encyclopedia, events that took place in the past are usually described in the simple past tense. Placing the reader in the moment is more suited to fan sites and journalism. This is mostly a matter of making small changes: "started living with" could become "went to live with" and similarly "began to date" is more encyclopedic than "started dating". Imprecise adverbs are also not usual in encyclopedic prose: words such as "eventually" (e.g. in "Hamilton was eventually fined") and "quickly" can be removed or replaced with more precise timescales; words such as "actually" editorialize (see WP:WTW).

    "This contract included an option of a future F1 seat, which would eventually make Hamilton the youngest ever driver to secure a contract which later resulted in an F1 drive" The source refers to the 1998 contract so the awkward "which would eventually make" is not needed.

    "Having clinched the championship, Hamilton missed the last two races of the season to make his debut in the season finale of the British Formula Three Championship. Here he was less successful..." Confusing in-the-moment prose.

    "This would have been 16..." is a counterfactual. Likewise "For most of the race, Massa was leading with Räikkönen in second. If this had been the case come the chequered flag with Hamilton in seventh place, Hamilton would have become world champion."

    "It was announced prior to the start of the season that Hamilton would be partnering defending double World Champion Fernando Alonso..." Apart from the "would be", who announced it?

    "Hamilton looked set for a podium finish with 15 laps remaining"

    "After securing pole position in China, which saw changeable weather conditions"

    "This moved Hamilton back up to fifth, ensuring that he finished one point ahead of Massa overall and winning the 2008 title. Hamilton's overtaking move happened after Massa had crossed the line to win. This meant that Hamilton had clinched the 2008 Formula One World Championship..." contains repetition, as well as awkward sentences.

    "The FIA have warned" should be simple past tense.

    "A chance for points, and even hopes for a podium finish came at the Nürburgring when he again qualified fifth..." is empathetic writing, not encyclopedic.

  • The article goes into unnecessary detail about the Formula 1 seasons, without making use of summary style (or in this case "See also"). This is a biography, not a race-by-race commentary!
  • Records: can this be converted into prose, with the focus on the most notable records? I saw one source (a reliable one I think) suggest Hamilton rewrote the record books.
  • Driving style: the material in the article does not reflect the material in the sources. Brundle's article does not refer to aggressive driving or oversteering. The second source concerns Hamilton's defense, not that accusations. The use of statistics to suggest confidence is synthesis without a source making the same link.
  • The Helmet. "Due to the fact that Hamilton has said in the past that Ayrton Senna was his hero, some people assumed that his helmet is yellow in honour of him. In actuality it was made yellow so that his father could tell which kart his son was driving back in his karting days." Poor prose and weasel words, but more seriously, it misrepresents the source, which reports on Hamilton's explanation, then casts doubt on it. The article in contrast, imbues Hamilton's explanation with authority and dismisses the source. This is editorializing.
  • Racing results: overlinked.

In summary it seems to me that the article could be delisted for failing any of the following GA criteria: 1(a) prose style; 1(b) lead, words to watch and list incorporation; 2(a-c) unsourced or uncited material, synthesis; 3(a) missing significant information, 3(b) detail, summary style. Further the overall empathetic presentation and choice of material may suggest an inadvertent bias, contrary to criterion 4.

Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 18:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the vast majority of the comments above, and that the article should probably be delisted. In particular, referencing is copious, but of poor quality, the prose is far too detailed on a race by race basis and includes too much trivia. I had a hack at the 2009 season section a little while ago to shorten it and give an overview of the season, but the same is needed throughout and I don't have time to do it. I note that one point raised is a WP:F1 convention: 'Overlinking' in tables (because for that purpose it is far more convenient for the reader than linking only on first occurence) is standard in F1 articles, including other GAs and FAs. 4u1e (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  I propose to close this discussion as delist in a couple of days on that basis, as it has been open for some time now. Hopefully, the GAR has generated enough comments to improve the article once regular contributors have time to do so. Concerning the overlinking in the tables, one thing that grates is the separate linking to Vodafone, McLaren and Mercedes. Earlier in the article Vodafone McLaren Mercedes is a single link, which redirects to McLaren. This would be more appropriate. If it does not fit in the tables, then why not use simply McLaren? Geometry guy 21:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Alhazen

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

Result: Delist per comments below. The article contains unsourced or unattributed opinion and weak prose and hence does not meet several GA criteria, including 1, 2 and 4. Good luck to those improving it. Geometry guy 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two problems with this article.

1. It lacks stability, as there is an ongoing edit war about the insignificant question of Alhazen's nationality: is he a Persian or an Arab?
2. It has many excessive claims of his significance as a scholar, reflecting the problems raised at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85.

This is an important article, and deserves to be returned to Good Article status, but at the present, it falls far short. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit war about Alhazen's ethnicity has recently heated up; see this edit summary. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I see the section legacy has the usual glorifying spin, but could you quickly point out some of the more serious issues contents-wise? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. I haven't given this article the thorough attention it deserves, but one passage caught my attention: "He also discovered a result similar to Snell's law of sines, but did not quantify it and derive the law mathematically." One of the two sources he cited, an educational article on use of historical examples in the teaching of optics, cites a reprint of David Lindberg's "The Cause of Refraction in Medieval Optics" as saying Alhazen's theory was "suspiciously Cartesian." (p 28) Unfortunately, this tertiary source missed Lindberg's footnote (p. 29, n. 23) where he questioned the Cartesian interpretation of Alhazen.

The crucial miscitation, however, is where the article cites Sabra's Theories of Light in support of Alhazen's anticipation of Snell's law. No page is cited, but Sabra says this on p. 96 in a discussion of Descartes' Explanation of Refraction: "Ibn al-Haytham assumes [Sabra's italics] that the resistance acts particularly in the direction of the component parallel to the surface." He continues on p. 97 "Now let us suppose that Ibn al-Haytham moved one step further and assumed the increase in the parallel velocity to be in a constant ratio. His assumption would have [led to Snell's law].... He did not, however, take that step." In sum, both Sabra and Lindberg question the idea that Alhazen found "a result similar to Snell's law of sines" while the editor (Jagged 85) interpreted them as supporting that claim.

My point is not that I have found all the problems with this article; I am concerned that, given the problematic source of these edits, this article should not be listed as a Good Article until it is completely reviewed. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur: Agree to delist the article. 759 edits by the main contributor (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85), three time as much as the next 10 contributors taken together, are in my book sufficient indirect evidence that there must be serious misinterpretations interwoven into the text. I believe delisting the article would give future editors more latitude and incentive in improving/rewriting the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Delist. It is a shame to see the extent of this problem in what might otherwise be such an interesting range of articles. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Usain Bolt

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

Result: Keep per consensus below (comprehensiveness is not a GA criterion). Geometry guy 20:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The prose in the article is horrid, especially in the Lead, the tense is not uniform certain words are repeated, words like says and said are more Simple English than standard English. The lead is one of the most important parts to assess in a GA or FA Review, it's a foundation, it is important because it's the first thing people read and if it is poorly written and not as informative then it's not worth reading. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 12:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Could you give some examples of the "horrid" prose? I disagree that there is a problem with "said" or "says" (see WP:SAY for more on this). I read somewhere else (possibly one of Tony1's writing guides) that readers don't tend to notice said, whereas other words we use to try to make it sound more interesting, stand out too much. Either way, that's more of an issue for the "brilliant prose" of WP:FA. Also, if you're meaning that "said" and "says" (last paragraph of lead) aren't the same tense, it's actually "has said" and "says", which are both past tense. I think that the main problem with the (recently added) paragraph about Bolt's future plans is that it is not mentioned later on, and may not be of great enough importance to include in the lead anyway. It would perhaps be better to move it down into the main body of the article.--BelovedFreak 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Ah I was skimming through the article, it was primarily the lead. I'll post these issues later. Right now I'm fixing up issues with the other GAR. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Seems it was only the lead, however, some paragraphs are cited from what are now dead links. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the prose could be improved, but it is clear enough for GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• When did he stop playing cricket? Does he still now ? Aaroncrick ^TALK 07:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. No major problems with article. It is GA criteria.Philipmj24 (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It's always worth checking the history before the nomination. I rewrote the lead a few weeks ago as people had introduced a number of duplications and inaccuracies. The speculative footballer discussion was added to the lead since then (as well as a misplaced note about his first lost to Tyson Gay in the recognition section being deleted). Feel free to smooth out any remaining kinks in the prose. I think it is still around GA standard, but I would likely be biased in that opinion! I'm planning to reduce the article size through the use of a sub-article at some point in the future. SFB 11:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delist – Not comprehensive. Nothing on his running style. What's his strengths and weaknesses? Aaroncrick ^TALK 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - since we are not talking about FA?, the article appears to be well above the threshold set by GA? The lead is now in good shape, and discussion on strengths and weaknesses would be necessary for FA, but not required by a GA (jokingly speaking, strengths: broke the world record; weaknesses: did not break the world record by more than a record margin). Nergaal (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Lynton K. Caldwell

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

Result: Keep per consensus below. Geometry guy 20:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is under-referenced compared to other GAs, it is very short and fails to give any information on the subject's early years and education. Compared to GAs such as George W. Bush. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 10:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you gave examples of problems. Please compare the article to the GA criteria, not other GAs (George W. Bush is an entirely different figure). If the prose is weak, give examples. If information on the subject's early years is significant, please explain why this is needed to meet the broadness criterion. If there is uncited information which requires citation per the GA critiria, please point to it. If some of the sources are insufficiently reliable, please name them and give your reasoning. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph of Academic career and public service and Awards and Honors has very few references. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 10:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

These paragraphs look to me like strings of facts about his career/awards sourced to the Obituary in the Bloomington Herald Times (cited towards the end of the paragraph in both cases). If you believe any of this information needs additional inline citation per the GA criteria, please be more specific, don't just count beans. Thanks, Geometry guy 11:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Facts are from obituary. Where one reference per paragraph, facts are all from same source. It is not necessary to cite a different source for every fact in an article. The article is quite adequately sourced. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets GA criteria. Lead is a little short, but adequately sums up the main points. Some topics produce short articles with short leads. SilkTork *^YES! 18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Keep I don't see much wrong either. I don't think where the subject went to high school or how many siblings he had, etc. are major points. And I doubt that info is available anyway. The one thing I did notice is the "Scholarly publications" section is misplaced; it goes before the References section. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. In order to close this GAR I switched the sections around per WP:LAYOUT. I also noticed that the lead was inadequate. I've added a little to it to convey notability and career. Unless a case to delist is made in the next couple of days, I will close as keep. Geometry guy 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier

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

Result: Delist. Extensive rewriting is needed to bring this article to GA status. The prose is confusing and unencyclopedic, and in addition to failing criterion 1a, the article fails 1b (lead, words to watch), 2b and 3b. The lead in particular is a a disaster: not only does it fail to summarize the article, but it contains a peacock phrase and material which is not even discussed in the article (Lully). See below for detailed comments and consensus to delist. Geometry guy 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this article does not currently meet criteria 1a and 1b. The prose is not too bad, but is somewhat unclear and confusing in places. The lead does not adequately summarise the main points of the article and so does not meet WP:LEAD. It also needs a bit more context for readers who have no idea what the Fronde is, or who the famous Lully is. I don't think there's a huge amount of work to be done and the problems should be easily fixable, but I've started a community reassessment because I'm not used to reviewing this kind of article, so I'm not 100% confident "signing off" on a review. Some specific examples of where the prose does not meet 1a:

• Madame de Saint George, or Madame de Saint Georges? Both are used
• "Madame de Saint George ... taught the infant to read and write." - I'm not sure that infants are usually taught to read and write.
• "where seeing him she "flung [myself] into his arms"." - this is a bit confusing; from this I gather that the original quote read "flung herself into his arms", in which case I'm not sure why myself has been substituted. If the original was "herself", then it should be left. "she flung myself" does not make sense.  Done
• "Gaston resided at Blois where Mademoiselle would be a frequent visitor." - when would she be a visitor?
• "...the couple undertook nuptials for the third time in July 1643" - I may have missed this, but when were the second nuptials?
• "...ceased all interest in the prince and thus sighed over a union with her widower..." - "sighed over" seems a bit informal, and a bit old fashioned. Its meaning may be lost on many readers.
• "...Charles having become the "object of pity"." - I'm not quite sure what this means
• "...where Mademoiselle was involved in the peace which ended the siege of Bordeaux..." - how was she involved? This seems to have been glossed over a bit.
• "...which made her look like a "frondeuse" in the eyes of Queen Anne" - I'm not sure what a frondeuse is, or the relevance of looking like one to Queen Anne.

A "frondeuse" was a woman who participated in the "Fronde", a rebellion of nobles against the king. You may remember that Queen Anne and her young son Louis XIV had to flee Paris because of the Fronde: this could be "the relevance of looking like one to Queen Anne."

--Frania W. (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this (and other points) to me, but my point is that it should be clear in the text so that readers don't have to go hunting around for it elsewhere. Obviously, you can't detail the background to everything, it's about getting a balance. Frondeuse is not a common word in English, and not all readers of this article will have a background knowledge of the topic.--BelovedFreak 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

LGM's article provides a link to the Fronde article. The words "frondeur" (masc.) & "frondeuse (fem.) stand for the participant in a "fronde" (like "warrior" is to "war"). However, the first meaning of "fronde" is "slingshot", and "frondeur/frondeuse" are users of a slingshot. Slingshot users are generally street kids who will aim at anyone, even figures of authority, with the advantage of being able to shoot from a certain distance & avoid being caught - the parallel being made because the "Fronde" was a direct "slingshot" at the authority of the King. The simplest is probably to follow the French word with its English translation: frondeuse (rebel who participated in the Fronde). There were two Frondes, the first one in 1648-1649 - that of the Parlements against the King, the second one (1650-1653) - that of the nobles, the one in which LGM participated.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks. However, this needs to be clear in the article. Readers end up looking at articles for all sorts of reasons and they won't all be proficient in French, and they won't all be familiar with French history. I agree that following the term with an English explanation would help, but with two different (albeit connected) meanings, I would be concerned about straying into WP:OR. Did Sackville-West mean that she looked like a slingshot user in the eyes of the queen, or that she looked like a participant in the civil war? The Queen Anne reference is still not clear. Did she look favourably on Mademoiselle for looking like a frondeuse? Did this impact marriage discussions? I don't understand the relevance. I appreciate that I may be completely dense about this topic, but I won't be the only one!--BelovedFreak 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was only trying to explain to you how the "Fronde" (rebellion) derived its name from the "fronde" (slingshot), as it is an interesting point. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to give that type of explanation in an article where we have to stay focused in order not to lose the reader. I imagine that any reader curious enough knows also how to use a dictionary... So, no mention of slingshot, but explanation necessary on the meaning of "frondeur / frondeuse", the name given to anyone who is on the side of a "Fronde", which is a rebellion against authority; in the case of the article, the authority of the King. Like many high ranking nobles, some of them Princes du Sang, like the Condés, her own father & herself, LGM was fighting in the camp of the "Fronde" against her royal cousin Louis XIV; consequently, Queen Anne looked at her as a "frondeuse", in other words, a "rebel". And the fact that LGM ordered the cannon to be fired from the Bastille in direction of her cousin, which could have resulted in his death had the cannonball landed on him, killed every chance of a marriage between the two. Therefore, "no, Queen Anne did not look favourably on the "frondeuse" Grande Mademoiselle".

What does WP:OR have to do with giving the meaning of "frondeuse" ?

--Frania W. (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it is interesting. :) I agree that all of that explanation would not be practical or appropriate to include, as I say, we need to find a balance between one the one hand, keeping it focused and not going off on a tangent, and on the other, providing enough context for the reader. This is partly why I brought this to community reassessment, rather than doing an individual one, because I am far from being an expert on the topic, and would rather other people help judge how much explanation and context is needed. Another option for providing background without disrupting the text, is to use footnotes. That way, readers unfamiliar with the subject can be directed to explanatory notes at the bottom, while those more knowledgeable can just carry on reading. What do you think? By the way, my concern with WP:OR was simply that picking one definition (slingshot user or participant in civil war) could constitute original research, if we don't actually know which one Sackville-West meant.--BelovedFreak 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sackville-West is only quoting Queen Anne who said that LGM was a "frondeuse", which means an active participant of the "Fronde", the rebellion against the royal power, and which can be stated either between parentheses in text, or in a footnote. If kept short, better to have it in text. I do not see any problem with this.

However, what bothers me is not how to handle the word "frondeuse", but the fact that an article in need of so much correction has been given the GA status so quickly before anyone realised what was happening & could put a stop to it. I do not understand the reviewer passing it, it was a mistake that should be recognised, and the article should be delisted immediately, without further ado.

--Frania W. (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is clearer now I understand what the source said. Perhaps it could be worded a little better to make it clear that Queen Anne called her a frondeuse? That may seem obvious, but it was not to me when I first read it. And I agree, if the explanation is short, it will be fine in the text. As for the GA status, this was the reviewer's first GA review. Reviewing GAs can be more complicated than people first think (although they can also be straight forward). In my opinion, (although he may disagree) mistakes were made. Now we are working to correct that. Some things have been fixed already, and hopefully it can stay listed as a GA. If not, there is no harm done, it will be delisted and someone can renominate in the future. I don't know if you have access to many of the sources. It's always useful it the original nominator takes part, as they are usually more able to address the concerns than anyone else. If you have any specific criticisms, concerns or suggestions that haven't been raised yet, then please do.--BelovedFreak 10:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My main criticisms & concerns are that an article filled with so many mistakes & inconsistencies was proposed for GA status obviously too early & passed too fast by a reviewer who has no clue on the subject; otherwise, he would not have passed it. The job to do now is not minor editing from the (incomplete) list given here: the whole article has to be reworked section by section, paragraph by paragraph, one sentence at a time Then & only then, and after consultation on talk page with others, should the article be proposed for GA nomination.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Even in uncertain times, the subject of a marriage between Mademoiselle and the Prince of Condé arose..." - it's unclear what the uncertain times have to do with her marital status, also - did the Prince of Condé actually propose to her?
• "The city of Orléans, Mademoiselle's namesake..." - was Orléans really named after her?
• The canon-firing incident could be described a little more clearly. Did it allow the Prince of Condé into the city? What was the king's reaction? Was she actually sent into exile?

From the Bastille, La Grande Mademoiselle ordered the cannon to be fired in the direction of the spot where Louis XIV was standing & the cannonball missed Louis XIV (the cousin she would have loved to marry) by a few feet. Anyone else ordering a cannon directed at the King's head, and fired, would have later been decapitated - by comparison, exile is sweet punishment.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• "She went with Madame de Fiesque and Madame de Frontenac..." - went where? Into exile or back to Paris? Her return to Paris seems to be mentioned a little to early, because then the narrative goes back to Saint-Fargeau.
• "...she was unaware of the state of the building and thus stayed at a small residence ..." - she stayed elsewhere because she was unaware of the state of the building? Or because the building was in a bad state?
• "...stayed at a small residence Dannery..." - a residence called Dannery? In Dannery?  Done the "bailiff received her" part of the sentence suggests that Dannery is the place where the residence was located in. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• It's not clear what Livres are. As a former student of French, with little knowledge of French history, my first thought was books. A wikilink would help, and should it have a capital "L"?  Done Livres was the former French currency, see French livre. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• What were lost in the fire, the 200,000 Livres or the exteriors?  Done
• The bit about her debt is not completely clear. Did her father steal the 800,000 Livres? Did he just make some mistakes with her money that he didn't admit to? Had she already known at that point that she was in debt, without knowing the cause?
• "At the same time her grandmother the Dowager Duchess of Guise tricked..." - is this at the same time her father got her into debt, or at the same time she discovered her father's culpability?
• "...tricked Mademoiselle into signing away money to her under false pretences in which her father was involved in causing her relationship with Gaston to deteriorate." - this doesn't really make sense  Done
• "In 1656, hearing that her father had been excused for his various scandals..." - "various scandals" is a bit vague; excused by whom?
• "She left for Sedan..." - I wanted to link this to an article, but wasn't sure if it meant Sedan, Ardennes, Château de Sedan or something else.  Done Sedan, Ardennes is where she left for, the court that was established was located in the Chateau. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• "...the Duke of Anjou had allegedly courted her..." - allegedly? According to whom?
• "Despite more dashed hopes, Mademoiselle fell ill in Paris..." - Firstly, why did she have dashed hopes if she was the one who didn't want to be with Philippe? Secondly, why would dashed hopes prevent her from falling ill (why despite?)
• "The next marriage at court was between Philippe now the Duke of Orléans and known as Monsieur." - this almost sounds like a marriage between two men  Done
• "Once again ... Louis XIV asked..." - had he asked her before?
• "Marguerite Louise later asked her ..." - what does later refer to? Later than when?
• ..."Mademoiselle no longer favoured the Tuscan match unlike before." - not sure the "unlike before" makes sense  Done the unlike before just made the sentence patent nonsense. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• "This match came in the form of Alfonso VI of Portugal who acceded to the Portuguese throne in 1656 and the brother of Catherine of Braganza." - this sounds like two different people  Done sentence clarified, Alfonso VI was also the brother of Catherine of Braganza. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• It's not at all clear that Antoine Nompar de Caumont and Lauzun are the same person. I had to click throuh to his article to work that out.
• "Madame Royale, only legitimate daughter of Louis XIV who died young" - who died young?  Done Louis XIV lived over 60 years, his daughter didn't.
• It's not clear how or when Mademoiselle met Lauzun; the section opens saying that she regretted being away from court because he was there. Had she already met him?
• I don't understand why the king needed convincing of the match, when it says that he accepted it. Also, is there any particular reason that the court was so against the marriage?

Yes, the particular reason being that in the eyes of the royal court it was a mésalliance: La Grande Mademoiselle was of royal blood, a Granddaugher of France, the cousin of the king, the most important lady in France after the Queen, the richest woman in Europe, and had she been able to marry her younger cousin, she would have been Queen of France. So measured against all that, peanut-size Lauzun just did not have a chance of the Court applauding the (mis)match.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Lauzun was freed on 22 April 1681 who was obliged to live quietly at Bourbon before returning to Paris (not the court however) to live at the Hôtel de Lauzun in March 1682 Mademoiselle having given the duchies of Saint-Fargeau and Châtellerault to the son of La Montespan." - this sentence doesn't really work  Done

I've also added a {{citation needed}} tag to one direct quote that's missing an inline citation (criterion 2b).--BelovedFreak 18:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Infants are technically any child from the ages of 3-5, any younger and they're considered toddlers. I fail to see how that makes no sense and as such I've stricken that statement. Fixed up some issues as well. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to strike my own comments, Fridae'sDoom. I'm not sure what you mean by technically. According to whom? Where I come from, infants are not 3-5 years old, and are certainly not older than "toddlers"; they are babies. According to our own article, "The term infant is derived from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak or speechless." It is typically applied to children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; however, definitions vary between birth and 3 years of age." If the term is used differently in France, or was used differently in 17th century France, then that needs to be made clear. Maybe the term is used differently in the US, but I can tell you that the sentence will definitely seem odd to readers from the UK.--BelovedFreak 10:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fridae'sDoom's definition of "infant" vs "toddler" put aside, not having read Sackville-West's book, I have no idea how that author came to use the word "infants" in the context of LGM being taught to read & write. The way it is used in the article reminds me of what the French call a "faux ami", i.e. a word given a wrong translation because it looks like something in one's own language, in this case, mistaking the English "infant" (baby) for the French "enfant" (child). ((Beside the more familiar "bébé", a baby is called a "nourrisson" in French, that is, a baby "breast- (or bottle-) fed".) In French, "infant" is the title given the Spanish royal children. Even if "infant" had been used at the time of LGM's youth, it would have had the broader sense of "child", not "infant" in the modern English sense. Words sharing the same root follow different paths from one century to another and from one language to another.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change it initially because I wasn't sure if the meaning was related to the Spanish one. I've now changed it to "child". Since it's not a quote, it doesn't need to be the same word that the source uses, and I think child covers all bases.--BelovedFreak 15:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Over half the listed issues have been addressed, I'm going to send a message via MessageDeliveryBot to the most recent contributors to the article. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 02:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Until all the many "issues" have been fixed, I believe the GA template should be removed.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, see WP:GAR for more information, this reassessment lasts for a certain period of time, if no one addresses the issue then the reassessment is closed and the article delisted. I've notified all the recent contributors, hopefully the prose quality, or lack thereof, will improve. When addressing the issues listed here provide an explanation while also updating the article itself. So perhaps you may wish to clarify the statement. Regards, Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 04:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, my statement means that since the article was far from being up to GA status when given the Good Article label, the GA template was put up in error & should be removed. Frania W. (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We are now looking into if the article meets GA criteria. Each person puts forward their view, and when at least seven days have passed and there is a clear consensus, then the GAR will be closed and either the article will remain listed as a GA or it will be delisted. Until there is a clear consensus that the article does not meet GA criteria and time has been given to allow editors to address the issues, then it remains listed as a GA. SilkTork *^YES! 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Delist. At first I thought it could be brought to meet GA criteria, but the closer one looks, the more problems one encounters. The prose, in particular, needs attention. The WP:Lead needs to be built up to become a more satisfactory stand alone summary of the article. There are various statements that could be challenged which are unsourced - "The influence of Cardinal Mazarin was also opposed." "Until the birth in 1638 of her cousin, the future King Louis XIV, she was the most important child at the French royal court." "Frequently involved in conspiracies against Louis XIII and his unpopular chief advisor, Cardinal Richelieu, he was often on bad terms with the court and thus banished on several occasions." "In 1656, hearing that her father had been excused for his various scandals, Mademoiselle herself said she would forget the bad blood caused by his financial misdemeanours and thus the once close relationship between father and daughter resumed." etc. The prose is uneven. There are some short paragraphs which don't assist flow, and the meaning of some statements is not clear - "Soon after, at the death of Empress Maria Anna, Mademoiselle ceased all interest in the prince and thus sighed over a union with her widower, Emperor Ferdinand III, Charles having become the "object of pity"." Looking closer the article is in need of a decent copy-edit by someone who knows the subject, as the meaning cannot always be worked out from the context. It's not made clear that Lauzun is also Antoine Nompar de Caumont. In the lead it says "she eventually fell in love with Antoine Nompar de Caumont and scandalised the court when she asked Louis XIV for permission to marry him, as such a union was viewed as a mésalliance" - while the main body says - "The joy was not to last; Louis XIV opposed the match and thus called off the engagement on 18 December stating that the match would damage his reputation however court disapproval was the main reason." The two statements should match more closely. I haven't looked deeply into the article, though would say that - at the least - the lead, the prose, and the references need to be addressed, and I suspect that it would take more than seven days to cover what is needed. Delist, work on the issues, and resubmit for review. SilkTork *^YES! 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Don't delist yet - Give the contributors a chance to fix up the listed issues and discuss others that need addressing, all though I do agree with what SilkTork says I think that the contributors that have been notified should be given a chance to fix up certain issues. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 05:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the article going to go from now, the contributors I have notified haven't made many edits and Frania Wisniewska, BelovedFreak and I seem to be the only 3 people who've actually done something to help improve the factuality and readability of the article. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:38pm • 09:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a vote, but just so there's no confusion or premature closures, I think in the state it is, the article should be delisted. The prose still needs work, and the issues mentioned above need addressing by someone with access to the source material.--BelovedFreak 11:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In order to work on it peacefully, I have made a special dossier for this article in my computer & highlighted in red what needs edited: well over fifty percent of the article is bolded in red. You have no idea the work that has to be done to this piece, which does not mean that it could be considered GA material after correction.

Beside, the above list is not complete; for instance:

Some quotes are not given correctly, such as:

• Mademoiselle always had a great sense of her own self importance and when asked about her maternal grandmother the Henriette Catherine de Joyeuse she replied that she was not her grandmother because she was "not a queen".

This is not what the child replied, she never said that Henriette Catherine de Joyeuse was not her grandmother. The exact quote in the first tome of her mémoires is: ‘Elle est ma grand-maman de loin ; elle n’est pas reine’ » She is my grandmother from far away; she is not queen."

• "Louis proposed she marry Charles Emmanuel II, Duke of Savoy who had previously married Mademoiselle's younger half sister Françoise Madeleine."

If the reader does not go immediately to the article on Françoise Madeleine, he may not realise that she had recently died, so the sentence may lead him to believe that Louis XIV was proposing a "ménage à trois" to his cousin, which would have made the Duke of Savoy a polygamist.

• "An angry Louis thus ordered she return to Saint-Fargeau for having disobeyed him. This "exile" lasted roughly a year and during it she began to make repairs to the Château d'Eu where she began to write her memoirs."

Saint-Fargeau is in Bourgogne. Eu is in Normandy. How can she, when ordered to residence at Saint-Frageau begin repairs at her château d’Eu & begin writing her memoirs there when it is stated somewhere else in the article that she began writing her memoirs in Saint-Fargeau?

As I wrote earlier, the article has to be gone through word by word, a huge task that cannot be done in a week, unless the editor has nothing else to do.

Then a cherry was put on the cake when, four days after putting this article up for GA status, the same contributor proposed for GA another article[[1], in need of as much editing.

This article should have been delisted over a week ago, as proposed by reviewer SilkTork on 12 September.

P.S. By the way, I would like to add that I am the foreigner here whose mother tongue is not English.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist - I believed that the article had potential but now it seems that this GA Nominator seems to be nominating articles that are far from meeting the GA Criteria. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:57am • 01:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gun violence in the United States

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

Result: Administrative close. Nominator is proposing a merger of the article. Geometry guy 20:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This article does not meet the criteria for a Good Article. It is not neutral, nor stable or free of edit wars or content disputes. DesertPhox (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no recent edit wars. Please do not use GAR in pursuit of content disputes or merger proposals. Geometry guy 20:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

B. J. Prager

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

Result: Relisted at GAN per consensus below. Geometry guy 00:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am contesting the GA review at Talk:B. J. Prager/GA1. The review was quickfailed because lack of size and not lack of comprehensiveness. ("There is a section with a single line, and two others with a single paragraph."-quoting directly from the review) This is an article about a professional lacrosse player. The average lacrosse player is very difficult to build a substantial article for because there is sparse secondary source coverage after college. I believe that there is adequate comprehensiveness given the subject matter. The three sparse sections are for background, personal and professional career.

In general, as I noted on the reviewers page at User_talk:Nergaal#B._J._Prager, the reviewer does not appear to be a regular sports bio contributor. In my experience in sports bio GAs, a comprehensive professional career summary includes major records, all-star and award summaries, important playoff performances, notable statistical accomplishments, significant injuries affecting performance, notable transactions and extraordinary single-game performances. Unfortunately, I don't think anything is missing from Prager's article. Thus, although the professional section is brief, it is comprehensive.

In terms of personal and background content, we do not have a birthdate, but know his four-year college career ended in 2002. We do not know his place of birth, but know where he grew up and went to high school. For very marginally notable people, this type of issue does not preclude a GA unless we have reason to believe that the information is likely to be found in forthcoming secondary sources (Thomas Wilcher is one of my GAs where this was the case). In Prager's case, we have a professional athlete who does not present this birth information in any of the common places where it might be found along with professional statistics. It is also common when both the personal and background sections are sparse for them to be combined. That would be a good solution in this case. There was no complaint that there is any content in readily available secondary sources that was not included, just that the content was short. However, there is extensive details about the important part of his career (in this rare sport where college career is more important that pro career).

It is my believe that the reviewer's unfamiliarity with sports bios led to the suggestion on my talk page to merge the content into a Notable lacrosse players for Princeton University article. This is would be unprecedented, AFAIK. All professional athletes are considered WP:N and get their own articles. Thus, Prager's article needs to be evaluated as an individual bio. We need to evaluate its comprehensiveness based on knowledge of and expectations of information availability. In this case, Prager passes WP:N easily and we need to determine where the bar is for him in terms of comprehensiveness. Does anyone expect that his missing personal and background information will ever be available in secondary sources?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (without prejudice). I recommend removing the personal life section: his family are not notable, and this is unencyclopedic information. It is also clear from the article that the subject is notable only for his college career. I suggest combining the "Background" and "Professional career" into a potted "Biography", so that the college career stands out separately as the reason for the article. Then the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 00:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have never heard of removing family information as an improvement to an article. In the majority of cases WP:N people have several non-notable family members who are mentioned in their WP bios and information is generally requested on their names and exact relationships as a way to broaden an article. Why is this an exception?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • P.S. I could probably name 15 or 20 of my GAs where I was requested to add this type of information if it was available in order to gain approval from a reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

      And so you did, presumably, without regard for the privacy of the individuals you were identifying, just because a reviewer asked for it. See WP:NPF and criterion 3b. Geometry guy 11:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

      Actually, NPF says "include only material relevant to their notability" and 3b says "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". In the case of a professional lacrosse player, information that he is from a family of competitive lacrosse players is relevant and on topic and helpful to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

      That's a fair point, and should give you a way to integrate the material. In particular, the source indicates that he overlapped with his younger brother at Princeton in 2002. Geometry guy 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

      O.K. so that brings you to nothing omitted and nothing extraneous. If you agree that the article is basically in line with WP:WIAGA then you should be on board to overturn the fail. If that is possible it is far preferable to renoming because I am in the WP:CUP and the WP:GAC queue is about 2 months, which won't get me any points by October 31, whereas overturning the fail before that date will get me CUP points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

      If by "overturning the fail" you mean listing the article as GA, well that would require me to review the entire article against all of the GA criteria, as it has not received a proper review. Why should I spend my precious free time on that? So you can get points as part of this disruptive drive for trophies? Sorry, no.

      If instead you mean reinserting the article in the nominations list, that is a possible outcome of this GAR if other editors agree. Geometry guy 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

      By reinserting, do you mean with its submission date priority? If so, yes that would be a good outcome. I guess that would be a determination of an inappropriate quickfail. Yes. that would be good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

      Yes I do, and that would be a good outcome. Indeed it is the reasonable outcome if reviewers here concur that the fail was inappropriate. Geometry guy 21:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – With all due respect, I don't understand why you suggest removing the personal life section. I strongly oppose this :) Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  That's nice, and you are welcome to express strong feelings here, but do you have an opinion as to the outcome of this reassessment? Geometry guy 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Geometry guy, I thought you now agree that including content that "he is from a family of competitive lacrosse players is relevant and on topic and helpful to the reader"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yes I do. What I am seeking is input from other editors on how this GAR should be closed. Geometry guy 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well it might get the ball rolling if you said in the normal bold letters that this should be closed as an invalid fail or something.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn and return to GAN with old timestamp. Completely and unequivocally improper quickfail. Courcelles 03:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Quickfail was improper; needs a full review. Ucucha 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist as suggested above, at the original timestamp. I am concerned that the article does not meet the broadness requirements of the good article criteria, but then again I'm not very familiar with lacrosse. I agree the reason specified for the quickfail is improper, especially since the short paragraphs were completely referenced. –Grondemar 21:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist with the original timestamps. It does appear that the article was inappropriately quick-failed. I would recommend that the personal life stuff be integrated into the background section as it does bear relevance to his sporting career. It would be good to expand the professional career section as that is what is important in terms of WP:ATHLETE. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Dhaka Residential Model College

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

Result: Delist per concerns, no attempt to answer them or improve article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This article should be removed from GA per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dhaka Residential Model College/archive1. It is POV, has many sources that say something other than the accompanying text. I have written down many examples on that page YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist As YellowMonkey points out, the sourcing is terrible. Many statements do not match the citation, and a lot of the article is unsourced. For the Alumni section, for example, we want sources that state that the person went to this school (other bits can be added once this is verified). However, many of the sources don't do this, documented as follows:

• Sheikh Jamal. The first source doesn't mention him attending this school, it cites something else. The second source does (page 7, which should go on the article) but is a badly written powerpoint presentation. (Not sure if this is allowed. Probably passes for reliable as it comes from the Bangladesh Awami League political party.)
• Tarique Rahman. First source is an account of a guy called Giasuddin Al Mamun claiming he went to school with Rahman. Second source goes to an empty page which says "Profile ....................... have to write." on his personal website -- so why is it even here? Luckily the third source is a report saying that he did go to this school.
• Shamsher M. Chowdhury. First source says nothing. So does the second.
• Abdun Nur Tushar. I believe both sources don't mention the connection.
• Mohamed Mijarul Quaye. Source says nothing.
• Dr Nizamuddin Ahmed. No strict connection, just that he handed out checks during a scholarship ceremony at the school.
• Shafiq Alam Mehedi. Second source nothing. First source is offline so cannot check.

So out of seven "alumni", 4 or 5 don't pass verification. The writing isn't so good either; a sentence begins "Some of which are open only to students in certain years..", lots of redundant "also". In Sports, it says "one of its players won the Man of the Match trophy", but the source straight after this has no mention of this. The whole article suffers from this problem; seems that half the sources fail verification. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delistper above—Aaroncrick ^TALK 07:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  It would be helpful if you gave your reasoning/justification with reference to the GA criteria - GAR is not a vote (polite reminder). Geometry guy 19:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

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

Result: Delisted per discussion below. Including the nominator and an active editor, there are five votes to delist, no votes to keep, and this discussion has run a month. This article needs a bit of work on the prose, a lot of work on citing the claims made in the article with reliable sources, and any factual dispute should be resolved before renomination. Aaron north (T/C) 19:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There are too many clean up tags on the article, The reception accuracy is disputed. The music/soundtrack sections look bad compared to (more recent) other GAs The_Dark_Knight_(film)#Music, Twilight_(2008_film)#Music, or FA The_Simpsons_Movie#Music. The lead has 7 references, and shouldn't have any, as everything should be covered in the body. The cast section needs clean up and expansion, note the first and third above mentioned films. More references are needed:

• The_Rocky_Horror_Picture_Show#Costumes The whole 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are unsourced
• this doesn't appear to be a reliable source.

Well ya get the point, just those from one small paragraph. CTJF83 chat 21:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist as original reviewer. Article no longer meets the standard, as the nominator points out well. Steven Walling 23:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say this should be delisted unless quite a bit more work is done on it. The prose isn't great (eg. "The film is considered to be...", "A first draft of the screenplay itself was posted on the Internet as well as the others"). I agree that there should definitely be more about the music, it's such an important part of a film like this. I started The Rocky Horror Picture Show (soundtrack) to allow some extraneous stuff to be moved there; I'm not sure the film article needs a track listing at all since we already have a list of songs included.

As for sources, I'm sure of the reliability of sites like godamongdirectors.com or crazedimaginations.com. I'm a little confused about a book cited called History of the American cinema. The googlebooks link provided goes to a book with a different title and author. Looking on Worldcat, there seem to be a couple of different titles possible, and two authors mentioned, so I think the book is ok, but the citation needs to be clearer.

I'm not sure about the "disputed factual accuracy" tag; there's no relevant discussion on the talkpage. It was added back in March with the edit summary "Cult following began earlier in Philadelphia at the TLA)" but no source is provided and the current version appears to be cited to a reliable source. Having said that, I don't have access to the source; it would be helpful if that could be checked.

The citations seem to have been removed from the lead. At the moment, the lead doesn't adequately summarise the whole article.--BelovedFreak 14:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the citations to begin working on the article and did some copy editing on it but I have not been back to complete the rest.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist In total agreement with original reviewer. As the major contributer that worked to get the review and completed standards needed to accomplish it I also feel the article no longer meets the standard and may well be difficult to meet those standards again with current instability. I hate to give up on this article, but it is an anniversaty year and may calm down in a few months.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delist The prose is not terrible. If that were the only problem this could be salvagable, and there are perhaps a few unsupported words to watch to deal with. WP:WTW However, as mentioned earlier this article is poorly cited, the accuracy is disputed, and the article is a bit unstable right now. Aaron north (T/C) 19:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Let It Be (song)

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

Result: Delist. The article has been improved but there is still work to be done on the lead and prose (repetition and trivia). Geometry guy 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been three years since this article received its good article status, and changes since may have put it out of good article quality. Hopefully, someone can clean this up enough to retain its status but, as is, I don't think it qualifies. The issues are primarily about verifiablity:

• Statement in the second paragraph of what countries the song reached number one.
• Statement about McCartney complaints about Spector's production (comment was sourced before but now it isn't?)
• Sections on film and anthology versions
• Versions used on bootlegs in the 'Unused mixes' section
• Placement or need of the number-one single succession boxes
• Worst of all, the list of selected cover versions
• A standardized style of listing references seems to have gone unchecked

Thanks. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note: There was a problem with the transclusion/templates for this GAR, so I have re-created it, on behalf of Starcheerspeaksnews (talk · contribs)  Chzz  ►  18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Be Bold, and fix it yourself. --andreasegde (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice. So I'll just delete everything that is unsourced. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Or you could find the sources! Cavie78 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Or you could. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, you brought this up by reassessing the article. You should fix the article yourself, as you seem concerned about its status. If not, you are giving us the idea that Wikipedia is now run by status policemen, who have the authority to complain about an article's status, but not actually do any work to fix it. You could improve your edit count rating (20,863) by doing something yourself. --andreasegde (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Shooting the messenger is among the most unhelpful of common human errors. This is an article that has deteriorated considerably in quality since it was listed in October 2007. In the intervening years the article has acquired cruft, unsourced and list-like content, and a lead which no longer summarizes the article, although there have been beneficial changes too. It is in need of some TLC. No one is obliged to provide that, and the article has clearly been neglected by many, but Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' kind offer to delete all unsourced material is already a step towards improving the article.

Be that as it may, articles which no longer meet the GA criteria do not remain listed as good articles, so if nobody does fix it soon, it will be delisted. Those who believe that this common-sense position is unacceptable are not obliged to participate in the good articles process. Geometry guy 20:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good, so now you (Geometry guy) and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars can both work on it. --andreasegde (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did. If that's not enough then the GA should be removed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Great news. I looked at it and you did a good job. Well done.--andreasegde (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Nicklaus

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

Result: Delisted per discussion below. This article passed a reassessment about 2 years ago, and at the time it was concise and well-cited. Since then, the article's size has roughly doubled, most of the new content is not cited, there are concerns about focus (3b), and the prose could be improved. This discussion has run for a month, no one has given a reason to keep, and including the nominator there are 2 votes to delist and no votes to keep. To the extent that the guidelines suggest waiting a couple more days, I am guided by WP:SNOW Aaron north (T/C) 22:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel this article does not deserve to have GA status as it has nowhere near enough references for starters and also has quotes with no references. I will list the problems below:

• "the fact is that he keeps adding to his legend, at the design table and in the business world. Despite a worldwide course development slowdown, Nicklaus’s design firm has over 40 courses in development around the globe...And he remains perhaps golf’s most respected spokesperson on a wide range of issues." This is a quote without a reference.
• An example of bad prose is "and the top 10 67 times".
• There is also another quote "When God created Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer, He turned to Nicklaus and said: 'You will be the greatest the game has ever seen.' Then He turned to Palmer, adding: 'But they will love you more.'" This has no reference

I will now put it against the Good Article Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is defenitely not capable of GA in my view anyway but it's up to everyone else. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 10:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Delist If the problems were limited only to the quotes mentioned above, I might be tempted to just look them up myself to help this article pass reassessment, but those quotes are only the beginning. I'm not extremely picky about citation, but there are huge areas of the article filled with uncited claims. The work that would be required to get this back to GA status would require a dedicated editor. That is unfortunate, because when I look at the version of the article that passed reassessment 2 years ago, the article was more concise and well-cited. In the last two years the article bloated out to expand about two-fold, but whoever added all that additional content apparently did not cite much of what was added. Whether all that added content was focused on the subject or unnecessary fluff is also debatable. Aaron north (T/C) 17:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its a bit of a shame to see the article now. I was the editor that did the main push to GA status, but after that it got a little neglected, since I haven't been spending much time here. I should go through the article and improve it again. Grovermj 11:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Khandoba

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

Result: Kept by Default (lack of consensus) This GAR has run for about 2 months with no activity at all since early September. There does not appear to have been an opinion expressed to keep or delist by anyone who was not involved with the article. There does not seem to be a consensus among the editors, so this reassessment will be closed without a change in the article's current status. That is not to say that this is a mindless vote-counting exercise because an incorrect or unreasonable vote to keep could be disregarded, but on the surface, every objection seemed to lead either to an agreed change in the article or was met by what seems to be a reasonable disagreement. A compelling reason to delist was not clearly expressed, and the article is not unstable. Aaron north (T/C) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Yogesh Khandke, User:Shakher59 and anon User:74.9.96.122 have disputed sensitive, caste and ethnicity based aspects of this article. See anons comment at the bottom of the GA review [2] and the talk page [3] [4].

I was notified as the GA reviewer for this article. Please note that the anon's comment should probably be removed from the GA review page, as the review is from almost 2 years ago and has long been closed. Also, I have no opinion on the "sensitive caste and ethnic..." issues of this article - I completed the GA review almost 2 years ago. The article at that point apparently appeared to me to be well referenced and well written (at least enough to meet GA standards). Also please note that the anon's comment on the GA page accuses the article of only citing information from one book - I must disagree as the article appears to reference nine different authors of as many different books. Other than that, I have no opinion of the article's GA status at this time, although I must say that bringing the article so quickly to GAR instead of the involved editors working through the problems on the talk page seems to show a bit of bad faith. Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Same or similar issues on a sensitive topic have been observed since July 22, 2010 [5]. I would gladly accept an accusation of bad faith over promoting as GA something that contains disputed material labeling an entire group of people in a negative way. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not portraying a group in the negative way, I had just trusted the references, which uses the word; that's why the quotes. When it was pointed that the words may be opinion of 1 author and RS were cited to back it, they were removed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure we can find many sources from a different era saying nasty things about, say, African-Americans. Can an article which uses those kind of words, verbatim from the source, be a GA on Wikipedia? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All references except Gazzeteers in the article start from 1977, not a different era. And a point to be noted: GAR nominator notified all parties who disputed the article, even the GA reviewer; except me: the GAN nominator and one of users who is part of the dispute. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not notifying you was a slip caused perhaps by the knowledge that you are and adept and experienced editor who's been around for many years. 1977 may or may not be a different era depending on your POV but all I can say is several users have disputed (quite strongly and persistently) the words you have used in this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Boomer, you are absolutely right, editors should work together to resolve issues. However 54 out 60 citations from two articles from just one book is still the problem with this article. Also wikipedia in "Words to avoid" guidelines specifically mentions the word "Cult" and yet this word appears so many times. 24.187.26.104 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear anon, please count again. About 20 are from the book edited by Hiltebeitel, although from two different authors' articles. Also, about the cult issue, please read [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Cult. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment There have been no comments on this reassessment for almost 2 months, and there appears to be no consensus. I personally have no opinion on this article. If no further debate or discussion occurs in the next 2 days, I will close this reassessment with no consensus reached. (which means, per the guidelines of a community reassessment, that the article would keep its current GA status by default) Aaron north (T/C) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Iran

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

Result: Kept - The concerns that were discussed were related to the reliability of the sources used. It appears that every concern about the reliability of the sources was answered. There was also a secondary concern expressed that the article was assessed and passed by an account that had only made a few edits. This is a valid concern, and ideally the article could have been reassessed in this GAR by a more experienced reviewer, but it does not appear that anyone had the time. The inexperience of the original GA reviewer is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to delist. Aaron north (T/C) 03:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry to bring another article to the community for reassessment, but I have no idea about this topic and would never choose to review it. However, I am a little suspicious thought that it was reviewed and passed by a brand new editor with (as of now) exactly three edits, after previous attempts to make this a GA without going through a GA nomination. At a glance, there are some dead links and I'm not sure about the reliability of some of the sources. For example, are these reliable:

• Payvand.com
• Press TV (see Press TV controversies)
• Shana.ir

I am really not familiar with these kinds of sources; they may be fine, but should be checked by someone. Also, I think some more citations to reliable are needed. For example to support the fact that Iran ranked as the world's 4th largest oil producer and 2nd largest oil exporter in the late 1970s, and its market of 300 million people.--BelovedFreak 20:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Payvand is a news aggregator. As such it is not a source. I have replaced the two links with the news agency cited instead. PressTV is like "CNN" for Iran. As such, it has its share of controversies but CNN and BBC have their own controversies as well. See BBC controversies for example. You'll need to be more specific so we can discuss it further. "Shaha.ir" is the official news agency for the oil and gas in Iran and as such can be considered a reliable source for data on Iran's oil industry. It is cited regularly by other major news agencies such as AFP or Reuters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.144.38 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 26 September 2010

Thanks for changing those aggregator sources. My concern with Press TV would be that it seems (according to our own article) to have questionable reliability and has been accused of bias and intentional errors. I accept your comment that CNN and BBC can also be controversial, but I'd like to see some other opinions on Press TV. I'm not convinced it meets WP:RS. I admit that I'm out of my depth with this topic, which is why I started a community reassessment rather than an individual one. Really, my concern is with the way the GA nomination was handled and would like to make sure the article gets a proper review by people outside the relevant Wikiproject. That's not to say anything bad about the wikiproject or accuse anyone of anything, but articles need to be reviewed by independent editors. Saying that "shara.ir" (I presume that's what you mean above & "shaha.ir" is a typo) is cited by Reuters etc, well that sounds good to me, that's a good indicator of reliability.

Thanks also for adding this source to deal with the {{Citation needed}} tag in reference to a market of 300 million people. There are a few problems though. Firstly, that source doesn't mention that number. Secondly, text appears to have been copied from there to the article. This is, at worst, a copyright violation and at best, plagiarism, unless the text was taken from Wikipedia by that website, in which case it can't be used as a source. Thirdly, if it hasn't lifted from Wikipedia, I still don't see how this can be a reliable source since in its disclaimer it says:

"The information presented does not necessarily reflect the views of UNIDO or of the governments of UNIDO Member States and as such is not an official record. ... UNIDO makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information. Neither does it warrant that use of the information is free of any claims of copyright infringement."

The text was added 22 February 2010. I can't determine when the text was added to the other website; it may need to go to WP:CP. If it was copied from the UNIDO website, then that makes me more concerned about the rest of the article.--BelovedFreak 10:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First regarding CP, Wikipedia expressely authorizes to copy "small excerpts", assuming the sentence was copied in this case. UNIDO copied from Wikipedia I would guess but I am not sure 100% either. Please note that economics is about facts and figures mostly and you cannot make those up as an editor so it has to come from somewhere necessarily. The point is that there is "no originality" here on the part of the Wikipedia editor. I read here that it is "not a copyright violation" if there is "no originality involved" which seems to be the case here. Regarding your comment about the "300 million market", the actual sentence is "..[It] gives [Iran] access to an estimated population of some 300 million people in Caspian markets, Persian Gulf states and countries further east." This doesn't mean that Iran's domestic market is 300 million. It only says how many people live in the neighboring countries altogether. As such, the statement is true. See Economic Cooperation Organization for example.

What is original and unique here in my humble opinion is that this article incorporates many reliable sources and by so doing gives a comprehensive view of Iran's economy. If you look at the edit history you'll see that the article has been very stable for a long time, eventhough this is potentially a very controversial subject. Finally please note that the article was evaluated by 4 independent editors as "GA" (unanimously) already.

By "copy[ing] small excerpts", do you mean quoting? The text that is the same is not presented as a quote, and hasn't had any form of attribution from February, until you added the citation yesterday. If that was taken from another website, then without attribution it's plagiarism, regardless of whether the text was licensed for re-use. I'm not talking about facts and figures being copied, I'm talking about prose. The website is not (as far as I can tell) 100% explicit about it's license for re-use, although it appears to allow re-use of its material. However, which ever way this has happened, if the website copied it from here, or vice versa, it's not a reliable source. It says so itself in its disclaimer. Whichever way you look at it, the source shouldn't be used.

As for the 300 million number, I wasn't saying that was a claim for the domestic market, I was merely requesting a RS for the statistic.

I'm sorry I don't follow your comment about four independent editors unanimously deciding this meets GA; I don't see four GA reviews, even in the article talk archives. Am I missing something? All I see is a GA review by an editor for whom the review was their third edit. To my uneducated (as far as economy of Iran goes) eye, the article does look good and it's an important topic; I have no problem with the article being assessed as a GA and hope it stays listed. I just want to make sure we do it right.--BelovedFreak 09:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Let's go in order: regarding your comment about PressTV, please feel free to point to facts and figures (or anything else) that you think might be wrong or biased. I personally don't see anything as they get the raw data either from the Government of Iran itself through its Ministries, the Central Bank or the Statistical Center of Iran. Please note it is the exact same for International Organizations such as the IMF statistics or other major international News Agencies reports. Things that might be disputed usually revolve around personal income data as there is no systematic collection of this data in Iran, eventhough things are changing because of the recent Iranian Economic Reform Plan. Yet, If you think a comment is wrong or biased, please fell free to point them out, as I can't find one (yet). Please note that this current review is not about PressTV itself, which is only one source out of many.

Regarding UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization), same kind of disclaimer can be found on many major news services as well. I don't think they are unreliable just because of the general disclaimer that you quoted above. UNIDO is a specialized UN agency after all. I don't think this single sentence matters much because it is self-evident for any expert on Iran's economy as explained above (I think). Please see ECO for a map and population count for this regional economic organization, of which Iran is a founding member. If you prefer, I can reformulate this sentence and/or simply refer to the ECO article itself (or just delete it). The sentence has no originality IMHO.

For the review by the "4 independent wiki-editors" I was referring to previously, please see the peer review, here and to the RfC that can be found here. For CP, I was quoting this notice: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.144.38 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2010

• I have no specific complaints about Press TV, I am merely asking if it is reliable. As I've said, this isn't my area which is why I started a community reassessment, not an individual one.
• I would be very surprised and concerned to see similar disclaimers given by sources that are routinely used as reliable sources here. I couldn't see one on the BBC website, for example. UNIDO may be a specialized UN agency, but the website disclaimer also says that "The information presented does not necessarily reflect the views of UNIDO or of the governments of UNIDO Member States and as such is not an official record". Statistics need inline citations to reliable sources (WP:WIAGA) and we can't expect that all of our readers are experts on Iran's economy.
• I see what you mean now about four independent reviewers, sorry I misunderstood. When you said "evaluated ... as GA", I thought you meant had been assessed as a GA through the GA assessment process. Anyway, that's not important here. (I don't mean their opinions aren't important, but it's the GA process we're focusing on now.)
• The notice you quote is about reuse of our material elsewhere, not whether or not we should be copying from elsewhere. Reformulating would help, but it doesn't address the issue of the reliability (or lack thereof) of the source. --BelovedFreak 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Here is an excerpt from the disclaimer of Bloomberg LLP: "YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SERVICE AND ANYTHING CONTAINED WITHIN THE SERVICE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CONTENT, SERVICES, GOODS, OR ADVERTISEMENTS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE," AND THAT BLOOMBERG MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE SERVICE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT, TITLE, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE." Same for BBC and the edit notice quoted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.144.38 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 September 2010

  Ok, I re-read it. :) My concern with the UNIDO disclaimer is where it's specifically saying "makes no warranties ... concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information." (my emphasis) I'm no lawyer, but in my opinion, that's not what the bloomberg one is saying, nor the BBC one. Anyway, have we established yet that its article was not copied from Wikipedia? Further up the page, you said "UNIDO copied from Wikipedia I would guess but I am not sure 100% either." We cannot use material copied form Wikipedia as a source. I appreciate your efforts here, really, but I feel like we're talking in circles now. BelovedFreak 18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to add that I personally don't know ANY source of information on Iran's economy as complete and broad and well documented as this article (and its many related sub-articles), either in free access OR fee-based, including World Bank and IMF reports.68.197.144.38 (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Weak Keep The primary concern which was expressed in this GAR was the reliability of the sources used. Making a good-faith assumption that everything else meets the criteria, I am not convinced that the sources are unreliable. The secondary concern expressed in this GAR is the fact that this very important article was passed by an account with basically no history. I agree that this should ideally be subjected to an individual reassessment by an experienced reviewer. I do not have the time to do that right now, and it appears no one else does either. I will bookmark this article and may reassess this myself sometime next year, but this review has run for a month. If there is no further discussion in the next few days, I will close the review as a keep. Aaron north (T/C) 00:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom Quinn (Spooks)

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

Result: Not Listed In a recent GA review the article was quick-failed due to criteria 1a. After about 3 weeks in a GAR, 3 uninvolved reviewers agreed with the conclusion of the original GA review. The prose needs to improve before a renomination. Aaron north (T/C) 01:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for reassessment because I didn't think the review was fair. I understand that Jezhotwells has reviewed many articles, but the user quickly failed the article on the basis of poor grammar, and did not seem to bother checking other fields against the GA criteria; did the user check to see if the images were fine? No. What about article stability? Verifiability? Broadness in coverage? No. I acknowledge my grammar is not perfect, but I wouldn't say it was poor; I personally felt a little offended at that comment. I have nominated 13 articles for GA over the past two years, and only 2 of them failed, but not because of grammar, but merely an issue with length of some sections. The user did not put the article on hold either, but I would have addressed the grammar concerns, copyedited it myself and contact another editor to copyedit the article within the seven days if it was on hold. The least I ask is that the other fields of the criteria are checked. I prefer not to wait another two months to wait for another review. Thank you. -- Matthew RD 14:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, the prose is poor. I was tempted to copy-edit, but reading through found the grammar to be very bad; I really feel that articles should be ready for review when nominated, and the reviewer should not have to fix elementary problems. Having failed one criterion comprehensively, there is little point in continuing a review. In my experience, enlisting the aid of a good copy-editor can take considerably longer than a week. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Looking at the article as it was when reviewed, the prose needed to be overhauled. Improper word use, grammar errors, and clunky paragraphs were found in many places. The examples listed in the review were only a sampling. There's good content in the article, but you would be lucky to find a reviewer willing to go through all that work on the text. So let another editor help you, and relist at GAN. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Uphold fail. The article would benefit from a rewrite. A number of the statements are not clear - "Fan reaction of the character were positive" / "Macfadyen was keen to explore the parts of Tom from within him for influence" / "In later episodes, a shift in consciousness starts to interfere with Tom's work, such as when he goes undercover to stop a renegade British Army major". The advice to seek a peer review is appropriate, and I'm pleased to see that the nominator has done that. SilkTork *^YES! 11:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Uphold fail The review could have been worded a bit more tactfully to not offend the editors and it may have been helpful to briefly run through the other criteria before failing. However, when the prose needs a lot of work, there is not an obligation to hold the review because that usually takes longer than a week. A GAN should also not be a substitute for a Peer Review. At the very least, an article that is nominated is expected to be almost ready with perhaps a few correctable problems that were not caught by the nominator. Aaron north (T/C) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead

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

Result: Delisted - This GAR has been up for only about 8 days, but there is a very clear consensus that the article fails on criteria 2, probably fails on 6a, and the prose arguably needs improvement. Including the nominator, there are 4 votes to delist and none to keep. Aaron north (T/C) 02:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sections have problem templates such as the "Plot" section which does have any references which goes one of the main points of a GA. As I am not to active with GA's I was hoping someone could reassess this article to see if their were any other issues with it and it it should be demoted. Peter.C • talk 10:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist, and this could be very difficult to fix before this GAR closes. The article clearly fails on criteria 2 with the large amount of unsourced content, and the out-of-date section (after release). I believe it also possibly fails on 6a, I am skeptical about the need for the non-free image "Left 4 Dead Director Intensity.jpg". Finally, this may sound odd for a 5,800 word article with 130 cites, but this article has a severe problem with sources. The article extensively cites the director's commentary on the software; every single citation from "Valve Corporation" is a primary source. WP:PRIMARY Primary sources can be used carefully when needed for simple data, but not for analysis. There is a lot of primary content used to describe the creation of the game, design philosophy, etc. Interviews and articles written in independent game reviewing magazines and respected news sites should have been used for that. The article cites one or more blogs (LFDblog for sure. Is kotaku a blog as well? if there are others I didn't notice). The use of a blog as a source is strongly discouraged. Aside from that, the article is rather long so I only sampled a few sections, but the article seems to be reasonably well written and appears to be NPOV. Aaron north (T/C) 00:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist overuse of non-free images and maintenance tags are the first two things that immediately come to mind. The images File:L4d filmic.jpg and File:L4DP.JPG are unnecessary. Additionally dead links should be fixed if possible, several references need updating to {{Cite web}} and in general the reference format is a mess, with publishers italicized that should not be, and multiple publishers written incorrectly (i.e. "Game Trailers" and not "GameTrailers"). The article could also use some copy editing and merging of one sentence paragraphs. --Teancum (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist: Un-addressed maintenance templates, including dead links dated June 2009, a large number of uncited statements, over-use of non-free images, poor prose, stray sentences. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg Kuro-chan

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

Result: Not Listed - This GAR was a quick-failed GAN. The GAR has been up for a month and the article clearly did not meet criteria 1a and 2. There were 4 votes to not list and none to list. One reviewer suggested holding off while a full review was finished, but there has been no activity or meaningful discussion in over 2 weeks. Aaron north (T/C) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Completing nomination for community reassessment on behalf of the nominator who did not agree with my quick-fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do not list. Poorly written; poorly sourced; overuse of poorly motivated fair use images. Ucucha 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Do not list poorly written; largely unreferenced, and what is, contain only bare links. Reception section does not focus on reviews and sales/watchership, but rather on spin-off merchandise. Clearly short of the GA criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Unless there is any objection I will close this tomorrow as upholding the quick fail. No reasons have been brought forward here for why this article meets GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to give it a longer review. The article has significantly improved since before the nominator was involved and the nominator clearly believed that I have done all that I can so far to improve this article. I think it is a good piece of work. Could you please review it, and if it is, please pass it. If it is not, what can I do to improve it? - since I added in the bones of an episode list he has been working on adding synopses. Because of this, I believe it is inappropriate to close this review prematurely. For clear English, romanised or translated episode titles should be provided, and the whole article needs a copyedit. The lead needs expanding, for writing about fiction, more reviews should be used in the reception section - the Planete BD reviews and the Manga-News.com reviews would be a good start. I've found that in general, watchership details of anime are difficult to come by. The fair use pictures have been reduced. --Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Above comments suggest that peer review would be appropriate, not an extended review here, which I note the GAN nominator has not responded to. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Has the nominator been invited to comment here? He may not realise that he may. --Malkinann (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - User_talk:Railer-man#Your_GA_nomination_of_Cyborg_Kuro-chan - and he acknowledges that the article has failed GA, and is no longer contesting the fail. If you withdraw your objection then this GAR can be closed. I am now going to France and will have very limited internet access for 12 days, so I won't be closing it. SilkTork *^YES! 06:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline - I'd like this article to recieve a longer review based on the GA criteria, not on the quick-fail criteria. The nomination was by someone new to the GA process, which according to WP:RGA should warrant a full review. The initial review and the reviews by Ucucha and Arsenikk above are out of date. --Malkinann (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The character list could use a cast listing for the anime. --Malkinann (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Do Not List - The prose isn't great, but the article was very poorly cited. A quick-fail was not an unreasonable decision, but if we have a reviewer willing to give a full GA review, I guess I'm fine with keeping this GAR open for a week after the review is finished. I am skeptical that this will ultimately pass. Aaron north (T/C) 19:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-open reassessment: While it is hard to find sources for the current epidsode list, I am doing my best. Other Kuro-chan pages on Wikipedia in various languages feature info on episode dates and other character information. Railer-man (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

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

Result: Not Listed As noted in the recent GA Review, this article originally failed on criteria 3a. The article has improved since the beginning of the GR. There are still a few problems with citation, and the coverage in the article is not broad enough to satisfy 3a. Aaron north (T/C) 17:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am starting a community reassessment for South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. I cannot do this by myself, but I worked on a few sections that needed editing. If anyone else can help me, please do so. Thank you. Railer-man (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As an occasional contributor to the article, I'd like to request that you withdraw this, because it's nowhere near GA status. There are still many unsourced statements, and many of the sections need expanding. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, liar. You didn't even look at it. 99.19.95.52 (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at it? I count at least four sections (Production and themes, Musical numbers, Home media distribution and Box office) that don't have a single reference. That's not acceptable in a GA. Other sections (ie. Awards and nominations) have few references. And is that really all that could be put together about the production of the movie? Surely there's enough out there for a decent sized section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do not list: recommend that the points raised in the review be addressed, citations be provided, copy-edit, get a peer review and when all points have been addressed renominate at GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Scorpion and Jezhotwells, the GA reviewer was right. The article needs a lot of attention. It doesn't need to be comprehensive for GA, but a film article without a production section, (particularly a recent film with a DVD commentary available) does not meet criterion #3. Two sentences put together from the IMDb crew list is not enough. The prose is not great and would benefit from being copyedited from someone unconnected with the article. One example: "The film ... condemns the practice of censorship, and demonstrating..." (tense doesn't match). There's no hurry to get an article to GA. I suggest trying to find some good sources and spend more time working on it, before taking it to peer review. Talking of sources, I'm sure a film as notorious as this has been mentioned in reliable books and journals.--BelovedFreak 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Do not list: This article clearly fails on criteria 2 with vast sections lacking citations. As noted in the GA review, the article has a coverage problem, so it fails on 3a as well. The GA review was correct, and it is hard to imagine that this can be fixed in this GAR. Aaron north (T/C) 18:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

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

Result: Kept per the long discussion below. All concerns seem to have been answered or fixed. Aaron north (T/C) 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the Pink Floyd article no longer meets GA criteria for the following reasons:

GAN Criteria

1) Well-written:

• Article deviates from MOS in terms of unsupported claims and peacock language throughout, the extensive use of quote boxes, music clips and pictures is distracting, text is sandwiched in places, most concerning there are many non-free use files in the article which lack useage rationale.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
• The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, wasn't, wasn't, can't, don't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

2) Factually accurate and verifiable:

• The article links to numerous fan sites and and uses dubious sources to support it's claims.
• Dead links in article.

6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]

• Several of the pics are dubious non fair-use files.
• Several of the pics are not needed and relate little to Pink Floyd, i.e. solo performance pics of Gilmour, pic of soldier field, etc...

I would like to see this article meet GA criteria again, but I don't have the time to edit it now. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article certainly has problems, but nothing major, I'm about half-way through a copyedit on it. I would like clarification on the following:

What unsupported claims and peacock language?

Which headings?

The ToC is fine, considering the length of the article.

Which contractions are used in the article body, and not quotes?

There are 295 citations, but you say "numerous fan sites and dubious sources" - which ones exactly?

2 deadlinks that I can see?

Parrot of Doom 23:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. It's possible that PoD has already sorted the problems listed above as I just had a quick look and couldn't find problems with the images, with contractions, with sources (if there are problems with certain sources it would be helpful to point them out), with section headings (there is one acceptable use of the band's previous name of The Pink Floyd Sound). The statements in the lead are supported by the main body and reference to reliable sources. As PoD has noted, the article can be improved, though it seems to essentially meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria. GabeMc mentions WP:WIAFA which applies to Featured Articles, and I wonder if GabeMc has taken this article for a FA rather than a GA - it is quite a common thing to do. SilkTork *^YES! 08:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think he copied and pasted a couple of points from the automated peer reviewer - it uses exactly that language about WIAFA and contraction script. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This article quite clearly meets the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Why are there pics of Gilmour performing without Pink Floyd in the Pink Floyd article, shouldn't they be at David Gilmour? Why is there a pic of soldier stadium? Is the use of the poster a copywrite violation? I think the overuse of quotes does not conform to MOS. Text is sandwiched. Too many non-free use files in the article to be GA. Are these unsupported claims? "philosophical lyrics" ,"international recognition", "innovative album art". "one of the best-selling music artists of all time" This claim is not even true: "the parties reached an out-of-court settlement allowing Gilmour, Mason and Wright to continue as Pink Floyd", the settlement did not inlclude Wright, Gilmour and Mason later asked him to re-join. This is not accurate either; "Barrett was soon removed, due to his increasingly erratic behaviour." Barrett agreed to leave, he was not removed.

The lede has several issues with accuracy and verifiability. — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• The first solo image of Gilmour is on his About Face tour, an album which he admitted he used to distance himself from Pink Floyd. I think it entirely appropriate that its there, although not crucial.
• The soldier stadium pic is there because it was one of the large venues they played at on the Animals tour. That tour had several notable incidents, and led directly to The Wall. Pretty important if you ask me.
• Maybe, however, if you think it is, this isn't the place to discuss it.
• You consider the quotes to be over-used, but unless you point to a specific policy that backs up your assertion then I'm afraid its only your opinion, and is largely irrelevant here.
• Where is the text sandwiched?
• What policy dictates the number of non-free audio files in a GA?
• You're seriously suggesting that Pink Floyd's early work isn't marked by the use of philosophical lyrics and quotes? That's a new one on me. What about the philosophies on life, death, time, on DSotM? The first result on a google search produced this link. I don't think its at all a contentious claim.
• Pink Floyd haven't earned International Recognition? Funny, their international sales figures would suggest otherwise.
• The band's album artworks form some of the most recognisable images in rock - I doubt you'd find anyone who would dispute that. Perhaps innovative isn't the most accurate word - what about "recognisable"?
• The settlement did allow the three to continue, in a general sense. Remember, this is the lead, not the body. Read the article, it mentions the legal problems.
• Again you're quoting sections from the lead, which is only intended as a general outline. Barrett's sidelining was pretty much a de facto removal. Parrot of Doom 22:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am sure if you are correct then it will have no trouble passing the GAR. However, a Wikipedia Good Article would not rely so heavily on unreliable sources to support it's claims. Below are some dubious sources that are used throughout the article.

• brain-damage.co.uk
• www.metrolyrics.com
• Neptune Pink Floyd
• viewauckland.co.nz does not link to the info it cites
• robertchristgau.com
• hypergallery.com

— GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is way too much detail per album, considering the albums themselves have individual pages. The albums should be summarized and wikilinked, not explained in detail. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with brain-damage, metrolyrics, or neptune pink floyd in the context in which they're presented. There's more to determining what is and is not a reliable source than taking a quick glance at it. Viewauckland is so obviously link rot, something you could have fixed yourself by either removing the claim it supported, or adding a dead-link template in the hope that it would be archived elsewhere. (btw, I've just fixed this. Took me 2 minutes). Parrot of Doom 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Suggesting that robertchristgau's website is an unreliable source is just plain silly, and hypergallery quotes an interview from Storm Thorgerson, and sells limited edition prints of his artwork, signed by the man himself. I think that qualifies it as a reliable source.

In short, I think your claim that these sources are dubious is somewhat beyond the pale. Parrot of Doom 23:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, if you are correct about all that, then I am sure it will easily pass GAR. — GabeMc (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• 10 box quotes is too much, and it's decoratve which WP:MOS discourages
• File:David gilmour frankfurt 2006.jpg and the information about the tour is not appropriate for the article and should be at David Gilmour, not Pink Floyd.
• The band members section should be integrated into the article.
• There is no need to list every album in the discography section.
• The ToC is to long and the article is a good candidate for summary.
• What justifies the extensive us of non-free use audio files?

• As per Manual of Style, specifically music samples "It is better to insert the samples next to a paragraph mentioning them to justify their fair use" — GabeMc (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• 10 box quotes is too many in your opinion and nothing in your link discourages the "decorative" use of such quotes.

"...and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use." — GabeMc (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Now lets quote the full sentence "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes)", which makes it clear that what you're quoting has nothing to do with what you're complaining about. Parrot of Doom 08:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Do the ten or more box quotes include "decorative" quotation marks in the body of the text? — GabeMc (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• The section is called "Post-breakup and Live 8 reunion (since 2005)"
• How?
• Not every album is?
• What GA guideline do you refer to with regard to the ToC, and what does "good candidate for summary" mean?
• Probably the same thing that justifies such use in the FA Frank Zappa?
• Is this really the strength of your argument?

• I don't really understand why you're spending so much time on this procedure, when given your knowledge of the subject you could have just discussed it on the article's talk page, and tried to resolve these "issues" from there? Parrot of Doom 08:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• The cite for this claim, and many others, is an unreliable fansite, "After the show Gilmour confirmed that he and Waters were on "pretty amicable terms". A clear WP:MOS violation that brings into question the articles GA status. — GabeMc (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just out of interest, in what way do you consider that to be a MoS violation? I'm wondering if you've actually read the GA criteria, in particular paragraph 1b, which outlines those parts of the MoS that are relevant to GAs. Malleus Fatuorum 12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:FANSITE — GabeMc (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • WP:FANSITE starts off by saying "This guideline does not apply to inline citations". It might be as well if you took the trouble to read it. So I ask again, where are the MoS violations? Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The contentious claim is sourced by brain-damage.co.uk, a self published fansite that does not meet WP:RS, please see WP:BLPSPS, WP:SPS. — GabeMc (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Please don't keep taking the piss by avoiding my very straightforward question and providing me with links to pages that I am clearly more familiar with than you are. I ask you again, where are these MoS violations? Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: the article contains unreliable sources for claims, uses images with a dubious fair-use rational, and the article deviates from WP:MOS in several ways. The wiki article Pink Floyd fails three of 6 of the GA criteria as far as I can tell. — GabeMc (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that I've answered just about every question you've posed, and you've ignored most of those answers. I really don't care if this article passes GAR or not, but you obviously do, so why not try improving it yourself? Or is that too much to ask? Parrot of Doom 09:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I think its fair to say that GabeMC raises several valid issues about this article. First and foremost is that it certainly does need some work, but I don't believe that presently it doesn't qualify as a GA. Its factual, well-referenced (despite GabeMC's objection to some of the sources), and generally in good condition. Could it stand to lose a few quotes, images, and audio files? Quite probably. Does it veer from the MOS? Not in my opinion. Is any of this a major problem? I think people know my view there.

• My final point is this - would I appreciate a bit of help to do this? Most certainly. I'm a regular contributor to this encyclopaedia, but my time isn't unlimited. I think I've made fairly significant contributions to the quality of Floyd-related articles, but I can't do it all by myself. So how about it GabeMC, will you help improve this article, or are you here just to make drive-by comments? Parrot of Doom 12:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• I'd probably pass this article with some minor revisions. The article is well cited (for the most part...), generally well written (certainly better than any article I have written by myself) and largely complete. It is, however, poorly organized, overlong and maybe too detailed. I don't have the knowledge base to take issue with specific sources, but I'll try and make some small improvements to the text. Gabe's comments about the images are worth noting. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

PoD, I would be more helpful but I have American versions of some of the books used, and I have noticed that the pagination of some sources seems to be different. For example,

• "...they became full partners, each holding an unprecedented one-sixth share." This is found on page 30 of my Schaffner, and apparently it's on 32-33 according to your cite.
• "… was the beginning of a realisation that songs could be extended with lengthy solos." According to the Pink Floyd article this Mason quote is found on page 30 of his book, but I can't find it on that page in my book.
• "The album title was chosen by writer Douglas Adams, and Storm Thorgerson once again provided the cover artwork" is sourced by Blake page 359 according to the article, but I can't find anything about Adams or Thorgerson on page 359 of my copy of Blake. — GabeMc (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I just checked the above cites and they're all correct as per my UK books. If you feel that there's information which should be added then by all means mention it (your page numbers will only be 2-3 different from mine) and we can include it. If you want to snip various bits, then lets discuss it on the article's talk page and see what we can do. Ultimately I'd like to see this article at FA, but it took a very long time to get it to GA (I re-wrote it from scratch), and I'm currently busy working my way through a bunch of 17th-century miscreants who tried to blow up Parliament. I still haven't finished getting all the Floyd studio albums to GA/FA, which is another aim of mine. Parrot of Doom 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, let's work out the pagination issue and work together on getting all the Floyd articles to FA. — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

One point now that it has been brought up. Was the 1/6th share really unprecedented or simply unusual? Protonk (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The source uses that term, which may suggest some quotations are in order. — GabeMc (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Question - Is this quote reliably sourced, and who is it quoting?

It was a very difficult period I have to say. All your childhood dreams had been sort of realised and we had the biggest selling records in the world and all the things you got into it for. The girls and the money and the fame and all that stuff it was all ... everything had sort of come our way and you had to reassess what you were in it for thereafter, and it was a pretty confusing and sort of empty time for a while ...

— GabeMc (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, gilmour. Parrot of Doom 08:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so, but how would the average reader know it? — GabeMc (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Originally it would have either been a named quote, or the prose would have introduced his comments. Parrot of Doom 19:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The article is written like a fanzine, and it is loaded with peacock language and there are also NPOV issues. — GabeMc (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Image licensing issues

There are potentially some issues with image licensing. Please do not close this reassessment right now- I will be taking a closer look this evening. J Milburn (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, looking now.

• File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg is a non-free image used to illustrate Pink Floyd as a whole. We have free images of the band, one of them should be used instead.
• File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg- it's not clear what this image is adding- it seems very decorative.
• File:Astoria (Péniche).jpg- the sourcing is all over the place
• The majority of the ogg files lack even an attempt at the rationale, and the very high number of them rings alarm bells.

Unless these issues are resolved, this article should be delisted. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's worth looking closely at File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg and reading the summary. The picture contains all significant members - and is the only known image to contain all of them. It is historically significant for that reason, and is irreplaceable. The other two images are not "essential" to the article, but are "relevant" and so meet GA criteria. Their use can be discussed on the article talkpage, but they do not impact on the GA status of the article. The ogg files are not considered as part of GA criteria, and so discussion of their use and the rationale for each are not appropriate here, but can be discussed elsewhere.

As has been pointed out several times in this GAR, there are concerns about the article, but the concerns are not related to GA criteria. People do misunderstand the criteria and feel that GA covers rather more than it actually does. It's worth looking at the criteria - Wikipedia:Good article criteria. There is also an essay which goes into detail explaining what the Good article criteria are not. SilkTork *^YES! 10:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Dear God. The lead image has to be of Pink Floyd. We have free images of Pink Floyd, so we should not be using a non-free one. Simple. The second image is "relevant", yes, but it's a non-free image- non-free images must meet our non-free content criteria. As you say, this one is not essential, so must go. The third image I am not challenging on NFC grounds, I am challenging on licensing grounds; until the licensing is more clear, it cannot be used. As for the sound files, of course they're part of the GA criteria. You can't have non-free content lying around that does not meet the non-free content criteria. Your attitude towards non-free content/licensing is not at all useful. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

All of my concerns, if you want to play the lawyer game, are related to WIAGA#6a. A file can not be considered "tagged with its copyright status" unless sourcing concerns are met, the sound files (which are non-free, whether you like it or not) do not have "fair use rationales ... provided", and you'll note that word there- valid. You can't just claim any old non-free content and have it promoted to GA status. We are Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Our policies on licensing and non-free content are some of our most important. We cannot go around giving accolades to articles that play fast and loose with them. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you don't have good points, but you are bringing your concerns to the wrong place. If you feel that there are aspects of the GA criteria that are inappropriate, then raise them here. If you feel that there are concerns with some of the images or sound files in relation to the article, then raise them here or if your concerns are about the files in themselves, then raise them here. What I am saying is that as regards GA criteria the files are acceptable, and this discussion is about if the article meets GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 01:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep IF the intersteller overdrive audio file is fixed or removed. There are some minor issues with the article, but I would not delist the article if one minor audio issue is fixed. I did not see the peacock language mentioned earlier, and I'm fine with the sources. Coverage is clearly not a problem. Regarding criteria 6, I am fine with all 3 images mentioned above. The lead image including Barrett is a historic moment for the band, irreplacable, and a very significant improvement over any alternative free image. I do not believe criteria 6 requires us to just arbitrarily discard the fair use rationale of the best image available when the alternative free image is far less meaningful. The UFO Club picture is not decorative, and I don't understand what the fair-use problem is with Astoria. All that said, audio files most certainly do fall under criteria 6 as well per footnote 5 (Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.). So, evaluating the audio files, the intersteller overdrive file appears to be broken, and I am not completely certain that we have a good reason to include the pigs audio file. The text isn't exactly clear about the meaning of "pigs", and I did not hear how the audio file did anything to convey what the caption claims as the reason for the audio file. It isn't like a noteworthy anti-war lyric or an exceptional solo like some of the other files, nor does it demonstrate a change in how the band sounds from era to era, so I don't see how that pigs audio file adds anything. Regardless, I am not certain that the file is merely decorative because I may have missed some significance, so I wouldn't delist based merely on that issue. Aaron north (T/C) 00:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and commented out the broken music file. Aaron north (T/C) 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment This GAR has been up for a month and a half, and it seems every concern was adequately addressed. The GAR was recently prolonged a bit by a discussion on criteria 6 concerns, but to me it seems that has been resolved as well, and there has been no meaningful discussion for about a couple weeks. If there is no further debate within the next few days, I'll close this as a keep. Aaron north (T/C) 05:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Norwood, Ohio

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

Result: This article was never nominated at GAN and was never listed as a GA, consequently a community reassessment of its status is unnecessary. I have removed the project GA class tags and informed the editor who added them. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have two reasons for requesting this review: (1) Large sections of the article are entirely unsourced; this plainly doesn't fit criterion 2a, and it likely fails others as well. (2) It appears that the status was awarded in this edit, purely on the opinion of one editor operating outside of the GA progress. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Justine Ezarik

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

Result: Relisted This article was originally delisted primarily due to 6a concerns with the relevance of the images. The individual reassessment was disputed by the editor so it progressed to a community reassessment. The community reassessment identified some fixable issues that were eventually fixed. There has been no meaningful discussion in several weeks, and at least 3 uninvolved parties have voted for a relist. There seems to be no compelling argument remaining to keep this article from being relisted. Aaron north (T/C) 05:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am challenging the propriety of the Talk:Justine Ezarik/GA2 delisting decision that was supposedly based on WP:WIAGA 2c and 6b. The bulk of the disagreement was based on a disagreement on removal of images from the article. I requested an outside party give a third opinion on the issue. The following are the image issues

1. File:20081114 Justine Ezarik and iPhone.jpg was stated that it "doesn't add anything"
2. three images (1, 2, and 3) in the 'New Media Expo 2008' box were deemed as not relevant because the text does not discuss them
3. two internet event images labeled as 'myspace party' and 'podcamp' were stated to add nothing because the text does not discuss their relevance.
4. File:Intel Insider Kickoff - Justine Ezarik.jpg was similarly described as adding nothing because the text does not discuss them.

The basic argument against these images was that "If the images are not depicting anything very noteworthy in the subjects career/life, which is what it looks like, then they should probably be removed."

• My argument is that "Ezarik is an internet personality and images of her doing internet related professional appearances is relevant".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also a disagreement about WP:PRIMARY in terms of two elements of the article that only have primary sources. The reviewer feels that primary sources necessarily mean WP:OR.

These are the only two items that led to the delisting. I do not believe either is valid.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't claim to be an expert on images and GARs, but looking at the article, I'd argue that:

• ...given that Ezarik is an internet personality, and the pictures relate to her doing internet activities, the argument that these are the equivalent to a sports personality playing in a particular game or match would seem to have some validity. The MOS notes that images ..."must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic"; IMHO, I'd say that these probably are.
• ...that said, there are a lot of pictures in the one section "Viral video career and Internet celebrity status" (six I think), and in terms of presentation, they might usefully be edited down to two or three - it does look quite busy at the moment.

Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am trying to interpret what you are saying. I am reading that you agree that delisting for irrelevant images was probably an incorrect interpretation of WP:WIAGA although you might prefer fewer images. Let me know if I am understanding you correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• You've interpreted me correctly! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• If you care to express an opinion that will count you would state in bold something like. "Overturn with encouragement to reconsider images (possibly specifying a number or two from the four above)" and state that you do not feel the images caused the article to controvert WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How are they related to the internet? As a reader, I don't know what a 'New Media Expo 2008', 'myspace party', 'podcamp az' or 'Intel insider event' is. I don't know what they are because they are not mentioned in the text.--Tempest429 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Her images are like the images in Manny Harris. They are all basically from games not mentioned in the text, but since he is a basketball player, we accept those images as representative of him although their significance is not explained in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, the images in that article are explained in the text. Basketball player x, played in league y, here is image z showing an example of one of those games in league y. The images in this article are just her standing in front of the camera. They add absolutely nothing by themselves. I feel like I am repeating what was already said at Talk:Justine_Ezarik#Images. If you didn't understand why it was wrong then, I don't think the chances of you understanding it now are any better. --Tempest429 (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Recommend Overturn with encouragement to reconsider the number of images (see below) and to improve captioning (see below). The images themselves appear relevant to the topic, as per GAR.

In detail: I suspect that we need to distinguish clearly the questions of the relevance of the image to the topic, and the suitability of the captions. Referring back to the GAR standard: "every included image must be relevant to the topic, and must have a suitable caption. Purely decorative images, such as an image of a butterfly in a psychology article about emotions, should be removed." also, "A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article."

a) As noted above, to me the images themselves appear relevant to the topic of the article, an internet personality.

b) The number of images in "Viral video career and Internet celebrity status" seems high. Given the length of the section, my advice would be to go for three; it were me, I'd choose ; ; .

c) Captions. The quality of the captions isn't quite GAR - too brief - but very easily sorted. I don't know anything much about Ezarik other than from this article, so play with the wording, but you could easily have, say:

• 20081102 Podcamp AZ.jpg: "Justine in her eJustine persona, speaking at a Podcamp technology conference."

• 20080815 New Media Expo at twitter.jpg: "Justine taking part in an online promotional spot for the web podcaster TWiT.tv."

• Intel Insider Kickoff - Justine Ezarik.jpg: "Justine starting the debate at an Intel technology conference."

That way, all would link back to a point in the text (her eJustine persona, and her earning money through online promotional events and technology conferences respectively). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How is a portrait of the subject with her hands open, or holding a glass related to internet activities?--Tempest429 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Intel insider event?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the portrait ones which have nothing happening in them.--Tempest429 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm just looking at the two issues mentioned above and making a good-faith assumption that everything else satisfies the GA criteria. I cant vote for it yet as-is, but I think this is fixable. Aaron north (T/C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Images - of the three images mentioned by Hchc2009, I am fine with the first 2, but not the 3rd. Given her "lifecasting" and youtube channels, an appearance speaking to an audience at podcamp and an appearance with a panel at the New Media Expo are both relevant. The other 4 images should be removed. We don't need more than one new media expo image, I don't understand why a face shot with a glass supposedly taken at a myspace party is relevant (what does she have to do with myspace re: the text?), and I have no clue why I am looking at her speaking at an intel insider event. What is she doing with intel? Looks decorative. Aaron north (T/C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

2. OR - I do agree that a primary source can be used when a good secondary source can not be found, but it can only be used for data (where were you born, how old are you, what is your job, etc). Saying that there are two characters and describing what they look like can be fine if done carefully. Describing eJustine's behavior and speculating on her motivation requires an analysis of a primary source, and thus OR. I assume you can't find a reliable secondary source, so I believe this flaw can be easily cured by removing the bolded text in: (In a few of her YouTube videos, in addition to her common persona as iJustine, she played the role of an additional character eJustine, who acts as a sort of antagonist against protagonist iJustine.) The sentence following that is a bit iffy (subjective descriptions of "normal", "wild", "strange-looking"), but that is pretty minor compared to the OR in the preceding sentence. (incidentally now that I notice, is it permitted to bold a subject's alternative name or identifier outside the lead?) Also, now that I step back from this one little tree and look at the entire forest, is this silly side-story with ejustine even relevant? Due to source questions its inclusion is problematic anyway, I might recommend just removing that whole thing and be done with it. Aaron north (T/C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Y This concern has been fixed. Aaron north (T/C) 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we are getting feedback on the photos as I had hoped in the original debate, I would like to understand why neither image with fellow internet personality Gary Vaynerchuk is considered relevant. I am removing the one with several unnamed subjects, but the The one with fellow internet personalities Vaynerchuk and Leo Laporte seems to represent something relevant. In fact, I am tweaking the image header to say the following: "New Media Expo 2008 images with internet personalities". Can I get some feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, that does make sense. I am fine with the two New Media Expo images with the title and captions as they are now in the imagebox. Aaron north (T/C) 16:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with removing all of the eJusting stuff and have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am travelling and don't have time to fully respond to the Myspace and Intel images, but she is widely associated with many internet and technology brands. In some of her more notable early career highly-viewed youtube videos she did painted the logos of several dozen brands on easter eggs one year. I am travelling today and do not have time to discuss further. Will respond later tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if an argument could somehow be made that the other 2 images are relevant to the article (and that myspace party photo doesn't even show her doing anything), there are 9 images in a 2,300 word article. I'd think that was more than enough, and if a couple images should go, those 2 probably have the weakest connection to the subject. Aaron north (T/C) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If I were to cut two images they would be the two that are currently in a Template:Multiple image template as the Myspace and Podcamp images. The intel images is the best image at showing what the everyday Justine looks like in the whole article. The first that I would chop would be the podcamp image because she does not often wear glasses. As I said earlier, she use to do videos linking her to many tech/internet brands and example is the Egg 2.0 video (I can not find the original egg video). I am going to remove the podcamp image because she just does not usually look like that, so the image is not really representing her.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose the myspace picture serves. Regarding the intel picture, I'd think that several of the earlier pictures are an example of "everyday Justine", and the intel connection seems weak when considering the text of the article in relation to that picture. Anyway, I would also be interested in seeing what others think of the images. Aaron north (T/C) 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If there were one remaining image I would not have trouble letting go, it would be the myspace one because it appears to be a social image. The intel image is seemingly a professional tech event, which I think makes it worth keeping.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to have more than one 'everyday' image of the subject. If the new media expo images are relevant, where is the accompanying text explaning what a new media expo is?--Tempest429 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, as far as the Blogworld and New Media Expo 2010 goes, the random "man on the street" might not know a lot about it, but within the realm of of bloggers, podcasters, and internet celebrities, there is not a bigger annual event. It is the biggest gathering of the medium. If Justine is expected to appear anywhere, it would be there. Perhaps it could be worth a sentence or two mentioning her appearance since the event isn't as well-known as the oscars, but I would cut a lot of other pictures (intel, myspace, etc) before I cut a picture of Justine as an internet celebrity standing next to Leo LaPorte. Aaron north (T/C) 22:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I just added some content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Until the above issues are fixed, here are some more:

1. The lead says she is a 'voice actress, spokesperson and actress as well as a former freelance graphic/web designer', whilst the lead is suppose to only list her occupations she is known for. Seeing as she has voiceacted in a one-off video, and had two guest appearances on tv, she certainly can't be known for that. Spokesman for who, or what? What notable 'freelance graphic/web designer' work has she done? Should all be deleted unless it can be justified.

   Agreed. Aaron north (T/C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   As I understand it, Annoying Orange is far more than a one-off.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   I changed the lead as well as cited the occupations. I believe that her role of spokesperson (for companies such as Mozy) is a result of her status as an Internet personality. Annoying Orange is a comedy web series, so her voice acting on that show is part of her being a comedian. Ezarik was only noted for being a designer because that was her major in college and her occupation during her lifecasting run on Justin.tv. Her work as a designer has not been noted by the media, so I removed it entirely. I may mention it in the lifecasting section. --w^{L<speak·check>} 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   At what point do we add actress to the LEAD given sources such as TV.com and IMDb.com?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

   I wouldn't think a total of two guest appearances would merit a first-sentence lead "she is an actress", but it certainly should be mentioned in one of the first sentences of the lead that she has appeared in a minor role on two television shows. Aaron north (T/C) 16:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

   Since she has only played two dead bodies so far, I think the mention at the end of the second paragraph of the LEAD is probably O.K. for now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Similar to first issue, she is in the categories 'American people of Slovak descent' and 'American graphic designers'. Need a RS for her Slovakian background, and as I said above, what notable graphic designer work has she done?

   Are the categories part of a GA review? I don't remember seeing that. Either way, removing a dubious category should be easy if necessary. Aaron north (T/C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   Categories removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Both above makes it fail criteria 1(b) and possibily 1(c). But I'd suggest you fix the images problem first. If you don't want to fix them, then this discussion can be closed and the article can remain as B class.--Tempest429 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Somehow this discussion fell off of my watchlist. I did not see the discussion for the last week and am just responding now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak Do not list I could change my mind on this, but this GAR has been up for a while and the criteria 6 image concerns I have are not yet satisfied. I also believe the lead has a small problem as Tempest429 noted above. Aaron north (T/C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please consider my recent response. This fell of my watch list for a week and it may have seemed I was ignoring feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is better now than when we started. I would still be interested in seeing more feedback from others on the use of images, but lacking that I still have 6b concerns on the myspace picture. Aaron north (T/C) 16:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not too averse to removing the picture of her at the myspace party, but also request feedback on just cropping out the drink to make it look more encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The drink isn't really the problem to me, I just don't see the relevance of the picture in any form. The event isn't noteworthy, and we have plenty of other pictures to show what she looks like. Aaron north (T/C) 17:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Image removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Relist All of my concerns are satisfied. Aaron north (T/C) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Only remaining issue is Image:Intel_Insider_Kickoff_-_Justine_Ezarik.jpg still has nothing to do with the content it is placed with no. No mention of what an 'intel insider event' is.--Tempest429 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added an article noting that Intel is a client of hers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't explain what the Intel inside event is. Might be able to use [6] if you could get a hold of the full article.--Tempest429 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What about changing the caption from "Ezarik involved in discussions at the Intel insider event (2008-06-24)" to "Ezarik, who counts Intel as a client, involved in discussions at the Intel insider event (2008-06-24)"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded the caption and text to reflect the link ref that you identified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Relist The last picture has a purpose in the article, as do all the others. Diderot's dreams (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dan Cocoziello

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

Result: Listed This article was originally failed due to 3a concerns. However, it seems the 3a concerns stem from a lack of information that is not available in any reliable sources. Failing an article for 3a when a source does not seem to exist is not consistent with the GA criteria. Making a good-faith assumption that the article would have otherwise passed per the review and minor fixes, there seems to be no compelling reason not to list. Aaron north (T/C) 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Much like the debate at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/B. J. Prager/1, this debate focuses on the comprehensiveness of a biography article for a professional lacrosse player. Lacrosse is a professional sport that gets minimal press. The professional career part of Cococziello's Google News search consists of three articles.

I will repeat the arguments made for Prager here. The average lacrosse player is very difficult to build a substantial article for because there is sparse secondary source coverage after college. I believe that there is adequate comprehensiveness given the subject matter. In my experience in sports bio GAs, a comprehensive professional career summary includes major records, all-star and award summaries, important playoff performances, notable statistical accomplishments, significant injuries affecting performance, notable transactions and extraordinary single-game performances. Unfortunately, I don't think anything is missing from Cocoziello's article. Thus, although the professional section is brief, it is comprehensive. This article is even more problematic because he is a defenseman and there are no scoring stats to speak of. We need to evaluate its comprehensiveness based on knowledge of and expectations of information availability. In this case, Cocoziello passes WP:N easily and we need to determine where the bar is for him in terms of comprehensiveness. Does anyone expect that his missing personal and background information will ever be available in secondary sources? I am seeking a relisting of this article at GAC with the original date priority.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I failed this on WP:GACR#3a as the article really contains very little information that gives a broad picture of the player. Tony has added a little more detail, but as he has only played 8 professional games there is, as Tony says, little information out there. I welcome debate amongst other editors here as I feel that we have differing views on the interpretatiion of criteria #3. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that he has only played in 8 games makes this argument stronger than the Prager argument. There is no encyclopedic content missing from the article based on all reasonably identifyable WP:RSs. Even if he had played a lot of games (like Prager), what is relevant is whether significant encyclopedic content is missing. This isn't a local fan site where every goal is news. This is an encyclopedia charged with the responsibility of summarizing notable career accomplishments. All are duly noted in this case so saying it fails comprehensiveness makes no sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and List IF the infobox is corrected per the GA review under 2a. (His weight appears to be incorrectly listed?) I am presuming the other criteria check out as noted in the GA review. The objections seem to be related to notability more than anything, but the subject is probably notable due to his college career. So, given notability, then for coverage we have to look not only at what would be expected in a sports article, but also what is available. Lacrosse is beyond obscure in the United States, it is virtually uncovered, other than some limited coverage of college players of elite college teams in the northeast. Looking at WP:WGN, I note that one "mistake to avoid" under criteria 3 is "Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources." I'll definitely change my mind on this if it can be shown that his professional career is covered beyond the bare statistics by anyone, or if it can be shown that there is a lack of coverage in his college career. Aaron north (T/C) 19:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weight fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Linux

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

Result: Delisted This article does not meet the GA criteria in its present state. There are 3 votes to delist, and there has been no meaningful debate to keep. Aaron north (T/C) 05:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• [citation needed] in intro.
  • Even though the lead is heavily cited in this article, citations are not usually required in the lead, because it shouldn't be necessary. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and no information should be in the lead that is not found (and cited if a citation is needed for the claim) in the article. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find where (Linux is the leading server OS, accounting for more than 50% of installations) came from in the article, so rather than a criteria 2 problem, this would primarily seem to be a criteria 1b problem. Aaron north (T/C) 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• [clarifiction needed] in "Unix" section of History.
• Unreferenced portions: "Unix" and "Current Development" sections under History; first two paragraphs of "Design"; third and fourth paragraphs of "Development" header and several more.
• Many one- and two-sentence paragraphs throughout. "User Interface" subsection in particular (under Design) is especially choppy.
• Many sources don't have the name of the work in them.
• "Three factors that have been cited to prevent large-scale Linux adaptation which are…" (under "Market share and update" subheader) seems like it should be just prose, not a bullet list.

Overall, the main issue is the quality of the prose. I think that it is in dire need of a copyedit, and maybe a trawl through the sources to make sure they're all good.

Also, I can't find the GAN anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the GAN was in Archive 19 Aaron north (T/C) 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Delist This article clearly fails the GA criteria for several reasons. The article definitely needs a good copyedit (1a), we appear to have a 1b problem in the lead, entire subsections are uncited (criteria 2), and we appear to have 3a problems where important details are vaguely hinted at but not expanded upon. Aaron north (T/C) 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the problem with "three factors" 1nt2 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also fixed problems with the User Interface part of Design section.1nt2 (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist The article currently fails GA criteria, including File:Samsung-i9000-galaxy-s.jpg which has no source, and it is not low resolution (fails criteria 6 and WP:NFCC#8). JJ98 (Talk) 02:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Denard Robinson

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

Result: Not Listed This article is currently not stable due to the enormous amount of content added after each game this season, at least until after this season. There is also a related 3b concern due to the minutia that has been included in the article. Aaron north (T/C) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This article was failed at WP:GAC in violation of WP:WIAGA. The reviewer statesd that the article was failed because of WIAGA section 5 concerns. Section 5 reads as follows: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]", where note [4} reads "Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."

This article is not the subject of either an ongoing edit war or a content dispute. It is a constantly evolving article that changes due to good faith improvements. It is no different than articles of Presidential nominees that have passed at GAC during the 2007-08 Presidential race (John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Articles evolve most rapidly when the subject is in the public eye, like this subject is. That does not make them ineligible at GAC. The reviewer should have followed the instructions in the footnote and put this article on hold because it is evolving due to constructive editing. I request that this article be relisted at GAC with its original date priority.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly a huge difference between listing an article where there is an event going on causing change (i.e. Clinton and McCain) and an article where 90% of his notability is still being played out over the past 4-5 months. After all, if you look at the article when it was nommed two months ago and now, it looks entirely different. Just that it's current is not the reason for failing, otherwise all those Michigan players could not be GAs, it's that the article keeps undergoing reconstruction, to the point that it is impossible to properly review the article for any prose/sourcing errors.

A more apt comparison would be if I nominated someone to GA status the same day that they were assassinated, and over the next month or so there were conflicting sources as to what happened. How is that article supposed to be reviewed properly? Besides, your co-nom has left a note more than once with the exact same concerns I just noted. Why would I put an article on hold for two months? That's stupid and not what the GA process is for. I maintain my stance that this article should remain off GAN, at a minimum, for the next couple weeks, ideally until Michigan plays its last game. If this is how actual concerns are treated, then I won't bother touching any more of your articles. I know the changes are in good faith. If it was perhaps a 1-2 sentence addition weekly, if that, I would let it go, but it's paragraphs of change each week, at a minimum, meaning it could have no issues one week, issues the next, none the next, etc. That's a stability problem no matter how you slice it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In terms of a hold. I imagine that there might be a reason to put this on hold until after the major college football awards are announced in about 3 or 4 weeks. There will not be much news after that that reallly changes the article. Yes, he may set a record or two in a bowl game, but the reason for the chronicle of games is that he is a Heisman Trophy candidate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do Not List This article is not stable, and part of that is due to the extreme amount of unimportant detail that the editors are throwing into this article every week. An old, solid subject with a significant amount of background going through good-faith current event updates during a review is one thing. (say, McCain during the 2008 election) This article is experiencing a rapid rate of growth. This season isn't over yet, and we already have what looks like 2,000+ words on just his ten games in 2010. At the current rate, the size of this article could be expected to double or triple by the end of his college career, and this article will be significantly altered in just a couple months. I would add to this the closely-related thought that the article likely fails criteria 3b. The sheer size of the unimportant, perhaps irrelevant trivia and minutia on his weekly starts makes this huge (compared to the subject) article read like a news source rather than an encyclopedia article. WP:NOTNEWS Imagine several years from now, perhaps this subject plays all four years with 2-3 paragraphs after every one of his 30+ college games, he is drafted in the first round, and has a successful first couple years in the NFL. At that point, it would be even more clear that the enormous amount of college detail is too much. Aaron north (T/C) 22:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg Kuro-chan

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

Result: Administrative Close This article failed both a GAN and a GAR. This article was resubmitted to GAR after revisions. The nominator was advised to re-nom at GAN, and they have done so. Aaron north (T/C) 05:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have greatly edited the article since the last reassessment. I've added more episode sypnoses, and expanded the characters section of the article. I believe this article is eligible enough for a reassessment. Railer-man (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Since you've substantially changed the article since its last review you should renominate it at GAN rather than request a re-assessment here at GAR. Additionally, you should consider eliminating or re-factoring some of the embedded lists prior to renomination; see WP:EMBED. Thank you for your contributions, Railer-man. Majoreditor (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Allah

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

Result: Administrative close. No valid reason for reassessment given. Geometry guy 22:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The way the 'holy' Qu'ran (Islamic bible) works, is as follows... When there is a question asked in the book, instead of giving an answer, it gives 3 accusations. The question itself represents a full moon. Then, when the 3 accusations start, each one leads to 3 quarters, then to half, then a quarter moon. When one finishes reading that section, one is left without an answer to the question and left in the darkness.

The reason why I state this is because I have experienced it for myself by reading the first page of the Qu'ran. Allah, by this proof, is indeed not ADONAI at all, for 'Allah' is truly a foreign god to ADONAI, and it is of the moon that is Allah's reign.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JT81 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless reasons are given per the GA criteria for listing this article here, this nomination will be closed. Geometry guy 10:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

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

Result: No action. There was a concern about POV. The reviewer called for a 2nd opinion, which supported the concern about POV. The view in the GAR discussion leans toward the article going through another review, and this would be appropriate as there is some disagreement and uncertainty regarding the POV. A full review in which an individual reviewer takes responsibility for the review would be quicker and more effective than a GAR, which requires a range of comments which tend to be slow in coming. There is a dispute regarding the amount of notice the reviewer gave regarding addressing the issues. It's worth bearing in mind the advice for a GAR: "It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it." We all go through a learning process; if a fellow volunteer on this educational charity project has conducted themselves in a manner that appears not to follow appropriate guidelines, then a polite, neutral comment pointing to the relevant guidelines is usually an acceptable course of action. SilkTork *^YES! 12:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This article was reviewed by Aaron north. Initially he had some concerns that seemed minor. He was concerned about the POV of a quote by a women's rights activist. I replaced the activist's comment with a quote from Muhammad.[7] I also added some info about Islamic traditions valuing women [8]. I didn't agree that the article violates NPOV policies (by being too negative toward Islam), but added these things anyway. Aaron north was concerned about using youtube as a source for info about women driving. I added an interview between Barbara Walters and the King as a source.[9]

The article also uses quotes from the Qu'ran, as an artistic and informative decoration. Recently, Aaron north decided that the "main (only?) issue is the use of the qur'an in the green comment boxes." He compared it to quoting the Bible in an article on women's rights in the US. I pointed out that US law isn't based on the Bible. His next act was to fail the article.

I'm the only regular editor of the article. Bless sins showed up when the GA review began. His appproach was to find problems, in my opinion distort the problems, and then delete text from the article. He argued that quoting the Qu'ran advanced the POV that the Qu'ran is anti-woman, although no interpretation of the Qu'ran is given (it is only quoted), and the Qu'ran is the basis for many customs regarding women. The fact is, the Qu'ran (like the Bible) is not exactly a feminist document. When laws are based on it, the laws are likely to treat women unequally. That's just a factual part of this topic.

So, my main objection to this "fail" due to bias is that the process was opaque. One minute there was the beginning of a discussion of quoting the Qu'ran and bias in general, the next minute there was a fail. The reasons for calling the article biased were never clear. Comparing an Islamic state to a secular one makes no sense. It actually reminds me a little of the "cultural relativism" paragraph in the Foreign Views section of the article.

I'd like to avoid renominating the article, waiting over a month again, and getting some unknown reviewer with unknown reliability and communication skills.Noloop (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last comment about this article and a very long and exhausting GA review. I think it mostly speaks for itself. Obviously NPOV was the most complex issue, and several people may come to several conclusions on NPOV and may disagree. Another reviewer who was willing to give a 2nd opinion also had NPOV concerns. Aside from NPOV, 4 other issues (under "comments" and the first 2 under "re-read") were also specifically identified on October 16, but were not addressed or commented on after a week and a half, so I think the fail was justified under that basis alone. I'm not exactly the toughest GA reviewer on wikipedia, I'm always sympathetic to the effort it takes to get an article up to be a credible GA candidate, and I have no inherent rooting interest in seeing this article pass or fail a review. If it fails, fine. If it passes on reassessment, I'll take that as a learning opportunity to discover what I should and should not do next time. Aaron north (T/C) 22:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume the subject of reassessment is ultimately the article, not the reviewer. Still, having put an enormous amount of time into this, it irks me to see factual misrepresentations of the review. The article was put on hold for a week, and then failed four days later.... There were not 4 issues presented as reasons to fail (there was nothing clearly and definitely presented as a reason to fail), and I did comment on and/or fix some of the matters mentioned. I did add a source for the claim sourced to youtube. I did change the quote people objected to. I did comment on the NPOV issues. I did add to the article's mention of Islamic traditions valuing women. Mainly, what is needed from a review is clarity. This was last comment on NPOV before failing: "I think I am going to change my mind on NPOV and say we have a problem. The 2nd opinion also suggested failing the article now, but I'd rather give the editors a fair chance to fix the issues." What, exactly, needed to be fixed? Do the Qu'ran quotes have to be completely deleted? Trimmed? Or what? Nothing was said except 1) there's an NPOV problem, 2) you have a week to fix the problem, and (four days later), 3) "fail". Noloop (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I started a thread on the NPOV noticeboard: [10]. Noloop (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment The reviewer prematurely closed the review before his explicitly stated hold deadline. The article simply wasn't on hold for seven days. The reviewer stated that the review was "long and tiring", which may explain the reason why he prematurely closed it, he was tired of it. When a reviewer doesn't want to continue a review, the best thing is to find someone to take over at the talk page at GAN.

Perhaps this is still the best solution. The nominator could renominate at GAN, and the reviewer could ask someone to take it up atWikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations. -- Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The review was a week and a half. Four other minor objections unrelated to NPOV were ignored. Another editor and a 2nd opinion both agreed it had NPOV problems. At least two, and possibly three other uninvolved people in that link mentioned above by the nominator on the NPOV notice board have now basically agreed with that view as well. It became clear that the the qur'an quotes were not going to be removed, we were at an impasse, and waiting four more days was going to be pointless. The editor was given plenty of opportunity to satisfy these concerns, and the review was not unfair. Aaron north (T/C) 05:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that there was an impasse making further discussion pointless. The conversation could have been continued and maybe should have. At least you could have waited to see if the nominator changed their minds. Sometimes they do a the last minute. And not tackling minor issues while major ones are being discussed is common during a review-- its not a clear sign or anything. So I just disagree that the nominator got their fair chance. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• It likely would not have happened in this case, but you make a good point. Aaron north (T/C) 02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's really hard for me to know what Aaron north is talking about. The review did not last a week and a half. He said he wanted a week for further developments, and then failed it four days later. This comment is completely out of left field, from my persepctive: " It became clear that the the qur'an quotes were not going to be removed, we were at an impasse." It was certainly not made clear that the only solution Aaron north would accept was complete removal of the quotes. He never said that. He expressed concern that they were a problem. It was certainly not clear me that we were at an impasse. I thought were discussing it, presumably with an open-mind. He made one comment (comparing the Qu'ran to the Bible). I gave a contrasting view, and then he failed it. It is certainly a controversial matter (( I missed part of the discussion at the NPOV board...I need to trim my watchlist), but that's beside the point. The point is the completely lack of sincerity in communication by the reviewer, the somewhat imperious manner is proclaiming an "impasse" (not clear to the main person involved in said impasse, namely, me) and then failing it. Since this is becoming a popularity contest, note that there was a peer review immediately preceeding the GA review, and that reviewer didn't object to the quotes.

As for the substance of the matter, what I would like something more succinct than a popularity contest. I'd like the objections to make sense to me. The only implication of quoting the Qu'ran in an article on Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia is that the Qu'ran is a significant factor in women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Which it is. The other "implications" that people are finding just seem like their POV. Maybe a common POV should be a factor an editing, but I'd like a more open-minded process than what has happened so far. Frankly, I think the article failed because 1) the reviewer is afraid of controversy, being perceived as culturally insensitive, etc., and 2) The method of quoting of the Qu'ran is unusual. Noloop (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The need here is very simple. The article was failed because the quote boxes for the Qu'ran were deemed a violation of NPOV. All I want is a succinct explanation of how they violate the NPOV rules. The only implication of the quoting that I see is that the Qu'ran is a significant part of the topic. I don't see how the quotations prevent the article from being a good article. So, I'd like an explanation. Noloop (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• including the review and the NPOV noticeboard, five different people have now said the verses should be removed. Some have worded it differently and some have given slightly varying reasons why this is not NPOV, but generally it seems the opinion is that there is not a direct enough link between the religion and "women's rights in Saudi Arabia" to justify prominently highlighted quotes. It seems the qur'an is being coatracked into the article to cast it in a negative light. WP:COATRACK Aaron north (T/C) 02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is objectively stupid to say there is not a direct link between religion and women's rights in Saudi Arabia. No Saudi says anything like that. They all say the opposite. They may say that what they object to is women's rights under tribal customs, rather than Islam, but absolutely nobody says that religion isn't major. To say otherwise is completely wrong, it contradicts repeated statements in the article that are sourced to women, to activists, to clerics, to government officials, to Western experts. It is an Islamic state. If you actually read that article as part of your review, you know perfectly well that religion is intrinsic to the topic. The lead quotes a female Saudi journalist stating "we are not asking for...women's rights according to Western values or lifestyles....We want things according to what Islam says." And that theme never stops. But regardless of all this, the problem is not your conclusion per se, but the complete lack of any kind of discussion, open-mindedness, or communication about the GA process. You just abruptly failed it. Only now have you stated that you (apparently) required the quote boxes to be removed. Only now have you stated there was an impasse; during the review, I had no idea you thought there was an impasse. During the actual review you merely stated there was a problem, said there'd be a week to work on it--and then failed the article four days later. So again, can we please have a discussion based on reason rather than popularity contests and opaque processes? WHY do the quote boxes prevent the article from being a GA? Why do they violate NPOV? It is absurd to say "Because they aren't related to women's rights in Saudi Arabia." Saudi Arabia is ruled by Islam. Noloop (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't personal to me. Seriously, it is not. Quite frankly, I liked the article overall and I would have liked to see it pass, but for what I thought was an irreconcilable disagreement on NPOV. I would have voted to overturn and list in this GAR if my concerns had all been fixed. Maybe it would have been better to have given it 7 days, but given that you have now called my opinion (and also I guess the opinion of 4 others) "objectively stupid", its now a moot point because it is obvious that we are at an impasse. Perhaps it wasn't obvious then, but it is obvious now. I'm done commenting on this, I will not vote, and I cant close this GAR because I'm obviously too closely involved. If other people want to vote to list, vote not to list, and/or close, it makes no difference to me. Aaron north (T/C) 06:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• List as GA. I'm just not seeing the POV problems that others claim to exist, and the quotes from the Qu'ran seem appropriate and well chosen to me. The usual test for NPOV is whether you can discern the pov of the author from the writing, and I think that in this case the editors responsible have by-and-large done a good job in marshalling and presenting their facts on what is, after all, a situation that the overwhelming majority of non-Saudis would undoubtedly consider to be unacceptable. Indeed the article would very likely have to swing rather more towards the ultra-conservative view than it already does to balance the inherent bias in most of its readers. There are a few small things I'd like to see fixed though:
  • We're told twice that Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Barrak issued a fatwa that proponents of gender mixing should be killed, once in the Background section and then again in the Change section.
  • We're told at least four times that women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
  • I'm unconvinced by the Miscellaneous section, which looks like it was added on as a bin for a couple of facts that a place couldn't be found for elsewhere. I'm not sure what female circumcision has to do with womens' rights anyway, particularly as it seems mainly to be practised by African immigrants. Couldn't the bit about the discouragement of female sports be included in one of the Education sections? Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No action I don't think we can list the article as GA. Whatever one thinks about the Koran quotes, there are two other significant problems:

• The lead has no summary of the last major section, "Foreign views", violating (WP:LEAD).

• Two of the references are large documents with no pages numbers for the specific citations. "Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences:MISSION TO SAUDI ARABIA", is 27 pages long and the "The Global Gender Gap Report" is 205 pages long. 10 citations come from these sources.

Noloop has quit Wikipedia (going so far to think of a way to do it and make it impossible to resume editing under the same name), so no one it seems is going to fix them.

I would support the fail of the article, but the reviewer shouldn't have closed the review early after putting it on hold for 7 days, explicitly stated. And no action by the nominator after the fact can prove what the nominator would have done if he had been treated fairer.

The contested Koran quotes seem to me to be some sort of background atmosphere. They are not directly relevent to the section they are in-- the rights discussed don't seem to come from the corresponding passage from the Koran. I think the nominator is just trying to make a superlative article, an interesting and attractive piece-- much like a feature article in a magazine. In fact, I could see this article in a magazine without anyone saying that it's biased (The lack of any mention of foreign views in the lead also indicates to me that the nominator is not trying to malign Islam or anything like that).

I have seen like-minded editors nominating articles before. They can be stubborn about their creations, and direct and even uncivil in their interactions with reviewers. Until this reassessment, I wouldn't say the nominator went as far as being uncivil. Calling the reviewer's opinion stupid as they did here, is.

These last bits are just commentary rather than opinion towards being a good article. But maybe if both parties thought more about the other person, the different person on the other end, they could communicate with each other better. Things might have gone more smoothly. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. A look at WP:QUOTE#Overusing quotations might be helpful. I realize this is not a guideline, but the Quran quotations do not seem to be imbedded in any explanation of historical background, or directly touched upon in the text. Noloop says above that he sees the quotes "as an artistic and informative decoration"; I don't think that's enough to warrant their inclusion. The women's dress template belongs to the bottom of the article, not at the start of a subsection. Moved that dress footer to bottom. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Line Mode Browser

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

Result: No action. A GA review took place in November during which several issues were noted and the article was failed. The nominator felt more time should have been given; however, over a month later and the article still does not meet GA criteria - which is a clear indicator that the fail was appropriate. The nominator has been advised to attend to the issues raised during the review and then renominate. This appears to be an appropriate course of action, and is the one advised on the GAR page: "It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it." SilkTork *^YES! 13:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I nominated a few weeks ago the Line Mode Browser article for GA. Malleus Fatuorum failed the article immediately a few days ago (in Gyrobo and my mind) with only smaller issues. The article should have been set on hold and everything can/could be corrected. On the other hand there was a small discussion about a technical part that couldn't be solved (portability of the browser). mabdul 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You would probably be better off fixing everything noted in the GAN and then re-nominate. I agree that in this case it may have been ideal to give you a 7-day hold, but that is not a requirement. If this was an article that was good but for one minor incorrectly-interpreted criteria that would be one thing, but there were several little issues that you were not given an opportunity to fix, so you are basically looking for another complete review from the ground up. Unless someone here has the time and expertise to do that, you may be better off going back to GAN. Aaron north (T/C) 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I fixed everything! On the links he criticized of verifiability he didn't give any comments if he didn't looked correctly.
  • And the second part is if the browser should "the Line Mode Browser" or "a Line Mode Browser" or only "Line Mode Browser" or whatever.
  • and last but not least a technical with regards to content difference. (portability) mabdul 05:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • We didn't immediately fix all of the issues identified because we contend that some of those issues (like the correct way to describe the name of the browser) are not problems at all, but valid prose.
      --Gyrobo (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I had, and still do have, several serious concerns about this article, sufficient to have persuaded me that the work required could not reasonably be undertaken within the seven-day holding period; I note that it has not yet been done. In particular, the article makes several claims that are not backed up by the sources cited, and the extrapolation is sometimes quite subtle. I gave some examples in the review, but here is another I've just spotted:
  • The article says "The Line Mode Browser has many problems recognizing many character entities (like  ). It does not properly collapse excess whitespace in the HTML code, and has no support for tables or frames."
  • The source says "The version I tried at a library recently was pretty backward; it didn't recognize many character entities (like  ), didn't properly collapse excess whitespace in the HTML code, and had no support for tables or frames".
  • I have two problems with that. The first is that the wording is really too close to the original, verging on plagiarism IMO. The second is that the original author was describing a version he had encountered in a public library, with no indication as to when or which version that was. It may be that the problems he encountered were fixed in a later version, who knows, but the extrapolation of that experience with one unspecified version to the line mode browser in general cannot be justified. I'd say that there's also a question mark over the reliability of that source in any event. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've changed the wording in response to your concern.
      --Gyrobo (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • But you appeared to have ignored my concern over the reliability of the source. And I have similar concerns about several of the other sources. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
        • The source is written by Dan Tobias, who I believe meets the qualifications of being a valid self-published source.
          --Gyrobo (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
          • It's clear that we are not going to agree, but other reviewers may be more sympathetic to your position than I have been. Time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • FWIW I don't consider your change to be much of an improvement, although it has avoided the apparent plagiarism. To say "The Line Mode Browser has had problems recognizing character entities, properly collapsing whitespace, and supporting tables and frames" is of no more value than saying that Internet Explorer has had problems with cascading style sheets, and still does. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I still don't see what the problem is, then. Claiming Internet Explorer has historically had problems with CSS is helpful, because anyone who reads it and tries to find problems with IE will know which areas to look at first. It would be more helpful to point specifically to a particular CSS property or module, and I think the claims made about whitespace, entities and tables/frames is very specific and encyclopedic.
          --Gyrobo (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Not unless you can be specific. Which version(s) of LMB have had problems with collapsing whitespace, for instance. All of them? Does the present offering still have that problem? Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
            • The changelog mentions a bug fix for collapsing whitespace in version 1.2a, but I don't think it's possible to get more information than that. On topics like this, there aren't going to be very many secondary and tertiary sources, and the level of detail you're looking for may never be possible. Comprehensiveness is a quality of featured articles, while good articles only have to be broad.
              --Gyrobo (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
              • As the author of this reference Daniel R. Tobias posted that he created the page initially on 24 September 1998 - the library he tested the LMB version had to be on of the first from 1992 (I do think this is very unlikely). So there is the possibility that the up-to-date LMB has this bug (since the changelog doesn't say it other) - I could test it but that would go against WP:OR. Alternatively the whole sentence could be striked although I don't think that would be good. mabdul 22:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Good articles have to be accurate in their coverage, and cover their subject's main topics. This article does neither. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a reference that shows that the LMB was popular and that it had no chance against Mosaic. Maybe this reference changed on of your (Malleus_Fatuorum) main concerns. mabdul 09:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but not one large enough to alter my judgement. Here's another example for you: the lead says "The browser is very portable and could be ported to any operating system." What the first of the two citations says is that "Technical student Nicola Pellow wrote a simple browser which could be used on many different computers", quite a different kettle of fish; "many" is not a synonym for "any". The browser clearly couldn't be ported to an OS lacking a (ANSI?) C compiler, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Travis Tritt

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

Result: Endorse fail. The article has received a thorough GAN review, raising substantial issues concerning the GA criteria, which have not been addressed. In particular there are 3a/3b concerns about unnecessary detail and coverage, as well as problems with the prose, and the lead. In addition the Musical Styles section is almost entirely sourced to his autobiography, and the infobox image has been deleted as non-free. Placing articles on hold is optional, and entirely at the reviewer's discretion. Geometry guy 23:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that Cavie78's nomination was far too nitpicky. First, it's obvious to me that the reviewer overlooked the footnote at WP:WIAGA saying "This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." The article may not expound on everything that it possibly can, but I fail to see how it's any less detailed than other GA-class articles that I worked on, such as Joe Diffie or Clay Walker. Almost all of the things that Cavie78 raised don't seem like they're crucial to GA. To wit:

• "Why was Davenport interested in working with him?" — checked through Tritt's autobio, which covers the Davenport relationship in detail but doesn't explain why Davenport was interested in working with him.
• "Why did Tritt leave Warner/Columbia?" — found this for Columbia but extensive search finds nothing covering his split from Warner.
• "What has Tritt been doing since 2008?" — Fallen off the radar. Gnews and Gbooks, plus sites such as Country Standard Time, say nothing at all about him after 2008.
• "Why has Tritt worked as an actor?" "Why was he involved in these films in particular?" — Now where am I gonna find answers to that? He covers the acting career some in his autobiography but never gets into any sort of detail as to why.
• As far as the lack of negative press, I think that the middling album reviews are pretty much the closest thing he's ever received, besides the non-feud with Billy Ray Cyrus (which wasn't in the article when nominated).

Furthermore, while Cavie78 did raise several grammar and syntax issues, it would hardly have taken me any time at all to fix them had he just put the article on hold instead. tl;dr: I think this needs a second opinion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the issues TenPoundHammer mentions above are simply four questions that I asked as the lack of information seemed odd. The reasons why I actually failed the article are dealt with in the 'Major issues' section of the GA review. Cavie78 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of content beyond his musical aspects, I searched all over and found almost nothing at all about his personal life or artistic development toward the albums. He also doesn't seem to have had any notable TV performances or awards beyond the ones listed already. Either way, I still think that topics like that would fall under "significantly weaker than comprehensiveness" anyway, and I'm really looking for a second opinion here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth (I'm responding to a Village Pump request for more people to get involved in the discussion), the article doesn't seem very good to me, although I am not an expert on WP's "good article" thing. The intro gives too many details without a general assertion of why the guy is important. The article itself also goes into too much about each record he has released. The information is in the article but it would be much more "reader-friendly" if it gave an overview of his life and career and listed the records at the end. Also a general reader, who was not a special fan of Mr. Tritt or a country music insider, would not be interested in details of record contracts, etc. Borock (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. If I had been a reviewer I would have put it on hold, but what Cavie78 did was within the reviewer discretion. I also noticed that wrong dashes are used: it should be 1991–1992 (unspaced ndash), but not 1991 – 1992 (spaced ndash) in ranges; either unspaced mdash or spaced ndash should be used, but not spaced mdash (in the lead). Ruslik_Zero 13:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Do not list. There are innumerable problems with this article that remain unaddressed. Like Ruslik I'd probably have put it on hold rather than fail it outright, but the article in its present state does not meet the GA criteria in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Care to tell me how it's any less substantial than Clay Walker or Joe Diffie? I'm not seeing it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned with other articles, only this one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Moir

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

Result: Endorse fail. Manifestly fails 3a, as well as having problems with sourcing and prose. I have noted close paraphrasing issues on the reassessment talk page, but where the article deviates from the source material, it seems to introduce errors or suggest unsourced conclusions: "dropping molten lead through a sieve at the top of the tower and by the time it hit the water at the bottom it was cold and spherical in shape" (a "sieve"? "cold"?) and "The date on the token is 1850, but this is the date of the establishment of his business" (and only one possible explanation). Geometry guy 23:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The GA nomination for this article was declined, and the sole reason given was that it was too short. The reviewer referred to GA criterion 3a. However, this criterion explicitly allows shorter articles (footnote 3). So the reason I would like to put this to a community review (apart from getting this article to GA status) is for the community to make a judgement on the correct interpretation of criterion 3a. What is the minimum length for a GA article? Is there one? In any case, I thought this one would have made it. StAnselm (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• StAnselm is incorrect. The article was not failed because of its length but because it does not cover the major topics of its subject, GA criterion 3a. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do not list The article does not cover major aspects of the subject, and as a result is extremely short. If this is as much as you can write about him, then I would seriously consider merging it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What major aspects does it fail to cover? StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me reword that. While it may touch on major aspects, it does not delve into them very much. For example, there is nothing about his education or what influenced him to build. There must be more information about him; I suggest you have a look in your local library's archives. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Adabow and Malleus are correct. There are important aspects of the subject's life which aren't covered by the article. For example, one source mentions discusses a portion of Moir's life by saying:

A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street.

Ommissions like this mean that the article does not currently meet criterion 3a. Not to fret; with a small amount of work the article can be expanded to cover all major topics and will be able to meet GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)