Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 14

< Wikipedia:Good article review
Archive 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 15 Good article review (archive) (Page 13) →

To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion.


Pyrite

Result: 3 to 0, delist

Not one sentence is sourced and isn't it too short? Chaldean 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a lead almost as long as the rest of the article, it doesn't seem very summaryish at all, Delist. Homestarmy 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Teemu08 20:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folk music

Result:Speedy delisted

I don't know where to start with this article, so I'll let it speak for itself. Warned by Agne four months ago. Teemu08 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, and if nobody objects, i'll delist it myself some time tomorrow, that seems like pretty fair warning. Homestarmy 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist tomorrow. There's a good few articles warned by me 5 weeks ago that could do with delisting soon also.LuciferMorgan 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've delisted it. Homestarmy 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Star

Result: 4 to 0, delist

Not one line is sourced. Chaldean 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Battuta

Result: 3 to 0, delist

Only one sentence is sourced. Chaldean 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sentences like this "It is perhaps of no surprise to the reader that Ibn Battuta talked his way into this expedition, his first beyond the boundaries of the Islamic world." that make me think it should be no surprise that I support Delisting this article. It's not all written that obviously un-encyclopedic the whole way through of course, but there's plenty of dramatic wording that a cleanup should probably fix. Homestarmy 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

result:Keep 4-1

I love The Beatles. That said, there are a whopping thirty-seven {{fact}} tags in this article, as well as an {{unreferenced}} tag atop "Musical evolution". There are also six external jumps and too many external links. Beatlessullivantogether.jpg, Jk beatles george.jpg, and Jk beatles ringo.jpg need fair use rationales. "Instrumentation" mostly just lists the instruments The Beatles used, without indicating when they used them (that section doesn't add much to the article, so it may be better to just delete it). Also, I don't know whether this is a standard or not, but shouldn't all of those {{main}} tags be followed by a brief explanation of what the subsection is about? I wouldn't even have a clue that the "Love" subsection was about Cirque du Soleil if it weren't for the disambiguation. Some citations of websites are not properly formatted. All in all, there are so many articles and books written about The Beatles that there shouldn't have to be so many uncited facts. Teemu08 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the rational of saying, a) there are too many external links (for the biggest band in the world, what do you expect?) and b)there are very many books (as they are the biggest...etc), so why the 'fact' tags? There is a huge amount of data relating to the Beatles, and when an editor contributes a line or two (often those who do not belong to the project) they are requested to provide a reference. Many of those who do provide a source give a link rather than a book. As for books, the Beatles are a publishing phenomena! There are a great many books, many of which differ in their accounts (and some which simply contradict each other) regarding events, from which to choose. Those editors who plug away with a book on their knee, citing chapters and page numbers, can simply be overwhelmed by the info added in a day. Sometimes the tome they are using does not refer to the fact that has appeared (or they are referencing another section of the article and want to complete that job).
All of which I touched upon in the FAR on the subject; which was delisted anyway. How can you maintain the standard of an article which attracts so many edits from many different contributors who may not be as zealous in applying Wiki standards, without going against the ethos of Wikipedia The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit? Why bother forming a Project in an attempt to maintain a core of standards on a piece when it is going to be measured against the same criteria that an obscure subject that only attracts the attention of a few devotees and gets less edits in a week than a popular subject gets in a day (or a few hours)? If the awarding of F or GA's is a 'reward' for good housekeeping then the delisting of same is a punishment for those attempting to retain some sort of order.
All of this is not to say that Teemu08 is not correct in bringing the Beatles to GAR, and the criteria by which it is to be reviewed. By the rules it is; it is the remit and application of the rules I have a problem with, there doesn't seem to have much flexibility in their application.
I don't suppose this has helped the review much... LessHeard vanU 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise folk that, following the above comments, I wrote a piece at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) entitled WP:FAR and WP:GAR Are The Enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. I was quite rude, in the first comment, about the review process and the people who do it. I did it to elicit a greater reaction, and have since apologised for language and given my rationale. I stand by the general thrust of my comments. Reviewers here may wish to make their representations. LessHeard vanU 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points from the Rt. Hon. HeardvanU. I have noticed that if in-line citations are put in, they don't get deleted. Quoting Macca: "Put (let) 'em in..." andreasegde 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is worth of GA, but cannot support Andreasedge in his blatent mis-quoting of Paul McCartney's solo classic "Let 'em In". Do I win £5?--Crestville 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you have a packet of Daz in your kitchen. Mr. Daz Doorstep Challenge! 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist The greatest rock group ever, but the cite tags alone warrant delisting.Sumoeagle179 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist Hurrah, kill a GA (or FA) by adding info without citations several times a day! With a little bit of unchecked vandalism perhaps we can get the article back to start standard... LessHeard vanU 13:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone didn't realise, I was being sarcastic! My vote was and is emphatically keep! (edit; add sig!) LessHeard vanU 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there any standard less than a "Start"? "Bargain Basement", perhaps? I am sorely tempted to put a 'bargain bin' of citations into The Fabs article, which will put a plaster on the vocal chords of dissenters. Oh, sod it, I suppose I might as well... but I'm going to snip a lot of stuff during the process. (Kick me where it hurts...) andreasegde 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA by crikey... I have done some work on it, but will do more. andreasegde 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are normally archived after a week of inactivity in the discussion, or until most people agree a decision has been reached. i'm counting a 3 to 2 vote, that looks like no consensus. Homestarmy 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- all the issues brought up by Teemu appear to have been attended to! That's so great about this project, that articles keep on improving. In the state it was when added to this page, I would only find it natural to vote for it to be delisted. / Fred-Chess 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vast improvement, agree 100% with Fred-Chess. Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona

result:Delist 4-0

The first thing striking me about this article is that the lead seems too short for an article over a city as important as this, but I think the biggest problem is the references. Almost all of them are in the spanish language, compleatly incomphrehensible to most English wikipedia readers i'd figure. I don't think it matters how many there are if most people can't even read them to see if they are, in fact, referencing the facts they purport to cite. Homestarmy 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Delist Is that gallery at the end really needed? Pehaps it can instead be made into a tourism section. Tarret 14:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist &#151; My main point of contention is the poor map "showing" where Barcelona is.
  1. The map is in Spanish. This alone makes the map useless. I believe we should assume the reader only knows English.
  2. The map only shows the immediate area around Barcelona, with no indication of its location relative to anything the reader might recognize other than the Mediterranean Sea. This alone also makes the map useless.
Thus, going by the map alone, Barcelona could be next to any body of water literally anywhere in Spain. A much better map would be one like those for Paris, Berlin, Milan, Zürich, or Munich. &#151; Äþelwulf See my contributions. 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, poorly referenced, short lead, short paragraphs, as well as other problems stated above. Teemu08 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist,Sumoeagle179 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German Crusade, 1096

result:Delist 4-0

It was warned 5 months ago for having no inline cits and nothing has been done. Delist Kyriakos 06:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, almost nothing has been done, Delist. Homestarmy 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Teemu08 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Rlevse 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gestapo

result:Delist 4-0

No inline citations, wasn't put on teh GAC page but was passed by User:Mierlo RHB Talk - Edits 00:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy to GAC page. Plus, the lead is certainly not a summary of this article, no way can it be crammed into what little is there... Homestarmy 00:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston and Lowell Railroad

result:Delist 3-0

Warned 5 weeks ago by me regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delist Sumoeagle179 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, all three of these articles have not improved since they were notified of their status. Teemu08 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No inline references. M3tal H3ad 08:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Jordan

Result: 2 to 0, delist

Only two citations in the entire article. Warned by Agne in September. Teemu08 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The overview section seems to be clearly written with a positive point of view in mind, and uses un-verifiable positive descriptions, and the citations thing isn't that great either. Delist. Homestarmy 23:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bettie Page

Result: 4 to 0, delist

Only two lines are sourced. Chaldean 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style is also highly dramatic, the lead is too short, and all in all, this is not very good. Since Agne has had it warned for months, it should be delisted at any time I think. Homestarmy 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a trivia section, Delist M3tal H3ad 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Features new to Windows Vista

Result: 6 to 0, delist

This article has a very short lead, a very big table of contents, too many lists and in my opinion can still be condensed further into summary style. Tarret 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Holy moley is this article long. Badly fails WP:SIZE, which is part of the MOS (1c). Teemu08 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delistper WP:SOAP / Fred-Chess 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It's VERY long. I copied it into Word and it was 65 pages and over 24,000 words. There is one editor who is very protective of the page and disputes any claims that it's too long or that it reads like a manual printed by Microsoft. There is ample room for summary, or splitting off into sub-articles. Nja247 Nicholas 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist An article this long is going to probably need far more inline citations than it currently has, some sections only have one or two citations, and things like memory management seem to have no references at all. Homestarmy 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Agree with all of the above. It does not meet WP:WIAGA at all! 82.45.240.51 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Black Flag (band)

Result: 4 to 0, delist

Numero tres. Not as bad as the two below it, but still fails 2a, 2b, and 6c.

  • "History" section needs more citations: first three paragraphs have none, Rollins section only has one, Mid-career hasmany unreferenced paragraphs
  • "Legacy" is completely uncited.
  • External link farm.
  • No fair use rationale on logo and live pictures. Free images should be used - I know there's at least a free Rollins picture.

Teemu08 07:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can insert citations from a number of sources available to me within the next day. Not sure what to do about the pictures, though. WesleyDodds 00:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist introduction uses rather POV language, all this underground culture and stuff, alienation things stated as fact and so on, and really the whole article is filled with "Morris appeared as vocalist on Black Flag's earliest recordings, and his energized, manic stage presence helped the band earn a reputation in the Los Angeles area." -ish statements. Homestarmy 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DelistSumoeagle179 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Not enough references. M3tal H3ad 08:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soddo language

Result: Speedy delisted, probably an improper pass to begin with

Nothing is sourced. Chaldean 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delisted, i'm almost positive we had the candidates page by the date it was passed, so that was an improper pass. Homestarmy 03:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. LuciferMorgan 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syd Barrett

Result: Ehh, there wern't many explicit votes here, but at least two seem to be delist, no consensus-ish

Another article warned by Agne in September that didn't address the lack of citations. "Musical influence" turns into a list of artists who have covered Barrett. Images lack fair use rationales, and "The Peel Session" is never discussed in the article. There's also an external link farm of fan pages. Teemu08 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of changes. I added fair use rationales to the fair use images that needed them, I deleted the dead link to the deleted image, removed one image that didn't really belong, and deleted the huge bloated list of "musicians who claim Barrett as an influence". Please met me know what else is needed. Not sure how this is lacking in citations, as I see 5 solid references and 16 footnote in-text citations. TheQuandry 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you try to expand the lead? It should try to summarize at least the most important sections of the article I think, but it seems a bit too short to do that adequatly right now. Homestarmy 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't support this article with the lead as small as it is, Delist. Also, its starting to look a bit unstable, [1]. Homestarmy 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuated equilibrium

Result:No consensus (leaning toward keep) 3-3

Warned by me 5 weeks ago regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 02:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the problem with the article is... / Fred-Chess 09:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not claiming this is a perfect article content-wise, but to delist it because it uses Harvard referencing - which is a form of inline citation - would be silly. Opabinia regalis 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Opabinia regalis. Could possibly use some diagrams. - Malkinann 06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't someone convert the Harvard referencing then? LuciferMorgan 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does it need converting? (And what to?) Harvard referencing is a perfectly acceptable form of inline referencing on Wikipedia. Converting the article's referencing system without the consensus of the editors of the article is also discouraged in WP:CITE. - Malkinann 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Convert to cite.php. Or at least have the Wikipedia templates for Harvard referencing, like {{ref}} and {{note}}. Hbdragon88 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion to Cite.php would be a lot of work, especially as Harvard referencing is a perfectly acceptable form of inline referencing on Wikipedia. I've put a proposal up on the associated wikiproject to change the method of citation from plain Harvard to Harvard with templates, as seen in Charles Darwin. But without consensus on this change from the wikiproject, I am reluctant to do so myself, as I've previously had very little to do with this article. -Malkinann 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a minute, "Awaiting consensus"? Many GA reviews end with no consensus at all, and this looks like a 3 to 2 vote. Homestarmy 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I count 3-3. - Malkinann 08:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist External jumps, the 3 inline references aren't formatted correctly, does not conform with WP:MOS. M3tal H3ad 08:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per above (reference formatting, lack of conformity). I can't support an article when someone who wishes to keep it says "I'm not claiming this is a perfect article content-wise". If it's not better than the average article, why make it good? A little work on the article and they can easily re-nominate it. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is better than the average article. Two years ago, it was checked by the Nature journal and found to be a pretty good article, with no glaring omissions. Isn't there no such thing as a perfect article, anyway? -Malkinann 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, it should be noted that footnotes can not necessarily be replaced by Harvard references, because footnotes are not always references. However, in this article I do think that the inline citations can all be converted to the harvard references. Why not convert all to Harvard references if you think it is too much work to convert them to cite.php? / Fred-Chess 12:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll give it a go. :) -Malkinann 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and changed the footnotes to Harvard citation.-Malkinann 06:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cúcuta

Result: Not compleatly sure what "Good article!" means here, but its not much of a review-worthy thing

Good article! --Ricardocolombia 10:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're in the wrong section, if you want to nominate an article for GA, do so here Wikipedia:Good article candidates. But i would fail it right away, not enough references, short one sentence paragraphs, formatting issues, double full stops etc. M3tal H3ad 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What metal said, unless there's a need for this review, i'll archive it soon. Homestarmy 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finian's Rainbow

Result: Delisted. Never went through the proper GA review process.

Someone added a GA tag to this article. Don't you need a review to be a GA? I don't believe there has been any kind of review. -- Ssilvers 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 'Delist immediately Yes it needs a review, this was self promoted by an editor who's been working on it. [2] Doesn't meet the criteria, references aren't formatted properly, one sentence paragraphs, unreferenced paragraphs. etc M3tal H3ad 06:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venetia Phair

Result: 3 Delist / 0 Keep.

Barely sourced, no infobox, and generally a mess. RHB Talk - Edits 00:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, there's also enough content to organize this into sections so that there will be a lead. Homestarmy 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Choppy prose, references are missing details such as date retrieved publisher etc. M3tal H3ad 08:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact of immigration to Canada

Result: 2 Affirm fail / 1 for.

This may not be a GA as of now, but the explanation for failing did not leave any constructive criticism aimed at improving the article. The reviewer (who appears to have many left-leaning user boxes on his userpage) labelled the entire review as NPOV and said the topic was not encyclopedic.

  1. In terms of NPOV, this article is actually very stable and well-linked to (including by major articles like Canada and Economy of Canada). The facts were not selectively chosen. The Statistics Canada information (like the low-income rate and employment statistics) are hard numbers, and in the context of those poor stats, it is not easy to find rosy stats on the subject. I tried -- there is no back-solving for an answer here. The positive elements (such as "expanded economy") have been given prime position within the article.
  2. In terms of the article being an appropriate topic, I submit that any of JEL classification codes represent legitimate article topics (see code J61), whether in general or specific to a country. Frankly, I think that is a riduculous comment. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored.

I'd appreciate more constructive feedback. Thanks. Deet 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that does sound like a much better reason to open an AFD (Which I think would not delete the article in the end) than fail a GA candidate. On a quick glance, the lead could use expansion, if you haven't already look at WP:LEAD for the general idea, in particular I recommend it be about two or three paragraphs, the rationale and impact sections can probably be made into one thought like a "The rationale seems to of led to...." sort of implication in maybe just one or two sentences, and maybe make another paragraph try to tie together the last three major sections. Also, parts of sentences like "It is important to note that, along with the principal applicants," don't seem quite right, important to note according to whom? Homestarmy 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affirm Fail The lead is weak, and contains NPOV statements, further no citation to support claims and is not enough to create a strong lead. You may wish to utilise peer review. I suppose after some review and improvements on the lead you could re-submit the article for consideration for GA. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They Might Be Giants

Result: 2 remove / 0 keep

Extremely choppy with many one and two sentence paragraphs. Also has a trivia section, and the music video section is just a list. Poorly referenced throughout, particularly the history 1999-present (including a citation needed tag). Album cover lacks fair use rationale, and there's an external link farm. Some sources are from unreliable sources, such as the TMBG wiki, and some original research (especially in recent activity). Fails 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3b, and 6c. Teemu08 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have eliminated the trivia section. Wooyi 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Other facts" is also a trivia section that must be removed or incorporated in to the text. Teemu08 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I commented on this when it got promoted and didn't agree with the promotion, Teemu sums up the problems well. M3tal H3ad 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chepstow Bridge

Result: 4 remove / 0 keep

Warned by me in December regarding lack of inline cites. Delist. LuciferMorgan 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost non-existant lead, and the start of the first section is quite POV, Delist. Homestarmy 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Delist No inline references, really bad lead. M3tal H3ad 08:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

delist per above Teemu08 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Beeching Axe

result:Delist 5-0

Warned by me in December regarding lack of inline cites. Delist. LuciferMorgan 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What do you mean by "warn", you warn the individual who wrote it, nominated it, or passed it? or you warned the article? where do you "warn"? Wooyi 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as "It must be realised that not all of the railway lines listed for closure were closed; a number were kept open for a variety of reasons, including political manoeuvring", it must also be realized that commanding readers to do something isn't a very good way to write an encyclopedia, Delist. Also, I know British spelling is a bit weird sometimes, but i'm having trouble swallowing "manoeuvring", is that really how its spelled? Homestarmy 03:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the correct spelling. Delist RHB Talk - Edits 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object if I WP:SNOWed this? I think the outcome is a bit obvious. Homestarmy 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Enemy

result:Delist 5-2

Too short and not enough sources. Chaldean 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about this one, plot sections are generally never sourced, (I mean, what can someone do, find the timestamps in a movie where something happens? :/) and the other stuff doesn't seem that bad, some movies just aren't as famous or notable as others. Homestarmy 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of GA is for short articles of FA quality. Wiki-newbie 11:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The Beatles article is ex-FA and around 10,000 characters long. It is in the listings below. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's a long nomination. Look at the Candidates page please, in reference to Chaldean's objection. Wiki-newbie 18:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, the editors of this article were not properly informed of this nomination by the talk page announcement. Cbrown1023 03:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no critical issues IMO / Fred-Chess 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since when have IMDb trivia sections been considered a reliable source? Hbdragon88 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The references are to not-very-reliable sources; the prose isn't up to much; and the main omission from the content of the page is any comparison with other similar movies that might give it some context. The Land 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Needs more reliable references. The JPStalk to me 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is a rather obscure movie. Can you mention any more reliable sources than those used? / Fred-Chess 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no reason to remove, all reason listed above are trivial. No articles can be perfect, but this one clearly does meet criteria. Wooyi 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to tip this towards a consensus and say Keep. The article fits the criteria as far as I can tell and agree the reasons given are trivial. We'll give it a couple of days before archiving to see if anyone comes out with a fantastic reason to say otherwise. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death In June

Result:Delist, 4-0 no progress is being made on the citations, been almost a month since the review, and been warned longer for the citations

For starters, the band's name should be "Death in June", and this error is present in the entire article. There are also no citations (instead there are a bunch of external link jumps), and external link farm. Article was warned by Agne last September.

Question when you guys put up a review here, what do you mean "warned" by XXX, do you mean the article is "warned" or the author is "warned", and what exactly the "warning"? Wooyi 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone normally posts a note on article talk pages telling them their failing some GA criteria or that the article is up for review, though sometimes people forget. Homestarmy 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teemu08 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death In June is regularly spelled "Death In June," as it is the name of a group. There's no apparent consensus as to how it is spelled as the font is generally bolded but Pearce has used both ways. I can clarify with him regarding this. Everything is cited with external link jumps and I was told it was optional to include them as footnotes. Has this changed? :bloodofox: 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please use Template:Cite web to cite internet sources. If in fact that is the correct capitalization of the band's name, then there are still a few instances of "Death in June" appearing in the article. Also, I noticed that there are no fair use rationales for any of the images on the page. Given that the band is fairly recent, there should probably be a free image available somewhere. Teemu08 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the spelling and cut the link farm. The images are all promotional images available to media for promotional purposes and used to illustrate the sections where appropriate by content. This excludes the album covers which are tagged as such and used to display symbolism. I will go through and add the citation tags as well after I take a look at the process - assuming someone doesn't beat me to it. :bloodofox: 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged the smaller paragraphs into larger sections as requested. :bloodofox: 12:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom, plus a lot of the subsections are quite short and should be combined.--Wizardman 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a no consensus vote, or is Bloodofox not really supporting the article as a GA per se? Homestarmy 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy XII

result:Passed as GA (User who failed GA changed his mind)

This article was failed because of lack of stability; however, the only major changes were made by a redlinked editor to one subsection, so I feel that it was an unreasonable review. By the logic used in that review, most GAs and FAs would fail. Furthermore, the article was going to be put on hold by another editor. Honestly, if it is failed, I believe it should be failed for another reason; however, like I said, it was about to be placed on hold. — Deckiller 13:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a new reviewer, GA criteria on stability is based on edits wars and major changes from day to day. However there are lots of one sentence paragraphs - lack of wikilinks - There is a story and a plot section which are both redundant, the story section is also way too long - looking at the edit history seems a new editor just created this - first paragraph in Development should be broken into two and needs some references. M3tal H3ad 13:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I feel the review should be relisted and placed on hold so that all this new fancruft can be weeded out. Personally, I feel the GA nom was premature (most of us are working on other articles in the FF WikiProject instead), but a hold seems fair here. — Deckiller 13:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the reviewer who originally failed the article. I am now passing the article. I admit that I messed up. Funpika 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly. — Deckiller 16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English language

result:Delist 5-0

I believe this article no longer meets GA criteria, as it it not factually correct or verifiable. Many sections currently have citation needed tags, while others have the entire sections tagged as missing or needing citations. It's clear that statements that may be questioned are not properly cited. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's also not stable, as it gets vandalized about three times a day. —Angr 14:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too many unreferenced parts, Delist. Homestarmy 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone mind if I WP:SNOW this as unanimous? Homestarmy 03:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obi-Wan Kenobi

result:Delist 3-0

Hardly any sources. Chaldean 03:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just because the sources aren't in-line, doesn't mean they are not there. Cbrown1023 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG. That's way too many navboxes...but...anyway, a list of refs at the bottom is no longer enough, and GAs now require in-line citations (I don't think they did back when this was promoted, though). Hbdragon88 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments. The list of Expanded Universe appearances needs to be cut down; it's written in an entirely in-universe perspective. It should ideally be put in prose and paragraph form. Two images aren't sourced and they don't have fair use rationales. I also think that this article could use less images - you only need one cartoon image, he doesn't change that much from Ep. II to Ep. III, and the one with Luke and Kneobi seems just kind of randomly there instead of illustrating his appearance. Hbdragon88 23:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a 2 to 1 or 2 to 0, I can't tell if Cbrown thinks this article should be a GA or not :/. Homestarmy 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In-line citations have been required for awhile now, so I think we can count out Cbrown's vote. Hbdragon88 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify: The inline citation criteria was recently reformulated (due to massive complaints) and inline citations are no longer mandatory, but they are "highly desirable" and they are required for anything that is "disputed or likely to be disputed". You can see the criterias on WP:WIAGA.
      • Regarding fictional characters, the sources are generally primary sources in the form of movies, books or magazines. I don't think there is any guideline on fictional characters yet (cmp Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines). Homestarmy recently commented that movie plots are difficult to inline reference, so because there is yet no guideline on this, I don't think we should be overly zealous... For example, the section Attack of the clones starts with "Ten years later, in Attack of the Clones, Kenobi has become an experienced Jedi Knight. [..]" It is clear what the reference of this section is! I don't think it warrants an inline citation. I would say pass GA for this article because I think the article is very interesting and well written, but there is still issues that have to be attended to, including the fair use images. / Fred-Chess 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist no where near enough refs and too listy.Rlevse 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist M3tal H3ad 07:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Roskam

Result: 3 fail, 1 pass, 1 speedy to GAC, no consensus

This article, in my opinion, had some very serious NPOV and BLP concerns because it contained too much criticism. The ruling to deny "Good Article" status was astonishing. The claim was that too much criticism had been removed. This article, about a freshman Congressman with one month of service, was still longer and contained more criticism than the article about Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House with 20 years of service, and the article about Dan Burton, a controversial Congressman with 24 years of service. On Election Day alone, there were over a dozen edits and the version from that day I chose to submit to a word count had over 6,300 words. (Dan Burton's article has 650.)

This particular article has attracted a lot of attention because Roskam's 2006 race was described in the media as "the most closely watched race in the House." His opponent was Tammy Duckworth, the darling of the anti-war left, who lost both legs in Iraq and came back to run for Congress out of her own district. I suspect that a lot of Duckworth campaign rhetoric found its way into this article. There were about 120 edits to the article in the week ending November 7.

At this point I've gone over it with a chainsaw and Propol and Tbeatty then went over it with a scalpel and a pair of tweezers. Propol has been exemplary, alleviating any NPOV doubts I once had about him. It's now under 3,000 words for the first time in about a year. I would appreciate it if a few "fresh pairs of eyes" would look it over. Thanks. Dino 15:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy relist to candidate page, failing editor is a signifigant contributor to the article, (press the next button a few times on the article history) and I don't see an actual review. Editors who have signifigiantly contributed to an article shouldn't pass or fail it it as per the rules, conflict of interests and whatnot, probably would get messy. (Not that there couldn't be any IAR moments for that kind of thing, but this isn't such a moment I think) Homestarmy 15:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (What is an "IAR moment"?) Dino 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See IAR --rogerd 18:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fail footnote and ref formatting is highly inconsistent and non standard, needs work, has 3 external jumps.Rlevse 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cullacabardee, Western Australia

Result: 4 to 2, Keep

The review left at Cullacabardee, Western Australia

Good Evening (GMT time); I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Fail

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 6(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. Gnangarra 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • with their domestic appliances[6], missing a full-stop. Works's website [1] does not mention any impending action. External jump in the text. But as stated above images do not prevent it from getting GA, if the reviewer believes it meets the criteria, pass. M3tal H3ad 07:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The geography section could use expansion, where it is in relation to some roads doesn't say much about the environment and stuff :/. I guess that's in the introduction though, but you'd think the intro wouldn't be more detailed than the geography section concerning geography... Homestarmy 13:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I think that the image requirement is especially designed for this sorts of articles, where images should be well possible to attain, and would significantly add something to the article. A map would also be helpful. / Fred-Chess 12:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images arent well possible as both the housing and telecommunication areas are restricted access. Gnangarra 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re issues raised:
  • Fixed proof reading issues identified above.
  • Expanded the Geography section with library sources.
  • Added satellite map based on NASA Worldwind. Orderinchaos78 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Images. Gnangarra: If the area is restricted access, I fully understand the difficulty of getting images. But I would just like a clarification about this issue. The lead says: "Most of the suburb is covered in native sheoak and banksia forest. A small Noongar Aboriginal community is based on Baal Street, a drug rehabilitation retreat is located off Gnangara Road in the suburb's northeast [..]". Is it not possible to get images from the forest, the aboriginal community, the only public road (Baal Street), or the drug rehab? / Fred-Chess 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try for a forest photo tomorrow around the back (i.e. Whiteman Park) end of the suburb Orderinchaos78 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I will avoid making a statement like the above. I'm convinced some deity saw this and jinxed the weather. :) Orderinchaos78 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images now added. 3 or 4 more available, hope to get a couple more on Monday from a different location. Orderinchaos78 15:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Un-Fail, the main issues besides the image appears to be addressed. The "in this respect" phrasing of the image criteria seems to imply that the criteria depends on the three things below, and since one of those three things is that lack of images does not itself exclude being a GA, i'm inclined to think that they wouldn't be necessary here. Besides, it has a satellite map image now. Homestarmy 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fail but for different reasons, such as there has to be more to this community such as climate, government, educational system, major employers etc. THere has to be more than the geography, aboriginies, and telecomms.Rlevse 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am amazed that Rlevse wants this information about a community with a population of 95. / Fred-Chess 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I tend to agree with Rlevse, but I think he probably didn't notice it only had 95 people and compared it to a standard city article. I tend to agree with him that the article just makes me sense there are pieces missing. Sumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's one of those weird cases where the Government have drawn a line around a piece of land and called it a suburb. It's zoned rural, but the sand is so infertile that nothing but native bush grows on it. It sits on top of one of Perth's main water supplies, so a large chunk of it got declared a national park, neatly cutting around the Aboriginal community and the telecommunications facility. Most of the suburb isn't accessible by road - the bits you would think would be are all fenced off. I've added some images taken from the edge of the suburb. Orderinchaos78 15:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice images. I'm happy about saying GA now. / Fred-Chess 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - article looking much better with images now. Pass. Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Glee Club

Result: 3 or 4 to 1, affirm fail

The editor who reviewed it did provide some constructive comments, but all of his issues were beyond the scope of GA criteria (for example, the footnotes are not all formatted the same, and there are a couple of paragraphs that are just one sentence.) He was correct to point such things out, but I believe the article clearly meets the stated GA criteria.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Isn't it easier just to format the footnores the same? The article'll be stuck here for longer than it would take for you to do the work. LuciferMorgan 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, it is on my to-do list, but nonetheless it is not a reason to "fail" the article. The article has many reliable, nontrivial sources that are inline cited; it just happens that at the moment they are not all perfectly formatted.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't fixed the things i mentioned, to add to them, Musical tradition is four paragraphs and has one reference, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) sections should not repeat the article title, it had a {{More sources}} tag when i reviewed it, one sentence paragraphs are a problem. References are a problem theres a weblink under the reference section, inconsistent format, "Recent summer tours have included trips to East Asia (1993)" don't think 14 years ago is recent. You can't expect any article to get GA, it needs work to get there, if you implemented my suggestions it would get it. M3tal H3ad 08:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affirm Fail Good articles are supposed to be better than the average wikipedia article. Not all articles considered can be allowed; in fact only .1% of wikipedia articles are "good articles".
I'd definately work on the article and follow the recommendation of the original reviewer and others here, and also complete your "to-do" list. After that, if you're confident that it is exceptionally good -- re-submit it. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fail but with a little work, it'd be a GA. Rlevse 03:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per rlevse.Sumoeagle179 11:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peloponnesian War

result:Remain as Failed GA 4-0

I usually don't disagree with GA failures, but this is one I must contest. The article was placed on hold for about 4-5 days because the reviewer stated that it needed more in-line citations. User:YankeeDoodle14 carried out almost all of his instructions the day after it was placed on hold. About 3 days later, the reviewer comes back and fails the article because "none of his instructions had been carried out." I'm sorry, but I do think that this article deserves GA status. Diez2 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose GA My review, it generally started out well but the following sections contain no references; The "Archidamian War", Peace of Nicias, Sicilian Expedition, The Second War, Athens recovers, Lysander triumphs, Athens surrenders, Aftermath. That's a total of 29 paragraphs with no references. Imo the reviewer did the right thing failing the article, and you should respond to the reviewer when an issue is dealt with. M3tal H3ad 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How should I re-word it? I oppose the failure of the article's GA status. Diez2 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
last sentence says you don't think it deserves GA status. M3tal H3ad 06:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my dictionary, "do" is the opposite of "don't"...? / Fred-Chess 12:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha i read it wrong, what a smart dictionary! :) M3tal H3ad 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In-line citations are not requisite for an article to be a "good article" (see WP:WIAGA). I'd make sure the article is in top shape by following the suggestions offered by the reviewer and M3tal H3ad and if you believe it's good, re-submit it for consideration.Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations are required for information that is challenged or likely to be challenged. M3tal H3ad 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful to provide examples; most of this is straight Thucydides and much of the rest is almost certainly consensus of the (cited) sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Being the editor that failed the article I'll give my opinion. I gave the editors the maximum of 7 days to follow the instructions. During that time I regularly checked the article to see if there were any improvements. When I put the article on hold it had 22 citations and I asked for more. I also asked for the aftermath section to be expanded. I am normally linient with my review but from what I saw none of my instructions were carried out so I decided to fail the article. And I still stand by my opinion and I think the article needs some work before it becomes GA. Kyriakos 01:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fail but a GA should cite references and GA is defacto moving to inline like FA, like it or not.Rlevse 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist, too much info needed citing / Fred-Chess 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

result:Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn)

This article was passed as a GA today, but I have major reservations with an (almost permanently) semi-protected article that is still hammered with vandalism passing GAC, as I don't see how it meets the "Stable" criteria. --PresN 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to that article and one who frequently reverts vandalism on it, I share your reservations. I am puzzled as to why the article was promoted to GA status given its inherent instability. That the article is continuously semi-protected seems to be bona fide evidence of instability. --ElKevbo 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content. M3tal H3ad 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same article? --ElKevbo 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just see lots of vandalism, nothing like content instability. I think this should be Kept unless someone spots some other problem, though I do think this article could use summary style a bit more effectively in many sections to shorten them. Homestarmy 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that this article is a Good Article. I hope that it will become one at some point but it's not very well-written and is unstable, IMHO. --ElKevbo 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the one who reviewed it. My comments are available on its talk page. It has now been put under review due to the argument that criteria number 5 (stability), from WP:WIAGA was not met. If you read that guideline carefully, pages that are consistently protected due to vandalism are exempt from this guideline. I read all of the comments on the talk page and there were no ongoing edit wars, and the article as I reviewed it passed GA criteria. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw (Can I even do that?) While I disagree with the exemption, as it means that a lot of random people are going to see that a "good article" includes pictures of Bush as Hitler, and that he apparently is gay, Nja247 is correct that WP:WIAGA says that (rampant and nonstop) vandalism doesn't count as unstable, so I suppose I have to rescind my review nomination. GA it is. --PresN 07:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Don't you think it is unfair to hold it against an article that it gets vandalised alot? I don't think we should give vandals this privilege.... I think you can withdraw your review, but before archiving it I think we should make sure that everyone had their say. / Fred-Chess 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I do have an issue with the presidency and domestic policy sections not even have summaries fo the main articles. Rlevse 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after citations are added for the {cn} tags and remove the fourth "paragraph" from the lead. M3tal H3ad 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vandalism is not part of stability criteria. WikiNew 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep remarkably well-managed given the immense vandalism it faces. However, the Hurricane Katrina section should be moved after the September 11 section. Teemu08 01:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus

Result: Improperly passed; defer to GAC

As one of the people who edit the article the most, I noticed in the template banner of the Countries Wikiproject, they seemed to list Belarus as a GA. However, I am still confused by the overall GA process and I am not sure if yall think it is really GA or maybe just a typo. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been first tagged here [3], after the nomination process became mandatory, with no comments left as to why the article was listed (that it had passed a nomination). One of my articles became a GA at the same time and had to go through the nomination process; thus I'd say it's not a GA. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the GAC page right before the article was tagged [4] - Belarus doesn't appear to have been nominated. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would you suggest nomination now? (I realize I cannot do it myself, since I am the major contributor of the article) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can nominate it if you think it fits the criteria, as I understand it substantial contribution to the article means you just can't pass it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I am still pretty new to this process, so thanks for all of your help. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this article should be delisted for now since it wasn't really passed properly in the first place then? This discussion looks like it ought to be archived.... Homestarmy 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Declaration of Independence

Result: 4 to 1, delist

I call for a review of this item due to heavy vandalism on the 'Future Signings' section of this Wikipedia article.

Surely this can't be left as it is when on the subject of probable one of the most famous sections of American history?

Um, articles don't lose "good" or "featured" status if they are vandalized (there probably wouldn't be any if that wasn't true). –Llama man 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vandalism is not a reason to delist the article. If there are issues with vandalism, consider requesting protection from an administrator. As long as an article is within the criteria for a GA article, it should remain one. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • fail but cite needed tags, non-standards refs, inconsistent refs, bad footnote format, and lack of enough refs is.Rlevse 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep minor issues IMO / Fred-Chess 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)removed Fred-Chess 09:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Rlevse. LuciferMorgan 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Result: 4 to 0, delist

This article currently contains several self-published sources. As I understand WP:RS these are inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. Specifically, any reference back to http://www.venganza.org/ (3 of them in total) would only be appropriate if the article was about Bobby Henderson. Since the article is about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (presumably the FSM did not write the text at venganza.org) and not Bobby Henderson I think these references are invalid. They may belong on the Bobby Henderson article, but not this one. Further, there is a reference to blogger.com that is clearly not a RS. Others are questionable as well.MikeURL 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread WP:RS and hopefully this time you will see that according to the rules these are OK in certain circumstances. Sophia 13:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion and I have reread WP:RS. There is nothing there to suggest that the self-published website venganza.org is a reliable source for the article Flying Spaghetti Monster. Venganza.org would probably would be fine for the Bobby Henderson article.MikeURL 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously missed this bit [5]. Sophia 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it and my comment above specifically addresses it. I don't think the part you linked to applies because the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't write the text at venganza.MikeURL 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , it is my view that alleged violation of WP:RS does not affect the GA status in this case. I think it should be discussed on the article talk page whether it really is a violation of RS, and if it is, then I suggest the links should be removed. / Fred-Chess 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)removed Fred-Chess 09:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fail too listy.Rlevse 03:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Shudda talk 05:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Do the last three voters oppose this article based on it being too listy or because of WP:RS, or is there any other reason? Thanks for helping us improve the article. / Fred-Chess 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Electric Railway

Result: 3 to 0, delist

Warned by me in December regarding lack of inline cites. Delist. LuciferMorgan 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, most real content is in the overly long introduction, and most of the article is just a list. Not much of an introduction, and not much in the way of prose. Homestarmy 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Basically a big list M3tal H3ad 08:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. Not even a B-class article. Teemu08 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of this seems a bit obvious, I mean come on, the article is mostly a big list, does anyone else think this is WP:SNOWable? Homestarmy 23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do yeah Homestarmy. I have a list of GAs that goes well into double figures that I want to delist per the criteria, but the new rules forbid this don't they? LuciferMorgan 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago and North Western Railway

Result: 4 to 0, delist

Warned by me in December regarding lack of inline cites. Delist. LuciferMorgan 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Shudda talk 05:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - M3tal H3ad 08:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per lack of inline cites. Teemu08 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Winter Night

Result: 0 to 2, 4 for renominate

I'll come out and say I wrote most of this article in its current form, and if that fact prevents a GAR request from me, I apologize, but I strongly feel it was not reviewed very well. Upon failing, the reviewer gave me a two statement review, one statement of which I have no idea what he's talking about, and the second of which I also don't get because I can't cut anything else from the Plot Summary.

In addition, I might add that the reviewer didn't follow standards, in that they did not place a section header on the talk page, and in their signature there was no link to their userpage, making it a slight inconvenience to contact them.

Maybe I'm POV on this. Maybe I'm just a pissed off egomaniac :) But I'd really like a second assessment, and if it still fails, better comments. Thank you! DoomsDay349 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Readd to candidate page. Strange review indeed. / Fred-Chess 16:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it could use another review. I doubt you have to go through this page to get permission to have it re-added to the candidate page. However, someone not dedicated to the article should be the one putting it on the candidate page. Hopefully the next reviewer will be a bit more precise. You could have also used the original reviewer's talk page to ask for more information. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbo blocks of text? Plot summaries do tend to have plenty of text in them, Relist to Candidates. Homestarmy 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fail way underreferenced.Rlevse 03:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-add to candidates page - it was never a GA, and GA/R covers both improper failings and improper passings. RHB Talk - Edits 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article needs a "Critical reception" section. How was it recieved by the book critics? What did they say? If I'd have reviewed the article, this is what I would've failed it on. Having such a section will greatly improve GA chances. LuciferMorgan 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-add to candidates page - A review (esp a fail) should give meaningful feedback or a clear rejection in line with one of the What is a good article? criteria. Orderinchaos78 13:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the article to candidates under Books etc in line with the apparent consensus above. As this is my first relist, feel free to fix up if I've done something non-standard without realising. Thanks Orderinchaos78 03:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-add to candidates page - Reviewer is very new to Wikipedia and has many article assessments overturned recently. He is simply not ready to be stepping up as a GA reviewer. The previous review should be discarded as a failure of GA process, and the article should be re-assessed. Hesperian 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gardner

Result: 0 to 4, delist

Article fails to meet standards 1 and 4 for good article: The piece has no introduction, the very first sentence is going straight into the history of the man, followed up 1 paragraph later by jumping to 2006 with an introductory information, and bouncing around all out of order throughout the article.

The entire article is written in glowing terms of Gardner, with little appearance of subjectivity, nor appropriateness of topic. (i.e. why should we care what his favorite kind of music is...he's a stockbroker.) The article is unduly weighted in favor of Gardner, violating NPOV, though I'd hesitate to say that's the actual problem, its just a bad tone of writing. I mean, the dude has a book and a major motion picture about his life to show you how wonderful he is, we don't need a wikipedia article to be worshiping him as well. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did people miss this when reviewing it? I mean, I just read the very first sentence and that alone is a great indication something's horribly wrong here. Delist a thousand times over, I tried looking for a diff to see if maybe someone had randomly replaced the whole page with some whitewash or something, but it looks like its been like this for awhile. This is really the sort of thing that shouldn't even need to be here because its such an obvious fail.... Homestarmy 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per 1b. LuciferMorgan 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist now per above - Shudda talk 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the talk page of this article, it looks like two people clearly support GA status and one person I can't tell, making this about a 4 to 2 or a 4 to 2 and a half vote. I'd really rather not have to archive this as no consensus, because if speedy failing comes back, this is probably the sort of article which will be speedily failed quite quickly by anyone who comes across it, and it looks like that will cause.....problems. Homestarmy 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:It's very odd and somewhat troubling that the people who are strongest supporters of this article do not seem to be represented in this discussion. Are they unaware of the process? I see notification on the talk page...
  • Evaluating this article, I'm reminded of comments by the jurors in the Scooter Libby case: I like the guy and support him, but darn it, I have to vote "guilty as charged." This article needs a drastic rewrite for persistent, nagging NPOV concerns. Ummm. Uhh. I just couldn't pass it, tho I would feel kinda guilty for failing it. BTW, the lead has too many details. The entire article includes too much foo-foo-fluffy stuff (as one reviewer said, who cares who the subject's favorite musician is?)
  • Someone, somewhere, should take it upon themselves to make this into a real article rather than a PR piece. It deserves to be treated with that much respect. --Ling.Nut 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_review/Archive_14&oldid=1136091292"