Open main menu

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
MainCriteriaNominationsDiscussionInstructionsReassessmentReportHelp Desk
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is discussed on the article talk page and concluded by a single editor in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed for discussion on this page and are concluded according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.

Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment:

  1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
  2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

A list of all open GA reassessment nominees may be found at Category:Good article reassessment nominees.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed on this page and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page.

Individual reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the individual reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the article talk page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be yours, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is likely to be controversial, then opt for community reassessment instead)
  • Use the individual reassessment process if:
    • You are confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are not a major contributor to the article
    • You know the article has not been delisted before
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)

Note

  • Individual reassessments do not appear below on the good article reassessment page; those are all community reassessments.

How to use this process

  • The instructions for individual reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (while the second bold link creates a community reassessment page). The individual reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the article talk page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page.
  4. From the article talk page, transclude the individual assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Individual reassessment" and paste in
    {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. During the reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, you may close it.
  8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were).


Good article reassessment
Community reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the community reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the good article reassessment page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be the result of consensus, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is not likely to be controversial, then opt for individual reassessment instead)
  • Use the community reassessment process if:
    • You are not confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are a major contributor to the article
    • You disagree with an earlier delist decision
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)
    • You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)

How to use this process

  • The instructions for community reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (while the first bold link creates an individual reassessment page). The community reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the good article reassessment page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page. A bot will add the assessment to the GA reassessment page.
  4. From the article talk page, transclude the community assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Community reassessment" and paste in
    {{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure).
  8. To close the discussion, edit the community reassessment page of the article and locate {{GAR/current}}. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page and will add it to the current archive.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). A bot will remove and archive the assessment from the GA reassessment page.

← (All archives) Replacement filing cabinet.svg Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 60) →

Articles needing possible reassessmentEdit

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GAR request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply delete the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GAR request}} to the article talk page.

See also

Articles listed for community reassessmentEdit

GreenEdit

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

I'm not convinced that this is a reliable article. Some of the sections have missing citations, and the writing at times comes off as an essay:

"All the colors you see on your computer screen are made by mixing them in different intensities." "Unfortunately for those who wanted or were required to wear green..." "Green laser pointers outputting at 532 nm (563.5 THz) are relatively inexpensive..." "although the price remains relatively prohibitive for widespread public use." "Green animals include, especially, amphibians, reptiles, and some fish, birds and insects."

Just to name a few. 100cellsman (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak delist. Most of the quoted sentences given by 100cellsman have since been fixed. The only one that remains is the one on laser pointers, which looks encyclopedic enough to me. However, I do see a few different issues:
  • The § In nature and culture section is just bizarre, being an image gallery with no context.
  • The § On flags section is a bit of a mess. The gallery is probably too big. The bulleted list repeats a lot of information in the image captions above.
  • The one source I happened to check (http://www.ukfoodguide.net/e142.htm) was quite dodgy.
  • Some general concerns regarding "staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". At certain points, the article seems to veer into the territory of just listing things which happen to be green. Okay, sure, billiards tables are green. Dragons are sometimes green. Roman Catholic clergy wear green on some occasions. One of the belts used to show rank in Judo is green... where does it end? Are these facts essential to me understanding the topic of green-ness? It's worth noting that when the article was listed as a GA in 2007 it was a lot shorter - it's now about 4x longer than it was then.
For these reasons, I'd say the article isn't currently up to GA standards. That said, I think fixing the current issues would not be too difficult, and would mostly entail making a few cuts. Colin M (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The in nature and culture is quite strange. Considering the level of green in plants I would have though this would be an important section. There is a decent mention of this under biology though. I am guessing it is mistitled and was probably just an excuse to add lots of pictures. I will remove it for now as I don't think it adds much (there are a lot of pictures of green things anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • It was undone by SiefkinDR. I tagged it as it basically lacks context. Still obviously a delist per below. AIRcorn (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist There is a lot of uncited material and the bulleted lists would work better as prose. Agree on lack of focus - why do we need to mention that the Australian Greens won 10% of the vote in 2016? It really needs a decent amount of work to get up to standard. AIRcorn (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - this was the version that passed GA, with editor Wrad doing the heavy lifting and nominating IIRC. SiefkinDR has edited this and other colour articles since. I recommend comparing the promoted with the current version. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@100cellsman, Aircorn, and Colin M: this GAR is an opportunity for 3rd, 4th and 5th opinions on some issues. SiefkinDR and I have had some on and off discussions since 2012 about various aspects of this article. In the interests of leaving it in the best condition, looking at the promoted and current versions would be good to see what hybrid version leaves it in the best shape. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not so sure that is the best use of reassessment. These tend to stay open too long as it is. Also there is a major issue of participation at this part of the project. I can think of only one other editor who regularly comments here and they haven't for a while. I think expecting a 4th or 5th opinion not coming here via the article itself is probably optimistic.
The promoted version is from 12 years ago and while it is a nice compact article I don't think it is feasible to use it for anything more than a historical reference. It is quite possible for an article to be improved from a Good standard and also fail the Good criteria. "WP:Good articles" and "good articles" are often separate. For example useful information could be added, but not cited - causing it to fail the verification criteria - yet that information might make the article more informative.
Colin has already started a discussion at the talk page and I will head over there next to give my 2 cents worth. That is probably the best place to work on ingrained discussions. Also it looks like a lot of the issues are across all colour articles so it might require a RFC or something a bit bigger than what GAR was designed or is capable of handling. AIRcorn (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree this is a valid point. I have been a fan of the GA and FA process as acting like a Stable Version of sorts, and something that can be referred back to. In an ideal world, this would be a venue to roll up wikisleeves and fix now, but some articles are more complex and/or part of a more complex issue. And hence if the consensus is the article falls way short, then the most appropriate route is to delist for now. it can always be improved later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album)Edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The reviewer of the original good-article nomination, Tbhotch, imposed their personal criteria rather than the criteria outlined at WP:GA?, in failing the nomination. Specifically, they lamented the absence of a "Background" section and made impractical suggestions to conjure one up, dismissing the fact that any further information about the album is out of the scope of the available literature and sources on the topic; I even provided an example of the topic's relatively mediocre 3rd-party coverage in the form of Scott-Heron's AllMusic bio, its skimpiness, its factual errors. The reviewer misused the "broad in its coverage" point (point a) of criteria 3 as a means to encourage the article to meet their personal critera; according to WP:What the good article criteria are not: "Point (a) means that the 'main aspects' of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be 'addressed' in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects ... Mistakes to avoid - Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources." Dan56 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This is reinforced at the actual good-article criteria page: The "broad in its coverage" criterion 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. (WP:GA?#cite note-6) The words this reviewer kept citing and would not waver from was "as a reader I am not reading why the album exists", which is their own words, their own criteria, and vague (there are many reasons an album can exist, usually because it was recorded and released, which is explained by the article, but apparently there are other reasons for the reviewer, reasons they did not themselves specify yet wanted stated in the article; "impractical suggestion"). Dan56 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Not until their closing comments bloviated about other articles that exist in the manner they prefer, did they explicate their vague personal criteria, but it is buried in a torrent of hostile, personalizing remarks, in frustration over having their reviewing mistakes called out as "lazy" and "presumptive" (presumptive, because, to go back to the above issue, they had given no effort in going over the available source material on the topic themselves and were just blindly guessing, hoping, imagining?... that there is more information out there on the album's reason for existing. The reviewer did not define at all what they wanted this supposed "Background" section to explain or what specific information to hold; they just assumed it exists out there and the article should follow this form, conceptually, superficially.... Dan56 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Elsewhere, with more ancillary concerns like a link (the shah) redirecting to an associated article (an association the reviewer did not give a concrete position on, but ultimately used to fail the article), the reviewer often gave problems, rather than solutions, and left me having to clarify without an idea as to how they wanted me to fix it. The aforementioned link was used as a grounds for failure as well: as WP:GAR points out, however: compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting; WP:GACN reinforces this: Mistakes to avoid - Demanding compliance with your favorite MoS pages ... Requiring the resolution of links to disambiguation pages. Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Dan56 asked me to participate in this GAR at my talk page (in what I felt was a respectful, neutral way). I have not participated in a GAR before, but I have reviewed articles at GA and FA, including articles written primarily by Dan56. These included an unusually extensive review (continued at the talk page) for the article Fôrça Bruta. I say this at the outset to be clear about what brought me here and what my relationship with Dan56 is. I've worked with him closely and I think he's done good work, but I also feel I have maintained critical distance from his work. I have critiqued his work quite extensively when I felt it was necessary to do so and have disagreed often with Dan56 about particular issues (sometimes these issues have resolved in my favor, while other times Dan56 has convinced me to reconsider my original stance). Point being, I feel I can be reasonably objective here, and I'm not here as Dan56's backup.
As to the GAR process itself: I don't think I'm going to take a stance supporting or opposing this. GAR strikes me as a little odd for issues beyond delisting, though it seems to be permissible—Tbhotch opened the door to the process in his comment when he closed the review. My own instincts would have been to simply renominate the page, as Tbhotch also suggested in his comments, and that would be less contentious than this process. On the other hand, it does make some sense to me for there to be a procedure to resolve disputes over reviews that the nominator has reason to believe were erroneous or contrary to the rules, as Dan56 seems to believe is the case.
That said: Dan56, I think Tbhotch has a point about your tone. I'm not really interested in litigating the specifics of this issue as it applies to this review, but I think it's worth bringing up all the same. I've reviewed your work a few times and I've participated in a few content disputes that you were involved in; I've been on your side in disputes, and I've been on the other side too. In my observation, you have sometimes been aggressive or impatient in disputes over article content or policy/procedure, and sometimes you've been rude—as I believe you have been to Tbhotch. I'm not saying you always behave this way; there's no doubt you've been perfectly cordial and respectful in the past, too. I think you tend to cross a line when you feel someone else has been unreasonable, and whether you're right or wrong about that in a given situation, your responses can tend to escalate these situations. This behavior can be off-putting, and it sometimes hinders your ability to resolve issues in your favor. Wikipedia can be frustration... and I've felt that same frustration myself at times, believe me.
But there's a difference between expressing reasonable disagreement—or even expressing frustration with another user's actions that you feel are unreasonable—and expressions of disrespect. I don't want to discourage you or make you feel I'm taking sides against you. Your contributions to Wikipedia are extensive and really valuable; I really admire the overall quality of your research and writing, your sheer prolificness, and (above all) your unassailable good taste. My intentions in bringing this up are sincere and come from a place of respect for you and your work, and I hope that comes through as you read this. But when things heat up, you should consider taking a step back to make sure you are treating other users with respect and conducting yourself in a way other users will perceive as reasonable and respectful.
Now that that's out of the way, I want to move on to the actual points of contention regarding the review. First, I wouldn't go so far as to say Tbhotch imposed their own personal criteria. There are inevitably going to be matters on which a reviewer is going to have to interpret the policy in order to apply it. Whether Tbhotch was right on every issue or not, I think it's fair to say he made a good-faith effort to apply the GA criteria. Here's where I come down on the individual issues:
  • Necessity of background section: I don't think it's strictly necessary for a GA-level album article to have a Background section, in the sense of a section that has a ==Background== heading. There may not be enough material to justify including a separately designated section on background material. I don't feel too strongly about the inclusion of a heading one way or another. However, I think it is reasonable to ask for some text on background material whenever possible, even if it's to a minimal extent. I say this with awareness of the distinction between the GA requirement to be "broad" in coverage and the FA requirement of comprehensiveness, but it does bring to mind some edits during the Fôrça Bruta FAC.
When you nominated Fôrça Bruta, it looked like this and did not have a designated "Background" section—instead, it jumped in with "Recording and production". The article did include textual content that amounted to contextual "background" material, it just wasn't labeled as such. During my review, I brought up what I felt were issues with organization and inclusion of background material. While I didn't ask for a separate "Background" section, I did ask for a more chronological organization and front-loading of contextual/background info in the "Recording" section. Over the course of your revisions, you created a separate, one-paragraph section for "Background". I hadn't called for this change, but I thought it was a good idea; I commented "I think adding the short 'Background' section was a good idea, too." I would have been happy with including this paragraph either as the first paragraph of the "Recording" section or as its own section, but I think making it its own section ended up being the better idea (and it happened to be your own idea).
Now, I know a bit about Gil Scott-Heron myself and I agree with Dan56 that, for a musician of his significance, there is a regrettable paucity of secondary source material about him. Tbhotch, you pointed out that Winter in America is a GA as a counterpoint to Dan56's protest that there isn't much material on Gil Scott-Heron; it's true that Winter in America is quite comprehensive—Dan56 wrote that one too, incidentally—but Scott-Heron's career as a whole is covered very unevenly in secondary sources. You can talk about the context of Scott-Heron and Jackson's collaborations, but there may not be material about how that led up to this album in particular. While I haven't reviewed all the available source material for this particular album, I don't find it hard to believe that there may be a comparative absence of source material specifically covering the "background" of this album. I personally know Dan56 to be a thorough researcher, so if I were the reviewer here I would have likely taken his word on the issue—not saying it was necessary to simply take his word and move on, just speaking for myself based on my past experience with Dan56 and background knowledge of the subject.
With that caveat: I nevertheless think what Tbhotch had asked for was reasonable. Judging from his review and GAR comments, it seems like he was just asking for whatever minimal material was available, which would have included general statements explaining the history of Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson's past collaborations—for instance, noting 1980 was the duo's sixth collaboration, and noting that it followed Secrets, which was a similar-sounding album. This may have only amounted to two or three sentences, but I think there's enough material for a background paragraph (whether it has its own heading or not). That's not asking to dredge up something that isn't there in the sources, it's just asking for presentation of whatever context there is, however minimal.
  • Original research: I don't think linking "the shah" to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is an original research problem. I don't think there's any room for ambiguity or doubt that Christgau was referring to Mohammad Reza. It's not a jump to take Christgau's naming of "the shah" as a reference to Mohammad Reza, who was at the time (and continues to be) referred to simply as "the Shah" or "the Shah of Iran". This was also at the time of the Iranian Revolution and Iran hostage crisis, putting "the Shah of Iran" in the forefront of American consciousness. Reference to a "shah" or "the shah" in American media at this time should be presumed to refer the shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza, unless explicitly specified otherwise.
This is not a stretch or an example of original research in interpretation. Analogously, mention of "the Queen of England" in 1980 (or now) presumptively refers to Elizabeth II, and mention of "the Pope" in 1980 would presumptively refer to the person Pope John Paul II. Indeed, the titles "Queen of England" or "Pope" are more familiar in the western context than the title "shah", so the presumption that "shah" = "Mohammad Reza" would be stronger than either of the other two inferences; it's far more plausible that a reference to "the Pope" may refer to the title of pope in a generic sense (the phrase "does the pope shit in the woods?", for instance, does not refer to any individual pope at all), while it's hardly likely that a reference to "the shah" refers to the title in general or an obscure shah. The fact that Christgau refers to the Shah is "dead" is not great evidence that he's referring to the title rather than the person, either. It's true that the office of the shah was abolished before the review, and Mohammad Reza died shortly after the review, but the title of the song is "Shah MOT (The Shah Is Dead/Checkmate)". Christgau is only referring back to Scott-Heron's (poetic) declaration of death.
Regardless, MOS:LINKQUOTE is not really an original research policy, it's a stylistic policy. It cautions against getting it wrong in interpretation, which is overlaps with OR concerns, but again I don't think there's reason to believe this link gets it wrong, much less gets it wrong so badly that it becomes a serious OR concern. Unfortunately, I think tensions had gotten high enough at this point that a disagreement over a comparatively small matter like this blew up the process.
  • Studio — this is a final issue that was raised in the closing of the review, not the review itself. Nonetheless, it's a fair point and it looks like the answer is found in the liner notes. The studio was TONTO in Santa Monica, California, as gleaned from a scan of the LP liner notes (on the Arista 201 733 issue of the album). This is the same studio as the previous album Secrets.
All told... I'm a bit exhausted going over all this in-depth. I hope this comment helps contribute to productively moving forward and sorting out the problems at play here. —BLZ · talk 06:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding Tbhotch's reasons given for failing:
    • 1b Disagree on statutory grounds. Whether or not the article fails MOS:LINKQUOTE is irrelevant to WP:GA?, because 1b only requires compliance with 5 specific MoS pages, none of which include MOS:LINKQUOTE. See What the Good article criteria are not#1.
    • 2c Weak disagree with labelling the link in "the shah (dead)" as WP:OR. I can appreciate that this is close to the borderline of OR, but I would have gone the other way on this. I find the alternative interpretation offered by Tbhotch (that the author was saying that the title of "shah" was dead, rather than the individual commonly referred to as "the Shah" who had in fact recently died) highly implausible. Also, the fact that it's a non-piped wikilink (i.e. that [[the shah]] is actually a redirect to the person in question) makes me feel like there's less of a leap in ascribing the author's intent.
    • 3a Neutral This is tricky because "major aspects" is subject to personal interpretation, and unfortunately the term isn't really defined in any policy document. I definitely think a "Background" section should not be imposed as a GA requirement in this case (and the WikiProject advice page that Tbhotch linked to in his review is not binding in a GA context). As for whether more information is needed somewhere in the article about why the album exists and where it was recorded, neither of these personally strike me as major ommissions. But I also don't think Tbhotch is being unreasonable, even if his definition of "major aspects" differs from mine. I do think a sentence or two giving context about Scott-Heron and Jackson's collaborations up until this point would be welcome. I think insisting on giving the recording studio is a bit much. The question of "Where?" is very important in an article about a building, a protest, a natural disaster, or species of butterfly. For many other subjects, it's of little importance (say, an article about a font, a number, or a thought experiment). In most cases, I think the location where an album was recorded is little more than trivia. I think the "Five Ws" theory of broad coverage does come across a bit like "personal criteria" and I'd be wary of applying it in a procrustean manner.
As for conduct of the editors involved, I think both could have tried a little harder to be nice. I find many of Tbhotch's comments to be a little peremptory in tone, and though Dan56's comments started out cordial, they let their frustration get the better of them in later comments which were mildly sarcastic or hostile.
Agree with BLZ that re-nominating is probably the simplest way forward here. Colin M (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The Good Article process has inherent weaknesses, a major one being that it relies on the co-operation between a single nominator and a single reviewer. Once that relationship breaks down the whole review often falls apart. The criteria allow a certain amount of leeway in there interpretation, so it is rarely helpful for one side to insist their interpretation is the only one. At the end of the day the ultimate aim is to improve an article and that often involves some reasonable compromises. We are in short supply of willing reviewers and it can be a bit of a thankless task, so I personally like to give them a bit more latitude when it comes to these disputes, but will admit there have been issues with reviewers getting a bit caught up in their own criteria.
I have no problem with reviewers adding comments that fall outside the criteria, in fact this is almost always a good thing. The problem happens when they insist that these must be resolved in order to pass, often against the wishes of the nominator. If you find yourself in this situation it is best to ask yourself, "is this really required". As a reviewer I take the approach that they are the content experts and know much more about the subject material than me. The criteria are not really that strict. You can, and should, still stand your ground on key issues though.
Brandt Luke Zorn and Colin M} have left some very good points and I can only endorse them. Technically we could get consensus to overturn this, but it is not a black and white case and this process is not very well attended. My advice is to withdraw, work through the suggestions above and then re-nominate. This is likely to be closed as no consensus to overturn and then you will have to go through GAN again anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with what Aircorn just said. All the issues pointed out above need to be adressed. Despite not being mandatory having a background section. A reference to Scott-Heron and Jackson's work up to this point, and if a studio where the album was recorded, mixed and mastered should also be added, it's important since we are talking about an album. MOS:LINKQUOTE needs to be adressed, but it does't give an article fail, the reviewer should point out to that, ofc. Secondly, I can see where Tbhotch is coming from saying that the article is not broad on its coverege, I would sit on the fence here since there are not actual criteria for this saying that needs this many works, kbs and to each their own. If I was reviewing the article I would ask you would add a bit more to the recording and production section with studios and the reference I pointed out above for example, and the Scott-Heron picture needs to be reduced in its size, it goes for three section, no need for that. Furtheremore, there is no need for that hostility I can see that failing an article can be quite frustrating since you put work and your hours to it. Finally, I don't blame Tbhotch for failing the article, he has indeed taken the criteria in consideration and as he sees it has failed the broad on its coverage, what some people forget every now and then its that not every article created in wikipedia can become a GA article. But I do believe if all these comments are taken into consideration it might meet said criteria. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Cody RhodesEdit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Based on my comments at Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment This has a few tags on it, but I am not sure if the article is really that bad. For example there is an orange tag asking for additional citations in the Professional Wrestling Career, but the section is pretty well cited. An expand section tag for a section that is only a few months old. Another expand section tag that is for a section that has subsections covering the extra years. I feel it has been tag bombed. There are some issues, but I don't think it is as bad as the tags suggest. AIRcorn (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • While I don't think the orange level tags are justified here they still need to be addressed. We can't have a good article siting around covered with them. They can be removed and replaced with more focused tags (or better yet removed when the issue is no longer present). Hopefully some of the wrestling focused editors here can address them. BTW my comment is not a keep or a delist at the moment, it was more an initial assessment of the tags. I haven't done a proper assessment of the article yet. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with the assessment, a lot of the tagging was done by the same person who then turned around and nominated it for GAR. The same editor who had ANI problems and blocking, in part for behavior around GAN. In fact I thought there was an unblock condition of not doing GARs, but I could be wrong there. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: They are not topic banned it seems. An admin closed the post saying, we will see what happens when their block ended. Any more disruption needs to be reported to ANI immediately though. StaticVapor message me! 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agreed. The The Brotherhood (2013–2015) section is basically unreferenced, but I don't think it's hard to source. The section on NJPW could do with being put into paragraphs (filmography needs citing too). Nothing that should really cause the article to be demoted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed with above. If anyone has any major issues that is going to require delisting, hopefully someone would be able to work on it. Otherwise I don't see reason for delisting. StaticVapor message me! 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

CoropunaEdit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I realize this is a somewhat unusual request. This article was promoted to GA in April 2016 based on a version I wrote. With better developed Wiki skills and with additional sources I just did a total rewrite, with which the version assessed as GA has little in common. Thus the GA star the old version received might not carry over to the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I see no reason why this should lose its Good Article status. Is there any particular aspect of the criteria you are worried about? AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
    Prose quality, mainly. When I write a lot of text there are often a lot of typos and awkward sentences that are left. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Death of Elisa LamEdit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

GAs cannot contain OR. Both the reviewed version and the present version include the text One page of the report has a form with boxes to check as to whether the death was accidental, natural, homicide, suicide or undetermined, in large type and a sufficient distance from each other. The "accident" box is dated June 15; however three days later the "undetermined" box was checked instead. This was at some point in the three days before the report's release noted as an error and crossed out and initialed., attributed directly to a scan of the autopsy report itself. The review did not address this, and seems to have completely missed that there was such textbook OR in the article. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:Tell me when in the article the OR is and I will remove it.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
@Hijiri88:OK I fixed the problem you brought up.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
It doesn't matter if you "fixed the problem I brought up"; the article had a really blatant problem that was apparently missed in the review, so we should be assuming that there were a lot of more subtle problems that were missed in the review. A thorough source check is needed. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I'm not reverting the edit, but can you do more to explain your complaint than say "textbook OR"? All the now-deleted sentences said was merely descriptive of what the primary source said. I'll grant that the wording needed a little work, but I don't find the verifiable description of what the autopsy report showed to be problematic. I think the cited source may even have discussed that detail. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It is clearly inappropriate to speculate on the reason why "accident" or "undetermined" was filled in unless reliable sources have done so previously, let alone to talk about how far apart they are and how clear the lettering is. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: The source cited does indeed say exactly that: "On 15 June the cause of death was ticked as "accidental", but on 18 June the cause of death was ticked as “could not be determined” but was crossed out, and the word "error" was written next to it." That's why I included a link to the autopsy report, so readers could verify that detail with their own eyes.

Second, if we took out "in large type and a sufficient distance from each other" and left the rest in, would you still call it "OR"?

Third, just how does the text speculate on why? The mere juxtaposition of these details might lead readers to speculate, but they do not manipulate them into doing so, properly worded. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of details gleaned from a primary source, even if those details are completely accurate (and that's a big "if"), implies some reason for doing so. The text as it was at review clearly implied that there was some confusion over the cause of death, rather than the much simpler reading that it was simple clumsiness. I have not checked to see if you or someone else has inserted a new citation of a secondary source that actually supports the content, and I don't see why I should have to. The initial review was inadequate, and I decided to leave it to the community to discuss how to address that. This is not an individual reassessment (I have been very careful about that ever since an incident in 2016). Please do not ping me again. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: After reading the article and all of the sources used to reference any potentially OR text, I'm satisfied that this article doesn't contain original research. To be clear, I don't believe simple WP:TRANSCRIPTION constitutes OR. Maybe the last sentence in the text quoted by Hiriji88 could be perceived as OR, but the entire quoted text has been removed in any case. I couldn't personally see any other issues/any reason to demote while reading the article. Which all leaves me with the impression that this could've easily been dealt with at the article's talk page. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: The policy you cite does not address the issue of selecting certain material from primary sources and creatively interpreting it; in fact it doesn't apply to the text I quoted at all, since it is not transcription of quoted material (or faithful translation of foreign-language material) but rather original prose interpretation of a primary source -- yes, maybe a lot of it is accurate description of some of what is in that primary source, but that's different from faithful transcription of quoted content. 99% of experienced Wikipedians would demand a reliable secondary source for such content. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
But there isn't much difference between the now-removed prose you quoted above and the text Daniel Case quoted from the source. So the intent of transcription could be applied to this. And I don't see any further issues arising in the article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have some sympathy for Hijiri88s view. These death of ..., murder of ..., killing of ... etc articles are a haven for fan theories and speculation. However, I don't think this is that bad compared to some I have run across. Saying that I have actually raised similar concerns at this very article over the use of primary sources. This was over an overly descriptive account of the video using the video itself as a source (see Talk:Death of Elisa Lam#Video section - My original post was split up by Daniels responses so it looks a little messy). This was a couple of years before the article was passed as good. The same issue is still there, a description of the video based on the video itself. It needs secondary sources if for nothing else than to allow us to assign the correct weight in what we describe. I don't know if I would classify it as textbook OR, but it is definitely not best practise.
"These death of ..., murder of ..., killing of ... etc articles are a haven for fan theories and speculation. However, I don't think this is that bad compared to some I have run across." Why thank you ... what articles like this need is someone keeping a regular eye on them, and I've been doing that for the last five years.

. As for the description of that part of the autopsy report, I've been thinking about that that maybe we could just take a screenshot of that part of the page and put it in there; that would speak for itself and end any need to describe it. Such an image wouldn't create any copyright issues, either, as just words and incomplete phrases. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC) (signed belatedly)

The autopsy report is used 16 times as a reference. This is far too much use of this type of primary source in an article like this. Again if it is descriptive and not interpreting the results it is not strictly speaking OR, but it does again provide a weight issue, which is essentially a NPOV concern.
I am suspicious of long in popular culture sections. I looked at one at random - the "How to Get Away with Murder" paragraph - and from the review the only reference to Lam I could find was Is Lila Stangard inspired by Elisa Lam?. I don't know how a stray seven word thought from a reviewer deserves a paragraph and it overplays the source in suggesting that it is actually inspired by Lam.
Was this one recent? I have taken so much out of that section over the years that I can't remember all the additions. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Overall there is enough to suggest this article relies too much on primary sources for information that would better sourced from secondary ones. Primary sources are allowed to be used so they don't all need to be replaced. I am not a fan of Hijiri88's hit and run approach to these reassessments, but there is merit to looking closer at this one. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: I am not a fan of Hijiri88's hit and run approach to these reassessments Umm ... what? That's a ... pretty bizarre accusation, given my history at GAR. Can you back it up with something? I've almost always been told that I should be less involved with these kinda things, and leave them for the community to decide, the one exception being a disastrous occasion on which I accidentally opened an individual assessment when I meant to open a community one. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
You tend to drop an article here after identifying one or two problems and then expect other editors to identify the rest. Now in theory that is perfectly reasonable and maybe even one of the purposes of this part of the project. I even do something similar myself to see if any editors are interested in addressing the concerns before I go too far in depth. However in practice you will be lucky to get many other opinions here and in the end it just creates work for someone else or ends up with the other issues not being addressed. So, yeah I am not a fan. I am not a fan of many things so don't take it personally. I don't know who told you to be less involved with reviews, I would say that unless things get heated or unproductive you should stay involved as much as you can. I feel that with your experience you are more than capable of conducting individual reassessments. BTW I see nothing disastrous about the above review. In fact you left some good points, others agreed with you and it was delisted. The beauty of this reassessment is that there are editors interested in it keeping its Good status. That is relatively rare and worth working with. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Good point (about the description of the video). The prose there struck me as a bit repetitive, but nothing insurmountable. Perhaps it could be tightened up a bit, @MagicatthemovieS: @Daniel Case:? And I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find a secondary source describing what she's doing in the video—considering the coverage this... "incident"(?)... attracted? As far as your point about the autopsy report being used 16 times, several of those occasions see that source being used as a secondary reference to information also sourced by other references—so that isn't necessarily a deal breaker. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: Part of the reason for the long description is that it has always been my goal to get the video itself in the article ... there are sure enough copies out there, if someone knows where we can get one and upload it I'm all ears (so to, uh, speak). It's entirely justifiable under fair use (although we may have to go with a 30-second clip; perhaps we can edit it down to the most interesting parts). If someone else can upload a good copy, let me know beforehand so I can write the fair-use justification. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: The only videos I've ever seen uploaded to Wikipedia are 100+ year old silent films whose copyright expired long ago. I'm sure hotel security footage is public domain, but I wouldn't even know where to start with any of that. Maybe someone at the Wikipedia:Teahouse might have some advice on how to proceed? Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: Take a look at American Beauty, which has one clip from the film nestled next to a section discussing critical interpretation of the film relevant to it, per the fair-use criteria. We also have user-created video, like the one I produced (my son was the cameraman; I edited the separate takes) showing how a French press is used to make coffee. I particularly like the one I found on Commons that has been the lede media on rain ... if you were one of the possible handful on the planet who had grown to adulthood without ever experiencing liquid natural precipitation, that video would explain it.

Under current US law copyright attaches to the video even though it was produced automatically by the hotel's security cameras. No, I don't think the Cecil would sue, but the fair use policy doesn't take the likelihood of a rightsholder suing into account. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: What exactly do you mean by "upload a good copy" of the video? Do you mean quality-wise? Because the video linked to in the article as an 'External video' is the best quality one I've seen. I seriously doubt anyone is going to remaster this, and I doubt we'll ever get a full, unedited version of it. Is the problem that you can't download it off YouTube? Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: If you find a downloadable version, I'll take it. Seriously, I thought you couldn't just download anything you wanted ... the uploader has to give permission? Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Technically, you can't download anything off YouTube, either with or without uploader permission. Technically. ;) Uploading to Wikipedia without permission of the copyright holder – if one exists, which in this case is extremely doubtful – is a separate thing entirely. I'll leave that up to you to decide. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Aircorns commentsEdit

I guess I should make a more formal review section.

  • I looked at the autopsy reference and am a little concerned. It appears to be scanned and uploaded to PDF archive. There are no indication of who the uploader is, copyright status or even any way to be sure it is legitimate. This is the information page and is not very helpful. I have a similar concern about this one too. I can't access the original site [1] so have no idea on its reliability. It again looks like a scan of some court document without any indication of legitimacy.
  • The use of primary sources has been raised as a concern so I looked closer at them
    • Lams blog is used to source the date it started. I would be a bit more comfortable if it actually used Lams name instead of Ether Fields, but another source seems to confirm it is her blog.
    • Her Tumblr is also used as a source to say she was starting a tumblr blog and then describe what was on it. I am not sure how that detail is important. That is why we need secondary sources to mention this stuff as otherwise we are assigning our own weight to information based on our interpretation of primary sources.
    • The video is at least linked to the LA police so is a reliable primary source,even though it is hosted on youtue. The cites below the main one are not up to GA standard though. It should actually link to the video, Detectives means nothing as far as cites go. I brought this up years ago.
      • It drew worldwide interest in the case is not supported
      • The whole description is too convoluted. Take the She walks to it again and stands in the doorway, leaning on the side. Suddenly she steps out into the hall, then to her side, back in, looking to the side, then back out. She then steps sideways again, and for a few seconds she is mostly invisible behind the wall she has her back to just outside. The door remains open. paragraph. You would be much better off using a secondary soure that says she acted strangely than trying to convey that by describing stage prompts. Descriptive enough not to be original research, but very dry. There must be secondary sources describing the video, otherwise why would we include a full section on it
As I've said before, my goal has been to have the video in the article, so there wouldn't be a need to describe it.

A lot of secondary sources simply embedded the video, making it unnecessary for them to describe it, so there's a paucity of that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

    • This [2] is not a reliable source
I didn't add that but it is used as a source for the tanks being open and the roof being accessible after her death. Presumably we can trust the datestamp. If we just use specific time references in the video (near the end) to what it is said to support, which is visually self-evident, I don't see how it's a problem. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The autopsy report is used as a reference for
      • It took the Los Angeles County Coroner's office four months, after repeated delays, to release the autopsy report, This is in the lead and the four month can be supported by the dates in the body. There is no mention of repeated delays however in the body.
      • I don't see why the autopsy report needs to be used alongside reliable secondary sources (i.e the LA times saying a video has been released) In fact the autopsy report doesn't say anything about a video being released so I am not sure why it is needed here. Also the report makes specific mention of her not appearing distressed. The description and comments, which are from random viewers much less qualified to make calls in this regard, in the article tend to suggest otherwise. Some argued that she was attempting to hide from a pursuer, perhaps someone ultimately responsible for her death, while others said she was merely frustrated with the elevator's apparent malfunction. I would be tempted to tag the "somes" with a {{who}} as it is important to identify armchair detetives from real ones. At the least it needs to make clear at the start of the paragraph that these are armature theories. It reads a bit like some reddit thread on conspiracy theories, which is understandable since a part of the notability of this case is the releasing of the video, something the police only really have themselves to blame. I think we need to be clearer though on this and not give too much weight to the conspiracies over the actual police conclusions.
      • The tank was drained and cut open since its maintenance hatch was too small to accommodate equipment needed to remove Lam's body Not seeing this in the autopsy report cited
      • Toxicology tests – incomplete because not enough of her blood was preserved – showed traces consistent with prescription medication found among her belongings, plus nonprescription drugs such as Sinutab and ibuprofen This is cited to five pages of the report. It is doing my head in because they are scanned sideways and everytime I click on next a pop-up appears. I am really not liking how this source is presented (I am getting banner ads flashing at me). I will take your word on the drugs, but can you confirm where it says that it was "incomplete because not enough of her blood was preserved".
  • It also records subcutaneous pooling of blood in Lam's anal area,[34] which some observers suggested was a sign of sexual abuse; however one pathologist has noted it could also have resulted from bloating in the course of the body's decomposition,[3] and her rectum was also prolapsed. Some observers really needs more info as there is a big difference between a doctor, pathologist or coroner compared to a layperson.
  • Apart from the exageration in the popular culture source mentioned above the others at least make Lam a major part of ther story. I still feel some of the descriptions are a bit detailed, but probably not a GA thing.
    • There is quite a paragraph devoted to a filmaker saying they would make a film of the incident, but it doesn't say whether this happened or not. This was four years ago so might need an update (and removal of all the speculation). In fact a few of these need either updating if they have been done or removing or trimming if they never made it past the concept phase

Overall I personally don't like the use of primary sources in this article, and many of them should be pretty easily replaced with secondary sources. Some of the points above are important for a GA, while others are not. I really would like to know how you came across the autopsy report as it seems a strange site to be hosting it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep I don’t view this as being original research at all. It's just a straightforward description of what the document says, and it clearly wasn't meant to imply anything. Maybe there is some misunderstanding here, but a careful inspection of the article and the sources definitely shows no original research. Granted, it's already been removed, so this observation doesn't really matter anymore. The only issues worth discussing are those that haven't already been addressed. Looking over the original good article review, I can see that it was very thorough, so if the misunderstanding over original research is the only issue here, then of course I have to vote to keep. My recommendation is that further misunderstandings be discussed on the talk page, rather than through good article reassessment.ErinRC (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Black Panther (film)Edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The original GA review was not thorough, and missed a large amount of textual plagiarism (see the talk page and the most recent archive). It's got to the point that the only parts of the article that I'm convinced are clean are the awkwardly large volume of direct quotations. The original nominator and other contributors have been reluctant do the heavy lifting of sweeping the article of this plagiarism. I don't think there's anything for it at this point but GAR. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


M9 half-trackEdit

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

Lots of conflicts are cited but not supported by sources. Some users, such as the Philippines, are also unsourced.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be better to remove the uncited conflicts and users than demote the article, which otherwise seems GA material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, if you remove all the unsourced foreign users and wars, you do not have a complete overview of the subject.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Glina massacresEdit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
The article is not well-writen and not neutral

Misinterpretations and forgeriesEdit

  • Poorly equipped and poorly trained, the Royal Yugoslav Army was quickly defeated.[2] - false; the Royal Yugoslav Army was betrayed and sabotaged by German minority in Yugoslavia, by Croats and Slovenes, too
  • That is a common but mistaken trope about betrayal. The Army and Army Air Force were outclassed in every area, and the war was already largely over after the first four days due to collapse of the southern front. And this was before the fifth column elements made their presence felt post-10 April. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. First example: "Kapetan Vladimir Kren, kao organizovani ustaša, 3. aprila 1941. prebegao je iz Zagreba u Austriju i Nemcima dao podatke o letačkom rasporedu Jugoslovenskog ratnog vazduhoplovstva." from Petranović, Branko (1992). Srbija u Drugom svetskom ratu 1939—1945. Beograd: Vojnoizdavački i novinski centar. pages 100-101
Second example: "Slovenački predstavnici u Vladi Fran Kulovec i Miho Krek su 5. aprila 1941. preko Poslanstva Slovačke u Beogradu nudili Trećem Rajhu izdvajanje Slovenije iz sastava Kraljevine Jugoslavije pod uslovom da se garantuje integritet tako izdvojene Slovenije. " from Branko Petranović: ISTORIJA JUGOSLAVIJE, knjiga I - KRALJEVINA JUGOSLAVIJA , Nolit Beograd page 413
Third example: "A number of Croat officers even went to the extreme of committing acts of treason. In one such instance, an air force officer flew from Belgrade to Graz as early as 3 April and handed over to the Germans the highly classified list of airfields where the Yugoslav planes were dispersed. Thus, when the Luftwaffe struck these fields during the initial attack wave, it virtually wiped out what little Yugoslav air power there was. In the ground fighting, shortly after the Germans attacked, entire Croat units simply threw away their weapons and quit. In some instances, Croat officers led their men in organized attacks against Serb elements that ware actively resisting the invaders. On 8 April, Croat troops openly revolted in Vinkovci, the main railroad junction along the vital Belgrade-Zagreb line. They launched a concerted attack against the headquarters of First Army Group and held as prisoners its commander with his entire staff until they were rescued by loyal Serb troops. Such occurrences were not unusual and happened in other sectors as well." from PART TWO THE YUGOSLAV CAMPAIGN in The German Campaign in the Balkans by DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON 25, D.C., 17 November 1953
Fourth example: About treasonous behavior of the Yugoslav Volksdeutsche male population read in The Danube Swabians: German Populations in Hungary, Rumania and Yugoslavia, and Hitler’s impact on their Patterns by G.C. Paikert, Springer Science & Business Media, Dec 6, 2012 page 276 here--Bocin kolega (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I acknowledge all of that, but fifth column activity was ancillary to the actual fighting. Tomasevich 1975 pp. 84–86 weighs it up and makes that clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Huh, you are playing again with names and pages?! What exactly your Tomasevich (amateur historian) wrote there? How he countered Petranovic (a history Universty professor) and the US Army military analysts about treason and sabotages? Somewhere else, the same Tomasevich wrote: "The chief task of the Yugoslav Volskdeutsche at the time of the invasion was to act as a fifth column. Under Janko's direction, German men had been organized into a sports group, the Deutsche Mannschaft. Overnight it was converted into a paramilitary organization that collaborated with German forces entering the Banat from Romania and with those entering Slovenia, and Slavonia form Austria and western Hungary."--Bocin kolega (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways, dismiss Tomasevich on one hand and use him as an example on the other. Your argumentation is barely coherent. Tomasevich p. 86 concludes, inter alia, "The rapid military collapse of the Yugoslav army in April 1941 was the consequence of the tremendous economic and military discrepancy between the adversaries... All other factors, including the fifth-column activity, were ancillary, having nominal effect on the speed and totality of the military collapse, and only a small effect on the way in which the army and the state collapsed." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not dismissig Tomasevich this way - just pointing at contradicion in his writings. I'm dismissing him as a military analyst since he is not a military analyst. On my side I referenced the credible military analysis - the US Army analysis from 1953.--Bocin kolega (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not a contradiction. Tomasevich acknowledges the fifth column activity, but says that it was only ancillary to the final outcome. He says the defeat was due to the mismatch between the forces. ie that the Yugoslavs were outclassed. Do you have a reliable source that contradicts that assessment, or just a grab bag of mentions of the fifth column activity that admittedly occurred? BTW, the US Army analysis, which was drawn from debriefs of German commanders, is 20 years older than Tomasevich, and on p. 66 actually agrees with Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Chapter 11 of the US Army analysis lists three reasons for destruction of the Jugoslav army not reducing it to pure technical superiority of Germans nor it says anything about insignificance of treason and the fifth column. Tomasevich js just an amateur as to the military affairs here.--Bocin kolega (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Glina is a small market town[13] in the Banovina[14] region of Croatia located about 55 kilometers (34 miles) south of Zagreb.[15] - it's enough to write Glina to see the town's geographical coordinates
Nonsense--Bocin kolega (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I have more of idea what is normal practice on en WP when explaining where a location is. What exactly is your problem with saying what size the town was, in what region it lies and how far it is from Zagreb? Seems a strange position to take. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1931, the town itself had a population of 2,315 people[13] and was inhabited mostly by Serbs, Croats, and Jews.[16] - arbitrarily written; actually there was 53% Croats 47% Serbs, a few Jews, In addition the Glina district population had 2/3 Serbs accordng to the 1931 census
  • No-one is stopping you from adding this information, assuming you have a reliable source for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an assertion, not what I'm supposed to do--Bocin kolega (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If you don't have a reliable source for the information, just say so, and then drop it. Otherwise, indicate where you have got this information. Because that's how we decide whether information goes in an article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I gave the most reliable source supporting my statement above - the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1931 census.--Bocin kolega (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
It is a primary source for starters. What is the citation for the 1931 census? What page is it on? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Please, troll elsewere.--Bocin kolega (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Accusing an editor of trolling without any basis is a personal attack. Personal attacks are not permitted on WP. Pull your head in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Without any basis, you say? Here is visible that you removed the disputed tag twice claiming that nothing was given on talk page justifying the tag, contrary to the facts. Here at the beginning of this entry I clearly stated "accordng to the 1931 census" You again pretended not to see the fact. This kind of behavior is trolling.--Bocin kolega (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't pretend not to see it, I asked for a reference, a published version of the 1931 census and page number so the material can be added to the article. There is little point in saying something should be added to the article without providing a citation to the reliable source you are suggesting contains the information. Otherwise it is just your say-so, and we don't add material to articles on the say-so of an editor. Have you actually read this information in a copy of the census? If so, it must have information about its publication, and you must be able to provide a page number. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You again pretending? What was the reason for removing the disputed tag twice? As to the census, find it and download it, use the proper document viewer and search for the "Glina" string. Come back when you do what is asked here.--Bocin kolega (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You are the one suggesting the article is inaccurate, so the burden is on you to produce the source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The Ustaše then locked inside[20] and massacred[21] those who did not possess conversion certificates, including priest Bogdan Opačić.[19] The bodies were then left to burn as the Ustaše set the church on fire[15] and waited outside to shoot any survivors attempting to escape the flames.[21] On 13 May, a further 100 Serb males were executed by the Ustaše in the nearby village of Prekopa.[22] - completely false. Ustase arested (May 11-13) all males they were able to catch, transported by trucks to village Prekopa where a mass grave was already dug shot them by a firing squad (417 or 437 persons)
  • The next day, Pavelić visited Rome and was granted a private audience with Pope Pius XII, who offered de facto recognition of the NDH on behalf of the Holy See. Although he was aware that Pavelić was a totalitarian dictator, there is no evidence that he had knowledge of the first Glina massacre at the time.[7] Midlarsky actually said, "Four days after the Glina masssacre, Pavelic had a "devotional" meeting with Pope Pius XII in the Vatican; at the same time, the Holy See granted de facto recognition to the newly created Nazi puppet Independent State of Croatia. As John Cornwell indicates, there is no evidence that the pope was aware of these massacres that time." - from the talk page
  • Estimates of the number of Serbs killed on 11–13 May vary. Historians Jozo Tomasevich[15] and Ivo Goldstein put the number at 260.[23] Historians Sabrina P. Ramet[24] and Marko Attila Hoare estimate that about 300 Serbs were massacred[25] while historian Davide Rodogno puts the number at 417 killed.[26] - Tomasevich (a writer, not hstorian) and Goldstein are quoting some letter supposed to be written by Stepinac and sent to Pavelic, Ramet and Hoare - no primary sources cited, Rodogno cited the "Promemoria per il duce con allegata una relazione del 9 Iuglio redatta dal Comando dei C.C.R.R. dela II Armata" document sent by the Second Italian Army Command to Mussolini dated on July 9 1941. Rodogno wrote, In the district of Glima more than 18 000 Serbs were murdered, 417 of them butchered inside the Orthodox church.
  • On the night of 30 July 1941, a massacre similar to the one in May again occurred in Glina.[18] - not similar at all; see my comment above
  • About one month later, the church was burned down by the Ustaše.[22] - not burned rather destroyed; a proposal given by a German officer (Openheim) to turn the church into a movie theatre or some other public use building was rejested by local Roman Catholic priest (Franc Žužek)
  • Estimates of the number of Serbs killed from 30 July to 3 August vary widely. Sociologist Damir Mirković[18] and historian Paul Mojzes state that 700 Serbs were killed.[30] Journalist Tim Judah puts the number at 1,200,[31] and historian Iván T. Berend writes that the Ustaše killed 1,800 people.[32] Hoare writes that as many as 2,000 Serbs were murdered.[33] - primary souces not given nor used to verify "estimates". By name, there was identified 203 persons, the number in the church slaughtered = 900, from the mass graves exhavated 2000 skulls. Berend wrote "The terrible incidents of Glina, one of the first scenes of the new confrontation, where Croat fascists slaughtered 1,800 Serbs in a church and on the outskirts of the township in 1941" not giving dates.
  • From an estimated 300,000 Croatian Serbs that were murdered by the Ustaše from 1941 to 1945,[14] more than 18,000 were from Glina at its surroundings.[26] - far from true, Rodogno cited Italian war time document saing that 18 000 were killed until July 9 1941 in the Glina district
  • That summer, the Ustaše had offered amnesty for all Serbs in the NDH who would convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. Many Serbs responded positively, and one group turned up at a Serbian Orthodox church in Glina where a conversion ceremony was to take place.[27] -taken out of context. The truth is: Glenny quoted a Nuremberg testimony, as it was given in Der Kroatische Ustascha Staat, page 101. From the testimony given by Ljuban Jednak, there was a large group of male Serbs, between age 16-60, who were arrested in the Glina district and put in Topusko district prison and the prison yard. They were told that all arrested Serbs would be sent to Lika for a forced labor. All arrested Serbs were tied by wire and transported to Glina in cattle wagons. Jednak mentioned the cattle wagon capacity was 150-160 persons and there were at least two wagons used for that purpose.
  • Judah and Tanner works not reliable; both got negative reviews in scientific journals, review of Dusan Djordjevich, a Stanford University scholar, about Tomislav Vukovic's alias Philip Cohen read Miroslav Svirčević and D. B. MacDonald reviews

--Bocin kolega (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

23 editor just making sure you are aware of this, as you have access to some sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)