Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 34

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 35)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 33) →

Tofu

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Article has been here two months, and while it has improved, all problems have not yet been fixed. It can be renominated at WP:GAN when it is up to standards. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was found during sweep process. It carries a lot of information, but I feel that it's a little too much (per criteria 3b). The references are not uniform. Also, trivia section was found. It definetely doesn't deserve a bold delist, so I want others' opinions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It clearly does not meet WP:LEAD at the moment. Although this doesn't deserve a bold delist, it might be appropriate to use a regular delisting procedure, as described in the guidelines at the top of this page: i.e., list your concerns on the talk page, maybe try to fix some of them, wait a week or so, and if the article still does not meet the criteria, delist it. Geometry guy 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Yes, the lead is definently too short, it can't possibly be summarizing most of the article. Homestarmy (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist lead is too short for an article this long. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
• Comment - I've expanded the lead, how does the lead look now? -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  Better! I've done a copyedit and some reordering. I suggest reviewers take another look at the article. Geometry guy 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This is much improved. I'd be happy to support keeping it listed, once the Miscellanea section has been reworked as something like "Tofu and culture" with well-written prose. Geometry guy 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Calling a trivia section something else does not make it NOT trivia. The miscellaneous section has to go. Also, the "choosing tofu" section needs to be incorporated elsewhere in the article; it is unreferenced and seems kinda how-to-guide-ish. The Etymology section needs a reference, and should probably be moved to history section, perhaps under the origins part. But if those three fixes are made, this is GA quality IMHO. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - The 47,572 bytes article has 22 citations, and even some of those are not good. It has some unreferenced information like "It is excellent for camping, in that it is very light, may be sold flattened, and makes a very filling nutritious meal on the road." - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 08:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per everything mentioned above. Drewcifer (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I wanted to close this as "delist", but I found that the trivia section has now been integrated into the article. I've also removed the unnecessary "Choosing tofu" section. I'm not convinced that there is a serious citation issue: the sentence quoted by Havelock is certainly awful, but the solution is to rephrase it more neutrally or remove it, not cite it. This is not the kind of material that is likely to be challenged. Most of the arguments for delisting are now out-of-date, and updated views would be most helpful. Geometry guy 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has simply too much unreferenced information without footnotes. The article also seems to follow differing style patterns in some parts as it has two footnote formats and such. You seem to be doing a great job addressing everyone's concerns so I thought I would point out a WP:MoS check and using footnotes wherever necessary. Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 11:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but actually, I've only made pretty trivial edits: other editors have made more substantial fixes. I could probably sort out the inconsistent referencing format, but I cannot fix the perceived lack of references. I'm mainly interested in closing this GAR, so I would remind reviewers that: (1) referencing and inline citation are not necessarily the same thing; (2) the criteria only require inline cites for "quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"; (3) only certain parts of WP:MoS are GA criteria. If reviewers can pinpoint clear failings in (2) or (3), then that would short-circuit this discussion nicely, and the article could be delisted. If not, I'll try to fix the formatting of the footnotes. Geometry guy 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Blimey those references were a mess. I couldn't bear to leave them that way, so I've sorted them out. Geometry guy 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Relist on GAN. The article has since been improved, but more citations are needed for the sales and etymology section, if you ask me. bibliomaniac15 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Insufficient number and formatting of citations (some sections completely unreferenced), numerous one sentence paragraphs and sections, suspected violations of summary style. Trivia concern is invalid, as trivia sections are only discouraged, not forbidden. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Avrocar

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Nominated at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This article failed GA in the past due to a lack of inline refs (sigh). Now it has 50. Maury (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The failed GA was back in February 2007. You should just go ahead and nominate this article again at WP:GAN. No need for any review here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreement with the above The article will have changed substantially from the reviewed version and will require another full review to properly check all the citations and references. Cheers, CP 02:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved to GAN. Maury (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Call of Duty 2

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Archived as a stale discussion. No evidence of anyone wishing to change its GA status yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, fails the 'broad in coverage aspect', giving only a brief bit about anything besides gameplay and plot. The lead reflects this lack of information- it talks about mobile phone versions, but I haven't seen anything in the article about it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Woah, I guess I was biased in looking at it when I wrote it...anyways, I'll go add to the reception (etc.) sections now. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I added a bit about the mobile version. --Mika1h (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Gameplay synopsis is a TAD long, but not much, and there is enough on reception and press coverage that I don't see anything worth delisting over... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The refs are inconsistent with formatting - accessed 19 July 2007 and Retrieved on November 16, 2007. A lot of references are missing publisher and dates. With the IGN references say which page it is because all the refs look the same. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Only problem I see is with the inconsistent citations. Drewcifer (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Archived as an already delisted article. Article was previously delisted by User:Joke137 over a month ago. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the message left on the article's talk page, I believe the sections "The Holocaust" and "Raoul Wallenberg's mission neither manage to stay on topic nor cover their subject in a neutral fashion. I think the article does not merit GA status.–Joke 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It will take me some time to carefully review the article, but my first impression is that it's a borderline case. In its current form I would lean toward failing it because:

• The introduction is clipped and needs further development, per WP:LEAD.
• The section titled "Raoul Wallenberg's mission" is far too long, lacks citations for key facts and needs a proper copy edit and prose refresh.

Perhaps someone can spruce up the article. Majoreditor 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less and less I think that the article can be in any sense described as "borderline". The major contributor to the article, Attila Lajos, is someone who wrote a PhD thesis trying to reinterpret Wallenberg's story [1]. That's fine – it's great to have subject matter experts contributing to an article – but certainly if his point of view is to be represented, it has to be done as a contrast to the many other sources (on the internet and elsewhere) that tell an entirely different story. That story has been systematically removed from the article, although it was visible in the article before Attila started editing [2]. I am going to summarily delist, it is in no sense a "good article." –Joke 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Grammar School Worcester

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delisted. This article is a stub left behind from a merger. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

See "History", "Land and buildings" and "Houses" sections. Kaypoh (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think there's much to be considered here. Since the merger of this article with RGS Worcester and The Alice Ottley School it's been left as little more than a stub. A clear candidate for an immediate delisting. Why not be bold? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Delist per above comment. History, Land and buildings and Houses sections all refer to the other article without summarizing the pertinent content. Article content is meager, at best, and not sufficiently broad. A case for a bold delisting, if ever there was one. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This seems like an open and shut case to me, so I'm going to be the one being (not very in this case) bold and delist this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. In my own view, a rename could be considered to distinguish the back-story from the game (if it does eventially emerge from the ether). Geometry guy 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Delist as technically the article is no longer stable - as with news direct from the source and new information in the last couple of days, the game has gone no longer from being the infamous "vaporware" to actual reality. In addition the Development section is presented tagged with a reasonable "timeline" concern, which can be cleaned up otherwise. MASEM 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Let me see if I understand the circumstances. A press release and other material were released during the past two days. This material has inspired editors to add and modify material. Is that it? Majoreditor (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To be more specific, the game since 2001 has been "vaporware", and had become a long running joke in the video game community (it topped Wired's "vaporware" list for several years straight. Under that guise, that the game was always mythologically discussed as never likely ever coming out and that's why the game's notable, GA'ing the article seems appropriate since there was no likely point when the game would be out, and therefore the article is "stable". Now we actually have reliable sources directly from the producers that say that it is actually being worked on, though no release date has been set, but they are much closer to a finished product than before. This changes the game from being vaporware to a real product, and thus it is expected that the content of the article will change over the course of the next several months as news continues. Thus, the article is no longer stable, and compared to other video game articles, it won't be broad until it is released and has critical reception. --MASEM 23:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

May I pose two more questions?

• If the product hasn't been released or shared with the public, isn't it still vaporware? (I thought that software doesn't become a product until beta release or commercialization.)
• Under what conditions does an article become so unstable that it is subject to de-listing?

Thoughts, anyone? Majoreditor (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I just checked. It's still "when it's done." I'll consider it "not comprehensive" when 3DR actually sets a date for when it's going to be released; until then, it's as good as what has been released so far about it. There was a huge furor too over the so-called "in-game shot" earlier this year...we weathered that pretty well. "Stability" is a kind of tricky criteria to judge. Some people have interpreted it as that being that no future event can ever be GA; but IIRC the list of Virtual Console games is either FA or GA, because it doesn't really change that much from day to day. There's been hundreds of edits just because IT'S A TRAILER OMG...but, I think it'll become stable again once we all get over it. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: This article is still about Duke Nukem Forever, the running gag of video game development, not Duke Nukem Forever, the actual game that will come out whenever the hell it actually comes out. Nifboy (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Article contains cleanup banner(s) and one sentence paragraphs/sections. As a forth-coming programme, article content is ipso facto incomplete and not sufficiently broad. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 14:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Who cares if it's still vaporware or not? The article is very, very poorly written. There's a huge amount of what we used to call "proseline", i.e. "On date x, blahblahblah. On date y, blahblahblah. On date z, ..." In fact, TWENTY sentences begin with "in" or "on". There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs and a couple of one-sentence subsections. And, as an example of the poor prose, take the beginnings of these three consecutive sentences from the section "Change to Unreal engine": "Broussard said that"; "He also reassured gamers that"; "He also said that". The last sentence of the lead says "as of 2003"... as of 2003? How about as of 2007/8?! Oy vey. -- Mike (Kicking222) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delist The two biggest issues for me are 1) The poor writing as noted above and 2) Even though there are many references, there are still some sections that need them, such as the last 2 paragraphs of "Change to Unreal engine". It is a pretty good start, and much better referenced than most, but the prose still seems below even the "well written" standard of the good article criteria.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment So, it has come down to all this...after Krator denied A-class rating, I asked him twice how it could be fixed and started a new talk page section to open more thoughts on fixing it. DNF is still a very unique thing – a development so long that I didn't think it could be easily summarized Final Fantasy VII style. I even asked Deckiller how it could be fixed (his response). And to think, all this time, the answer was right here, at GAR...er, what was that answer, again? Delisting. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You have above some very concrete things to fix. If you fix it, say, now, then the article will probably not be delisted. The rewrite spelled out by Kicking222 seems quite reasonable and easy to do. Also, as I have noted, several sections lack any referening. Why not work on those things, and say "I think I fixed it... now what". Every person voting delist wants this article fixed to GA standards. EVERY ONE OF THEM. We all would prefer to see the article fixed up. You have things to fix listed above. Get on it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Very well said. I don't think anyone here takes pleasure in denying that little green dot to any article. Quite the reverse in fact. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec)I don't know how to. I didn't know back in July how to shift it from timeline style to prose style, asked a couple of others whether they knew, nobody responded. Does User:Hbdragon88/Temp simply shift the chairs on the Titanic? Or does it s(t)ink like before? There are some things that I could not source last January, and still have not found, but to remove them completely would make it less comprehensive than it is now. It's fine, honestly. I am simply a bit frustrated, but it's nothing personal or hostile towards anyone here. This is good peer review. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Greg Skrepenak

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action, but renomination is recommended. Geometry guy 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article was wrongly failed as part of an effort to hunt for articles to fail among my then 29 concurrent nominees. Although I have beefed up the NFL career portion of the article I believe the article should have been placed on hold for such an improvement request. I have relisted the article at WP:GAN, but feel that I should pursue this avenue. This is the first article I have had failed and listed here for rereview. I have comments on my opinion of the reviewers efforts at [3]. I believe the article should be passed because it not only expounds on his collegiate and professional careers, but also gives extensive details on high school and post athletic career and has decent family info. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The prose need sharpening. Here are a few examples:

• As a result of his heroics... - the use of the term "heroics" is over-the-top haliographic language for describing his high school football career.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• However, he got injured during his second preseason start when Charles Haley bull rushed him and he got tangled up between Jeff Hostetler and the turf, which resulted in a dislocated ankle joint and which kept him out for the season. The word got is usually a poor choice for encyclopedic writing.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Skrepenak was deactivated from the roster for the final two games of the season (officially due to a combination of a rib injury and the flu, but possibly in part due to vocal play selection criticism) right before his contract expired. Lengthy parenthetical remarks like this are awkward. Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• He was the only Panthers to start every game of both the 1996 and 1997 National Football League seasons. This sentence should use the singular noun Panther rather than the plural Panthers.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

With some copy editing this article can be a GA contender. Keep up the great work, Tony.Majoreditor (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article has been expanded substantially since the GA review, which means that the review did what it was supposed to. This user just seems to be using this process as a way to get the page quickly promoted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply The article has two modest paragraphs that have been added. However, the article should not have been failed in its prior form, IMO. As I have stated on your talk page and at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Re:_Sports_and_recreation_section a modest effort should have been anticipated for a lineman. In American football, except for the skill position players there is not a whole lot to say for players who do not reach the Pro Bowl level in general.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This process is meant for when the reviewed version was good enough to pass, not after you followed the review and the article has been improved a bunch. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
      • In all honesty, the review forced me to add two paragraphs of filler information that did not improve the quality of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The bickering needs to stop, guys. Comments have strayed towards supporting egos, not the article or process, so the issue needs to be dropped. Right or wrong, the article was failed and we need to move on. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Renominate at GAN. The article has been expanded and improved since it failed. It could still use some tweaking to prose prior to renomination. Majoreditor (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Renominate Holds have the condition of “reasonably expect[ing]” the changes to be made promptly; obviously, the nominator and reviewer had different expectations, both of which seem reasonable. Reviewers are allowed to make judgment calls, so I don’t see anything “inappropriate” with the failure. List the article at WP:GAN again and get a fresh start. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• List Although put reference 15, 17, 18, 25, 27, 30, 41 in lowercase and there is something wrong with reference 20. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• No action. I see no problem with this review. The article can of course be renominated at GAN, but there is no need to take any action at this GAR. Geometry guy 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravel

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action, but recommend renomination. Geometry guy 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reassess Quick-failed GAWasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This GAC was quick-failed because Gravel is a candidate in the current U.S. presidential election, and thus the article is supposedly inherently unstable. In fact, Gravel has zero chance of winning anything in this election; his moment in the sun in the early Democratic debates has already passed. When he finally does drop out, only a sentence or two will be added to the article. The large majority of the article concerns his time as Alaska Senator in the 1970s or the overall trajectory of his unusual life story. There are many GA articles for current actors and pop music stars that are far more unstable due to new events occurring than this one will be. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

List as GA This would need very little work indeed even to be FA standards. This is a great article. The stability criterion is based on the idea that an article is likely to substantially change. This guy is the ninth horse in an eight horse race. I didn't even know he was running for president. No joke, the 2008 presidential run will be a footnote for him, the article is great. It should be on the list. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Renominate. The quick fail was inappropiate. The only "stability clause" in the quick fail criteria is thus: "The article has been the subject of recent or ongoing edit wars". Although the article does not currently appear to be a GA (e.g. nonsense statements such as "initially a poor student due to undiagnosed dyslexia"), it does, at least, deserve a full review. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• No action. I agree the quick-fail was inappropriate, and suggest the article is renominated at GAN after leaving a message on the talk page explaining the reason. I think this is pretty close to GA, but it needs a full review to iron out any minor points. Geometry guy 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• No action at GAR and suggest renomination at GAN. The article should not have been quick-failed. I also disagree with the assertion that a 'Future election candidate' tag is automatic grounds for quick-fail. The Quick-fail criteria singles out only cleanup banners as a QFC. Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um, actually there are several other QFC than cleanup banners. Edits wars, obvious POV, and a complete lack of reference material are all quick-fail reasons stated in the criteria. VanTucky ^talk 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse quick fail as reviewer. GA articles cannot be the subject of currently evolving subject matter like a presidential election. When an article will be changing on a day-to-day basis with an election, it can't be called stable. When major content changes are not just expected, but an inevitability, then a proper GA evaluation cannot be made and the article must be quick-failed. Quick-failing current election candidates is standard procedure for which there is precedent. I am honestly quite shocked that so many experienced editors think otherwise. VanTucky ^talk 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, you're not being responsive to what I wrote above. Gravel is an extremely minor candidate. Nothing is going to change that, day-to-day or otherwise; even when he drops out, it will be one sentence to add, not a major content change. The vast majority of the article has nothing to do with his candidacy. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The major/minor status is irrelevant. Any presidential candidate could suddenly become famous (or infamous). Consider events like Bill Clinton winning the nomination after losing Iowa and New Hampshire, or Howard Dean getting booted for a yell. Being part of a national election is inherently unstable, regardless of the current fame of the candidate. If what you say about his candidacy is true, then you can just as easily renominate the article when he drops out. In fact, it would have been much easier to simply wait to renominate, considering the sluggish pace of GAR. VanTucky ^talk 05:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Your comparisons aren't really apt. Bill Clinton was a very visible, viable, well-funded candidate with a real base of support within the party; he didn't compete in Iowa and finished second in New Hampshire. Gravel has no money, no base support, is now being excluded from all debates, and has 0% or 1% national poll ratings. Howard Dean did not lose because of the yell; the yell followed a dismal third-place showing in Iowa, well behind Kerry and Edwards, that already showed that his previous front-runner status had collapsed. Meanwhile, I'm comforted by knowing that Britney Spears has a life so stable and uneventful that her article is GA; I'd been worrying about her. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Wasted Time R is correct; that isn’t an appropriate analogy, as neither of those candidates were minor, as Gravel is. Unfounded speculation on what could happen is a mischaracterization of the stability requirements and, if such logic were applied to the GA process, no article on a currently-existing entity could be a good article. What if all Herdwick sheep suddenly died of FMD? I’d wager that’s about as likely as Gravel being involved in anything that would substantially change the content his article. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Oh be reasonable, that's utter hyperbole Elcobbola. It's not hyperbolic or outlandish to suggest that articles need to not be the subject of rapidly evolving current events. It's just common sense. Even if Gravel is minor in the race, he is still a part of a current event that is unfolding. That's not stable. Obviously though, this is not the consensus in this case. I'm not going to argue about it anymore. VanTucky ^talk 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
            • You're absolutely correct that "articles need to not be the subject of rapidly evolving current events". The article under review, however, is Mike Gravel, not United States presidential election, 2008. It was indeed intended as hyperbole, as it was an analogy to your implicit assertion that an article on a, frankly, insignificant candidate will be subject to substantial changes on “a day-to-day basis” – also hyperbole. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Renominate. All living people can have sudden events happen to them, it does not seem likely that the Gravel article will be greatly impacted by the current presidential campaign. The only question will be when he drops out. Heh, I just read the last sentence in the article: even MSNBC thought he dropped out already. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. As one (half-)wit wrote at GAR some time ago, "Articles which are about to become unstable are dealt with by the Good Articles Precrime Department, not by GAR". Just as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, neither should GA reviews, in my view, be based on predictions about what is going to happen to articles in the face of current events. There is a small chance that this article will become unstable or out-of-date, and hence fail criterion 3 or 5, but that is just speculation. At the moment it is stable and broad, and there is no reason to suppose it will not evolve in a stable and broad fashion as current events unfold, just as the article on Britney Spears will probably evolve as she does next whatever it is she does next. The idea that an article about a presidential candidate is "inherently unstable" is not one that I find convincing, and in this particular case, such "inherent instability" is very far from being demonstrated.

There is probably scope for further discussion of this issue, but this really isn't the place, and it makes no difference to this GAR, because whether the quick-fail was justified or not, there is nothing this GAR can do about it, short of suggesting to editors that they renominate. So I will archive this discussion soon (if no one else does), but if someone wants to take up the discussion of inherent instability of GAs somewhere else, please let me know. Geometry guy 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Nothing more can be achieved by keeping this topic open. Anyone who believes this article to be a GA can just renominate it or take it to peer review and get another opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Stability to deal with the issues raised by this article. Please feel free to comment there. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Odex's actions against file-sharing

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action, but recommend renomination. Geometry guy 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang placed the nomination on hold, citing several issues with prose and images. All but two issues were addressed within the hold period. As two issues remained, the hold expired and the nomination was failed. After the hold expired, I addressed one of the issues (an unsourced sentence about Odex's income situation, which I removed). The other issue is the inclusion of a screenshot of the "Xedo Holocaust" animation. Although Jappalang believes that this screenshot should not be in the article, Mailer diablo (the primary contributor, who has since left Wikipedia) and I think otherwise (see the discussion on the talk page for more details). Should the screenshot be included? Hopefully this discussion will allow us to come to a consensus. J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment GAR may not be the best way to address this dispute: I suggest you consider WP:RfC. That said, my view is that Jappalang's appeal to WP:OR#Original images is invalid, and the case against including these images is weak (at best). The image in question is not original: it was published by a third party and has been referred to by a secondary source. It is not original research to include it. As far as I can tell, the remaining argument against the image is that it violates WP:NPOV, more specifically, WP:UNDUE. However, this is a reaction section, and it is entirely reasonable to include a cross-section of responses to the Odex actions. The essential point, is that the article should not support or endorse the view of the cartoon, but should describe it and attribute it. The article could be better phrased to make it entirely clear that the cartoon represents a viewpoint, and should also describe the response to the cartoon, as supported by the sources. (If the cartoon were not freely licensed, such analysis would be essential for fair use.)

I've made a small step in this direction by moving the cartoon from the top of the section to the paragraph where it is discussed. This makes it less prominant by setting it in context. Geometry guy 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I personally don't see a difference in the article's GA candidacy/status with or without the image. Therefore I propose we grant GA status. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Relist at GAN - The issues were addressed after the hold expired. The content dispute is an RfC matter, not one for GAR. Lara❤Love 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Relist at GAN per above. Drewcifer (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• No action. I suggest the article is renominated at GAN per above, but there is no action to be taken at this GAR. Geometry guy 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Boys in the Sand

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action, but suggest renomination. I hope my comment was helpful, but this GAR is unlikely to generate any further information. Geometry guy 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline rationale given is confusing and my attempt to clarify it has been without response for a week. Otto4711 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see any MoS or citation style problem with the references, although I think it would be better to use the Notes (short footnotes) plus References (separate references section) style in this article. I suggest you try renominating. There isn't much GAR can do in this case, so I will archive this soon. Geometry guy 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Robbie Williams

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Clear consensus to endorse the quick-fail. No change to articles current status (not currently on the list).

It contains many references. David Pro (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment This was a quickfail that was quickfailed because there was a legitimate clean up tag in the article. Which is still there as of this comment. Quickfails (legitimate ones) are not eligible for good article reassessment because there was no assessment done in the first place. Once the issues are fixed, it needs to be renominated. And "fixed" means more than just removing the tag - it means addressing its concern. Cheers, CP 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support quick-fail Clean-up tag, and all the references need to give proper attribution. Drewcifer (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse quick-fail The number of references means nothing. What matters is if they are properly used and formatted. An entire section is unreferenced, and most references are plain HTML links, which is NOT proper format at all. The refs need clean up, in the sense that they need full bibliographic details (authors, dates, publishers, accessdates). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support quick-fail WP:GAR is not the proper venue; CP's reasoning that "there was no assessment done in the first place" is absolutely correct. Article has a clean-up banner and was (and is), therefore, eligible for quick-fail. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse quick-fail. Once cleaned up, the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• The reviewer made the right call due to clean-up banner and referencing issues. Endorse quick-fail. Majoreditor (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat II

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Endorse delist. In addition to the comment below, this is one of the most poorly written articles I have seen at GAR. Sentences beginning with adverbs such as "Storywise" or "Essentially" provide just one illustration of this. Geometry guy 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delisted and article is not sufficiently broad. David Pro (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I endorse the decision to de-list the article. It was an easy call. The article fails multiple GA criteria. Its two-sentence introduction isn't up to WP:LEAD standards. The article is also under-referenced; for example, the "Game system" and "Characters and cast" sections have no citations. I doubt that GAR needs to take action on this. The article can be improved and then re-nominated at a later date. Majoreditor (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apple Inc.

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Clear concerns about the prose and referencing have not been addressed Geometry guy 08:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is full of tags and is of slightly low quality to be a GA Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Question. What tags? I don't see any at present. Also, can you be more specific about the article's deficiencies? It's helpful if you can provide examples. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. It's poorly written: "It is said that Jobs was immediately convinced that all future computers would use a GUI, and decided to turn over design of Apple's next project, the Apple Lisa, to produce such a device. The Lisa was named after Jobs' daughter (however, a bacronym,[18] Local Integrated Software Architecture, was coined). He was eventually pushed from the group due to infighting ..." as just one example. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. Unencyclopedic and poorly written. The lead is tortuous, overlinked, and doesn't really summarize the article. Is there a reliable secondary source for the narrative of the article? It reads as original research by synthesis at the moment (e.g. with its section titles - "The Golden Age" and so on): this is the company equivalent of a new biography, rather than an encyclopedia article. Geometry guy 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist I would fully agree with the above assessments. The article strays too far into entertainment, using peacock language. The lack of reliable secondary sources in the main part of the article also seems problematic. There are literally HUNDREDS of books written about Apple. Can we not directly cite any of them? The article also has many statistics and data, which are not directly backed up by specific cites. As one example "The iMac sold close to 800,000 units in its first five months and helped return the company to sustained profitability for the first time since 1993." is ENTIRELY uncited, yet it contains both a statistic AND a superlative statement. This article is FAR from GA status as an encyclopedia article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. The article is poorly written. Majoreditor (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Abortion

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Currently doesn't meet the criteria. Editors have raised neutrality issues, some unconvincing, but others (such as the misrepresentation of the JAMA article) have not received adequate answers. It also manifestly fails WP:LEAD, which is an essential criterion for GA status, and there has been essentially no change since the issue was raised nearly a week ago. Geometry guy 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits have thrown off the balance that was formerly achieved in the coverage of this contentious topic (compare the current version to an older one, particularly everything in the "Suggested effects" section, and it's clear how far the article has shifted to one side of the fence). I'm sad to bring this here, as I and a number of other editors worked for over a year to bring this article to GA status, but it no longer meets the guidelines on neutrality and stability. Severa (!!!) 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delist. I agree with Severa that this article does not meet the guidelines on neutrality and stability. For example, the article cites studies without revealing the non-neutral affiliations of the authors. One such study was the subject of a full article in the New York Times about the non-neutrality of the authors, and yet this Wikipedia article does not even mention the non-neutrality in the footnotes. See "Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties" (August 26, 2005). In typically biased language, the Wikipedia abortion article refers to "medical researchers notably from the American Medical Association" when in fact the study was merely published in JAMA, and "AMA disclaims any liability to any party for the accuracy, completeness or availability of the material or for any damages arising out of the use or non-use of any of the material and any information contained therein."[4] Click on another footnoted link in this Wikipedia article, and the first thing you see is an advertisement for "Abortion to 24 Weeks".[5]

Another example of the non-neutrality of the present article involves the images. Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) said: "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." In contrast, this Wikipedia abortion article now features iconography of the mother but not of the fetus. Note that the very pro-choice Faludi uses the term "mother", as do pro-life groups, and yet this word has been deliberately removed from this article (giving the deliberate impression that motherhood does not begin until birth or later).

A further example of problems with this Wikipedia article involves jargon. Wikipedia guidelines say: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible." There's no problem using jargon, which is sometimes more specific and less ambiguous, but this Wikipedia article avoids even parentheticals on first use saying something like "also commonly known as (non-jargon term)." For instance, in the lead paragraph, there is no explanation of what "viability" means, no explanation of the difference between the words "embryo" and "fetus", and no mention that the technical word "uterus" is also commonly known as a "womb."

A related problem with the article is that it provides almost no information about what is being aborted (technically called the "abortus"). The average abortion occurs at the beginning of the fetal period, so a good article would summarize some of the info at the fetus article, or at least (as mentioned above) explain what the difference is between a fetus and an embryo.

Moreover, the article contains POV statements like the following: "Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week." Two words could be inserted to remove the POV: "safer for women." As one admin said, “Those two words don't push anything, but leaving them out does.” Nevertheless, those two words have been removed.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The diff between the Oct 10th version and the current version isn't that different. Severa is correct that the biggest changes are in the suggested effects section. However, these changes were made to conform with changes to the parent articles. For example, the section the ABC hypothesis is (IIRC) currently verbatim the lead of that article. I feel that doing so conforms with wikipedia's summary style, and that it is a good thing to have a subsection of an article not contradict or say things that aren't found in the parent spinout article. Most of FL's suggestions have been discussed ad nauseum in the past on the talk page, and there hasn't been consensus for those changes (and maybe those are things to consider when it comes to FA status, but not GA status). This article is still a well written, well sourced, and almost unreasonable neutral article given the contentious nature of the topic. Not a whole lot has changed since it was promoted, and I feel it still meets the guidelines.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Not sure how technical the term "uterus" is, unlike Anastomosis or Islets of Langerhans for example. Is it necessary to note that the "uterus" is also commonly known as the "womb"? While I agree that some of the points brought up might be valid issues for FA, I don't see how Ferrylodge's points argue for demoting the article from GA status. Phyesalis (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delist as per Kerrylodge's argument. Daimanta (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. While there may be some inaccurate citations and other minor problems, this articles satisfies GA criteria. Good articles are not supposed to be ideal. They should only satisfy basic requirements of accuracy and verifibility. The requirements of some reviewers (see above) are more appropriate for a feartured article. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Fails WP:LEAD. Honestly, by getting embroiled in neutrality issues, editors are failing to address the basics. Maybe I have the advantage of living in a country in which the abortion debate has a low profile and is not accompanied by the same level of hysteria. From this perspective the fuss over the two words "safer [for women]" is just plain daft. Is any reader likely to believe that abortion is safe for the foetus? I don't think so. If you want to write this article well and stably, forget the whole pro-life, pro-choice propaganda, and write an encyclopedia article on abortion. Neutral point of view means global neutral point of view, which is not the same thing as neutrality from the point of view of the heated debates that take place in North America. Geometry guy 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: There wasn't strong support for the delisting, but there was also no support that this article should be listed: it does not yet meet the criteria for broadness and reliable sources. Hence it remains delisted. Geometry guy 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has had its status reviewed once previously. I have listed it here again as User:EdChampion unilaterally delisted it, despite being a major contributor, he also did not make his specifc concerns with GA status clear. I think he believes that it fails criterion 4, as he holds the view that Edmund is still a Patron of England, a view which has not acheived consensus (as a subsidiary of this, criteria 2 and 3 would also be called into doubt). In my own view, this is primarily a content dispute, and not really a reason for delisting the article at the current time, but since I have restored the status quo ante, I feel there should be at least a procedural listing here. David Underdown (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. As User:David Underdown has mentioned, there is an outstanding dispute that has been on going since August 2007. The article is certainly not stable. One only has to compare the original GA version with the current one to see the vast number of changes that have been made.

Other major contributors to the article have already highlighted problems and major changes that the article needs here [6] and here [7].

The image of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not appropriate while the image of St. Edmund [8] has been copied from here [9] and is a breach of copyright. Hence the article suffers from a lack of appropriate images.

The article is poorly written. A couple of examples: the death of St. Edmund is given as 869 yet the article provides the date of 870 of his last battle! The online reference to Edmund’s patronage has not been checked and pandemics has wrongly been cited instead of epidemics. The article states: Other accounts state that his father was King Æthelweard but when you follow the reference here [10] there is no mention of King Æthelweard.

The article has tried to be too clever. It tries to explain the date discrepancies in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. As a result it misinforms the reader. They are left with the impression that all dates are inaccurate in the Chronicle whereas the book referenced only lists 4 years. Similarly, it wrongly attributes the flag in the Radio Suffolk campaign to St. Edmund.

The article is certainly not broad in its coverage. It fails to mention the translation of St. Edmunds's body, the building of his cult in England and abroad, miracles attributed to him, etc. As an example, Rev. Mackinlay's Saint Edmund King and Martyr two thirds of his book is given to events after the martyrdom of St. Edmund. There is a mass of information about St. Edmund that is missing from this article.

The article fails on all the good article criteria. It needs a complete overhaul. EdChampion (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the allegation of copyright violation, see http://anglicanhistory.org/about.html documents hosted on the site are (unless otherwise stated) in the public domain. No such statement exists for the image concerned, so it is reasonable to presume that it is now free of copyright (Dearmer certainly died 1936, it is less easy to verify the date for the illustrator directly).
• The dating issue is fully explained in the article. David Underdown (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. At first blush the article seems up to par. Del-listing issues have been addressed, such as the date of death and last battle. It also appears to be stable, with fewer than a dozen edits in the last month. I'll need to take a closer look at the article to see if some of Ed's other allegations check out. Majoreditor (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I would rather not put down "delist" or "keep", as I am not a regular here, but I'm interested in this topic and have written articles on other Anglo-Saxon kings, so I thought I would provide some comments about how I see the article. I hope this information will be useful to others here in deciding whether the article should be delisted.

• My main concern is that there is too much reliance on sources that I would not regard as reliable for historical facts. For example, Our Sunday Visitor, a Catholic publishing group, produces the Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Saints, which is the sole source for several assertions in the article, such as the king's age at date of birth, the possibility that Hoxne is the location of a battle, and Edmund's feast day. The last of these could be reasonably sourced from a book like this, but I would not use it for historical facts. There are certainly some reliable sources in the list -- Swanton, Keynes/Lapidge, Whitelock, the Blackwell Encyclopedia, and the British Library. A couple of the others are ones I don't know myself, but which look like they might be reliable. But the Channel 4 documentary shouldn't be used to source Edmund's interment, and the BBC shouldn't be used to source the statement that Edmund was originally the patron saint of England. I'm not asserting these statements are wrong, but the actual primary source data relating to Edmund is extremely scanty, and it is definitely possible to have incorrect statements in tertiary sources. (A recent error in the form of the name of a Gaelic ruler was pointed out to me recently in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is a very respected source; tertiary sources are not the best way to source this period in history.) I am also sceptical of other sources such as the 1904 Little Lives of the Saints.
• That leads to the other main concern I have, which is the focus on the hagiographic details. I don't know whether this sort of things matters at GAR, but if this were a FAC I would oppose on the basis that the article covers information such as a lengthy quote from Abbo of Fleury, and many details of the miracles related to Edmund, and a long quote from The Little Lives of the Saints -- but we only get a paragraph in the body about the Danes and practically nothing about the political state of England at the time. Edmund is a historical figure, and we should write an article that presents him in a historical context. His subsequent canonization is certainly a fact about him, but I would expect more history and less miracles in the article. No doubt there are obscure saints for whom there is more to be said about their miracles than their historical lives, but Edmund, though his history is certainly obscure, could at least be placed in context a little better. The hagiographies themselves (i.e. early, near-contemporary lives of saints, usually written by monks of the time) can be valuable primary sources, but are not sources we can use directly unless a reliable source also does so.
• I think the points EdChampion makes above in his argument to delist are generally wrong, however. The issue with 869 and 870 is certainly a point that needs explanation, and no doubt the prose at that point could be improved, but I was clear on the issue when I read it and felt no confusion. His point about the accuracy of the online references may be correct; because of my concern about reliable sources above I didn't go to the trouble of verifying his comments about Æthelweard. I didn't check image copyrights so Ed may be right there. The image of the chronicle page isn't totally apt, but the chronicle is mentioned and it does illustrate even if it doesn't illuminate very much. The point about the Chronicle's dating seems wrong, too, without more details on what the issue is, anyway. It is quite clear that the Chronicle's years did not start on January 1, although this certainly does not resolve every date issue. I did not verify Ed's comments about the flag of St. Edmund, though again I'd suggest that using the BBC as a source is a mistake. All the omissions in Ed's last paragraph seem minor to me; it would be harmless to rectify them, but I think without other changes they would lead the article into further imbalance. Hence I suspect that the article I would like to see here is one that EdChampion would not find acceptable as a GA.
• For comparison purposes, here are two articles on Anglo-Saxon royal saints that are FA: Æthelberht of Kent and Eardwulf of Northumbria. (I wrote one and helped somewhat on the other.) These aren't strictly comparable, since in each case there is a fair amount of historical detail, and I believe the hagiographical writing on Edmund is more extensive than it is for Æthelberht or Eardwulf. But it gives an idea of what a historically oriented article about these figures can look like.

I hope these are useful notes. Mike Christie (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the article, and would agree with Mike Christie's comprehensive and independent analysis. There is definitely an issue here with reliable sources (2) and with broadness/balance (3). I noticed some further minor points. First, the conclusion that his birth year is 841 is not obvious to me: it could also have been 840, although if he was still 14 on 25 December 855, that is very unlikely. Second, there is some unsourced speculation about how the Danes might have spent the year 869-870 before invading Wessex. Finally, I found it odd that the last two sentences of the lead are hardly elaborated at all in the article: if they are important, they should be elaborated; if they are not, they should be discussed more briefly (or not at all) in the lead.

There is absolutely no problem with images. The image whose copyright is challenged is clearly in the public domain in the US because it was first published outside the US before 1 July 1909. The image copyright tag reflects this, although it could be refined to use the relatively new {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} template. The image of the chronicle is fine, but in addition to these two images, there are two others, which more than adequately illustrate the article.

In view of Mike's comments, however, I have to recommend delisting. Geometry guy 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding the dates: Firstly, the article states "the compilers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle dated the start of the year from September". This is false. The reference book cited (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle by Michael James Swanton) lists several dates that have been used for the start of the year within the AS Chronicles. These include: 1 September (Roman tax year), 25 March (Feast of the Annunciation), 1 January (Feast of the Circumcision) 25 December (Feast of the Nativity). The reason being that the AS Chronicle is an amalgamation of Chronicles with differing new years not just September. [see pages xv & xvi]. Secondly, the reader is left with the impression that all dates in the AS Chronicles need decrementing by 1 year, but the reference makes it clear that this is limited to only half a dozen dates (which does include 870) and that some years actually need adjusting forward. Finally, most of the dates in the AS Chronicles do not need adjusting but for those that do Michael Swanton, the author, thinks it better to give the original date of the AS Chronicles and provide the adjusted dates in square brackets. [see page xvi]. This is what I meant by the article trying to be too cleaver. In trying to summarise the above it has provided the reader with false information.

Regarding the copyright violation: It is not the fact that the book in question is out of copyright but that the scanned image used is the property of the person (or organization) that scanned it and their permission is required. If the image had been scanned by the "uploader" directly from the book it would have been fine, but that is not what occured, he took someone else's image. The site in question may allow its use if following procedure is followed [11] (and only for “study or religious purposes”), however, it has not been followed, and is therefore a violation of copyright. Further, there is yet another copyright violation. The image here [12] has been copied from here [13] without the required permission from the copyright holder. EdChampion (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You probably have a point with the dates: I will leave it to others to comment. As for the copyright of images, you are wrong. A faithful reproduction of an image in the public domain is not copyrighted, because it lacks originality. The creative commons licensing of a reproduction of an image in the public domain has no legal basis. This is well established in US copyright law. Geometry guy 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: No consensus to delist, and the criteria for instability have been clarified: they do not apply to this article. Article remains listed. Geometry guy 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fails criteria 4 (neutral) and 5 (stable); subject to constant re-editing by worshipful fans and cranky critics, full of trivia, POV pushing and fancruft Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. There's a lot of POV in this article; in particular, far too many of Paul's statements are taken at face value, which we should never do for a politician. Given how fringe a figure Paul is, there also needs to be a much larger criticism section. *** Crotalus *** 05:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delist An article that is the subject of currently evolving subject matter, like an ongoing election, should have been automatically quick-failed to begin with. The other factors are completely irrelevant if the article is going to be significantly altered with the day-to-day changes of a presidential election. You can renominate when it's over. VanTucky ^talk 04:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delist per VanTucky. -Oreo Priest 20:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Barak Obama is an FA. Hillary Clinton is a GA. They are both also in the election. Clearly the election is not a reason to demote this article. For the most part, as I've looked at this article, editors have been largely able to work together on issues. If OrangeMike feels there is POV, he should bring it up on the talk page and get it fixed, which I've noticed he is trying to do. We should leave it to the editors of the article to decide the intricacies of NPOV, not hold GA over them as a stick to make them change. After all, they know the sources. We don't. I don't really see any trivia or fancruft in the article at all, either. Wrad (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Stability is not much of a concern; the article has a daughter page to deal with the specific presidential campaign, not much more than a line or two looks to be changed in the main article. As a whole, it seems neutral in its coverage. I see little to raise any concerns as to its GA status. Its an actively edited article, but disputes seem to be constructively worked out on the talk page, and I don't see any obvious editwarring. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article is stable except for the election section, as expected; this is a biography with an election section, not an election article. I have not yet succeeded in merging some content into other articles in summary style, which would further stabilize, but this has been a GA all this time without that being a high priority. GAR just at the time of the first primaries, when there is expected to be much editing going on by newbies, is unhelpful. As for neutrality, we have begged those who charge POV to come forward with edits and sources, and occasionally they do and those edits are worked into the heap. To repeat Wrad, the election criterion is irrelevant, considering that Tony Blair and Wes Clark also reached FA while they were election contenders. All sorts of FAs and GAs are subject to re-editing by fans and critics: that is no reason for delisting. Extant demonstrations of Mike's other concerns are easily defused. I apologize I haven't been on this article in a couple weeks to keep it steady, but GAR is not the proper response, Mike, especially considering that there have been eight or nine adverse actions by Wikipedians against Paul articles in the last couple weeks. Of course, I don't know of any policy against that, except common sense of not "piling on". John J. Bulten (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This article and a few similar ones have led to a clarification of the stability issue for current events, and in particular, the quick fail criteria. Specifically, this article should not be regarded as inherently unstable because it concerns a presidential candidate. However, it is very important that we assess an article against all of the good article criteria, rather than simply refuting one argument that it should fail. I agree that just piling on is a bad idea (for that, the best policy is merely an essay: WP:DBAD), but the allegations of fancruft, unsubstantiated criticism, lack of neutral point of view, do need to be assessed, just to make sure this really is still a good article. Some of the above comments do this, so I just wanted to emphasise this point, not imply any criticism. Geometry guy 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim Tebow

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. This is in need of a substantial copy-edit, as well as MoS and referencing fixes. Geometry guy 19:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Many sections of the article, including specific facts, are completely uncited. "2006" is a strong example of many uncited facts and paragraphs, but there are others as well. Large sections of "Early life" and "2007" suffer from this as well. Smaller parts of "Heisman Trophy" and "Effect on homeschooling movement"There are many WP:MoS concerns, but the biggest is that "2006," and definitely "2007" read like borderline Proseline. "On this date he did this and this date he did that." It's not the definition of proseline, I admit, but whatever it is it breaks up the flow to the point of distraction and does not read well at all. There are more smaller concerns as well, but these are the ones that leading to me to list this article. Cheers, CP 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist Seems kinda spotty in places. It reads like its been cobbled together by 100 different people, and only one of whom knows how to reference. Parts are well done, but those good parts are sliced with a bunch of unreferenced stuff that needs more cohesion and more referencing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist When I saw this pass I thought about bringing it here, but wanted to make sure I would be justified doing so. Anyway, as said above there are definite style problems with the article, especially with the references. They need to be in the same format. Additionally, the 2006 and 2007 season sections should be written more as paragraphs and not as individual sentences, with each being condensed slightly. Finally, the awards section needs to be formatted better. It should be written as prose per the guideline on embedded lists. The article is greatly improved from when last I saw it (probably back in November sometime), but I don't think it should have been passed in the state it was listed (a lot of sources were added after it passed) and I still don't feel that it is GA-quality. Phydend (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. As CP mentioned, the article lacks references in places to back up assertions. Example from the 2006 section: After the game, some Gator fans suggested that Tebow could be named the starting quarterback over then starter Chris Leak. There's also MoS issues per CP and Jayron. The article could be brought up to par with a good copy edit and a few more citations. Majoreditor (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. That is proseline, CP, and this is just one of the faults of an article which reads like a bad CNN documentary. I half expected to find a sentence ending with the word "Tuesday" in this reportage. Some of the prose is quite tortuous: "A dual-threat quarterback who can run and pass, he was used in his freshman season largely as a change-of-pace to the Gators' more traditional pocket passer, Chris Leak" and "The fifth child of Bob and Pam Tebow, both of whom are University of Florida graduates, Tim was born on 14 August 1987 in the Philippines, where his parents were serving as Christian missionaries" win prizes for the number of loosely related facts that can be squeezed into a single sentence. Some sentences, such as "Trinity did not pass the ball much and Tim didn’t want to hand it off every play, so he began to explore his options" (which is uncited), are incomprehensible. Others are verbose: "He chose to attend the University of Florida", "His performance soon began to turn some heads which even led to a minor controversy over him being a homeschooled student", "The bill, which is pending in the Alabama Legislature, will allow Alabama home school athletes to play for their local high school teams just as Tebow did in Florida."

As pointed out already, the references are untidy. The awards section is probably the best part: concise facts, fully cited! A good copyeditor would be most welcome here. Geometry guy 15:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pikachu

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: List as GA. Issues raised have been fixed, and closing this discussion is long-overdue. Geometry guy 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delisted with no notice on talk page, and edit summary of "lacks real world information". However, unlike most pokemon articles, this particular one does seem to have information about the real world, in the cultural impact section. Most of the article seems referenced, though a few of the links might be questionable. I'm on the fence about this because some of the references I just don't know about, but one thing I do know is that this article definently has real world information in it. Homestarmy (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - does the real-world content in this article meet the updated WP:FICT? -Malkinann (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated? Man, nobody tells me these things anymore.... Homestarmy (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But to answer the question, it does seem notable per that guideline, a float appeared in a Macy's day parade, and there's something about a plane. Of course, that's the first time i've read the "updated" WP:FICT, so I might not be understanding it right... Homestarmy (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or it might have been WP:WAF - I forget which one, but one of the fiction guidelines has been made more stringent of late. I note that the "biological characteristics" section is still very in-universe.-Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - lede needs additional sourcing to support assertions about the character's notoriety and status as mascot and the source of the name. Sex differences in the bio-characteristics section needs a source. If there must be a pop culture section then the bit about the first balloon being retired and the new balloon need sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that "pop culture sections" are supposed to show the cultural impact/influence of Pikachu, and that's supposed to be the "meat" of the notability of the article?? -Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, it would be nice if that's what they were used for, wouldn't it? But that's a conversation for another day... Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. Doesn't show the notoriety of the character, and written in a very in-universe style for the "Biological characteristics" section. bibliomaniac15 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist until Sweeps come and do a detailed review. Read the whole article, and you'll see that it does relate to real-world (such as trading card game, parade mascot). Even an airplane featured pikachu (Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg, so do you think it's important? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohana, this is the detailed review. The main problem is that text itself isn't hugely convincing. I know that puff phrases aren't allowed, but have you tried Google Scholar? As Pikachu featured in the anime there might be a few sources out there that examine Pikachu in particular. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The in-universeness of the "Biological characteristics" has been given a going over, and a scholarly source has been provided to say that Pikachu is the most popular Pokemon. Sex differences have been sourced, and the article has been tagged with fact tags at various places. The stricter WP:FICT is currently being disputed. -Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that WP:FICT is a guideline, not a policy. It should be "treated with common sense and occasional exception". Common sense tells us this article is important and in good quality, even though it was written slightly "in-universe". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This same article was already reviewed in September (archived GAR) for exactly the same reasons. The article seemed fine to me then, and still does. Drewcifer (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This article has been improved. I think it meets WP standards now. Geometry guy 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 70 in Utah

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Procedural close. Reinserted in the GAN queue. Recommend that the article is put on hold, e.g., by NE2. Geometry guy 12:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have several reasons for requesting reassessment

1. In a rapid fire succession of edits, the reviewer added several articles he was working on and failed articles that were in line before his.
2. Procedure was not followed. The reviewer simply deleted all mention of this article being nominated for GA status. The reviewer did not add any content that was supposed to be added, such as the GA Failed template to the talk page.
3. As another editor whose article was failed in this succession of edits has mentioned, the reviewer is a frequent editor and author of US roads related articles. The reviewer has contributed to the article in question, but mostly the exit list section.
4. On the talk page only a one line reason was given for failing the article -- reliable sources. When pressed about which source, the reviewer picked one that is almost entirely confirmed by other sources used on the page, including official department of transportation sources.
5. When pressed on the subject of what is inaccurate about the article, he challenged a statement where I used the highway resolution page from the Utah Department of Transportation as a source. As this is an article about a Utah highway, I don't know what source would be more authoritative than the state department of transportation.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• (1)(3): Who cares?
• (2): So I didn't dot my "i"s. You can do it.
• (4): Then you should use those sources, not the unreliable source ( http://members.aol.com/utahhwys/index.htm ) that is currently cited.
• (5): You should read the PDF more carefully; the AASHTO correspondence is all in 1976.

--NE2 09:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(1)(3) We do. You may not review articles to which you have previously contributed. This is stated clearly in the GAN guidelines. Geometry guy 10:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have not contributed to this article. The articles I was working on were different ones that I added to the nomination page. --NE2 10:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops... I totally missed that I had done the exit list. Had I remembered that, I probably wouldn't have reviewed this, but now that I have it's kind of late to fix that... and the exit list doesn't really matter much anyway for the overall criteria. --NE2 10:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the edit history for Wikipedia:Good article nominations speaks for itself. Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A contributions slice probably provides a better history. However, we should try to assume as much good faith as possible in the light of this evidence: NE2 could have spent an hour on these reviews before failing them, and failed them in good faith on the grounds that they did not meet the criteria. Nevertheless, it is fairly clear that the reviews were inadequate (these articles should have been put on hold, not failed) and that NE2 had a conflict of interest to reduce the backlog so that his own nominations would be reviewed more quickly. I am sure NE2 did not realise that he was acting improperly by doing this. He could easily make amends by placing these articles on hold and offering to give them a proper review.

If he chooses not to do this, I will restore them in their original places on the nominations list. Geometry guy 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want. I thought I'd help but apparently that didn't happen. --NE2 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my choice of sources as usable for wikipedia. However, I agree that if the same claim can be sourced via a government website or personal website, the government source is the better choice. I admit my logic in "divying" sources was flawed. I will switch sources to the fha.gov source where applicable. Thank you for your efforts.Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources look good now. I'd be willing to promote it, though I still think the route description needs a bit of work. If anyone knows the proper process to close this and promote it, please do so. --NE2 04:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The route description was and is a challenge. I would welcome any help in adding more content. If you look at the maps, that part of the country is pretty bare. The freeway is about 230 miles long, but only has maybe 4 stoplights within 20 miles of it's corridor (all in Richfield). It's the only drive I know in the world where you can be on a busy freeway, yet its been 100 miles since you've seen so much as a power pole, forget a gas station or restaurant. Quite a unique experience, if you've never done it. As the article states, it has a unique origin and history, and may inspire the creation of a national park, but as far as things to describe, not much there.

I've had a quick look at the article, and still think it needs a proper review. The lead does not adequately summarize the history section of the article, and it is not clear that the section on the railroad is fully cited (it seems to be written from a single source, which is fine if there is no additional information in the section, and no other sources are readily available). The article might also benefit from a "See also" or "External links" section to provide further reading. Geometry guy 12:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin Highway 29

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Procedural close. Article has been reinserted in the nominations queue. Geometry guy 12:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I request reassessement of the recently failed Wisconsin Highway 29 article.

The reviewer failed the article stating the following: "I failed this, not because of any minor points like mileposts, but because the source for the history is not a reliable source. --NE2 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)" I request reassessment for the following reasons:

1. He failed to tell me which source he believes is unreliable - since there are several sources in that section, leaving me to wonder what's going on.
2. Though it is reviewer's discretion, an opportunity should be given to improve the page by finding a more reliable source if it was this one small matter.
3. The reviewer regularly edits articles of this type and is a member of WikiProject U.S. Roads, thereby creating a Conflict of Interest

• article talk page diff
• GAN diff

 — master son^{T - C} 03:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Wisconsin Highways" is not a reliable source. I figured that would be clear; sorry. --NE2 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed  — master son^{T - C} 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to need to get some additonal sources tonight  — master son^{T - C} 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Though I'm making this correction this does not address items 2 and 3 yet.  — master son^{T - C} 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This reassessment is closely related to the reassessment of Interstate 70 in Utah: the GA fail was a procedural mistake and a probable conflict of interest. However, as improvements are being made, others may want to propose listing this article. If they do not, I will restore it in its original place at GAN. I hope it will be fixed and listed! Geometry guy 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also New York State Route 174. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that one too. Geometry guy 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing although NE2's actions was not correct, I bothered fixing NY 174 and am gonna send it to GAN instead of relisting it. A review from a non-USRD may be better than just a listing.^Mitch32^contribs 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, although I may readjust the date and move it up the list, if that is okay with you. Geometry guy 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done (set for december 28).^Mitch32^contribs 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want. I thought I'd help but apparently that didn't happen. --NE2 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you helped me find errors I didn't see. ^Mitch32^contribs 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing this, now. I would note that the lead needs expansion to summarize the article adequately. Geometry guy 12:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Covering of the Senne

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: List as GA. The latest two recommendations support listing the article. No further comments have been received, and there appears to be no ongoing insistance on renomination. Geometry guy 16:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While the reviewer left many constructive suggestions which have been implemented, was overly pedantic and insisted on changes which would have been to the detriment of the article. Oreo Priest 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Indeed, per my closing comment, “only minor changes are needed for a successful nomination”. Article remains in violation of WP:ENGVAR AND WP:TRITE. Nominator refused to make simplest of changes (e.g. characterized to characterised) or present cooperative alternatives to suggestions. The nonsense assertion that such changes are a "detriment of the article" would be true if, and only if, author is violating WP:OWN. I’d gladly vote to pass the article once the remaining policy – not pedantic - changes are made. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate at GAN, following a final copy edit. I see no blatant violations of WP:TRITE, although I'll have to re-read the article to be certain. I can't comment on WP:ENGVAR issues other than to note that Canadian English is acceptable. The article needs minor wordsmithing. Example: "Delayed by war and the work being done on the North-South Junction, this was only finished in 1955" That's a passive gerundive construction better suited for Commentarii de Bello Gallico. Majoreditor (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  Having read Commentarii de Bello Gallico while studying Latin, that comment put a smile on my face. I've fixed the offending sentence. -Oreo Priest 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Clarification. There's no issue with Canadian English (odd, though, that it’s used in an article about a Belgian public works project with predominately French sources). The issue is consistency. For example, British English would always use “standardise”, American English would always use “standardize” and Canadian English would be allowed to use either. Canadian English, however, must use whichever one it chooses consistently in a given “document”, which is where WP:ENGVAR comes in. This article switches between spelling “systems”, which is where I have issue. WP:TRITE says “Articles should use only necessary words”, which is where self-evident (and thus unnecessary) phrasing such as “was only finished” and “should finally be capable” is inappropriate. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    Aside: actually, even in England, the OED favours -ize in words such as "standardize" which are derived by adding the suffix to a noun. Even more incidentally, the term "British English" makes no sense. English is the language spoken in England. The variant of the language spoken in Scotland is called Scots. There is no such thing as "British English". Geometry guy 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    The semantics argument is unnecessary and inappropriate; phrasing of “British” English is per this article and seems less silly than, say, “Queen’s” English and it is still understood what is meant. That aside, the OED is a good point and one of which I had not been aware. Thank you for the articulation. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    You're welcome. As for the double digression, I was being a bit provocative, I admit. The term "Queen's English" is certainly worse, and covers even less of the British Isles than the "English of England" does. Geometry guy 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    It's unfortunate this discussion had to spill over to here. If you reread WP:TRITE, you'll notice that it says This requires not that the writer ... avoid all detail ... but that every word tell, not to remove adverbs. These words do tell, which is why I object to their removal. As for WP:OWN, the suggestion is unfair; I have made the vast majority of changes you requested and this is not an issue of control or authorship. -Oreo Priest 12:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you made that point. I commonly use the -ize endings everywhere else but when writing for wikipedia;, but apparently we Brits don't/shouldn't spell that way. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not here. You didn't see me here, and I didn't say or do anything here. But I was surprised to see G-guy say there's no such thing as British English. You'll have to tell that to all my linguistics profs, Guy. Or go to your library for a copy of World Englishes. ;-) I'm not leaving now, because I was never here. I have no home, I am the wind. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the covering of the Senne has been stagnant for a week now. What should I do? Feel free to remove this out of place comment. -Oreo Priest 13:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My answer is: Not only is it stagnant, it is decidedly unresolved. It's a good thing you said something; some eager beaver mighta archived it or something... I really don't see any !voting taking place, aside from the implicit vote of the reviewer who failed it... I dunno; it looks good to me. Does the WP:LEDE summarize the main points of the article? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer myself, no the lede doesn't seem to fulfill WP:LEDE. Entire sections such as "Controversy and opposition" go unmentioned (though they need only a sentence or at most two in the lede). I'm voting Conditional promote. I know an industrious editor such as you (judging by the talk page) will fix that lede in a jiffy. I'll check back in a couple days. later. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentence added. What do you think now? -Oreo Priest 17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• No action. I support the fail of this article: for example the lead lacks structure. When it is improved, it can be renominated, but there is no action to be taken at this GAR. Geometry guy 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've tried to redo the intro a bit, but the changes are fairly minor. Would you mind giving some specific issues that need to be fixed so that I can address them? Thanks, Oreo Priest 11:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Sure. The lead should be a concise summary of the article. That suggests to me that it should also discuss the attempts at purification, expand a little bit on the controversy and embezzlement scandal (although I broadly agree with Ling, I think it would be good to explain why the scandal led to delays), and discuss the modern purification work. The last sentence of the lead is slightly awkward: it might be better to expand on this in the body of the article rather than a footnote: also, is there a source for this observation that few tourist guides mention the covered river?

    I hope that helps. Cheers, Geometry guy 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks! I somehow didn't notice the deficiencies in the lead until you pointed them out. I've added a bunch of the more recent developments to the lead, and I think it feels a lot better now. I deleted the questionably sourced sentence as it doesn't really seem to fit into the lead or article anymore. What do you think now? -Oreo Priest 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Great. Now it looks like a lead; it smells like a lead; it is a lead. I made a couple of tweaks: if I introduced any errors of fact, judgement, or point of view, please correct them. Then we can see if there is some consensus to close this GAR. Geometry guy 23:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Good work. No errors were introduced and the style was cleaned up a bit. I'm happy. -Oreo Priest 09:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• List as GA. I have changed my mind in the light of substantial improvements since this article was brought to GAR. The article received an excellent review by one of GAs most thorough reviewers, Elcobbola. The remaining issues were relatively minor: I agree with Majoreditor that there are not significant problems with WP:TRITE, and in any case, that is a MoS issue which is not among the issues which are emphasised by criterion 1(b). Subsequently, at this GAR, the article has received further reviews, which have revealed additional issues, but these have been fixed thanks to efforts of Oreo Priest. This article has now been subject to sufficient scrutiny that a renomination is unnecessary. It clearly should be listed. Geometry guy 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks! I've again played with the image placement, I think it's a little tidier now. -Oreo Priest 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-surgery

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Withdrawing nom. This is a pretty clear-cut case, so I'm delisting it myself rather than wasting people's time with unnecessary discussion. delldot talk 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I listed several problems with the article on the talk page about a week ago. The main one, in my mind, is the lack of breadth of coverage; the article is mainly a list of times when someone has performed self-surgery. It completely lacks coverage of social, psychological, or cultural issues. The lead hints at psychological disorders but the article does not cover them. Also, the lead is two sentences long, and there are a few other style problems I mentioned on the talk page. delldot talk 10:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This was listed in April 2006, when the criteria were less well-developed, and is a long way short of GA quality. I strongly recommend you withdraw this GAR nomination, and simply delist the article yourself, following the delisting guidelines: you have already left talk page comments, and there has been no response. Geometry guy 14:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with G-guy's assessment. The article is nowhere close to GA standards. It is lacking in breadth and references. Additionally, there are numerous MoS issues and the lead is too short. Majoreditor (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was kind of a no-brainer, but I didn't want to do it myself with zero discussion. But I don't want to waste people's time here, so I'll go ahead and delist as you say. delldot talk 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Content dispute. Please do not use GAR for this. Geometry guy 01:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article does not meet criteria #4 which states: "It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias."

The matter was brought to the talk page and a maintenance template was attempted but quickly removed without a broad discussion nor consensus.

Just going back a couple of months there have been a substantial number of editors in addition to myself who have expressed pov concerns such as:

"Considering his ties with the clintons, including allegedly being defrauded by Hilary, don't you think this article shoudl mention Peter Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.74.177 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Its very interesting that the leading Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani gets a long Controversies section, but the leading Democratic candidate is protected from controversies by Wikipedia . I see it as POV. TwakTwik 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Huckabee gets a nice long controversy section too. "Funny" how Hillary gets her's whitewatered ... er ... whitewashed here. --24.6.29.122 08:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about changing majority of biographies, since Controversies seem to be the norm- for ex: check out George W. Bush's page. I think we just need to add a Controversies section to Hillary Clinton's page to make the article NPOV. I would like to add a POV tag to the entire article for now. TwakTwik 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not add POV tag yet, but if any other editor also views this as a problem, we should apply POV tag.TwakTwik 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There is such an obvious bias and agenda schema between the numerous political entries. It is rather embarrassing to read. Please reconsider the standards policies....We need to stop placing politicians (all persuasions) on pedestals ... the OxfordDen ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxfordden (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Should there not be an entry about the controversial authorship of 'It Takes a Village' and other books - which were not written by Mr s. Clinton? ... Oxfordden 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The GWB article is nothing but a long list of negative unsourced BLP violations, why is it that this page paints hillary as a saint like figure like the kind propigated by the media?--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and Hillary's negatives are all buried in the body of the article. Purposely made so you have to hunt for them. GWB has his put in a tidy little category with sub-categories AND poll graphics. Same goes for Huckabee and Tancredo and used to be the case for Giuliani, McCain, and most of the others. Could it be some of the Clinton sock puppet staffers are keeping busy over here too? --Mactographer (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Are you that sure? Or are you just trying to avoid people from questioning her integrity? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw 151.68.11.126 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the information surrounding the recent MLK comments made by Clinton? It seems suspiciously absent from this article? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that while this article is well-written and put together, it reads as if Hillary Clinton herself wrote it. There maybe should be additions/changes in the article that would include details or at least some mention of the various things people find negative about this woman. After all, she is such a polarizing figure in American society right now; it may be worth mentioning a few reasons why. Just a thought... --141.153.50.31 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)"

The article has wonderful potential for GA status in all areas other than the way in which pov concerns have been dealt with which, I think, has left us with an article that does not qualify for GA status in regards to Criteria #4. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist Mr.grantevans2 (talk · contribs) lays out some good points here, not to mention Wikipedia:Good article criteria (5) - lack of stability, and ongoing edit war issues. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Operation Gibraltar

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Geometry guy 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

RATIONALE The Article is not neutral and presents a biased picture of the incident

• Keep I see nothing wrong with the article. I fail to see exactly what is non-nuetral/biased about the article. Drewcifer (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Change to Delist I guess I should've read the article a bit more carefully. Not up to the criteria. Drewcifer (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. I agree with the nominator. Statements like: "The Mujahids attempted to artificially create a sense of revolt by indulging in arson, murder, rape and robbery ... " need more reliable references than those that are provided. Plus I think it also fails on tbe well-written criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. I agree with Malleus. Irrespective of neutrality issues, the article is somewhat weak in its prose and citation. There are numerous opinion statements which appear to lack reliable sources, e.g., "Despite initial reservations by the President of Pakistan Ayub Khan, the operation was set in motion", "Despite such a well-planned operation, the intruders were detected by Indian forces in Kashmir", "Their success in countering Pakistani plans proved to be a morale booster for Indian troops, coming exactly on India's independence day", "The Indian offensive resulted in panic among Pakistan troops, who urgently launched Operation Grand Slam to contain the situation since there was no contingency planned in case of Gibraltar's failure". Geometry guy 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1920 Palestine riots

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Geometry guy 09:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed for GA Sweeps. Neutrality is my concern here. My background tells me that something is off about this article, though I'm finding it difficult to put my finger on it. At the very least the lead, aside from being incomplete per WP:LEAD, does not seem to reflect the article and could certainly be reworded to be more neutral than it currently is. It also lacks anything from the second half of the "Aftermath" section, which tries to balance the article a little more. Beyond that, however, I'd like to see what other think about the neutrality. In addition, another significant concern is that a lot of the key points lack citations and the prose gets very choppy at times, especially around the 1-2 sentence paragraphs. Overall, I fell that there are significant concerns, but I want to make sure I'm not being paranoid or holding it to too high standards. Cheers, CP 02:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I didn't collaborate on the redaction of this article (it has long been protected) but I am currently working on the fr version to make a GA/FA. (See : fr:Émeutes de 1920 en Palestine mandataire if you understand French).

I don't see major non-neutrality issue in the lead. Maybe the wordings could be changed and the casualities added.

Most is based on Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, which is a reference on the period.

It is true that the article is uncomplete or a little bit misleading but in comparison with its size, it gives all the main information.

The main critic I would make are :

• the lack of details on the context : 1. the nationalist conflict between Zionists and Arabs - 2. The struggle between Fayçal and French for Great Syria (ie, Syria and Palestine). The riots were instigated 15 days before San Remo conference to try to influence allied decisions.
• the role of Jabotinsky "defense group" that initiated the creation of Haganah.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• delist. It doens't comply with the current criteria for a GA, mainly concering the notes and references. Ceedjee (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. It doesn't meet WP:LEAD at the moment. The notes and references are basically okay: this is a clear case of an article written primarily from a single reliable source, and readers are unlikely to have any doubt about where to go to verify the article. It would be helpful if individual page references were given for each citation (this is an advantage of the notes and references structure adopted by the article), but this is not a GA requirement. However, footnote 4 needs to be sourced in more detail, and the first reference is lacking a year. Geometry guy 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Which is also another point that makes me question the neutrality of this article... no article like this should be written mostly from one source. Also, I think in an article as potentially controversial as this, a one citation per paragraph requirement is an absolute minimum. I don't know why I'm commenting, since I obviously brought it because I thought it should be delisted, and thus agree with your final !vote, but I suppose I want to make sure that it's delisted for the right reasons. Cheers, CP 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It lacks other references. Indeed. 90% is a "summary" of Segev's book. But, in practice, Segev respects (without knowing this) our policy of NPoV and give different minds without giving his own. The only controverses I know concern the words used to describe the events (riots - pogrom - burst of spontaneous violence - confrontation - ...) and British alleged complicity that relies "only" on one primary source (Meinertzhagen testimony) but that is credited by many historians. The article can be considered NPoV (and there is no pov-tag). It is just too short and lack enough cross-references so that the reader can be sure it is NPoV. Ceedjee (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Station model

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action. Article renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent GA review of the article was quick failed when it only required a rudimentary copy edit. The edit was made in minutes. Two suggestions made by the previous editor required shortening the sections, which would cause the article to fail since they would then be too stubby, and the addition of bullet points, which are normally avoided in wikipedia articles, at least within the meteorology project. I need a new review, since I think the article meets GA criteria. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want a new review, I suggest you renominate the article at GAN rather than bring it here. It wasn't quick-failed, but was failed with a regular review, and correctly so, in my view. Geometry guy 09:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think it needs for GA? Thegreatdr (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment on the talk page. Geometry guy 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Herpes zoster

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. There is no sign that the issues raised will be fixed shortly. Geometry guy 19:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not well written. I think it is particularly important that an article on a medical topic should be well written to minimize misunderstandings. The article failed a Featured Article Review earlier today. Snowman (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. I agree with Snowmanradio, this article can't really be considered to be well-written. I'm not really qualified to judge its technical accuracy, but I was persuaded that the authors had a good understanding of their subject. With a really good copy edit ths article could be a GA I think, but as it stands, no. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delist. The article is reasonably well-written, assuming that the audience is medical professionals. However, MoS guidelines for medical articles prescribe prose appropriate for a general audience. In its current form the article likely fails that standard due to medical jargon. For example, see the article's second sentence:

It results from the reactivation of latent varicella zoster virus (VZV) located in the dorsal root and cranial nerve ganglion, spreading from one or more ganglia to the nerves of the affected segment and its corresponding cutaneous dermatome

Certainly the lead should discuss the mechanism (er, cause of the disease) in a non-technical manner. Majoreditor (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made a small improvement. How does it read now? Snowman (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Phrases such as nerve cell bodies (used twice in the lead, attempting non-technical language?) are nonsense. And avoiding appropriate wikilinks does not help. Also, some important aspects of the disease are omitted or inadequately explained. These include HZ and pregnancy, HZ in infants and children, disseminated HZ (this looks like chickenpox), the prodromal stage, and the difficulty and importance of diagnosing HZ before or in the absence of blisters. When the virus reactivates, its stages are: prodromal pain, then pain and rash, then (usually) pain and rash with blisters (herpes zoster), then recovery with or without pain. Use of antivirals is still not adequately explained. These drugs are commonly given intravenously. Does this usually involve hospitalization? Is a port indicated? Epidemiology and prevention also are not adequately explained. --Una Smith (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The article currently does not quite meet any of the six good article criteria. --Una Smith (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a result of Snowman's laudable attempt to clarify an incomprehensible lead. Can you explain why "nerve cell bodies" is nonsense? It seems to me to refer to the body of nerve cells, i.e., the part which is not the axons. (Is that the nucleus?) Is this wrong? If so, how would you phrase it more correctly without being incomprehensible to the general reader?

An earlier version referred to dorsal root ganglia and cranial nerve ganglia. I tried myself to provide a better explanation, but on following the wikilinks, I only learnt that "the dorsal root ganglion (or spinal ganglion) is a nodule on a dorsal root that contains cell bodies of neurons in afferent spinal nerves." and "a ganglion (pl. ganglia) is a tissue mass, composed mainly of somata and dendritic structures, that often interconnects with other ganglia to form a complex system of ganglia known as a plexus. Ganglia provide relay points and intermediary connections between different neurological structures in the body, such as the peripheral and central nervous systems." I kept searching for a definition which was not self-referential, but failed.

So I learnt nothing, and was unable to clarify the lead. Despite reading several Wikipedia articles, I still have very little idea what a ganglion is, and I am, er, kind of fairly well educated. Still, this article is better than Cranial nerve which surely wins the prize for wikification of obfuscation ("innervates the muscles of mastication"!)

A good general strategy, in my view, especially for the lead, is to use informal descriptions, but to provide wikilinks to precise descriptions. If I knew it was correct, I would have written never cell bodies, but apparently it is wrong, and in any case the precise links fail to clarify the meaning. Can you fix it Una Smith? Geometry guy 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A further complication, as far as I understand it, and it is in one of the quoted references, the viruses are "held" within autonomic ganglia, cranial nerve ganglia, and dorsal root ganglia. It might be better to transfer this discussion to the talk page, where more people might participate and help to fix the page. Snowman (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may say, I do not believe that it is the primary purpose of GAR to act as a sick bed to recuperate poorly articles. If an article can be fixed quickly then great, let's do it. But this one has been here for over two weeks now. The concensus appears to be that in its present form it should not be listed as a GA. If/when the issues that have been raised are addressed, then it can very easily be renominated. For now I would suggest that it ought to be delisted and those that are interested in improving the article can do so offline of this GAR process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think we need to panic about a GAR nomination which is only 2 weeks old. Thanks to a lot of recent archiving, GAR is well able to cope. If this GAR were a month old, I would be pressing for archiving, but it isn't yet, and we have had an interesting new contribution from Una Smith opposing changes made by a reviewer to improve the article towards GA status. I think it may be worthwhile to keep this GAR open to establish some agreement as to which direction the article needs to move in order to become GA in the future. The consensus to delist is not yet clear according to the archiving guidelines. I expect that a delist is likely, but lets give the review process a chance to deliver something before we make that decision. Geometry guy 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. Feel free to copy any comments here to the talk page, if that would help. It is all GDFL licensed, after all!

One GA (and FA) criterion is that the article be stable. This article is very, very far from stable. By the way, for an informal description of scientific detail to work, the writer not only must know the science inside and out, but also must know the common misconceptions that non-scientists have about the science. To write about any complex subject, usually I find it necessary to do some library research. There are many books about herpes zoster, some of them consisting entirely of high-quality reviews. Last night I read one book: Herpes Zoster, Monographs in Virology, vol 26, editors Gross and Doerr, Karger, 2006. I learned a lot. --Una Smith (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of instability at ALL in the revision history. I see several editors collaborating to fix the problems noted above, but activity is not equivalent to instability. The article is improving, and I see no evidence of an editwar at all... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Una, I disagree with your philosophy: there is not one writer of an article at WP, but many. One editor (at least) needs to know the science inside-out, another needs to know the common misconceptions; a third needs to know how to write well for a general audience. If these editors work together, they can create a great article. Now, can you answer my questions above, e.g., why is "nerve cell bodies" wrong? Thanks. Geometry guy 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree that if someone wants to write about the cell biology of HZ, they should at least read an introductory textbook about cell biology. Re the particulars, please see Talk:Herpes zoster. --Una Smith (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the helpful talk page comment. Re this comment, I hope instead we can agree that in an article like HZ, it is vital to have editors working on it who have at least read an introductory textbook about cell biology; however it is also invaluable to have contributions from editors who haven't. Geometry guy 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)