Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 62

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 63)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 61) →

Jane Zhang

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

Result: delisted AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is no longer updated for "Biography" section, but I added some info about personal life. I think this article should be delisted from Good article. So, I would like to open reassessment for this article.--Shwangtianyuan Talk Here 06:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: this was made a GA in 2007. Although Jane has released two studio albums, one live album, and one E.P. since 2010, the article doesn't discuss any of them. She is also apparently still a major act since she won an MTV award for it as recently as 2015. This article would need a major update and reorganization in order to qualify under the current GA criteria, and absent someone able and willing to do so, I can't see this staying as a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • As a famous singer in China, even in the world, Jane also will released her first English album. She also participated in television programs, ex Hidden Singer in 2016, and I Am a Singer (season 3) in 2015. Why did not add these info? By these reasons, I think it should be delisted.--Shwangtianyuan Talk Here 06:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • From what I can see, the issues listed above remain extant. I also think there are issues with information appearing in the lead and no where else (Dolphin Princess/whistle register), which is uncited. As such, if there are no objections, I intend to close this with the result of "delist" five days from now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Shearonink:

• the image being used as the main image in this article looks like a typical press-service photo or PR photo and yet the editor who uploaded it to Commons (and who has only ever done this one edit on Commons) said it was their own work...I somehow doubt it.
• The refs are really not in good shape. When I ran the External links tool I found 12 Not Founds, 4 dead links, a download error, an exceeded redirect limit, changes in sub-domains, etc.
• There is a possible copyvio with a YouTube description.

If I were reviewing this article for GA status now, it would be a Quick-Fail on the referencing issues alone. Shearonink (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have closed this review as "delisted" as the issues raised above have not been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate's wife

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

Result: delisted AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is not very thorough in its coverage of the topic, and reading it raises more questions than it answers. The following problems were present when I first edited the article:

1. A work apparently composed in the seventeenth century is cited in a section called "early Christian literature".
2. A sentence from the New Testament about an entirely unrelated figure who probably didn't have the same name is quoted with no commentary indicating why it is quoted.
3. An obvious modern forgery is given its own section of the article but it is not clarified that it is a forgery.
4. The highly dubious claims in the infobox that she was born and died in Israel are not sourced, and the former was templated over two years ago.
5. The "Christian literature and legends [that] have amplified the brief anecdote about Pilate's wife in the New Testament" are barely discussed in the body ("legends" are not mentioned at all), and they definitely should be.
6. The anti-semitic elements of her veneration by later Christians, along with that of her husband, are not mentioned.
7. There is an unsourced claim that the name "Procula" originates in translations of the Gospel of Nicodemus, but Nicodemus dates to the fourth century, and "the Letter of Pilate to Herod" apparently called her "Procla" and at least one scholar dates that letter to the third or fourth century (see this book by the leading NT scholar in the United States). Also: what translations?

These problems about things I do know about. All of these problems were already present in the 2008 version, so I don't think this should have ever been listed as a GA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: this page is being created from the previous individual reassessment that was opened through a misunderstanding; a community reassessment was what was desired. I've done this for Hijiri 88.) —BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(Further note: I have copied the section below, which was added to the abovementioned closed individual reassessment back in September, and to which Hijiri88 replied earlier today. This discussion should continue here, on the active reassessment.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Llywrch

Although no one has commented on this proposed reassessment, I concur that the article doesn't meet the intended standards for GA, & either needs work to keep this status or be downgraded.

Having read this article, I am left with a confused impression of this minor character. (I've read the Gospels several times each, & managed to overlook her existence until I discovered this article, so I feel comfortable calling her a "minor character".) Is there any evidence for pre-modern traditions about her? The talk page allude to the fact she might be mentioned in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which would indicate some pre-Medieval tradition about her. I'd also like a list of primary texts that name her "Procula", "Claudia", a combination of the two; otherwise, I'm left suspecting that she never was given a name, & any assertion that she had one is a hoax. (Yes, there are people who add hoaxes to Wikipedia articles that don't get much attention just to see how long the misinformation will stay.) Looking at the article on her husband, I found a lot of evidence that confirms there were many traditions about him; yet no indication whether any of those traditions mention her. Her only visibility appears to be in modern works -- which makes her something of a modern antihero.

Lastly, while I don't agree with some of Hijiri's criticisms, addressing most of them would be a good first step. But I haven't seen any effort to make any changes in response, so I wonder if the proper thing to do would be to remove it's GA classification, requiring any advocate for the article to make desired improvements to it. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Llywrch: Re "Is there any evidence for pre-modern traditions about her?" Yes. As you indicate you have read the talk page, several NT apocrypha feature her much more prominently than Matthew. This material absolutely needs to be added to the article. But, not being a content expert, I don't feel comfortable doing so myself. FS does not appear to be either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Shearonink

Downgrade. To a C-Level.
This article might be more appropriately called "Cultural depictions of Pontius Pilate's wife" - if you look at the amount of content in the article about the cultural depictions there is more about Mrs. Pilate's appearances in all kinds of literature, both modern and not, in theatre, film and TV than there is about the woman herself. After all, there is only one sentence about her in the New Testament. If you want to look at a well-written article about a somewhat-minor person in the Bible then Dorcas, one of the disciples, is in much better shape, in my opinion at least a C-level (and Dorcas did have more than one sentence written about her). I became interested in how this article became a GA so I went poking around its editing history and the talk page's history. The procedure in the past, as I understand it, is that naming an article a GA was left up to individual editors. There is no record of community discussion about how the article qualified or if the article qualified, because no such discussion took place. In June 2008, an individual editor designated the article as GA, it received the GA icon in 2010 and that was that.
So, the question now is - does the article deserve to be a GA? In my opinion and in its present state?...No. Do I want to do the work to get it up to a GA quality-level. No, I do not. And from the looks of it, neither does anyone else. What level do I think it should receive? *Maybe* a C, maybe even start-class.
And this Reassessment is the first community review that the article has ever really received. This reassessment has been going on since June. I think the community consensus is pretty clear. Delist the article from GA, maybe even downgrade the article to a C and if anyone wants to work on it, let them improve it up to a B (and so on.) It serves no good purpose to let an article like this languish and keep its Good Article status during that languishment.
If nothing else changes within 7 days, I am going to request that an uninvolved editor or admin close this discussion and delist this article. Shearonink (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: from what I can tell, the issues raised above have not been dealt with. As such, if there are no objections, I intend to close this review with the outcome of "delist". I will wait until this time tomorrow to do so, though, for any last minute objections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closed as delisted. Once the issues identified above have been dealt with, the article can be renominated at [[WP:GAN]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem

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

Result: Kept. Concensus is to keep as GA. No issues have been identified for delisting the article. The1337gamer (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm 100% confident that @ProtoDrake performed due diligence on fact checking and meeting WP:V. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• ...sigh. Every time I see Gamingforfun365 and a review process in the same phrase, I know it's going to be a hassle. Alright, here we go: reviewing.

• Alright, 20 minutes later: I see no substantive problems with this article. There's always small grammar things that maybe I'd bring up in a review (Protodrake and I, uh, disagree a little bit on the usage of colons) and I'd like to see more (possibly mythical) reviews at the FA-level (and maybe a touch more in gameplay), but the prose is fine, the sources are fine, the spotchecks came back clean, and overall this comes across as the reviewer throwing a snit because people told him his article wasn't ready for FAC and his GAN reviews weren't stringent enough, and deciding to put them all up for GAR instead of just finishing the reviews. Keep. --PresN 21:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that the prose would be better with fewer colons, in this case (though it doesn't help that Fire Emblem titles are also heavy on colons as a series). Also agree with what others have said above. Happy to review further if needed, just ping me. czar 01:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Ran the Reviewers tools:

Checked refs/external links: Fine

Checked copyvios: Fine

Checked disambig links: Fine. Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at the Good article criteria:

1. Well written (Yes)

A: Prose clear & concise/Yes B: Complies with MOS for lead, layout, etc. /Yes

2. Verifiable with no original research (Yes)

A: List of references/Yes B: Inline citations are from reliable sources/Yes C: No original research/Yes D: No plagiarism/Yes

3. Broad in its coverage (Yes)

A: Addresses main aspects of subject/Yes B: Stays focused on topic without devolving into trivia/Yes

4. Neutral/Yes

5. Stable/Yes

6. Images (Yes)

A: Tagged with copyright status/Yes B: Images relevant to topic and have suitable captions/Yes

7. Overall: Keep

I see no problems with this article that are terrible enough for it to lose its present GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Deus Ex Go

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

Result: kept AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fact-checking is not part of the GA criteria. What parts of the criteria does the article not meet? czar 19:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Although fact-checking may not be part of the GA review process, verifiability is: you should certainly be checking the referenced sources to see whether they back up the article and whether the article properly reflects the source material. Gamingforfun365, If you didn't do that originally, then why aren't you doing it now before filing these reassessments? If you do find some problems, then I can see opening a community reassessment—you're not eligible to open an individual one having been the original GA reviewer—but if you can't cite any actual factual issues, then you should do your homework before coming here to GAR. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm 100% confident that czar performed due diligence on fact checking and meeting WP:V. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• ferret, when the GA reviewer (that was Gamingforfun365's role here) says that they did a substandard review and omitted some of the standard requisite checks during the review, it behooves the community to step in if they are unwilling or unable to check. The fact that this GAR has been submitted instead of the checks being done by this reviewer is clear evidence of issues, and I think they should refrain from future participation in the GAN/GAR/FAC space. However, even the best editor can make mistakes; it would be inappropriate to close this before those checks are made here and in the other two GARs that have been submitted. It's not as if the GA status is withheld in the interim. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather not speculate about GF365's motivations. @Gamingforfun365, would you be willing to do a spot-check of sources? I think if you were to check that several of the article's facts match their cited sources, both you and this reassessment would be satisfied. czar 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I did some checking:

• Ran the check links tool - all the references are valid, nothing resolves to a dead link or something similar.
• I checked every. single. reference. for at least one fact and I could find no issues at all.

Other than the alleged sloppy fact-checking, is there anything else that is possibly an issue with this article? It was asserted that the sourced facts weren't checked, well now they have been.
In my opinion I think this reassessment should be closed as a non-starter. Shearonink (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, if you didn't find any issues in this area, then I agree with your assessment. Thanks for the great work. The problem was that the original GA review didn't check any of the sources against the article, so we couldn't know whether there were any issues or not. Now that you have, it's clear that there aren't any issues. (I didn't see any other issues on a quick read-through.) All we need now is someone uninvolved to close this. Pinging AustralianRupert, who sometimes does closes in the community reassessment space. (Note: this would be the second of three to be closed; the first was here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I will happily close this one. I will wait 24 hours, though, to see if there are any objections. If not, I intend to close the review as "kept". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have closed this now as "kept" based on the above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Codename: Gordon

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

Result: Delisted. Concensus is this article does not meet GA criteria. The1337gamer (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not think this article should remain a GA in the current state it is in. Considering I have too little experience with the matters at hand, I do not feel confident to adress the issues myself. I am pinging the original GA nominator here: @Paulcmnt:. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think this should immediately lose its GA status but I'm wondering if it's even notable enough to have its own page on Wikipedia. Nearly half of the sources are dialogue from the game, one is a press release, another is an abandonware website, two are interviews, and the Gameplanet link is dead. I just don't know if this article should still be up. GamerPro64 18:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• I vote speedy delist, as I can not find many reliable sources for the subject and the article is obviously a mess. I would also vote weak delete when it comes to keeping or deleting the article, as I challenge the subject's notability. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have also never heard of the subject until this GAR has been brought up to WT:VG, so I am thinking that this kind of material belongs on Wikia. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The place to discuss whether the article is notable enough to exist is at Articles for Deletion. Of course, if the article does not survive an AfD nomination, this GA reassessment is moot, since the article would no longer exist. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In a GAR case such as this, shall I set up an AfD for this article? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't bother with AfD (it's worth attempting to redirect "before" going to AfD, which is a last resort). Redirect/merge it to some parent article's section where it is discussed. czar 18:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. If this article were up for its first GA it would be failed for having multiple maintenance templates - one section is completely unreferenced. There is another referencing issues - Ref#4, a 2008 ref - gameplanet.co.nz - has expired. There also appears to be a copyvio issue with combineoverwiki.net/wiki/Codename:_Gordon. One or the other article - either the WP one or the combineoverwiki - is copied from the other. I would say that the other article is a mirror site, just not one that I am familiar with. And, what is the deal referring to people as First name "Nickname" Last name? Two different people are referred to as such and more than once - Paul "X-Tender" Kamma and Sönke "Warbeast" Seidel...this doesn't exactly sound like an encyclopedia and is more like what one would find in a fan-magazine. Shearonink (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy delist. Too riddled with errors to keep its status for now. Notability can be discussed on different platforms, such as AfD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Space Marshals

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

Result: This nomination has been up since August and there appears to be issues that have not been addressed during this time. I am delisting the article. GamerPro64 18:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Notified: Tintor2, Omni Flames, WikiProject Video Games

I believe this does not fall under the GA criteria per the comments I've left at Talk:Space Marshals#GA Reassessment. Primarily, the references just aren't up to par. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I've removed all of the sources you listed that were unreliable, except iPad Insight and Pocket Tactics, just because both of their about us pages look good [1][2]. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. Omni Flames (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for that, Omni Flames. I still have a few doubts about iClarified and Gamer.nl. I can't find their about us page for either of them. iClarified posted the article in this article under the name of "iClarified" so I can't search for the writer's name either. As for Gamer.nl, there's a language barrier stopping me from properly analysing the site. iPad Insight seems like an enthusiast site, with sentences like "other avid iPad users and reviewers" being present in the about us page. I'd also like to see a copyedit, if possible. Let's leave it open for a couple of days so that we can receive opinions from other editors. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I'll take a more in-depth look at those sources in the next couple of days and see whether I think they're reliable or not. As for copyediting, I've left a request at WP:GOCE/R. Omni Flames (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• It should be easy enough to expand the Reception from the current sources—needs more depth  czar 14:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte, what is your current assessment of the article after the work by Omni Flames last August and the subsequent copyedit by GOCE? This has been sitting moribund for four months, and it's time to get it moving again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: My apologies for the late reply, I've been busy IRL so I couldn't really devote time to look at this. My primary concern still stands, though. Many of the references in this article fail WP:RS, let-alone GA standard. It's also a tad bland; I've read through it again and although it's now worded a lot better, I feel like it just doesn't contain enough information to be of GA standard, even with the unreliable sources included. My position still stands, but it's up to the closer. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I got rid of the one source, I agree it is dubious. I believe the dutch source is fine, I translated the About Us page and all seems well. http://gamer.nl/colofon/

Let me know if you disagree. What else do you specifically want fixed? Kees08 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte, Omni Flames, and BlueMoonset: Does anyone have anything else they think needs improved? If so, list it below and I can address it, otherwise let's pass it for GA. Kees08 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I still think it's a bit short. Also, some sections heavily rely on primary sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Length is not a criterion for GA. I'll work on the primary sources aspect. Kees08 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Changed two of the citations, left two. I think those two are fine as primary sources (some background information on the main character, and the announcement of the next release). Kees08 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but being broad in its coverage is. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

See The1337gamer's comment for the proper way to say how it isn't broad in coverage. I will be working on his comments. Kees08 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now that I have more time on my hands, here are a few things I think could be improved.

• Synopsis feels a bit bare. Here are a few ideas:

• The game is set in the "Wild West", and the player is tasked with bringing criminals to justice. Why? What did the criminals do? Also, I think the first and second sentence could be merged.
• Characterized as "arrogant", Burt is a former space. Having the "" implies that it comes from elsewhere, IMO the "characterized" could be removed and replaced with something like: Burt, an "arrogant" former space marshal or even Burt, a former space marshall and remove the "arrogant" entirely; the rest of the gameplay section doesn't make it obvious as to why this is a required description. Is the removal of rank tied in with his arrogance? It doesn't make it obvious.
• What's the "Backspace?"
• What's the importance of T.A.M.I.? Do they have any powers? Go into semi-depth here and then go into even more depth in the gameplay section.

• T.A.M.I. isn't even mentioned in gameplay.

• After the completion of each level, the player gets a ranking from 1-5 "stars" indicating how well they performed. Does it indicate how well they did or is it based on how well they did?

@Kees08: I may be able to spot a few more things later. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Had a quick glance at the article. Pointing out some issues:

1. Wccftech is an unreliable source.
2. Reception section is lacking and not broad in its coverage.
3. There is an IGN score cited in the review table but it isn't cited anywhere in prose. Articles should not be listing review scores in the table without covering and referencing the review in text.
4. and it was released for iOS on the 9th. – see MOS:DATEFORMAT
5. Many reviewers were impressed by the simplicity of the game's dual-stick controls, – This statement only has one citation. One reviewer does not imply many reviewers.
6. These rewards include weapons, bombs, distraction devices, and armor. – Missing citation.
7. Each type of weapon has a maximum amount of ammunition that can be held for it at any one time. – Missing citation.

--The1337gamer (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• The scare quotes around Wild West are not really needed. Our WP article could just quote the TouchArcade article using "futuristic wild west setting" - I think that would be more appropriate.
• I don't quite understand the game's notability. Was it a best-seller? Is PixelBite a famous/well-known developer? Did it go viral because a big-time gamer endorsed it? It seems to me that claims of notability in the lead section could be more-developed.

Shearonink (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DevilDriver

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

Result: Delisted, consensus is that article is a C-Level. Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This article would benefit from a community reassessment. In its present condition I find the following:

• Fails GA Criteria 1b, especially regarding MOS:LEAD - No clear claim of notability in lead section.
• Doesn't fulfill GA criteria 2b - References need to be cleaned-up. There are 2 Citation Needed templates + a dead link + a "clarification needed" + an "update needed".
• The first paragraph in "The Fury of Our Maker's Hand (2005–2006)" section is completely unreferenced.
• The references date from 2007 - they all need to be checked for viability.
• The article was promoted to a GA in 2007. Wikipedia standards have changed since then, especially in terms of statements, referencing and possible WP:BLP concerns. Shearonink (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Aye, someone picked up on one of my tags. Appreciate it. Anyway, I think there isn't enough research or detail done for the Pray for Villains, Beast and Trust No One sections. The article was promoted when the band was still somewhat new, and the original nominator has obviously left it to collect dust...actually, the user's been pretty much inactive since 2008, and officially since 2010... so I guess it makes sense that it's this badly deteriorated. They need to look more like the first two. Aside from that, one of the paragraphs in the second section is devoid of citations. I'm at a delist if this article stays the way it is for a few more weeks. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Delist. If the various referencing issues (no references for some sections, dead link, referencing maintenance templates) & MOS:LEAD problems are not fixed then this article should be delisted. Also, if this article came up for a WP:GA Review in its present condition, it would be failed on the referencing problems alone. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think we can close this one. Nobody appears interested. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: In your opinion, what level would this article now qualify as? It doesn't appear to be a GA in its present condition...is it a C? Maybe a B? I don't feel comfortable leaving it as a GA...Shearonink (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

C-Class at best with refrencing and weasker content as the article progresses. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I value your expertise on this. Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, DannyMusicEditor, as you have both "voted" on this, it would have been best to get someone else to close it per the community reassessment instructions: When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it. (This also means that the person who opens the community reassessment shouldn't be the one to close it.) I've checked the article myself just now, and feel that it is appropriate to delist for the reasons above, plus the overshort lead (which doesn't adequately cover the various sections of the article), additional unsourced paragraphs, and prose that is too much "on date X person Y announced Z". There's no need to undo the close, but next time please do wait for that uninvolved editor to close the community reassessment. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I can see your point about all that Blue. I would like to mention that I was relying on and referring to the Instructions at WP:GAR and that the "uninvolved editor" term is oddly only part of the Community reassessments (but not the Individual reassessments). The term should probably be bolded within the instructions so no one else misses it if they are doing a Community GAR. If a single editor had weighed in with any sort of a different opinion I would have refrained but since the consensus was unanimous, I thought the article should be put out of its GAR limbo-misery, and went ahead and closed the reassessment. If I find myself in a similar situation in the future I'll post on Talk:GAR (or maybe ping you or one of the other GA/GAR regulars). Shearonink (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, the person I tend to ping if I think something needs closing is AustralianRupert; if he's involved, then I try Wizardman. As for "uninvolved editor", the reason it's only part of the community reassessment is that the individual reassessment is, like a regular GAN, supposed to be conducted by a single individual who opens and closes it—is responsible for making the final decision on keeping or delisting—though as with GANs, anyone is welcome to comment. (The lack of involvement comes a priori: the individual not having been a significant contributor to the article, or a past GA reviewer, or the like.) GAR's an odd place: it was up to over 40 GARs this summer, many of which had been opened as individual reassessments but never taken beyond an opening paragraph before being abandoned (they should have been community ones). It was a long haul cleaning them up, but we're in much better shape now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Yay for better shape! This is starting to go wildly off-topic for this GAR but yeah, besides my involvement in the GA Cup, I've been trying to clear-out some of the GAR waitlist. Some of the articles have been undergoing reassessment for months. I'll poke around and see if any are eligible for closing. Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passion (Utada Hikaru song)

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

Result: pass CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 06:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of this song (and the artist), and I was the Wikipedian that nominated it (which eventually received a GA approval), and potentially want to gain this article prospects as a Featured Artice. However, over time, I have noticed that there were a lot of elements and mistakes that were not identified in the review that was originally conducted to get it to GA standard; for example, there were prose/grammar issues, inconsistent value of citation templates, overuse of words, awkward tenses and placements of sub-articles and the inappropriate/discouraging use of blogs and other below A-class websites (little to my knowledge at the time). As a result, I am putting this up for re-assessment to see if this is of any right to make it inside the GA community. I have tided up the article severely to a good and appropriate standard, but need more advice in order to improve it and keep it at GA level, and I'll give it my all and determination to take your guys comments and criticisms in order to get this to a higher standard in any way possible. Any criticism or comments are welcomed. Best regards, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 05:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• I do bear responsibility for this as it's my own missed mistakes that have partially caused this. I'll certainly give some advice about the references: Ref 41 says "Subscription based" which probably means people in general can't access the information its providing unless its in preliminary blurb. Also all references not yet archived need to be so either through Wayback Machine, WebCite or Archive.is. I think other editors are more suited to catching grammar errors. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No worries and thank you for the response; I'll get to archive the articles shortly! CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 09:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    • If you want to archive references, you certainly can, but archiving is not part of the GA criteria, so it should be irrelevant to this reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• @CaliforniaDreamsFan: my main noticeable thing to be changed is the rationale for the nonfree images and samples. They are still adequate and does not explain in the file page as to how it passes wP:NFCC#8. Check the rationale for the images in "Nothing Really Matters" for example. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @IndianBio: I was concerned with those at first. Those samples and shots (apart from the video still and the top two infobox images, which have been scaled down and changed) were already on the article as their current quality, which I have over viewed and indeterminately do not meet the standards of Wikipedia guidelines; I will render them immediately and ping you. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @IndianBio: Re-formatted the samples and image files. If there are any concerns, don't hesitate to contact me. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Joss Whedon

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

Result: consensus to demote AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This article does not meet the good article criteria demand for reliable sources and no original research. One example comes from the FAC nomination, where it was failed partly for not having sources fit for a biographical article, instead linking to "blogs, sketchy review sites, and sources like BuzzFeed". The reviewer was surprised it made it through to good article status in the first place. It still has a problem with prose in addition to the suspicious copyvio results, but I think poor verifiability is its chief offence. Cognissonance (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the header. I don't know how to fix it, it says "GA Reassessment" instead of linking to the Joss Whedon GAR like there other articles on the main WP:GAR page, but anyway...

• Ref #98 is dead.
• Ref #168 handshake failure
• Ref #249 fails.
• Ref #324 is dead.
• Ref #314 is malformed.

Also, it seems to me that the article possibly fails WP:GA criteria #5 "Stable" - it seems to attract a fairly constant stream of a certain amount of vandalism/reverts/edits/well-meaning edits not up to WP standards etc. Shearonink (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Header fixed. Thanks kind stranger. Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Shearonink. It was my fault to begin with; the reassessment was started as an individual one but because the nominator was a major contributor, it had to be done as a community reassessment; unfortunately, I didn't quite get the conversion right. Thanks for pointing out the issue; I'll do it better if such a conversion is needed in future. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've never quite understood how an article can have just enough bad sourcing and original research to fail an FA nomination but not enough to delist as a GA. I posted such a GAR back in late 2015 and it was closed as keep by default because there wasn't a "consensus to delist". Unless an experienced user goes through all the sources and checks that each one of them fully verifies the article content, I think the safest move would be to delist. (It's not clear if this is what User:Shearonink did above, or if it was just a search for sources with technical problems and/or that shouldn't be cited anyway.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that it should be delisted and marked down - to a C. I mean, it's been almost a month and none of the GA Criteria issues have been improved. I have no idea if I can do do the Closing or if it has to be someone else - GAR's parameters are confusing to me. I think I am following them and then?...apparently not. BlueMoonset, Wizardman - if someone else could close this that would be awesome. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Shearonink, once you have posted an opinion (such as that you think it fails the stability criterion), you are no longer considered uninvolved, so you shouldn't be closing this. It should be someone else. Maybe AustralianRupert might be willing to take a look? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't say I was going to close it did I. That's why I called you here. Shearonink (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, but you did say I have no idea if I can do do the Closing or if it has to be someone else, which is what I was answering in response to your ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Shearonink (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: once you have posted an opinion [...], you are no longer considered uninvolved, so you shouldn't be closing this would be my opinion as well, and it is technically encouraged by the GAR guidelines, but it does seem like GAR has a weird loophole to get around that requirement, in that an editor whose personal opinion is that the page doesn't meet the criteria can open an individual reassessment and then close it however way they see fit. It's kind of off-topic for this page but the GAR process itself seems to be especially messy, and the guidelines were written by a user who by their own admission is not a fan of the process itself, and may or may not have deliberately made the guidelines as dense as they are in order to discourage use of the process. (I'm still trying to figure out if there's any time-efficient way to find out how many GARs were opened in any given 12-month period, but I would be surprised if the number of GARs hasn't dropped noticeably in the last year.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Going off-topic in my comment as well, but speaking as someone who's just stumbled into this corner of WP fairly recently...this is all very confusing and somewhat obtuse to me and I'm not a newbie. If we comment at all we can't close? If we open a GAR we can't close?...unless it's an individual GAR? etc... It seems to me that the GAR guidelines/rules should perhaps follow the GA guidelines. There's a nominator and then there's a Reviewer. The Reviewer gets to do the Review and the Reviewer gets to close the Review. The Nominator and other interested editors can work on doing the major adjustment to the article, the Reviewer can do minor ones, the Nominator can also withdraw the nom for whatever reason (no time, lost interest, doesn't work well with the Reviewer, etc). It's a fairly-straightforward system, it makes sense to me that GAR could be set up in a similar fashion. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: It's not technically true that if we comment at all we can't close (see Prhartcom's most recent GAR involvement back in fall 2015), but if a commenter closes in a way that aligns with their own POV and was not clearly supported by consensus, they can expect a backlash. Basically it is considered out of line for an involved party to close just about anything, with the only borderline exceptions being where everyone is in agreement and there is therefore no one in whose interests it would be to point out that the closer was out of line. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: so if the comments are all unanimous, then there is no dissent and one of the commenters could then close the GAR and take appropriate action - keep the GA, delist it, downgrade it to a B or C or whatever. Oh well, I guess this will have to wait in GAR-limbo until someone who is uninvolved comes along and closes it. Shearonink (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Technically, if the comments were unanimous, then an involved closer would still technically be in violation, but usually on Wikipedia the only way violators face consequences is if someone reports them, and if everyone agrees with the closure then no one would have any reason to complain. (In theory, some random outsider who happens across it might want to report them, but that would be wikilawyering at best and more than likely a form of harassment. The same goes for other involved users who agree with the nature of the close but choose to enforce the letter of the law anyway, since it would be very hard to justify such an action in good faith.) Since a lot of GAs were promoted way back in the day and even if their original nominators don't agree with 2017 sourcing standards they aren't here anymore to complain, I imagine unanimous "delist" !votes are quite common. If, however, everyone was in essential agreement that delisting was the way to go, and you inserted into the closing statement some personal opinion that you don't have any reason to believe would be agreed to by others, that would be a fairly significant violation. Additionally, GARs generally only discuss whether or not to delist as a GA. If the article is no longer either GA or FA, you or any other user, involved or not, have the freedom to determine whether it is A, B, C, Start, or any other quality level according to the standards of this or that WikiProject; a fully uninvolved user (i.e., one who has never edited the page before and is not linked to any of the relevant WikiProjects) determining the class of the article would be a little weird, although it does happen and is not a violation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Old-fashioned doughnut

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: Keep "Good Article" rating. Article has been improved during the course of this reassessment. Thanks to all editors involved. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Original GA review didn't address the criteria appropriately. Specifically, I think this article fails GACR 3, as it is not sufficiently broad in its coverage and leaves out several main aspects of the topic.

I came to this article because I was interested in finding out why they are called "old-fashioned", but there is almost nothing about etymology, history, cultural impact etc. The article is also very Americocentric: I grew up in Ireland, where I don't recall ever seeing such a doughnut (even in imported media), and so I got the impression it was a Japanese invention. I don't doubt that it actually originates in America, but that kind of information should definitely be in the article. The only proper names I see are the names of several American cities and corporations in the "Variations" section. Who invented the old-fashioned doughnut? Where? When? The article currently provides none of this information, but it really should have done so before being promoted to GA.

An article being woefully incomplete like this is to be expected, but GAs are supposed to be better.

I don't know how much work would be required to bring this article to legitimate GA status, but it's obvious that the article should not have passed the original GA review last year, so reverting the bad listing seems appropriate. Following the source-searching and hard work of Northamerica1000 to improve the article to address some of my concerns, it's clear that the amount of work needed to find sources that may or may not be able to address my concerns would be quite significant, if not impossible. I still think the "broad coverage" requirement means that it should address these issues in more detail than it currently does, and if the sources don't exist or can't be located then it may not be the kind of article that should be a GA. If this is a difference in interpretation and I'm being to subjective, then I'll agree to disagree and the article will not be delisted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC) (Edited 07:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC) )

• Article updated. Added a History section to explain the doughnut's origin in the United States. There is almost nothing available in online searches about the origin of the old-fashioned doughnut, but I will continue to search further. The article is "Americocentric" because the doughnut originated in the U.S. and almost all sources cover the topic from this perspective. It's unclear how one woujld surmise this as a Japanese invention; particularly since you state that the article is "Americocentric". There is no mention of Japan in the article at all. There is also no particular source coverage about this variety of doughnut's "cultural impact" or etymology, (as stated above). Wikipedia articles are based upon what sources state, but sources haven't covered its cultural impact or etymology. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's unclear how one woujld surmise this as a Japanese invention If one grew up in a country where, if old-fashioned doughnuts even existed, they were extremely obscure, and never saw them mentioned in American films or TV shows, then moved to Japan where they are ubiquitous, that is a very easy thing to surmise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Update: I have further expanded the History section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have edited the article to address your concerns. A matter is that aspects of the topic you mention atop have received very little to no coverage in reliable sources. My goal is to improve the article to convince you to withdraw the nomination, but when sources are literally not available concerning the points you bring up, these points actually should not be included in the article, as per WP:V and WP:NOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... the article as it stands is very short (easily the shortest GA I've seen) and I kind of suspect that if the kind of information I requested above can be written about it then ... well, I don't know. It's not a stub article at present, but I'm pretty sure WP:PERMASTUBs can't be GAs -- can PERMASHORTs be GAs? For me the title of the article begs the question "what is old-fashioned about them?" and I find it pretty hard to believe that no RSes have answered that question.

I'd rather you didn't pester me to "withdraw my nomination", though: I'm not going to change my opinion just because you say that you can't find reliable sources that provide the information that I think should be in the article, then this article can still be a GA if it turns out the community disagree with my opinion about what constitutes "address[ing] the main aspects of the topic".Rw

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I stated during the GA nomination discussion, "Note that there is not a great deal of extensive coverage about this topic", and really, there is not. Some is available, but it is limited; there's only so much. Try out the search options I have provided below. The article was fleshed out from all available sources at the time that were available in online searches. That's just the way it goes for some topics. While I agree that inclusion of the history of the topic is appropriate, there actually isn't anything available in online searches about the history of the old-fashioned doughnut itself, and I searched extensively. The only information available is about the history of cake doughnuts, which the old-fashioned variety is a type of.

On Wikipedia, it's typically not possible to address some particular aspects about a topic when no reliable sources exist that cover those particular aspects. It would be great to expand the article as such, but without sources, or only unreliable sources, it would only be speculation, rather than entirely fact-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Again, if the article is a "QUASIPERMASTUB" (for want of a better term) for which sufficient sources can't be found even to explain where the name comes from, or to explain why they don't exist in some developed countries wih significant American cultural influence but are everywhere in others, I don't think the topic is GA-material. We'll see if others disagree with me, but you're not going to change my mind by saying that sufficient sources can't be found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't view this article as a stub at all. For an example of what constitutes an actual stub, see this article. You seem to have made up your mind, but you come across as not liking the article because it doesn't have content in it that you would like to be there, but sources don't cover. Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state, rather than conjecture. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Hijiri88, you brought up some good points that would fit fabulously within the article, but we simply cannot add them to the article without the proper sources. I wouldn't agree that this is the shortest GA ever; yeah, it's on the short side, but it is broad in its coverage. I know you disagree with both Northamerica1000 and myself on this, but if the sources don't exist, it can't be included. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

That's fine. I opened this as a community reassessment because I wasn't sure if I was right or not. If I was absolutely certain that my opinion would be shared by others, this would be an individual reassessment. I should correct you on one point, though: I said it is easily the shortest GA I've seen (emphasis added). I don't doubt that there are other GAs that are shorter and have held up under reassessment and that an experienced GA reviewer would have seen such, but this is about 2/3 the length of the second-shortest GA I personally happen to have read. I still think this article lacks the kind of information I would expect from a Wikipedia article on this topic, and I think if sources can't be found for said information then it's a "PERMASHORT" or a "NEARPERMASTUB" or whatever one might call such an article and is likely to raise a question for readers that there are insufficient sources to answer. I wrote a few similar articles for WP Asian Month last November (they meet GNG but there's really not all that much that could be written about them, even if they can't be called WP:PERMASTUBs). So I certainly don't think that the page should be deleted or merged or anything, just that it might not be the type of article that should be a GA. Anyway, I suspect the longer this gets the less likely it is editors other than the original nominator, the original reviewer, and the one who opened the GAR will comment. If it winds up being 2-1 then it will be no consensus to delist and I'd be cool with that, but it would still be nice if some others chimed in as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment. I am concerned that the term "old-fashioned doughnut" does not appear specifically cited in conjunction with the stated 1829 date in References 1 & 2. Yes, I can know that the original use of the term probably happened after commercial leavening agents were available but so far as I can tell this is not stated in these references. It seems to me that a better title for this article would possibly be "Cake doughnut". Shearonink (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: If this makes any sense, a cake doughnut is more of a variety/style of doughnut while "old fashioned" is a specific type of a doughnut. Carbrera (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

This article is specifically about the old-fashioned doughnut, which is one of many varieties of cake doughnut. Changing the title to "Cake doughnut" would be quite inaccurate to do relative to the content of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To me the question remains...are old-fashioned doughnuts a type of cake doughnuts or is it the other way around. The references certainly seem to imply that old-fashioneds are a type of cake. I still think the cited references don't seem to quite verify that "old-fashioned doughnuts" were an invented/created things of a certain date & time. The references all refer to the invention of pearlash and commercial doughnuts but there isn't really anything specific in them about the old-fashioned. Maybe I missed that, am always willing to learn. Shearonink (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It states in the lead, "The old-fashioned doughnut is a variety of cake doughnut ...". It's not the other way around (e.g. "the cake doughnut is a variety of old-fashioned doughnut"). This seems plain to me. I added the history content per the request herein for it to be included. That's the best that's out there in internet searches. Still can't find anything about when the old-fashioned doughnut itself was invented. It's origin and date of invention appears to never have been documented. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep – I feel that the original GA reviewer, Carbrera, did address the good article criteria appropriately. As per the discourse above, Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state, and the suggestions herein by the original poster for additions to the article are not topically covered by reliable sources. When I developed this article, all sources available in online searches were used in its the process, except in cases when the content in sources was duplicative. As such, the article passes point #3 of the GA Criteria, "Broad in its coverage". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep as GA. I do think the GA Review was fine and that the size of the article is also fine. Not every GA has to be some opus of 40+ pages - there is space within Wikipedia for all sorts and sizes of GA articles. However I do have some additional thoughts about this article which are in my Comment below. Shearonink (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment. My main point about the sourcing & statements seems to be getting lost. Almost all of the History section (which, yes, I do understand was added in the course of this discussion) is about "cake doughnuts", there is nothing in that section about old-fashioned and the origins of old-fashioneds. I do understand that old-fashioneds are a type of cake but why is everything in History about the parent foodstuff? There is nothing specifically about old-fashioned's origination story or stories. All the cited references in that section are about the parent foodstuff instead of about the actual subject of this article. For illustration's sake, to me it's as if there were an article about George Washington but the lead was about his parents and everything in early years was only specifically about his mother and father. If there aren't any sources that speak to the origins of the name "old-fashioned" or of the origination of the actual type of doughnut now known as "old-fashioned" then those sources don't exist and that is OK - if the sources don't exist, that doesn't mean the subject isn't worthy of being a GA. It just means when people came up with this type of doughnut and someone called it the name Old-Fashioned, then no one bothered to write it all up - they were probably too busy enjoying the eating of it. It's part of popular culture and sometimes things move too quickly in life to write everything down and get it all published. Shearonink (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I added the following sentence to the History sentence to clarify matters: "It is unclear when the old-fashioned doughnut itself was invented, but this very likely occurred after the cake doughnut was invented." I also further copy edited and organized the History section to make it clearer. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sam Fuld

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

Result: Delist Consensus here is that the article does not meet the Good article criteria. The excessive use of quotations is still very much present AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this article mainly because I feel it not neutral. The article portrays the subject, a baseball player with modest success in reality, with overwhelming positive comments and very little information about his struggles (negative stats or specific reasons why he was traded/cut). Some elements of the article are factual but presented in a biased manner - see Talk page: [3] and [4] There are also multiple quotes in the body of the article that are never truly built upon or discussed in substance. The information is also out of date and does not have any updates after 2014. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I started trimming some of the overly detailed and non-neutral stuff. There are probably still too many quotes and there is probably undue weight on some very routine regular-season play, but I didn't want to act too drastically until others weighed in. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Shearonink

• Information in article is not completely up-to-date. Fuld elected for free agency in November and is no longer with the A's (per MLB.Com)
• Lead seems excessively-detailed. For example, all those lead quotes are from one season, one source.
• I don't understand that odd "quote" box connected to Ref 115.
• Recognition and awards section is completely unsourced.
• Images seem ok.
• In 2007 section and in 2009 section, direct links to multiple videos within main text - against MOS.
• Too many scarequotes in lead, see WP:SCAREQUOTES
• Agree with others - too much quoted material. I applaud the editors zeal for attributing information to sources but, in my opinion, some of these quote have got to go.

In general, if this article were given a good going over for copy-editing issues (some of that content really needs to be trimmed) I think it would still be of GA quality. The subject is notable and, obviously, a lot of work has been put into referencing. I do not think it should be delisted, I think it just needs some work. Bob Lemon as a present GA and Lee Smith (baseball) as a Featured Article, would both be worthwhile templates to work from as this article is improved. Shearonink (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A500 road

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

Result: delisted 06:01, 1 May 2017 Bungle

Having looked through some existing GA-class highways articles for inspiration on improving some others, I noticed this article listed as GA but instantly felt it wasn't justified of its status. Primarily, the article is almost entirely sourcing information older than 10 years and much of those references have been broken for several years also. When compared to other GA class articles, such as A303 road and A4232 road, it's quite apparent that this article requires substanstial redevelopment, including an almost entire resourcing and bringing up to date with contemporary developments. Furthermore, it would seem the original GA review was some considerable time ago, and the supposed reassessment that took place was nothing more than a single editor putting their own "rubber stamp" back in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The "rubber stamp" appears to have been done by Eric Corbett, but a search through the article's history shows he did a bit of work on it, so the reassessment may simply be a matter of just doing it without needing to log anything. The sources all look reliable from a first glance, but one thing that leaps out is there doesn't seem to be very much on the politics. I checked the BBC retrospective (the first source I looked at) and it talks about the lack of a decent goods traffic connection hurting the economy of the Potteries, projects being stalled due to lack of Government funds, and there's Michael Heseltine's mugshot in there too, so he must have had a hand in it. Also it gives an opening date of 2 November 1977. None of this is in the article, and I think it ought to be.

A typical problem with these sorts of articles is that it's very easy to write "The B4824 starts at a T junction in Lesser Snoring, it progresses around the farmland to meet the B4912 at a crossroads which it yeilds to, in 1.23454 miles (1.98680 km) it reaches Troll Twittering where it turns left, gosh isn't this exciting" without actually going into detail that non road enthusiasts might find important. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Per Ritchie333's post above, since the article hasn't been updated very much since 2006/2007 would it now fail GA Criteria 3A "It addresses the main aspects of the topic"? If there are major issues about the subject missing from the article - the politics about its construction, delays specifically - then can this article be said to address the main aspects of the topic? Also, it looks like the "Route" section is completely unsourced. And this last bit isn't at all part of the GA Criteria but Trent Vale is Wikilinked now. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Unless someone wishes to go through and fix many of the broken references, up date much of the info to be relevant and ideally sub-section the history as a starting point, then I am of the view it may be better to demote the article from GA and relist once the issues are resolved. If it were to go through a GA nom in it's current state, it would quick fail. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

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

Result: Keep This is coming up to a year now since it was opened, so it is well beyond time it is closed. This was nominated on three criteria 3a (Broadness), 5 (Stability) and 2 (Verifiabilty). It is not specified exactly what verifiabilty criteria it fails, but I feel it is safe to assume 2b and 2c. The broadness issue has been resolved during the review. Stability is not a good reason to delist an article; otherwise articles would qualify for delisting whenever an edit war broke out. It is more a convenience criteria for reviewers (it is hard/impossible to review an article that is constantly changing). In any case there has been no recent stability concerns. That leaves verifiability. The issue here relates to the use of primary sources. As has been pointed out primary sources are not disallowed so what we really need are instances of unreliable primary sources used for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. No one has actually provided examples of this. Therefore I am closing this as keep. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've commenced this reassessment because

1. The article fails GA Criteria No. 3 by focusing in excessive detail on non-notable and trivial biographical details, with insufficient attention - only one paragraph - on the primary reason for Uanna's notability, his role as security officer in the Manhattan Project, for which he was a subject of a number of movie portrayals and extensive mentions in secondary sources oddly not utilized in the preparation of this article. The article fails WP:UNDUE by failing to give appropriate weight to this aspect of his life. I would template for undue emphasis but I am not sure it's appropriate while this GA review is pending.

2. The article has been a subject of edit warring by a COI editor, is unstable and is tagged for major issues: excess reliance on primary sources and COI, as it was created by and was principally edited until a few days ago by a self-described connected editor, the son of the subject. More than four out of ten edits to the article were by the COI editor, more than any other editor. Because of these serious issues it fails GA Criteria No. 5 and meets criteria No. 3 for immediate failure. (Note also removal of "resume" cleanup tag after commencement of this review [5] by an involved editor. I believe this tag should not have been removed.)

3. It rather blatantly fails GA Criteria No. 2, "Verifiable with no original research." The majority of footnotes are to original research uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject.

There are problems with the following references:

• 1. "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Ancestry.com. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
• 2. "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Archive.com. Retrieved September 3, 2015.
• 6, 7, 8. pages from Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons.
• 9. "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments U.S. Army Enlistment Record. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
• 10. (six footnotes) "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia. March 31, 1947.
• 13. "Bud Uanna AEC FBI Armed Forces Special Weapons Project V.P. Keay to D.M. Ladd". February 2, 1948.
• 14. "Bud Uanna Armed Forces Special Weapons Project requesting investigations for personnel that will maintain the Atomic Bombs and the facilities where they are stored". July 1, 1949.
• 17. Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 5.

Except for the first Ancestry link, which goes to user-created content, and the second Ancestry link, which goes to a census page, the remainder go to self-published primary source material uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject. WP:PRIMARY requires that primary sources must be "reputably published" and this is self-published original research.

--Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC) (revised 02:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC))

Primary sources are permitted to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. The upload to Commons is merely to make it easier for us to collaborate and verify the source. The documents are all available through NARA. There is no question about their authenticity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

They also have to be "reputably published." The COI editor's word processor is not a reputable publisher. NARA isn't a reputable publisher, it is a document repository where people go and request material via the FOI act in the course of their original research. And surely you're not suggesting that NARA documents are verifiable because you or I can file an FOI request, pay some bucks, and then wait a year or two for compliance? You're not seriously suggesting that I hope? Commons is not a reputable publisher, it is a conduit for any member of the public who wants to upload stuff. What we're talking about here is OR that he's put on Commons and that you've allowed to source the article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

NARA is a reputable publisher. Publication is defined as being made available to the public. I have spent a lot of time there, and you don't need an FOI request for material more than 30 years old. The documents are not being published by Commons, just being made easier for us to verify them. Commons, Wikinews and Wikisource were established precisely for this purpose! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can accept that every government agency is a publisher because it makes documents available to the public. By using primary source materials to such a massive extent, you've deep-dived into his career to an almost absurd extent, with intricate details that really belong on a personal website. He is notable primarily for his work on the Manhattan Project, and there is all of one paragraph on that. That is what happens when a COI editor dominates the editing of an article and pours the product of his original research into the article. Come to think of it, that is actually a somewhat more serious issue than even the sourcing and I've added it above. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have written over 200 biographical articles, and this is their nature. Most are famous for one thing but it was only a small part of their life. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A Google Books search for Uanna shows two books on the Manhattan Project, both of which contain much interesting material on Uanna related to his work on the Project. I find it odd to say the least that neither of these books is utilized in the preparation of this article. I would urge that you remove the excessive details that you have on his various duties and functions and focus on his work for the notable atomic bomb project, so that the latter is given proper weight. Since apparently it did not much interest the COI editor it got short shrift. This article is little more than a memorial website with great masses of trivial material, and I do not understand why it is so when there is source material to prevent that from occurring. With all due respect, I simply at a loss to understand why you leaned so heavily on the COI editor's hand-picked primary sources on minor details of his life, when there were not one but two perfectly usable secondary sources that delved into the most notable aspect of Uanna's career. The fact that you've done 200 bios just makes me even more mystified. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Manhattan Project has its own article, which I improved and took to FAC. Running the search myself turns up mentions of Uanna in several books about the atomic bombing mission, including Harlow Russ' Project Alberta, Paul Tibbets' Tibbets Story and Leslie Groves' Now It Can Be Told. More interestingly, Advanced Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Operations talks about his establishment of the Q Clearance, and four books mention his movie and television portrayals, notably Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film. This establishes his notability; but readers do not come to the article to find out about the Manhattan Project; they come to find out about Uanna. To be comprehensive, a biographical article needs to cover the biographical details, and the article does that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh yeah, I imagine the Manhattan Project would have its own article. The fact that you don't see a problem in the little in this article on Uanna's role in that project is less than startling at this point. And by the way, I assume that he is in that "military images in film" book because of his work on the Manhattan Project, which is now given far less attention in this article than is warranted by WP:UNDUE. It really deserves a maintenance tag for that, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to do so while this is pending. I don't believe that it is in the "nature" of biographies to underweight major aspects of a subject's life. If there are multiple books on the project with references to Uanna, not just the two that turned up on the first page of the search, than the underweighting is even more inexcusable. Coretheapple (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delist In addition to the given reasons, reads like a resume. 2600:1017:B40F:A478:44:8E3B:210:559D (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  WP:GAR requires you to be logged in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  No, afraid not. See talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep (after tweaks): overall, the article seems to conform with what I would expect of a biography, having seen a few come through ACR and FAC. Remember we are telling the whole story of the man's life, so we need to be careful not to overload the article with too much detail on one aspect (remember also he was a pretty junior officer at the time, too). I would like to see a few tweaks, though, for instance:
  • some more references to secondary sources if possible;
  • references added to the Film portrayals section;
  • the imaging/description pages need work. For instance, "File:Bud Uanna State Department 3jpg.jpg" should include the date of when it was taken, not when it was uploaded or scanned. Same same with "File:Bud Uanna State Department 1jpg.jpg", and "File:Bud Uanna War 3jpg.jpg" and "File:Bud Uanna State Department 2jpg.jpg". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I have made the suggested changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I hope that we can cut back on some of the material in the overlong postwar section. Were it not for the primary sourcing it would not be in the article, and I think it overweights, though not so dramatically as to warrant a tag at least in my opinion. Building up the section further as has been done recently makes this problem worse. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delist. Traveling now so don't really have the opportunity to go into enormous detail, but I agree with Core's analysis. For some time I have been troubled by the COI editor's dominance of this article, and I agree that his influence has resulted in a ridiculous situation. Uanna is notable for his work at the Manhattan Project, where he was security chief. I agree, we don't want the entire article on that. But just a couple of sentences? Ridiculous. It is barely mentioned in this article at all! I am guilty as any for not previously even noticing that. Primary sources are overused, to be sure. That is a problem. The fact that there is insufficient material on the Manhattan Project to warrant a separate section is indicative of the extent to which this article fails to properly cover the subject. So I therefore agree that it must be delisted and I frankly am surprised that other editors fail to recognize this serious flaw, which clearly indicates a lack of broad coverage required for GA status. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps because the GA "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps if persons other than fellow Military History Project coordinators commented on this article we might get a less self-serving view of the article's obvious imbalance. I would be curious to see the views of editors who perhaps are less steeped in the minutae to which this article is over-dedicated, to the detriment of material that would interest the general reader. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well-written, well-sourced, broadly covers the topic and is illustrated by appropriate images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  I have added some more material on the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  I am glad to see this, and the text that you added is interesting and useful. In my opinion this section needs to be fleshed out fully so that it receives its proper emphasis in the article. Obviously managing the security for the atomic bomb squadron is far more notable than anything else he may have done in his life. The article as currently written unfortunately is bogged down in trivia still, largely due to an overreliance on primary source material on secondary aspects of his career. Coretheapple (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - for now at least. While I agree that there have been some valid concerns raised per Coretheapple's commentary above and Figureofnine, it seems to me that much of it has been addressed by a number of editors working in good faith to improve the article. At any rate GAs are not meant to be perfect, and this one does seem to be adequate enough to not warrant delisting, while further improvements can of course continue to be made. FWIW the article seems to cover the individual's life as a whole, which is what I'd expect from a biography, so I'd actually be concerned about UNDUE if it mainly focused on his involvement in the Manhattan project. Finally, if the COI issues were to reappear and become persistent then that might change the equation but at this stage it seems to be being managed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The amount of material on the Manhattan Project was expanded sufficiently in my opinion to warrant removal of the undue weight tag. I am afraid that the other tags do point to issues in the article that unfortunately remain, and the Manhattan Project section definitely can be expanded perhaps into subsections too. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) This is the type of nonsense that has kept this article a mishmash of trivia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with User:AustralianRupert. The article conforms to what a Wikipedia biography should consists of, and I also agree that it is along the lines (in terms of similarity of content) compared to other Wikipedia bios. However, I feel like the "Film portrayals" section should be expanded (and could be expanded). The Above and Beyond "sort-of" statements should follow each portrayal; including with films Hiroshima and Enola Gay: The Men, the Mission, the Atomic Bomb. Most of what brought this article to the reassessment discussion has been handled, so I don't see the need to delist it, especially now. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
• Comment: I was invited to participate in the discussion by Figureofnine on my Talk page. While going through the article, I noticed that I relies to a large extent on primary source. Would this not be a concern for a GA article? Since it seems to suggest that the material being cited has not been noted by secondary sources, and thus could be not important and indeed unneeded intricate detail. There are close to 40 citations to such primary sources:
  • "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Ancestry.com. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
  • "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Archive.com. Retrieved September 3, 2015.
  • "Tufts Quarterback is Due Back Today". Lowell Sun. October 18, 1932. p. 38. Retrieved October 22, 2013. (subscription required (help)).
  • "NCAA 1931" (PDF). National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  • a b c d e f g h i j k l "Security is his Job – William Lewis Uanna". The New York Times. July 26, 1958. Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 1.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 2.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 4.
  • "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments, U.S. Army Enlistment Record. U.S. Army. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  • a b c d e f g "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia Commons. March 31, 1947.
  • a b c d e f g h "Short Biographical Sketch of William Uanna". Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Newspaper articles are not primary sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers are down there on the list of RS unless written as an investigative report by a notable writer. Regardless, this still leaves about 30 citations to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: the article is not stable (subject to some edit warring) and some of the sources are problematic (heavy reliance on primary sources, indicating that the details cited may not be important). I'm sure the article can be improved and be re-nominated for GA in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The point about edit warring is correct. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone stop editing the article until the review is over. Bold editing is not the way to go here. It is clear that there are pretty entrenched differences of opinion, so the only way to move forward is to wait for a few other opinions to swing the consensus either way (to delist or not) and then accept it (whatever the outcome) and move on. The best way to achieve this may be a Request for Comment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The reasons have been well-established by the other keep reviewers. There is also some rather odd stuff going on here with some of the contributors to the review. Editors shouldn't be being BOLD while the review is ongoing, as that automatically affects the stability criteria and shows a distinct lack of respect for our processes. K.e.coffman once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the notability policy and its application, comprehensiveness, the parameters of reliability, and the proper use of primary sources in articles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The absence of a Manhattan Project segment or barely a mention of that, a principal flaw and reason this reassessment was started, was rectified during the course of the reassessment. There are other flaws: primary sources, unencyclopedic detail, which has resulted in extensive instability in this article. Indeed, instability in the form of editing warring over trivia was the proximate cause of the ANI. The article is being improved and is halfway toward the goal of not being a personal website containing family nostalgia and patently nonessential material, like the reading matter of the subject of the article while studying up for a non-notable aspect of his career. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Uanna's Who's Who entry merely notes that he served in the Army during World War II. So that source considered him notable for his other work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe Who's Who in America entries are written by the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that this article has been greatly improved since I commenced this GAR. References to the Manhattan Project have gone from nil to an entire section. The article still relies excessively on primary sources, which appear to be fragments of larger documents uploaded piecemeal to Commons. Though most trivia has been removed, there is still an overambundance of intricate detail. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a well-written article about a significant individual. It seems like it was tagged mainly for using primary sources, but there's nothing wrong with using primary sources for basic information. There is a featured article on [Altgens] that also uses lots of primary sources for the same type of information.Homemade Pencils (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Note The above !vote is from an effectively new user and is clearly not based on the GA criteria, as well as apparently indicating not having read the OP's delisting rationale, which focused largely on GAC#3. This is not, technically, a case where Template:Single-purpose account can be invoked, but this user's edits to the Wikipedia namespace have almost uniformly been disruptive and should probably be evaluated on that basis. Their edits to other namespaces have almost all been minor, which makes it look like a troll attempting to cover their tracks by making a lot of kinda-sorta constructive edits but focusing most of their efforts on !voting against community consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

None of my edits have been disruptive. The reasons for delisting this article are simply flawed. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then you don't need to say anything.Homemade Pencils (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I am troubled by the usage of primary documents:

1. What confirmation do we have that Uanna himself is the writer of the Foreign Service essay, used for Ref 6, 7, 8, and 23? Was it ever published anywhere? Why was it written?
2. What is the provenance of the FBI background check document on William Lewis Uanna? It's used to source 6 different statements. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Brava/bravo, @Shearonink:, spot on. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong delist. There is no real question here. The only sound rationale based on the criteria, and emphasizing WP policies and Guidelines, is that of Core. We are not deleting the article, we are saying simply saying it is not Good. Because it is not. The preponderance of references to self-published (family-published), non-third part sources alone should make this clear. In the sciences, this would have been a 30 minute discussion and a unanimous delist. So delist it already, to give impetus to its improvements, so interested editors can sort the warring problems, and make clear to the "owning" editor that the citations to his families stories at the ancestry sites are not valid encyclopedic sources. Let the article work back to being Good. Don't redefine Good to keep things you like or want. If everything (like this) is good, nothing really is. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

David Meerman Scott

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

Result: Delist Some issues have been brought up relating to the GA criteria. I understand that some of these have been addressed, but there are still major flaws. The lead was brought up and is still inadequate at a single sentence. The tone concerns (Criteria 4 - Neutral) is the most serious one. The Content marketing strategist section still comes across promotional. I realise the main editor trying to save this wanted the closer to ping the other commentators, but this is not really practical (especially as it is coming up to ten months). You should have ping them yourself. The only editor to return has restated his delist !vote and I don't feel the other editors concerns have been dealt with enough to keep this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This community reassessment is being started because an individual reassessment had been started in July 2013 by EBY3221 that was never closed (or contributed to beyond the following day), but raised some cogent issues that I think need to be examined. The article's primary author, Woz2, became a Vanished User in June 2014, and EBY3221 was indefinitely blocked for COI/undisclosed paid editing in September 2015.

The main issues had to do with the sheer amount of primary sourcing, from Scott's own websites, companies that presented his webinars, or his publishers. The article is quite positive—there don't seem to be any equivocal or negative comments about any of Scott's books or talks, which seems to violate the neutrality criterion. The lead had five of six source citations directly to Scott's material; it's now up to six of eight, with the other two being related press releases: all primary sources, all laudatory information. This raises verifiability issues.

Other issues, both from the previous GAR and from my own observations:

• The lead contains information, primarily in the second paragraph, that does not appear in the body of the article. There shouldn't be anything significant in the lead without it also being in the body per WP:LEAD, another GA criterion. Examples include the book being "inspired by an accidental discovery" and another by being a bond trader.
• The "Early life" section is misnamed, since it goes up until he was 41 years old, and doesn't start until he graduated from college. It seems to be about his education and corporate career, before he was let go from Thomson. The third paragraph, starting and ending "he says", should be paraphrased and condensed; this is not a magazine article interview, and it's also self-sourced.
• The article hasn't been updated much since late 2011, so statements such as how many keynote speeches he gives per year are probably out of date and need more recent sourcing and revised wording.
• The Books subsection could use some reorganization; it's sometimes unclear which book is being talked about; EBY3221 suggests a subheading for each of Scott's significant books.

This should be enough for editors to start working on, and for the community to consider during this reassessment. Many thanks for your contributions. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources to use instead of the primary ones viz. Wikipedia Reliable Sources search but the extensive redo envisioned here would take more time than I have right now. What is the time frame for these reviews? Thanks! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

SageGreenRider, these community reassessments typically take a month or longer. If you can take on updates over the longer term that would be great; if not, then it depends how long it takes for a consensus to develop on the article vis a vis the GA criteria. Thank you for considering undertaking addressing the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

OK great. I can get to it weekend after next probably. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 10:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this yet. I did find a bunch of sources that I'll try to add this weekend:

Five Questions about Newsjacking with David Meerman Scott http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-p-david/post_10907_b_9045656.html

Using Ungated Content to Drive Outstanding Marketing Performance http://customerthink.com/using-ungated-content-to-drive-outstanding-marketing-performance/

Has the term ‘newsjacking’ damaged the PR industry? - this is the only negative one I found - it will help fix the NPOV objection http://www.prdaily.com/mediarelations/Articles/_Has_the_term_newsjacking_damaged_the_PR_industry_21235.aspx

David Meerman Scott: The New Age Of Sales And Customer Service http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2014/09/03/david-meerman-scott-the-new-age-of-sales-and-customer-service/#7e15e8013549

People I'm Grateful for #4: David Meerman Scott http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorgan/2012/06/07/people-im-grateful-for-4-david-meerman-scott/#7f366b991a17

'Marketing the Moon' examines Apollo program as one giant leap for marketing kind http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/chi-marketing-the-moon-david-merman-scott-richard--20140718-story.html

Concert ‘Merch’ Comes of Age https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/intelligence/concert-tour-merchandise-justin-bieber-rihanna-kanye-west

Preeminent Book on Marketing and PR Gets an Update http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-p-david/preeminent-book-on-market_b_8774570.html

Marketing Lessons From the Presidential Election https://www.asicentral.com/news/web-exclusive/may-2016/marketing-lessons-from-the-presidential-election/

How 5 Influential Leaders Keep Their Sales Forecasts Laser-Accurate http://www.business.com/sales-strategies/how-5-influential-leaders-in-sales-keep-their-forecasts-laser-accurate/

Two Colorful Infographic Wheels Used to Track the Apollo Missions http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/05/15/apollo_mission_history_two_mission_tracking_wheels_from_ibm_and_raytheon.html

Got a book in you? Self-publishing could be your best bet http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/startup/got-a-book-in-you-selfpublishing-could-be-your-best-bet-20120330-1w36p.html

Apollo Lunar Program A Big Marketing Success, Book Says http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2014/05/19/marketing-the-moon

NASA'S (UN)CENSORED MOONWALKERS http://www.popsci.com/nasas-uncensored-moonwalkers

Free art: blessing or curse? https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/09/25/free-art-blessing-or-curse.html

How NASA Sold Us The Moon http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/03/12/how-nasa-sold-us-the-moon/#41e2002c4acb

Mad Men in space: the ads that sold NASA's golden age http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/22/5636754/mad-men-in-space-the-ads-that-sold-nasas-golden-age

The Anatomy of a Great Content Strategy https://www.searchenginejournal.com/anatomy-great-content-strategy/106355/

LIVE FROM THE MOON http://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/live-moon

Nasa's Mad Men: How the agency sold the Apollo missions to the public and inspired a golden age of space exploration http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2612074/Nasas-Mad-Men-How-agency-sold-Apollo-missions-thr-public-inspired-golden-age-space-exploration.html#ixzz4K3onmu5o

Independence Day Special: Here's how newsjacking looked like in 1947 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-12/news/65490567_1_usha-social-media-jaago-re

How to Launch a Viral Marketing Campaign http://www.inc.com/guides/201107/how-to-launch-a-viral-marketing-campaign.html

With Twitter wit, CIA tries to shed staid public image (+video) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2014/0710/With-Twitter-wit-CIA-tries-to-shed-staid-public-image-video

Save Big Bird! Will Romney’s Threats Wind Up Boosting PBS Fundraising? http://business.time.com/2012/10/04/save-big-bird-will-romneys-threats-wind-up-boosting-pbs-fundraising/

Cheers!

^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 18:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: Unfortunately, it has been a month since the list of sources was posted here, and no edits have yet been done to the article. All of the issues enumerated above remain true. If these issues are eventually addressed, I will reconsider my recommendation. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've been very busy in real life. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 01:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delist -- I had a look and the article is in a bad state; it's promotional and suffers from the use primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I reorganized the book section per the suggestion above and added some of the third party cites. Please take another look and give me some feedback? Thanks! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 14:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, this is still too promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific? ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 15:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delist.

1. Most of the trees [refs] are to Press releases and are therefore not sources independent of the subject.
2. Newsjacking.com and WebInkNow are both Scott's websites.
3. Ref 41 is dead,
4. Ref 11 implies it is a direct quote from Scott but it is instead a 2011 Tweet from Colin Warwick.
5. Ref 17: Ok. AdAge 150 is a daily ranking and it is waaaay out of date. Frankly who cares that a blog/website was in a daily Top 150 10 years ago? and the sentence in the article says that the blog is in the Top 150. No. Not so. the statement should be stricken from the article along with the outdated source.
6. Image problems - the source of some of the images lead to WebInkNow but the trail goes cold there since apparently the internal URLs have changed.
7. The fact that Scott's book The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly is a present best-seller on Amazon and that fact indicates he is notable, but the present state of the article does not prove that notability.

• If I were giving this article a first-time review for possible GA status, I would quick-fail it for its many referencing issues and for its promotional tone. Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, most of those are actionable, except for "promotional tone" which isn't obvious to me. Can you point to specific passages? Also I'm not sure what you mean by "most of the trees are to press releases." Can you be more specific? Last question, from the list of sources above that have not yet been included in the article, are there any that you would consider more worthy than the ones that are there now? (PS I'll work on the issues you mention this weekend hopefully.) Thanks again. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 15:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Promotional tone

@SageGreenRider: Ok. The article does not read like an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, it reads like a press release. Here are a few examples:

• "However, the idea was too radical..." Really? Who said so? Oh, looks like the subject said so, not an independent source.
• "such as the David Scott who walked on the moon as the commander of Apollo 15 (and whom he has met)" extraneous trivia, that is, again, sourced to the subject. Frankly, who cares? Content about who the subject has met is trivial, it demeans the importance of the subject if their article has content like this.
• "Scott is the author of a blog, Web Ink Now, which was ranked in the now defunct AdAge Power 150 as one of the top marketing blogs." This is a mischaracterization of the AdAge content. The blog was listed as a Top 150. For one day. Ten years ago. This is trivia, unless the blog was named as a Top 150 of the year or something like that. Also, anyone and everyone has a blog now...having a blog does not seem like a bullet-point on one's resume that is important enough to mention in a Wikipedia article.
• ybcTV is a press-release created platform, the contents generated by this firm is not news from an independent source, it is paid-for and is therefore not a reliable source and yet is it being used as a reference.
• "To promote this book Scott created several videos including one evocative of the joyous Matt Harding Where is Matt? series[45] and a series of three[46][47][48] in the workplace mockumentary style of both Ricky Gervais's The Office and the Art of the Sale videos.[49]"

Really? who said it was "reminiscent of...?" and who said it was "in the style of...?" Those two assessments are not in the cited sources, those are characterizations I would suppose from the subject himself.

• The only evidence one can find about "In 2015, Robert Stone announced that a documentary film entitled A Place Beyond the Sky, based in part on Scott's book Marketing the Moon, is in production. The film is currently in post-production and is slated for completion in 2018.[41]" is Stone's own press release. There is nothing in any of the trades about the documentary, nothing on IMdb about it...actually, I couldn't find a thing about it in any other source other than the press release on Stone's own website...this project has a little bit too much of a WP:CRYSTAL in it to be included in this article and should be deleted.
• Non-encyclopedic... How about the fact that the pronoun "he" is used 9 times in the "Education and career" section. Combine a few sentences, use his last name, do something to avoid the redundant use of words...it's very jarring and slightly juvenile.
• What is up with the books getting individual sections and the main Books section being a single sentence fragment ending in a colon. So ALL of those book paragraphs, those seven sections about the books, are subordinate clauses to "Scott is the author of ten books:"? Ummm...no. I am sure this usage is against some kind of WP:MOS subsection but don't want to try to look it up at the moment. If you want to get an idea of what this article should be striving for, take a look at some of the Featured article biographies on businesspeople like Finn M. W. Caspersen. Yes, I understand it's an FA and not a GA, but read it for the tone. A Featured article has the proper tone - *that* is what you should be thinking of when you work on a biographical article in Wikipedia.

This article needs to drastically pruned-down. No one is saying that it should be deleted, Scott is clearly notable especially because of his one book being a consistent best-seller but in its present state this article is not a Good article. At this point, the discussion has been going on since August 2016...that's four months. 3 editors have stated that the article should be delisted - 1 in October 2016, 1 in December 2016 and 1 in January 2017... the issues are still there, they haven't been fixed since the first statement on this page (which dates back to even farther - August 2016). In my opinion the article should be delisted to a C, completely rewritten, and then given a new GA Review. If I came upon this article in its present state and it was nom'ed for a GA, I would Quick Fail it for its many referencing issues and for its tone. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'll work on it this weekend. Sorry to have so many questions, but what does "delisted to a C" mean? i.e. what is a "C"? ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think I've addressed most of the issues. Could you please take another look? ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 16:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I believe I've addressed all of the objections above. Note to closer: This is the only !vote that is based on the current version. Pls ping the other folks to get an updated !vote. Thanks! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- confirming my "delist" iVote. The article is still highly promotional with many self-citations. For example, the lead includes this passage (all cited to Scott):

• The book's core message is that creating useful content oneself is consistently more effective than expensive professional public relations programs. Subsequent books draw from his experience as a real-time bond trader, and his observations about innovative marketing by organizations as diverse as IBM and the rock band The Grateful Dead.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the above passage as self-cited and promotional. However, the rest of the lead has similar issues, being cited to press releases or otherwise non-independent coverage:

• American online marketing strategist, speaker, and author of several books on marketing, most notably The New Rules of Marketing and PR with over 350,000 copies in print in more than 25 languages.

References

If I continue, there will be nothing left :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I count 36 third-party refs including Forbes, WSJ, Boston Globe, Sydney Morning Herald... , so the article has considerable substance. I'll work on the lead this coming weekend. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 14:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment WP:ABOUTSELF reads in part Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities... followed by some conditions. So I think some of the deletions are not justified. ... But out of an abundance of caution I removed the material from the lead and have not reverted the deletions by others. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Pearson's Candy Company

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

Result: Kept Issues seem to be dealt with and what consensus that can be found here is that it currently meets the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am troubled by the fact that the references seems to be in such bad shape:

• Ref #1 is using outdated info from 2008.
• Ref #2 is dead.

And both of the preceding sources are used to identify key people (President, CEO, etc.) in the infobox.

• Ref #3 is dated from 2003 and therefore the information it is sourcing is outdated.
• Ref #4 is using outdated info from 2007 - Pearson's was sold in 2011, they don't even have the same owners anymore.
• Ref #6 is dead.
• Ref #7 is dead.

That leaves a total of 3 references - #5, #8, #9 - that seem to be valid. If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time. The references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment consideration can take place. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm curt, but this is not particularly helpful. Good Articles are assessed based on the Good Article Criteria, not opinions from the ether ("If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time.") Please identify with specificity (number and subsection, if applicable), as you have not done, which criterion/criteria you feel is/are no longer met. Эlcobbola _talk 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that my comments were unhelpful, I did not intend to be unhelpful. I have struck through my GA Reviewing comments but am leaving them so the throughline of our responses will be maintained.

Specifically, the criteria which are not being met by this article in its present state are the following:

• Criteria 2B: all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources.

• Criteria 1B: it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Fails this because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification. Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time.

• Criteria 3A: it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

Fails this criteria because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic.

I hope this is more helpful. I do stand by my conclusion above that the references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment can occur. Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The above is, frankly, nonsense. In order:

  "The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources."

  WP:RS, and indeed criterion 2B, relates to the reliablity of the source, not to whether the information referenced is up to date. Shearonink provided no cite to the WP:RS section that prohibits "stale and/or outdated" sources, as, indeed, such a section does not exist. WP:CS, for example, says "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Follow these steps when you encounter a dead URL being used as a reliable source to support article content." (emphasis mine), which implicitly establishes that "reliability" and being "a dead link" are not mutually exclusive.

  "Fails this [criterion 1B] because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification. Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time."

  The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dated information and, conversely, do not require contemporaneous information. The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dead links. Again, that a link is dead does not mean it is not reliable per my cite above, WP:DEADREF and WP:DEADLINK.

  "Fails this criteria (sic) because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic."

  Shearonink has not indicated which "main aspects" are uncited. Yet again, that a given reference may be dead 1) does not mean the article does not "addre[ss] the main aspects of the topic" and 2) as per above, is not prohibited.

Although I believe the concerns related to GA status are entirely without merit, I have updated the article in the interest of its improvement. There is now only a single dead link, which I understand to be perfectly acceptable, and other information is as contemporary as is available for a closely-held firm. Эlcobbola _talk 17:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a Reassessment, a chance for a GA article to be improved, I wasn't voting Delete in my previous comments and am sorry that they have been interpreted to be so. Per my referencing comments, I was thinking of the WP:IRS section regarding age matters. I am just glad that the article has now been updated, that is what is important to me. I like Pearson's Candy, saw the article had been listed as possibly needing a GAR since 2014 and thought it deserved a community Reassessment and some possible improvements - that's all. Thanks to User:elcobbola for all their hard work. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"In 1985, the company was purchased by Larry Hassler and Judith Johnston, the current CEO and COO, respectively." I did adjust this sentence to reflect that Hassler & Johnston bought the company in 1985 but that they are not the current CEO & COO. (Michael Keller is the current CEO/President.) Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep – I think that the problems have been dealt with sufficiently. All text appears to be accurately sourced, and the article is broad and well written. I would maintain this article's current status.StoryKai (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Transit Authority of River City

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

Result: Delist Consensus here is to delist. AIRcorn (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The article has fallen into disrepair since it became a good article in 2009. It has seen a good deal of content expansion, but without appropriate citations to go with it. Significant amounts of the new content may be WP:OR. Also, the lead goes into too much detail (this may be much more easily fixed than other issues). I am asking for community reassessment because I am a major contributor to the article, and the major contributor who created much of the new content may object to me making a delist decision alone. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Delist. Transit Authority of River City does not presently fulfill the following GA Criteria:

• 1B: MOS:LEAD/lead is too detailed, much of this content belongs in the main body of the article if it can be sourced.
• 2B & 2C: original research everywhere - Current bus fleet section:unreferenced. First paragraph in "Fleet" section, many other individual statements: No references.
• 3A: Too much of the stated information & too many of the references are dated - this article is stuck in a 1988/1992/1994/2003/2005/2006/2008 time warp so how can it even begin to address the main and present aspects of the subject?

Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

ReCore

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

Result: Kept There is nothing stopping the reviewer putting an article they recently passed up for reassessment if they think they made a mistake passing it. The concern raised is fact checking (2b) and since no one else has responded to that issue by saying they have checked the facts (apart from the nominator) I am going to cdeck a few now and then close it. Checked sources are polygon review, Us Gamer, and gamespot. All support the content they are citing. AIRcorn (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment. What exactly are your concerns User:Gamingforfun365?
At first glance it looks as if the WP article might be a copyvio but I think other sites are mirroring Wikipedia. The Youtube commentary/link I found - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZtAmsiteuw states it was written in October 2016 and the WP article was written before that. Here are the results of the Earwig's Copyvio tool. I'm giving it a readthrough and haven't found anything iffy yet... Shearonink (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot is not a copyvio, there was an edit war over it that resulted in the current text (including a DRN). The primary contributor after that who took it through a Peer Review and then to GAN was @Cognissonance:. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. I have every confidence that Cognissonancehas fact checked and met WP:V. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Good to know the background. I didn't think anything was a copyvio either, other sites steal Wikipedia content all the time without the required attribution. Off-topic for this Reassessment but I admit I don't understand why the GAR Nominator is nominating so many articles for the Reassessment process... Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Do what you gotta do, but the sources are good. Cognissonance (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said on one of the other nominations, it remains true that a substandard initial GA review was done by the nominator: that's what is said in the nomination here. In effect, the community needs to do the work that wasn't originally done: to check the facts in the article against the sources to confirm their accuracy. To simply assume that no errors were made, as ferret has recommended on all of these reassessment pages, is simply not appropriate. The article will remain a GA unless issues are found and not fixed; I very much doubt that will be the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gamingforfun365: You can close this now. Cognissonance (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Gowanus Canal

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

Result: Delist It is not really the purpose of this process to reassess old good articles that the nominator still thinks meet the criteria. The criteria have not changed that much since 2008 and we barely have the volunteer power to assess current ones. Still it is here and has been commented on by editors so we may as well follow though with the reassessment. Unfortunately this must be delisted at this point. There are currently 5 citation needed tags and all are to statements that fall under the 2b criteria. These have been present since the review started and have not been address (the article itself has had only one edit in the last month). AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating the article about Gowanus Canal for Good Article criteria again. The last time it was reviewed was in 2008, wherein it passed the criteria. The article has changed significantly since then. Thus, it should be updated to the 2017 Good Article standards, which is why I am requesting a community assessment. Just to clarify, I want this page's Good Article status to be kept. epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Has a copyvio with this site, whole paragraph copied: http://www.gowanuscanal.org/history.html Kees08 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also with this site: nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/as-cleanup-plan-is-set-for-gowanus-canal-violations-continue.html

I am placing the Good Article tools template here so I can more easily see what the possible issues with this article might be. Shearonink (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work - I'll have to create the tools another way. Shearonink (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I ran the Checklinks tool on the refs. Some of the refs are no longer valid or aren't completely correct: please see Checklinks. I also ran the copyvio tool. I agree with Kees08, there is a copyright violation with a 2013 New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/as-cleanup-plan-is-set-for-gowanus-canal-violations-continue.html where almost all of a single paragraph is reproduced within the WP article. I did a simple search of the paragraph that appears in the New York Times article:

They are mostly companies and a few government entities like the City of New York and the United States Navy, for ship work that polluted the canal. Many of the original businesses that once operated side by side along the canal have since merged, changed names or moved away, including Brooklyn Union Gas, which eventually rolled into National Grid; Continental Oil; and Standard Oil. When companies have been sold or merged, the successor company as well as the current property owner assume the liability. Companies that produced or transported the hazardous substances are also considered responsible.

The paragraph did not appear in the Wikipedia Gowanus Canal article until after the New York Times published its piece in 2013. (and, yes I did go back and manually check by date)

...like the City of New York and the United States Navy, for ship work that polluted the canal. Many of the original businesses that once operated alongside the canal have since merged, changed names or moved away, including Brooklyn Union Gas, which eventually became a part of National Grid, Continental Oil and Standard Oil. When companies have been sold or merged, the successor company as well as the current property owner assume the liability. Companies that produced or transported the hazardous substances are also considered responsible.

Since the source is clearly-given as the New York Times it would appear to me that the writer-editor neglected to put the New York Times story into their own words rather than running afoul of any copyright issues - I mean, they didn't try to conceal the text appearing in both articles. As Kees08 states above, there is also another issue with the gowanuscanal history website, but in my experience with these types of cases it is usually a case of the other site copying from WP without attribution. Someone who has more technical expertise than myself will have to see which came first, the WP article or the Gowanus Canal History site. In the case of the NY Times article, the apparently plagiarized text has got to go - adjusted, deleted or whatever. It cannot stay in this article - if it does, the article fails #2D of the WP:GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I admit I am unfamiliar with the usage of the External media template, which places external links within the main article text. It does trouble me that the Lavender Lake link is to the full Alison Prete documentary (can we do that in WP? - link to a full movie?) and the 2 TEDxGowanus links are also to 2 full TED talks, while the other is to a proposed usage of the Canal. I am uncertain as to what exactly these links provide that is not already in the article. I am also concerned that directly linking to the 2 TEDx talks on YouTube - where outside ads appear - creates a somewhat iffy link to outside commercial interests, when the Links appear within the main article text. The Alison Prete documentary is hosted on Vimeo and contains no ads. I am not sure but I do not think it would be as much of an issue if the links were presented within the External links section at the end of the article. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Shearonink: Thank you for the feedback. I will need to fix the links and the copyvio tomorrow. Maybe that "copyvio" could be a failed paraphrase... but in any case, I need to reword. I'll also work on the external ted talks. epicgenius (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    My thanks also to Kees08. epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Thanks for the question on the External Media template. This is one of those things that goes way, way back on Wikipedia, and IMHO is grossly underused. If Wikipedia is to use video, which is a pervasive modern form of communication, often the only alternative is to use this template. Some basics:

• WP:External links specifically mentions the external media template (see footnote 2) and exempts it from the usual restriction that ex links have to be in the ex links section. The template itself says that it should be used in the body of the text, where the media would be used if there were not copyright restrictions keeping it off of Commons.
• WP:EL also gives as What can normally be linked

"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" and length or other reasons.

• WP:Video links (an explanatory supplement) also address this and the file size as well

"Because the Commons and Metawiki have a 100MB limit on files some files are added to YouTube for use in Wikipedia that are gathered from United States government sources such as the National Archives by WikiProject FedFlix or other projects. These files can be used on Wikipedia articles if available. ... {{External media}} can be used within the body of an article when media is necessary but not available through free or fair-use rules."

The key restrictions that are on the use of this template are that

• We're not linking to a video that is violating copyright laws
• It's not an advert, promotional. It should be reasonably neutral.

I think these videos all qualify.

Last, we have to say "What does this add to the article?"

IMHO - a huge amount. Most of us don't see sites like this and a simple photo is sorely lacking when we can see the site from multiple angles, at different times of the day, with different affected people explaining their views. If a picture is worth a thousand words, any one of these videos is worth a million.

BTW TEDx talks are a pretty common use of this templet. Imagine seeing a simple photo, then add on a 1 minute voice recording. That tells you a lot about the person. Now compare that to a video showing them walk, talk, and maybe even chew gum for 15 minutes, propounding on a topic that they are passionate about, and which they a considered an expert on. No contest is there?

Hope this helps.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch

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

Result: Kept The main reason to delist was the broad criteria and these appeared valid. The page move has fixed that issue enough to satisfy the GA criteria. The list of issues provided by Smerus include reasons not covered by the criteria such as notability, stabilty which is not a good reason to delist any article and others relating to the previous title. At its current title it is of a sufficient standard to qualify as a GA. AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm asking for a community re-assessment of this GA. The recent AfD revealed that this article does not cover most of the subject's life and is in fact focused on Hitler's infatuation with her. I posit that this article is not Broad in its coverage as required. Because I voted delete in that AfD I imagine my objectivity would be questioned so I'll leave it to the disinterested community. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not a good article. It is a highly problematic article, based almost entirely on the late-life memoir of a childhood associate of Hitler with all the usual difficulty of the unreliability of childhood memory compounded by the complexity of a Hitler associate writing in a post-war world that disapproved of Hitler and Nazism. Almost all of the other sources are the work of writers basing their assessments on that unreliable memoir. As far as I can tell, no evidence that a relationship between Rabatsch exists, and even the memoir claims only that Hitler admired the girl form afar without ever speaking to her. I voted to redirect to the article on the memoirist at the AFD, to at least put this mountain of footnoted speculation in context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I see no particular reason to reassess the article. It is indeed mainly about the young Hitler's infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch and scholarly opinions about the infatuation rather than about Stefanie herself, for whom biographical details are scanty. It is broad in its coverage of the infatuation, reflecting what a wide variety of sources have said without going into unnecessary detail. I suppose the article could be renamed something like "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch", but that would be silly. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• The article fails significantly on a number of issues as regards the GA criteria.

It is not well-written. Clumsy , repetitive, including in the texts long lists of people who may have commented on the story without adding anything to our knowledge of the subject. It does not make absolutely clear that not a single aspect of the story has any supporting evidence apart from the unreliable memoirs of a third party written many years after the alleged events concerned. And more specifically, the article is entitled 'Stefanie Rabatsch' but contains startlingly little information about her which is reliably sourced. In fact on strict criteria, the subject of the article fails WP:NOTABLE.

Verifiability - the whole article is structured around a story (by Kubizek) which no one has ever been able to verify except by reference to Kubizek himself. Rabatsch is on record as saying that she had no knowledge of Hitler's supposed infatuation with her. Hitler is no evidenced as ever having mentioned Rabatsch (except by Kubizek). It seems agreed that Hitler and Rabatsch never even exchanged a single word.

Broad in its coverage - it is not. it is entirely concerned with one aspect of the subject's life, for which there is no objective evidence.

Neutral. No. By simply listing lots of people (some of whom of doubtful significance as reliable commentators) who advance Kubizek's story, it implies that it has some basis.

Stable - it has not been stable over the past few weeks as editors (including Aymatth2 and, I admit myself), seek to add or remove material which they believe to be appropriate or inappropriate. In any event it is now substantially different from its status when it was originally awarded GA.

Images. The images illustrating the article do not have appopriate copyright status and/or fair use rationales.

Therefore comprehensive fail as regards GA standards, and the article should be delisted as a GA. Smerus (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• The article is certainly not a comprehensive biography of Stefanie Rabatsch. Relatively little is known about her, and she did nothing of any particular significance. The article is about Kubizek's story of Hitler's infatuation and the interpretations of that story by historians. It makes it very clear that the only basis for the story is Kubizek, writing long after the event, and that some historians are skeptical about its accuracy or its relevance. The article does a good job of presenting the scanty biographical information on Stefanie, presenting a summary of Kubizek's story, and presenting a neutral sample of the diverse views of historians. Again, the article could be renamed something like "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch", but a change of title should not change the quality assessment. The present short title, "Stefanie Rabatsch", is the most natural. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If you agree (as seems to be the case) that it is not a bio, then I would suggest that the material in the aeticle might have a place in an article such as Fantasies given circulation by August Kubizek. But in any case your concession indicates that it cannot qualify as a GA. Smerus (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • This article presents a notable subject, the alleged infatuation, which has been discussed by many reputable historians. It gives an excellent overview of the subject and the views of the many historians who have written about it. Yes, the biographical material on the supposed target is slim. Yes, Kubizek's story has been questioned. It does make the young Hitler seem a bit ridiculous. None of this means it is impossible to write a good article about the subject. "Flat Earth" could be made into a good article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: My main issue with this article is that it is not actually a WP:BIO. The overwhelming majority of the content is about: *Scholarly reactions and *Kubizek's Hitler book and *not about the stated subject of the article. Also, the images are problematic - they are both sourced from the "1973 Austro-German television documentary called, "Ein junger Mann aus dem Innviertel, Der junge Adolf Hitler"." A couple of issues: *neither image is a verified/confirmed photo of the woman and *both images were contained in a media-production from 1973 so there could possibly be a copyright problem (since the photos weren't published in any sense until 1973). Shearonink (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Shearonink: It is indeed not a bio, but I cannot think of a good alternative title. I think WP:PRECISE is the guideline. Any suggestions? As for the pictures, the first one is fair use, since the subject is no longer living, but perhaps the second should be removed. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

At the very least the article should be given a different title, something along the lines of "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stephanie Rabatsch" - that is as to the point as we could probably get.

This article is not actually about the woman, it's about matters having nothing to do with her actual life, it's about theories based on a recollection about an asserted teenage infatuation that wasn't referenced in public form until Kubizek mentioned it vaguely in his 1938 Nazi propaganda booklet Reminiscences...some 30 years after the alleged facts, that Hitler loved some girl named Stefanie, supposedly writing her many love poems that were never sent.

Re: the images - So far as I know there is no stated reliable source verification that either photo is of Rabatsch. Shearonink (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How about "Hitler and Stephanie Rabatsch"? That seems precise enough to identify the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. The title does not have to be a summary. If ZDF and ORF say the picture is of Rabatsch, that is surely as reliable as it gets. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I was mistaken and mis-read the parameters for the File - you are correct. Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Aymatth2, Shearonink, I'm moving the article to "Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch", since "Stephanie" is not how her name is spelled in the article. This will, I expect, heal the break with this reassessment page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I agree in principle with your move, but to conform to WP standards the article should be entitled Adolf Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch (see here for examples of other articles involving Adolf Hitler) - will you move it again, or shall I? In fact I wonder now whther it would not be better to consider a merge of this article with Sexuality of Adolf Hitler - as the content of the present article 'Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch' is actually very slight, and is only in fact of any interest in the consext of the sexuality article. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Smerus, my move was only made to correct the spelling of "Stefanie", which was rendered incorrect in Aymatth2's move. I've had nothing to do with the article myself beyond that. If you feel that a different title better meets Wikipedia guidelines, I don't see any reason not to move it to that name, though let us know here so I can again do the necessary repairs to keep this page connected with the article talk page. If you want to open a merge discussion, that's also fine with me; among other things, if the consensus turns out to be merge, then this reassessment becomes moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aymatth2:, @Shearonink:, is my proposed retitling OK with you? And do you by the way have any feelings about my suggested merge? Best, Smerus (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Smerus:. Titles should be precise enough to identify article scope, but no more precise. Adding "Adolf" seems over-precise. Were other Hitlers involved with Stefanie Rabatsch? But I would not strongly object. I would oppose a merge proposal. The supposed infatuation is mentioned the article on Sexuality of Adolf Hitler, as are the other women he was linked with. Merging in all the material on these women would make the Sexuality article very unbalanced. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia for an article devoted to this mildly ridiculous aspect of Hitler's adolescence. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It is for the same reason that the article Adolf Hitler is not titled simply 'Hitler', although we all known who that would refer to. As you imply, the subject of this article is really Hitler (and people's theories and/or fantasies about him), rather than Rabatsch.--Smerus (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment I have a lot of experience with Good and Featured articles. In my opinion this article looks sufficient and has acceptable coverage for GA. The Scholarly reactions section demonstrates notability, making it unfeasible to merge into Sexuality of Hitler article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Old Tjikko

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

Result: Kept Identified issues have been fixed. AIRcorn (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• This article was passed to GA status in 2009, information about "World's Oldest Trees" (clonal or not) have probably changed in the intervening 8 years, and the article probably needs to be updated (also because the tree was discovered in 2008). In any case, it seems to me that the article could use some fresh eyes.
• Ref #7 has gone dead (though I did go over the present references, they seem ok but some refs erroneously state this tree is "the oldest tree".

It's at this location in the Telegraph archive. I've replaced it. The 'oldest tree' claim remains on the national parks of Sweden website. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• There is an unreferenced statement (under "Access") about the path & park rangers.

Removed, updated from national parks of Sweden site. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Previous researchers" not specifically borne out by cited reference.

Shearonink (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed. I must say I'm surprised an article is brought in for reassessment for such trivial reasons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a Greal Big Article like some around here but I thought it deserved some attention and editing. Perhaps I have a different view of GAR than some - I see an article on the GAR list and think "Gee, it was written quite a while ago, the GA Review was several years back, I don't have time at the moment to fix everything, but maybe someone else around here does. Let's see if we can work together to fix this up." I don't see a GAR as a punishment but as an acknowledgment that maybe an article could do with some freshening up - that's all. I'd like to point out that this article was on the "articles needing possible reassessment" list since 2014 and I thought it could maybe use some help. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, "couple" = 2 :-) Just wanted you to know that I'd gotten your message, but I'm not clear why you notified me, since I'm not involved in any projects that pay attention to trees in Sweden. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know... It's because part of the instructions for starting a GAR (I'm trying to do things around here according to Hoyle & WP) says to notify WikiProjects and past editors and you were among the Top Ten contributors (yes, you only had 2 edits but you're still active and many of the other Top Ten have gone MIA/haven't edited in several/couple of years). That's all. Thanks for checking in. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Demi Lovato

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

Result': Kept Sourcing concerns looks to have been sorted. Just a few notes on sources to anyone watching this. Sources aren't automatically unreliable (even the daily mail despite some reports). It all depends on context and what information they are used to support. For example an official tweet is perfectly reliable for the content of that tweet. Whether this is important enough for us to mention is another issue and something that may need stronger secondary sources to help decide. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Putting this up for community GAR because I've tried to improve this article in the past, but it seems to have deteriorated over time, and I'm not so sure it's worthy of being a GA anymore. Details to follow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are some issues I find:

• Prose: I've seen better. For example, "cracked" in "cracked the top 40" might not be the best tone. Also, the 2011–2012 section just jumps into "That month, Lovato also announced her departure from Sonny with a Chance" without any context. "The song also Lovato's highest-peaked single" seems like it's missing the word "because". For, "his fourth studio album, entitled 'Up'", the album should be italicized. On the other hand, tour names shouldn't be italicized. Additionally, the sentence "The entertainer has agreed to write a memoir, which is expected to be published in 2014" is clearly outdated when it's now 2017.
• Referencing: There's a bunch of dead links, and many subpar sources such as Twitter, YouTube, "HealthyCeleb.com", Fox News, Refinery29, "Ocean Up", MySpace, Zap2It, TMZ, Daily Mail, Us Weekly, Gossip Cop, and "Crushable". Not so sure about things like "OVGuide", "Disney Dreaming", "Sugar Slam" "Family History Insider", Cambio, or "Family Tree Maker". The article is missing citations for "The album's second and final single, 'Remember December' failed to match the success of its predecessor, but it peaked at number 80 on the UK Singles Chart" as well as the entire "Awards and nominations" section.
• Coverage: Another major concern. There's nothing on the lyrical themes of her albums within "Artistry" or any general comments on her songwriting (whether from critics or Demi herself). Furthermore, aside from the Camp Rock movies, this article doesn't say much about her films; the only other production she appears in that's even mentioned within article prose is the documentary Demi Lovato: Stay Strong. I also am surprised this doesn't go into tour earnings, and that the "voice" section doesn't have any criticisms when she's not overall held in globally high regard.
• Neutrality: Given the above note on (lack of) criticisms, it's probably undue weight to solely have "voice" contain positive comments.
• Stability: Seems OK to me.
• Media: No copyright concerns as far as I can tell, though File:Demi Lovato crop.jpg and File:DemiLovatoSep10 4.jpg aren't really ideal when they somewhat block her face.

Overall, this article doesn't seem up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The references really are a mess - 11 are dead, #42 redirects to something completely different (I guess absolute punk.net doesn't exist any more?...), #54 is unknown, #13 is absolutely not a reliable source and it doesn't back up the statement it is attached to. For a WP:BLP, I find the state of the referencng in this article to be very troubling. Also, re: the lead section/MOS issues - is it necessary to list all those awards? Shearonink (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Update. All the dead URLs have been fixed, I think. The questionable source remains. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing dead links, and yes; there are still many subpar sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there some guideline which allows Twitter and YouTube to be used as sources? I see them on many GAs, and they seem acceptable. Read a GA review at one point which mentioned a WP Policy statement regarding this type of media, but I forget the subject which was being reviewed and I don't remember the shortcut. This instance may well fail that guideline anyway. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOCIALMEDIA says things like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr can be used in limited circumstances (i.e. non-contentious claims) while WP:YOUTUBE says to take caution for copyright concerns. Overall, both sites are discouraged as citations, especially when credible third-party sources can be used in place. In any case, I wouldn't recommend using them here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I replaced one Daily Mail citation with a cite to Variety. There still remains another cite to Daily Mail which is trickier. The quote was apparently published in Latina magazine but I can find no reliable source with that online. I would think one could cite directly to the magazine, but as I have not seen the actual magazine, I am hesitant to do so.

I'll continue to try and improve the sourcing because I do think the issues with this article are fixable and it's always a good idea to try and fix problems with Good Articles. Some of the source may not be that bad. My understanding is that some sources should be evaluated on a case by case basis whereas the Daily Mail has been disallowed totally. Also, I think it might be worthwhile to post directly to the article talk page with some of the ideas that need to be expanded upon the the article. I know it's not required, but given that the article has over 800 watchers, an extra nudge or two might be helpful. Knope7 (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Another question: Perhaps it's because I've never tried this, but do you have a reason why Fox News is not RS? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Because they're known to often distort things with their bias (particularly political subjects). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this for your left political standpoint, or would you say so with other more liberal publications as well? I don't see many of either side. I mean, yes, you're right, sometimes FOX does distort things, but maybe first we should see if any of the material in that calls for a reasonable amount of doubt. It is a major news feed. Perhaps you could refer me to another discussion on this matter rather than this GAR, if one exists? Is said instance a political article cited in a musician's article on Wikipedia? That sounds bizarre at first thought, but I'll read up on it later. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say other liberal publications (particularly things like MSNBC and Huffington Post) also often distort things with their biases. It has nothing to do with my personal affiliations (though for the record, I'm more central ground than right wing or left wing). Anyway, I'm not sure I'd quite call it Daily Mail-level bad (which is notorious for fabrication as noted on RSN), but it's far from the strongest publication available and not something I'd recommend either way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree if this were an article about politicians, but for an article about a singer/actress, I'm less concerned about Fox's typical bias. Maybe if the topic is her political views I would be more critical, but for example footnote 213 links to a Fox News article quoting Lovato's own words about being bipolar. With reliability, we are supposed to look at the likelihood that something is fact checked and accurate. I think this is an example where we can rely on Fox. That generally goes along with what I am finding when checking some of the sources in this article, that even if the website wouldn't be an appropriate source at all times, it's reliable for it's use. Knope7 (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Twitter

Okay, so I've looked around to try and eliminate Twitter first as long as there are other sources which are deemed reliable. Replaced one already. About the one in Kenya: I have found several sources, but I don't know which ones would be acceptable. I have brought them here. [6] [7] [8] The reason I'm unsure is because I've never heard of these sources before, but look legit. What say you guys? If this won't do, it looks like it might meet WP:SOCIALMEDIA, but I'd rather replace it. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't comment on Borgen Magazine since I'm not familiar with that, but MTV is definitely viable here and what I'd recommend the most from those three. PR Newswire is a press release site that might be fine for non-contentious claims, but secondary sources are preferable when available. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: Closed as delist by Aircorn: [9]. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig

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

Result: Delist Lots of comments on the article here, but there seems to be a general agreement that it does not at this stage meet the GA criteria. Lots of advice here for anyone willing t fix and renominate at a future point. AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

I am nominating the article for community reassessment due to the concern over sourcing and potentially failing GAC #2b:

• Verifiable with no original research
  • reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

The article contains:

• 21 citations to Franz Kurowski (please see linked article)
• 5 citations to Ralph Schumann by the right-wing German publisher VDM Heinz Nickel (pls see linked article)
• 10 citations to Peter Taghon from the same imprint
• 12 citations to a self-published source Florian Berger; please see sample of Berger's work The Face of Courage
• 2 citations to Helden der Wehrmacht – Unsterbliche deutsche Soldaten ["Heroes of the Wehrmacht – Immortal German soldiers"], mentioned in Antisemitism Worldwide, 2000/1 as being offered alongside such book as "KZ-Lies" and "Wehrmacht as Liberator"

Sample of the content supported by the above sources:

• In more than 200 combat missions, Schlund successfully fought off 13 attacks by enemy fighters.
• During this moonlight mission, Helbig dive-bombed and sank a troop transport ship, most likely the Ellenis, which was also used as a hospital ship by Greek forces.
• After completing his training as an observer and aerial gunner on 20 April 1937, he was posted with III. Gruppe (3rd Group) Kampfgeschwader (Bomber Wing) 152 "Hindenburg" in Schwerin. III./KG 152 "Hindenburg" became II. Group of Lehrgeschwader 1 (1st Demonstration Wing) on 1 November 1938, where he started his informal pilot training.
• At 2:30 pm 14 Ju 88s from I.(Kampf)/LG 1 headed for quadrant 6450/23 East. Despite the protection of accompanying Bristol Beaufort torpedo bombers from No. 272 Squadron RAF, the Ju 88s attacked. The HMS Lively was struck by Oberfeldwebel Leupert and sank at about 3:30 pm.

References

These sources are not in line with the WP:MILMOS#SOURCES guidelines that military history articles, and especially results of operations and any statistics, be cited to published works by reputable historians. The authors and publishers included above do not have a reputation for editorial oversight or fact-checking. Please also see prior GARs involving some of the same concerns:

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Otto Kittel/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Initial discussion

I'd support the delisting for the exact same reasons listed in Kittel (and above, obviously), which incidentally is a GAR I've started myself. To be perfectly honest I'd love it if this got more feedback than Kittel so it doesn't feel like we're just reenacting that GAR or whatever, although I do think the issues here are pretty obvious, just like with Kittel. It's also been three months since the refimprove with no activity on that front – again, pretty much a mirror of Kittel. In fact if there are more obviously Kurowski-ed (or any other unreliable author) articles like this (with no signs of improving), then the above should apply to all of them. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of delisting because of criterion 4 (neutrality) as well. The "In defense of the Reich" section is not neutral. I'm not very familiar with the modern German literature on WW2, but I've read contemporary sources extensively, and this section reads like Nazi propaganda. It is not in keeping with the style used in modern English-language histories either. The same is probably true of the Battle of Britain section. It states that Helbig flew over 100 combat missions but elaborates only on missions ostensibly against military targets.

That is absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda; the German bomber pilot only ever hit military targets while the Allied "terrorists" only ever hit churches, hospitals and orphanages. I suppose that says something about criterion 2 as well. That is, Helbig's life story is precisely what one would expect in a propaganda account of a German bomber pilot. That leads me to suspect, very strongly, that the sources used here are leaving something out.Roches (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Roches: G'day, can you please highlight areas of the Defense of the Reich section that are not neutral? Is it the wording that you think is problematic, or the events that are covered? If it is wording, I can try to help, but otherwise this isn't a topic I have expertise in, or sources for, so I am hoping that the article's main contributor, @MisterBee1966: might be able to address your concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Procedure note: I assume you gentlemen have given notice to the original GA reviewer - Auntieruth55. Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I posted a notification to the MilHist Talk page (link), but I see that I did not include the article name in the title, so it was not obvious which article was being reassessed.

Good idea on a separate notice. I will notify the GA reviewer, plus others who took part in the peer & A-class reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comments/suggestions from AustralianRupert: G'day, I have the following comments and suggestions focused upon hopefully improving the article so that it can be kept as a GA class article (I will try to help where I can): AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• in the lead Gross register tonnage is over linked, as are Hauptmann, Oberfeldwebel, Heraklion, Leutnant, Lehrgeschwader 1, and Generalfeldmarschall in the rest of the article
• "...while on a recon mission over Poland, Helbig shot down a Polish reconnaissance aircraft". Probably best to clarify that this was with one of the aircraft's defensive machine guns.
• where possible I would like to see other sources used to corroborate Kurowski and Berge etc, but if it is not possible I suggest using in text attribution more to distance Wikipedia's voice from these sources, but if they could be pared down to a minimum I think it would be ok to keep with proper attribution etc.
• In addition to the point above, I think some discussion of Kurowski's (and potentially the other sources) work should be mentioned in the article with some of the academic commentary being included (if the works remain as citations). This could possibly be put in the final section of prose, e.g. "Much of the detail about Helbig's military career comes from the work of Franz Kurowski... In characterising Kurowski's work, academic.... (and so on)..." A short sentence in the lead could also possibly be added.
• " In defense of the Allied landings in Algeria and Tunisia..." Probably should be "In opposition to the Allied landings in Algeria and Tunisia..."
• the lead mentions that he was banned from further combat duties after receiving the Oak Leaves and Swords, but I don't think this is mentioned in the body of the article;
• "enemy" where possible should be changed to a different pro noun, e.g. "Allied", or "British", or "US" where it is known exactly who he was fighting
• there is a mixture of US and British English variatio nthat should be rectified (e.g. "defence" and "defense" - a thorough check should be done as these might not be the only two instances)
• I think that the headings would potentially be better as all second level, with the first "Military career" heading probably be better if styled as "Early life", while the "In defense of the Reich" header could be have "and later life" added
• inconsistent citation styles, e.g. "Williamson 2004, p. 46." v. Taghon (2004b), p. 12." Not necessarily a GA criterion, but could be fixed within the context of this review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• "headed for quadrant 6450/23 East..." the article probably doesn't need this level of specific detail as the lay person won't understand it. A generic description would suffice, e.g. "headed to attack an Allied convoy 200 miles to the north-east of Malta" (I have just made up these details to illustrate my point, please don't use these descriptions and distances etc).
• "armed reconnaissance patrol in the sea area south of Crete on..." --> "armed reconnaissance patrol over the sea south of Crete..."
• OVERCITE: I'm generally not too concerned by this, but some sentences have three citations at the end. Potentially a bundled citation style might work better here, e.g. <ref>Smith 1998, p. 1; Jones 2004, p. 61; Kafoops 2013, p. 111.</ref>. If this was adopted, it would need to be consistent throughout.

• Comment -- I don't believe the above (keeping Kurowski et al & adding a discussion section) is a workable solution, for two reasons:

1. If these sources are kept, then the article would not be in compliance with the GA requirement that "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". Kurowski's citations are from Luftwaffe Aces. If Panzer Aces (which I've seen: sample) is any indication, then it's mostly historical fiction, and Wikipedia does not source articles to fictional accounts.
2. The proposed section discussing sources (I believe) is intended to be similar to "In popular culture" section at Wolfgang Lüth. This section is included because Kurowski's hagiography of Lüth was covered by a secondary source (Hadley). Kurowski wrote over 400 books, so it seems highly unlikely that Kurowski's discussion of Helbig would covered in any secondary sources. If the editors were to include such a section based on their personal experience, then it would most likely be editorialising or synthesis, not sure which, but this does not sound right to me.

Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources

• I am not willing to condemn wholesale any book published by VDM Heinz Nickel. I own the Taghon books cited in the article and they're not pro-Nazi in any way, although I cannot speak to any other books published by them. However, I cannot support the self-published book by Berger without looking at it to see his sourcing and I honestly don't care to invest the time to try a track down a copy. I'll cross-check the Kurowski cites against Taghon and other English-language source and have already deleted one bit that cannot be supported. More will follow. KC winners are not an interest of mine and I cannot validate anything to do with award dates, etc. Even with replacement cites added from Scherzer, etc., I'm afraid that the article will still fail the GA criteria after I'm done trimming the extraneous material and the non-RS citations. Especially if no one has access to Schumann or some other source to replace the info from Berger. Remember, though, the goal of a GAR is to fix the issues if at all possible, not to simply delist it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the input on Taghon. I added Helden der Wehrmacht to the list of problematic sources, along with a sample from Berger's The Face of Courage. Hope this is helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• G'day, just to clarify, what is the issue with the Berger work? From the link provided above ([10]), it doesn't seem to be self published, as it appears to have been published by J.J Fedorowicz and then reprinted by Stackpole Books, which appear to be Canadian and US publishers. Am I missing something? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, the fact that the Berger book cited here is self-published is almost irrelevant since we've now seen that he is a published author with a mainstream press. So I think that Berger just moved from non-RS to RS with the usual caveats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I do not necessarily agree that the sample provided signifies that Berger is RS, for two reasons:

1. I provided the English-language sample as a means to show that his works are hagiographic and uncritical accounts of highly decorated German soldiers of WWII. Both Kurowski and Berger have been published by Fedorowitz and Stackpole, and that does not make them RS.
2. The work that is being cited in the article is Mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern. Die höchstdekorierten Soldaten des Zweiten Weltkrieges ["With Oak Leaves and Swords. The Highest Decorated Soldiers of the Second World War"], which was printed via Selbstverlag Florian Berger, meaning "Self-published by Florian Berger" (this book was not reprinted in English, as far as I know). Some more context on Berger is in a 2013 MilHist thread, with an editor noting: "As for Berger, I only found one review of his work in a journal for librarians. The reviewer of this self-published book basically advises the author to go and find another hobby" (link).

Hope this is helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I've got no concerns with removing the work that hasn't been reprinted by an independent publishing house (i.e. Mit eichenlaub...) but I do not support the wholesale removal of the works that have been reprinted independently (e.g. Stackpole etc) without strong evidence that they are not reliable for the information cited. As for a review in a journal for librarians, I have a couple of concerns. What qualification did the person who wrote the review have? I have written a few book reviews for a peer reviewed journal myself does that make me an authority on the work I reviewed? No, I wrote my opinion. I'm a professionally published author and have four degrees, but I wouldn't say that makes me more qualified than the average person. Also, most works will receive some criticism in reviews, it doesn't mean that they do not qualify as reliable sources in a Wikipedia sense. Remember the term isn't literal, rather it is a purely Wikipedia construct. Equally, if you read WP:RS as a whole, I believe the approach it requires is more nuanced with some sources being RS for certain things, but not for others, e.g. a biography on a cricketer could well be an RS on the details of particular matches that might have been played during a certain period of history, but it wouldn't really be RS for the intricate details of the political climate that the match might be played in (e.g. for example, a book discussing a cricket tour of South Africa during the Apartheid era). Hence, a book like The Face of Courage seems RS for biographical details of the recipients included therein, but I wouldn't consider it RS for detailed analysis of political and strategic aspects of the war. There is a fine line I agree, but we need to be careful also not to set the bar abnormally high lest we create double standards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

While it is helpful to review the sources, it is important to consider the use of the sources. While overall the source might have a bias about the historical context, it could still be accurate regarding the biographical information of the individual, as Rupert pointed out above. Part of the role of the historian is to separate the chaff from the grain, so to speak. Although Mr. B may have used sources that by and large would not be acceptable in article about the role of the Luftwaffe in the war, for example, his use of these sources for biographical information about the subject may be entirely in line with the article and indeed the only way to construct a comprehensible time line of the individual's action.

In general, my attitude toward the Stackpole republications is that if they publish them, it's by an large reliable as to fact, although not necessarily to interpretation. To throw out a source, published by Stackpole or not, on the basis of its unreliable interpretation would not be appropriate, especially if its summary of fact based material relating to the biography of the individual is the resource. We might put together a statement to this effect to be included on these articles, rather than argue this case at every review. auntieruth (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)'

Furthermore, even a basic search on Florian Berger suggests that he has a very decent education and a high level of interest in flying. The fact that his books are self-published simply means that he did not get them published in an academic publication. This does not mean that he is ignorant. I suggest we examine these further before we throw out the baby with the bath water. auntieruth (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I've not been able to find any reviews in literature of Berger's works, except for user-generated ones at Amazon, such as:

• "For anyone who collects WWII german autographs,researching or has a interest in WWII german histroy this is the book about what most WWII collecters/veterans would probly agree, tells of the most elite 98 and only 98 soldiers whom received both the Nahkampfspange in Gold and Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes..."

This indicates to me that these works are targeted at collectors or German WWII militaria. The comment on "one librarian" was from a German speaker, and they said they were not able to find any other reviews either. This shows that these works have been ignored by reputable historians and probably by the general public. Stating that the author has "a very decent education and a high level of interest in flying" is insufficient to establish that these works are RS. See also these relevant AfD discussions that touched on the topic of "specialist literature":

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Styr
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Bachmann
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer)

In this article, Berger is used for military statistics and details of the subject's career, which is not recommended under WP:MILMOS. I also subscribe to the view expressed on the initial discussion about Kurowski: "Problem is that if we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty." link. If the information was important, then surely a reputable historian would have covered that. One starts by using Berger and ends up including citations to straight up WP:FRINGE material such as Helden der Wehrmacht. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

a cursory search generates this: information about him. you might do some of your own research too. auntieruth (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Is this the same person though? The web site states:

• "Doctoral candidate at the University of Education Weingarten, Germany. My research topic is adaptive educational games. Lecturer at the Department 4 of the HTW University of Applied Sciences Berlin. I have worked as a teacher in vocational education, as a lecturer for media software at the SAE Institute, and as a freelance engineer."

This seems to be unrelated, i.e. results for "florian berger" historiker; or at least the personal web site linked above says nothing that I could see about WWII interests or being a writer. Such as the articles section. What suggests that this is the same person? K.e.coffman (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

not the right person. I've "talked" to him via email. Not the historiker. auntieruth (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I commented on Berger's works in more detail below. I do not hold the other works referenced for this article in very high esteem, either. Brütting worked for the German war propaganda and had flown with KG 2 and 53 during the war. After the war he carried on writing about the Luftwaffe (just that a foreword by Göring was removed from later editions of one of his works). As to Bergström, he provides a good bunch of sources and references, but also adds a lot of suspense to it. He is with Helbig and his gunner as well as with the British fighter pilots and literally recounts all the sweat and the cold wind touching their faces. Are these sources reliable? That depends on your point of view. They do not represent academic research. Most likely, they take their information and detail from Nazi propaganda and eye-witness accounts. Admittedly we do not know much about the effect of German bombings, but as with the tank commanders there is reason for some scepticism. How does someone, e.g., develop "into an industrial target specialist"?--Assayer (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Berger; related articles

I think that you'll need to point out to me the exact language in MILMOS that discourages use of "military statistics and details of the subject's career" from sources like Berger. Rather, I think, much like auntieruth55, those are the exact things that we can use from those types of sources and while ignoring all the NPOV and puffery. There's some of that in the Stackpole book of his that you linked to, but nowhere near enough for me to agree with you that he's non-RS without looking at the book, and most especially, his sources. And you seem to be very concerned about the tip of the camel's nose underneath the tent and all that regarding sourcing although that appears to be related to your willingness to paint various authors and publishers with a very broad brush as neo-Nazis or Nazi sympathizers. I'm sure that's true for some people and publishers, but even a crappy author like Kurowski can and has produced work of genuine value. Notably, his unit histories are actually semi-decent sources with far less peacocking and NPOV, a restraint notably lacking in his biographies. Not to mention they're far more factual, something that cannot be said for the latter, as I've demonstrated by the amount of errors sourced to Kurowski that I've eliminated from the article thus far.

I prefer a more nuanced view that each work should be examined on its own merits and it troubles me that you disparage Berger without actually having read his book. You're basing your opinion of Berger as non-RS solely off an excerpt on Google Books, am I right? You did much the same with Taghon simply because he published with VDM Heinz Nickel. I've owned a couple of the latter's aviation books over the years because I'm interested in the operational and organizational history of the Luftwaffe and I'm willing to assert that none of those that I've looked at had any particular pro-Nazi bias. I'm not willing to assert that for any other books published by them because I haven't seen them. Nor have I seen "Helden der Wehrmacht" and have no particular opinion about it, although it didn't seem to be a particularly high-quality source based on its usage in this article.

In my experience historians with academic backgrounds generally don't work on medal winners and similar esoteric subjects so it becomes very difficult to weed out and distinguish between reputable and non-reputable authors until you've delved deep into a subject. Forex, Alain Chazette and Rudi Rolf are probably the best authors currently working on the technical/military aspects of the Atlantic Wall and other WWII fortifications, but I have no idea if either has any formal qualifications or training as historians. I've seen academic works on the Atlantic Wall, but they're usually focused on its political, social or economic aspects, not the technical or military side. And much the same is true for technological things as well as ordinary people who've earned the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor. So we have little to rely upon except our own considered judgement and I think that you've been a little quick to evaluate sources on only a modicum of information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- here's the relevant passage from WP:MILMOS:

Sources

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. (...) Articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant.

Citations

The nature of historical material requires that articles be thoroughly—even exhaustively—cited. At a minimum, the following all require direct citation:

1. (...)
2. Numerical quantities or statistics.

In general, any statement for which a citation has been explicitly requested by another editor should be provided with one as well. Beyond this, editors are encouraged to cite any statement that is obscure or difficult to find in the available sources, as well as any significant statement in general.

I interpret the above as articles requiring citations to reliable sources. What makes Berger a reliable source? Are there reviews of his works by reputable historians? The source is not considered reliable by default, we as editors use our judgement to evaluate sources based on available information (i.e. being self-published).

Re: Berger, here's a prefaces to the Face of Courage by Manfred Dorr, another author of "militaria literature":

• "The attitude of the author impressed me in that he views the soldierly values of courage and bravery separately from the political system (...) This an indispensable requirement for a treatment of this topic..." (link).

That's what Kurowski has been criticised for (among other things): presenting the German armed forces in an ahistorical context, as "merely soldiers" (Nur Soldat). For this article, the source is self-published, and accepting sources that are also biased and / or built on unreliable Nazi propaganda is not in line with GA requirements designed to feature Wikipedia's best work.

I agree that "...historians with academic backgrounds generally don't work on medal winners and similar esoteric subjects...", but this does not mean we should accept WP:QS sources instead. This would require too much original research to weed out any biased content, which is against policy.

This "nuanced approach" results in articles that are unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research. That is why Otto Kittel was delisted and Wolfgang Lüth was heavily redacted to bring them in line with Wikipedia policies. An editor above noted that the article is "absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda", while another A-class article (Der Panzergraf) was described as a "10,000+ word essay full of Nazi fancruft" (link).

Expectations for verifiability and NPOV are part and parcel of Wikipedia, and this article as it stands does not reflect that. Thus, it should be delisted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure and I think that we can all agree that the authors of this article were not careful enough in evaluating their sources. OTOH, I think that you yourself have not done enough reading to evaluate whether someone like Berger is really RS or not, relying mostly on the fact that he self-published the book in question. You missed the connection between Berger and Scherzer and discount that fact that Stackpole translated and published one of his books, probably because he uses some of the peacock and NPOV phrasing endemic to these sorts of works, even American or British ones. To my mind, that's the stuff that we as editors are here for, to extract the wheat from the chaff.

You spend your time here identifying sourcing and NPOV issues, and that's a valuable service, but I'll confess that I'm more than a little troubled by the fact that you make no effort to fix the problems that you discover and appear to have no interest in doing so. I don't know if that's because the best sources for KC winners are all in German, and you can't read German (just a guess), or what. As far as I'm concerned this significantly weakens your case for reworking these articles as it means that you cannot truly evaluate the sources as to their reliability. If you or somebody like ÄDA - DÄP VA were to tell me that the best German-language sources, like that multi-volume series on KC winners, the authors of which I'm drawing a blank on at the moment, cannot support a GA-quality article on some winner, I'd believe you, but since you can't, it causes some problems with my own assessment of your reliability as a researcher.

I hope that you weren't offended by this, because that's not my intent, but you seem very quick to judge books and authors on what appears to me to be insufficient evidence and it significantly weakens your case in my eyes. I'd be far happier if you were to borrow the books in question through Interlibrary loan (or buy them) and could provide scans of the relevant pages for somebody fluent in German to use to improve the articles in question (if you can't read German). ::I dunno, maybe we're talking past each other, you being so focused on how you believe various sources to be non-RS and how that taints an article and me saying that they're salvageable given the right sources, which are probably out there. I will say again that I think that you're doing Wiki a valuable service, but I'd be far happier if you were to follow WP:SOFIXIT and deal with them yourself, without sending articles for deletion or delisting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Here are the relevant comments by Assayer from the AfDs above regarding "the best German-language source, like that multi-volume series on KC winners" (Thomas & Wegmann); this editor is a German speaker:

• Thomas & Wegmann collect the names and military biographies of KC recipients by using archival records directly related to the award process, but they did not conduct further research, e.g. look for other sources to verify the accounts. Their multiple volumes might suffice as a directory, but it does not mean that their account of the events which lead to an award is historically accurate. They merely reproduce the claims made within the context of the recommendation and, above all, the reasons officially given for the award. From AfD:Styr.
• In 1990, when reviewing another publication by Thomas (and Manfred Dörr) on the bearers of the Close Combat Clasp in Gold, Reinhard Stumpf of the MGFA made clear that for the time being the research on military symbols would remain to be the domain of enthusiasts outside of professional historiography. (MGZ 47/1990, p. 298) (...) Even though it might be possible to reconstruct the military careers of each and every Knight's Cross recipients, these biographies present a distorted picture of the actual events (i.e., if the provision "played an important role in a significant military event" in WP:Soldier, is to be based on historical fact instead of Nazi propaganda). From AfD:Debus.

As can be seen from the AfD discussions this source was not deemed acceptable for WWII articles and all KC winner articles brought to AfD were either deleted or redirected. I believe that the same critique is likely to apply to Berger (given the evidence I presented). He may be correct in identifying all of the awards that can be confirmed via archives (same as Scherzer) but that does not mean he's RS for anything else. And listing all of these minor awards (including non exiting ones -- see sample) results in articles that are largely of interest to a "specialist audience", i.e. collectors of WWII German memorabilia, and/or full of fancruft, bordering on indiscriminate collections of information.

To sum this up, reliable historiography, that would be suitable as sources for encyclopedia articles, on highly decorated Wehrmacht / Waffen-SS personnel does not exist, unless they were notable for something else. WP:SOFIXIT does not apply to the large majority of these articles. Hence the suggestion that I should look for sources is not meaningful; information sourced to non RS should simply be deleted.

Regarding GA articles, my good faith attempts to correct sourcing, excessive intricate detail, and POV problems have been consistently reverted, for example:

• "...inappropriate given the discussion occurring elsewhere about this type of editing behaviour and its legitimacy". In Walter Ohmsen.
• same rationale. In Erich Rudorffer.
• "...inappropriate for an Milhist A-Class article that was promoted by consensus. In Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.
• "It is pretty clear you edits of this type are opposed, stop. Justify them on talk in each case." In Heinrich von Vietinghoff. Etc.

The reverting editor further stated: "MB, feel free to bring to my attention any GA or higher articles that are getting this "treatment". I am happy to revert and ensure GAR/Milhist ACR/FAR processes are used" (link). Hence the GARs, including this one.

What would be helpful is for the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: to look at similar articles of which there are probably dozens. Here's a start: list of articles that use neo-Nazi publication Helden der Wehrmacht in the bibilography. These articles are GA / A-class, with one being a featured article. It boggles the mind that such a source would be considered acceptable and the article containing it be promoted by consensus. Some additional potentially problematic articles are listed on my user page, in the section Special mentions, including FA/GA articles. It would benefit the project to have more eyes on such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it could be that some minds are more easily boggled than others... I received the coordinator ping, so I'll open the batting re. Helden der Wehrmacht. Not being familiar with it, I searched a bit on the web and I found a couple of works that pointed out a nationalist connection, so I then went through each of the eight articles in which it appears to see how it was being used:

• Helmut Wick: used once, in conjunction with another source, to cite him being the first Oak Leaves winner to die in combat.
• Walter Oesau: used twice, once in conjunction with three other sources to cite a short paragraph on his early life, and then with two other sources to cite his Spanish Civil War record.
• Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld: used four times, in each case as the only source, for highlights of his wartime record including victories, decorations, and commands.
• Helmut Lent: used once, in conjunction with another source, to cite his first aerial victory.
• Heinrich Bär: used twice, once to cite a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht and then, in conjunction with two other sources, to cite a short paragraph on his post-war career and death.
• Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein: used once, in the lead, to cite his posthumous Oak Leaves and Swords; this appears to be cited again, to a different source, in the main body.
• Walther Dahl: referred to in the text but not used as a source.
• Hans-Ulrich Rudel: ditto.

A bit of housekeeping: it's not one FA and the rest GA/A; two of the articles are FA, three are GA/A, two are GA, and one is Start. That out of the way, I understand concerns with citing information to this source given its authorship, but in no case did it appear to be used to cite extraordinary, laudatory, or otherwise unusual claims. If the consensus was to avoid the book entirely, I expect that most of the info in question could be cited to other works (it seems much of it is already) and the remainder would probably not hurt the articles too much if it were removed. Indeed, it's not a source in Dahl and Rudel, and it looks to me that it could be deleted from Sayn-Wittgenstein without altering the text; the other five articles would require further investigation. I'd like to see more input on it, but I note that the book isn't used in the article presently under review, so we might want to consider moving this to a more central location. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Thank you for your comments. The Helden der Wehrmacht source has been removed in the course of this GAR; here the pre-GAR version with two citations to it: Sept 2016. Immortal German Soldiers is more of a symptom of hagiographic articles, such as this one, built on biased and / or non RS sources.

If a more complete list is desired, then this one may be fairly indicative of where to look for other problematic prose and sources: List of articles with Schaulen in bibliography (another neo-Nazi publication, according to ADA - DAP (60+ entries). If there's interest in looking at GA/A-class articles only, I could compile such a list (in addition to what's on my user page). I believe there's a planned initiative to re-look at GA articles and above, and I feel that articles on highly decorated German WWII personnel would be excellent candidates to be looked at first. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding Berger, according to the forward, the book was reviewed by the National Archives of Austria (Österreichisches Staatsarchiv), represented by Dr. Gerhard Artl (see Kriegsarchiv – Contact. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If I am not mistaken, Artl wrote the foreword. Berger is sometimes referred to by academic historians when it comes to awards. Reviews of his works, however, are scarce. I found one by Klaus Schreiber for the Informationsmittel für Bibliotheken, a journal to help librarians to assess publications. PDF The review is of the Ritterkreuzträger mit Nahkampfspange in Gold (2004) and quite sarcastic in its tone. I will translate parts of it. Florian Berger, who identifies himself as a "military historian" and "author of non-fiction books" in the head of his letter deals with the closely circumscribed field of the "heroes" of WW II, particularly of the German Wehrmacht, who were awarded with the Knight's Cross. [...] In alphabetic order the portraits convey loose information to the biographical facts, but focus on a retelling of the fighting, in which the soldier has participated. In addition there are b/w photos of the person with and without order, documents of approval and so forth, memorabilia and numerous other photos, in no relation to the person, of life at the front, German and foreign weapons and the like. So obviously there is still a market for publications such as this, even though hardly anyone of these recipients is still alive. Or maybe close-combat-clasp-specialist Manfred Dörr finds the right words for the consumers of such works in his foreword: "May this work find the most widespread circulation, to honor these soliders of the former German Wehrmacht! They only did their duty and to this and their fatherland, like all other brave soldiers of this world; in the past, and in the present and in the future. Don't forget them!" - This is in line with the opinions uttered by Florian Berger in his afterword, in which he wordily explains, what his answer is when he is asked, how he can deal with this subject. Ultimately one can see this as hero worship: "German and Austrian veterans lived for decades through smear campaigns and defamations and Knight's Cross recipients are after all the emblem of the former Wehrmacht." In other words, Berger carries on the narrative of the clean Wehrmacht, who fought expertly and gallantly like any other army. This is not, however, how the Wehrmacht is seen nowadays. To view KC recipients like Helbig out of context, is neither neutral nor historical. --Assayer (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

• Comment

• ad Kurowski

I did a bit of digging and found the source for Kurowski's story about Helbig. IMO the problem with Kurowski is not only his POV but also his methodology. Kurowski basically takes someone else's work and enriches it with details for dramatic effect. He might spin a good yarn, but for our uses his publications are useless: the bits that can be verified, can be referenced to his sources, and the rest is just fiction. There might be a case about availability, as his publications are more affordable and hence more widely circulated.

• ad Berger

I finally got hold of a copy of Scherzer's book. Scherzer has earned a reputation as a serious scholarly author, although he has no affiliation to any research institutions and it seems that his publishing house is basically supporting his own research. So, technically self-published, he should be considered more reliable than any other publication in this field. Now, Scherzer lists Berger as a collaborator on his 2007 book on Knight's Cross recipients, so some of Scherzer's reputation shines on Berger, who is doing pretty much the same thing in Austria that Scherzer is doing in Germany.

• ad alii

Another issue with the article is that references are not checked critically against other available sources, e.g. SS Ellenis was not sunk in Piraeus, but in Patras. It's not of any significance to the article, but shows that the authors cited don't work to scholarly standards of reliability and verifiability. It would be the job of an editorial assistant to make sure that such errors are not perpetuated by indiscriminately copying from other works assuming someone down the line had checked the facts. The problem will be to find reliable scholarly sources on biographical material for many of the individuals we are dealing with here, as the scientific interest in these people is very limited. Without reliable sources we face the dilemma of either limiting the article to bare facts like date of birth, or spending a disproportionate amount of work on tracking down sources.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, but Shores, Cull & Malizia credit Ellenis with being sunk in Piraeus. Taghon makes no claim about the ship in particular, but discusses LG 1's attacks on Piraeus and Chalcis. As far as I can tell, the Luftwaffe made no attacks on Patras that day, being mostly focused on the Athens area. What's your source that says differently?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid it will be all Greek to you, but here it is. BTW, that's exactly the kind of critical approach I'm missing in many of the cited references.ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, not much I could do with that ;-) But did I see a reference to Ellenis being sunk on the 21st? If so perhaps you could append a note saying that the sources disagree when she was sunk? While I've not gotten to the 1943+ period yet, I'd be interested to know what else you've identified as problematic; I might be able to replace or improve the references and their facts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

re:Ellenis here and here, the date is put as 21 April (Easter Monday according to Orthodox rite). There was a mention of Good Friday, which would have been 19 April.

Other problems I encountered regards the action of 15 August 1940. Brütting puts the number of aircraft at nine, Williamson obviously gets the date wrong, and Kurowski makes RNAS Worthy Down a seaport. Furthermore, sinking hospital ships would actually have been a war crime, only that they lacked the white coat of paint required by international law. In the case of Dronning Maud there is also an inconsitency with the dates, in the WP article and this source, the date is given as 1 May rather then 2 May. Apart from that, is there a chance to find out which ships were sunk by Helbig's flyers? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Leave it with me.

Plus, I fully agree with AustralianRupert's post on 3 October. Dapi89 (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

John Weal has another book out soon: Ju 88 Aces of World War II (title is a bit daft, I don't remember the Ju 88 serving in any other conflict). Could offer more info. Dapi89 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrapping up

Where are we with this now? It seems to me the request to delist this article should be rejected, particularly in light of new additions. Dapi89 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Dapi89, I came by and saw this, but looking through this community reassessment I see many mentions of delisting (though only one !vote, from K.e.coffman), including CCCVCCCC and Roches, and I haven't seen any post that specifically says the article currently meets the GA criteria, or has been improved to the point that it does. (Perhaps these editors will wish to revisit their earlier assessments in light of the recent upgrades.) Your post could be interpreted as doing so, since that's the circumstance that means it should be kept as a GA; if it isn't there yet, then work on the article should continue until it does. (While the ultimate goal of a GAR is to bring the article back up to GA level, sometimes it isn't feasible to do so.) I can't close this at the present time. There's no real rush; the article continues to retain its GA listing while the reassessment is ongoing. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments. If there are any specific instances that require re-sourcing, I'd appreciate it if these are pointed out so I can deal with it. I intend to have a look at the Norwegian phase of his combat career later today, time permitting. Dapi89 (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- The POV "industrial target specialist" language comes from yet another dubious source in this article, this time a book published by Merriam Press, a small-time militaria publisher. This imprint also runs Richard Landwehr's Siegrunen magazine, popular with the neo-Nazi crowd. Sample Siegrunen issues: link on their website. Here's a 2010 full issue for anyone interested: ink (PDF). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• This source / content was added after this discussion commenced (diff). In another recent edit, the descriptor hospital ship was take out (diff); compare with "flying Red Cross flags and carrying medical personnel" (diff).

Such edits make this article worse, not better, and I still advocate delisting. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I read the discussion above. The concerns regarding the eligibility of this article for GA status seems to stem mostly on concerns regarding the sources. I have no opinion on this, because I cant judge them as I have not much knowledge in soldiers biographies. What I want to ask is: What would be an acceptable RS for a subject like that? This way the non-RS may can get replaced. I think if that doesn't get clarified, there will be much more similar GAR's and additional endless discussions without a solution. Dead Mary (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment That's a good question. I consider none of the literature used for this article as being up to the standards set forth in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is literature of a certain kind, which focuses on awards and presumed "achievements" and pretends to be non-political and merely documenting. Therefore, as I have argued, it subscribes to a certain image of, as in this case, an expertly and gallantly fighting Luftwaffe. It is ahistorical and impossible, however, to view the actions of historical actors within the values of the time. As Jürgen Habermas has put it: "The historian does not observe from the perspective of the actor. Rather, he describes events and actions from within the experimential horizon of a history that transcends the actor's horizon of expectations." ("Review of Gadamer's Truth and Method," 1977) There has not been much scholarship on individual fighter aces of the Luftwaffe. Some of it has to do with the lack of primary sources. Many documents of the Luftwaffe were destroyed at the end of the war, many systematically by the Luftwaffe themselves. So it's indeed the question whether GAs can be written on any subject, regardless of what kind of sources and what kind of literature is available. Are GAs to be based on sources which meet the standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP? In the latter case I don't see a way to significantly improve the article about Helbig and the article should be delisted.--Assayer (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Dead Mary: Acceptable sources generally include those outlined in WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. ÄDA - DÄP states above: "Without reliable sources we face the dilemma of either limiting the article to bare facts like date of birth, or spending a disproportionate amount of work on tracking down sources" — I would take this further and say that finding such verifiable information would involve too much OR, or that such sources simply do not exist.

This point is born out by the fact that even after collaborative efforts of several editors, the article is still lacking in reliable sources. The subject does not appear to have played a significant role in military history to warrant attention to his biography from mainstream or academic authors; what’s in the article is mostly unreliable publications, such as "catalogue of KC winners" type of material (Stockert, Berger, Kaiser) and / or fringe / POV works (Brütting, Merriam Press, Berger). Nor has it been sufficiently demonstrated why works published by a small-time right-wing publisher (VDM Nickel) should be considered RS.

For example, the article still contains intricate detail cited exclusively to such material:

• After completing his training as an observer and aerial gunner on 20 April 1937, he was posted to the 3rd Group (III. Gruppe) of Kampfgeschwader 152 "Hindenburg" in Schwerin. III./KG 152 became II. Gruppe of Lehrgeschwader 1 on 1 November 1938, where he started pilot training.

References

Three unreliable citations do not make the information they support worthy of inclusion. Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

While I recognize that you have the best of intentions, I must voice some concern at this point as I have real concerns about where this discussion is going. Forgive me if I misinterpreted, but essentially what is being stated is that none of the sources in this article qualify as WP:RS because they are not written by an "academic", right? That is a very high bar you are setting, and I doubt that many articles on Wikipedia would completely live up to it if you extrapolate it to its fullest. Many of the sources here are independent and published by mainstream publishers, which seems like the definition of a reliable source to me so long as they are used appropriately. Some are not, of course, and probably should be removed. However, please remember we are not writing (or re-writing for some of us) our PhDs. Wikipedia's job is to simply report what others say about something in a neutral manner and an editor shouldn't have to spend hours researching the book that they have on their shelf to see if it is acceptable. Wikipedia is meant to be accessible to the average person. The case for the removal of Berger seems solid to me in this case as it is a self published source, but what of the others in the article? What is wrong with Weal, Shores, Cull, Smith, Miller, Maclean, Hooton, et al? If you are going to state that they are not RS, please provide some evidence of this so it can be properly discussed rather than a blanket statement that they are all not reliable. I caveat all of this with this point: personally, I care not one jot about German bomber pilots, or anything else related to Germany's war effort. The Nazis were hideous and I have no interest in venerating them. But I do care about how the decisions that are being made here impact upon the project as a whole moving forward. If too high standards are set in one area, we essentially create either the perception of bias when it isn't applied consistently, or the expectation of perfection elsewhere. Wikipedia will not survive either of those. Regardless of what qualifications individuals bring, at the end of the day we are all volunteers – ergo amateurs – so we are setting ourselves up for failure if we expect our contributors to have the skills (and sources) of academics and professional researchers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see this ( the need for reliable sources (added for clarity) as an excessive requirement, especially for a GA article. The guidelines are outlined in WP:RS and WP:MILMOS#SOURCE, and that's what I've been following. MacLean (as I understand) compiled efficiency reports (promotion recommendations, etc). Miller is suspect as coming from Merriam Press, which I mentioned above. Weal is a tertiary source, based on other uncritical accounts. Shores is RS, but he is cited once, etc. If Brütting et al. are removed, there won't be much left. GA status is expected to be reserved for articles that represent Wikipedia's best work, and this article does not, even in its less POV / non-Kurowski version.

The bottom line is there's no dearth of reliable sources on notable topics relating to WWII: the interest in it continues unabated and new books are being published by reputable historians all the time. What we have here is (IMO) a subject that is only marginally notable. If the bulk of sources on a subject are WP:QS then perhaps this topic does not warrant an extensive article? Wikipedia policies seem to suggest so, as it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. Otherwise, it runs the risk of turning into a collection of WP:MEMORIAL and / or fan pages. This is not needed, as such pages already exist elsewhere; see for example Aces of the Luftwaffe web site.

Which reminds me, I've recently had several discussions with an editor who had literally turned several Wiki articles into fan pages, by copying content from the site above (See User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/October#Luftwaffe pilots, as well as at Talk:Günther Seeger). Copyvios are obviously against policy, but new editors do need help in understanding which sources are suitable and which are not. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I remain concerned about your interpretation of what is and what isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, and your explanation does nothing to alleviate that concern. Unless I missed it, I don't see where you discuss Miller in any detail, other than offering your own opinion about Merriam Press being a small press. Is there any evidence that it is unreliable because of that fact? I will reiterate, we are not a university and this isn't a PhD that is being written. Our job is simply to tell people what other people have written. By discounting many of these sources, you are actually obscuring what has been written and setting an artificially high bar for a small set of articles. That is not to say that you have to swallow the POV of these sources, nor that they are all acceptable. Some clearly are not acceptable and in relation to the others you can adequately deal with POV and weight issues through proper attribution, well crafted prose and clarification about sources in text. If other sources tell a different story, then contrast them, but so far it seems the concerns are that they don't mention the whole story, even though we are apparently not sure what the whole story is...? Additionally, to correct your point above, FA represents Wikipedia's best work, not GA and we shouldn't be conflating the GA criteria to equal the FA criteria. That said, if you think this topic isn't notable, please just nominate it for deletion rather than continuing this review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Like Rupert I share a nagging concern about the wider implications of where this is leading. I’ll concede immediately that I haven’t followed this issue closely in the past—and wont be in the future either—but it does seem to me that higher than normal standards ("excessive" even) may be being applied to some of the sourcing in this, and other similar articles, in regards to whether they qualify as “reliable” as defined by Wikipedia. Sure there are many things to consider and sometimes the specifics of a source will need to be considered carefully to determine if it should be used, or for what it is used for, yet on the whole we tend to be able to assume good faith as long as a source meets the basic requirements of WP:RS (and other related guidelines). I could understand if there were obviously extremist views being advanced in the article (and accept that some vigilance is prudent given the connection of the subject with Nazi Germany etc) but as near as I can tell that is not the issue here. Sure some sources used have been shown to have not met the criteria to be considered reliable and they mostly seem to have been addressed by being removed or replaced, but there seems to be others that probably would be considered suitable / RS in any other article that are being dismissed here if there were not written by an “academic”. That is not a requirement of WP:RS, and clearly numerous sources currently being used in our many articles at the moment would not pass that test if it were. As such applying it here would indeed result in a double standard, and ultimately a self defeating and unsustainable one. At its heart it is elitist and the vast majority of our articles wouldn’t make the grade, while neither would most of our editors (myself included). A good article only needs to be just that and nothing more (that is why we have A class and FA above it, while perfection is obviously not expected or req’d there either). In the end Wikipedia is the product of an imperfect compromise between user generated content and necessary measures for quality control. Attempting to impose doctoral level research standards on a subset of our articles will result in driving away otherwise valuable contributors (volunteers like the rest of us) due to the atmosphere it will create, and may—at its extension—ultimately end in the failure of the project (see what happened to Citizendium for instance, which requires contributions to be peer reviewed by “topic experts”). Of cse I do see the value in scrutiny and occasional review of our content, but I’d prefer to see it being done with the aim of improving articles through fixing problems, rather than simply delisting them. That said I have no knowledge of these subjects, and no interest, and cannot offer any assistance in fixing them either so at best I offer my opinion as a bystander (and a hypocritical one at that). For that reason I don’t feel qualified to make an assessment of whether this particular article should be kept as a GA, or delisted, so will leave that up to others to decide. TLDR? Yes, sorry about that. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I've had an article go through GA and one the reviewers' comments was: ""Good articles should exemplify some of our best work", so I don't see how this requirement is excessive or should be reserved for FA articles only. "Our job is simply to tell people what other people have written" is not how I interpret WP:RS, which states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". In this case, many sources are "published" but it has not been sufficiently demonstrated what makes them reliable.

Publishers are part of the source evaluation, and both VDM Nickel and Merriam Press fall under WP:QS. The burden is generally on those who would like to use a source to demonstrate that it is reliable, but here's a few passages from The Myth of the Eastern Front, discussing the "gurus" (Landwehr, Kurowski, etc):

• "In some cases, as their [gurus'] appeal grows they graduate up the scale of publishing importance from self-publishing to the myriad small presses, such as Schiffer, Bibiophile Legion Books, Merriam Press; to the top, particularly to the Fedorowicz publishing house. (...) To be published through Fedoroticz is to have arrived". "Merriam Press later published the Siegrunen monographs of Richard Landwehr".

References

(Fedorwicz has a very poor reputation on Wikipedia as a source, and Merriam Press is one step below it).

On a general note, how does what I've written contradict the GA and WP:RS requirements? K.e.coffman (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

GA articles should represent quality, I agree, but the standard is not meant to be pitched at FA level. For instance, Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not: "The standards for GAs are fairly high, but noticeably lower than the Featured article criteria." The level of scrutiny that is being applied here is beyond that which I have seen at GA. Beyond that, I've provided my opinion. While I agree with many of your concerns, I disagree with others. I remain concerned that you are falling into the trap of holding these and similar articles to a standard that is potentially too harsh. Nevertheless, I agree with you that in its current form it is not a GA; I disagree with you, though, about what needs to be done to bring it back up to GA. Anyway, that's my opinion and I do not intend to comment further for concern that this will just keep dragging on. The worst that can happen here is for the debate to continue without a resolution like the Strachwitz review. Hopefully some other editors will come to the review and offer an opinion so it can be closed one way or another and we can move on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have not found anything in WP:SCHOLARSHIP that would warrant the conclusion, that RS are only produced by "academics". The whole section is about review of various kinds, i.e., other people, who can be considered qualified to do so, tell you whether a source is reliable or not by reviews and the like. If a source is considered to be reliable it should be easy to substantiate that with some references. You could easily show, for example, that Hooton is a respected author in the field. As such he is mentioned in a Reader's Guide to Military History by Charles Messenger and his claims are discussed by a historian like Philip Sabin. But does Hooton deal with Joachim Helbig at all? Without checking the credentials of Shores/Cull, what do they have to say about Helbig? He is not listed in their detailed index. Publishers like VDM Nickel do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Yet, as it is practiced here, the burden of proof is routinely reversed. That is not only unfair, but becomes an impossibility, the less attention a source has generated. The job is not simply to tell people what every other person has written, but to give an accurate account of the mainstream view. By accepting all of these sources just because they have been written, you give a wrong impression as to what military historiography is about and accept information with dubious credibility. Yes, this kind of literature can be proven wrong on certain issues with the help of other sources, but would anyone accept my word and my primary research for it? I doubt it. In some respects Wikipedia sets higher standards than a PhD., because you don't deal with primary source and you cannot maintain your own POV. Thus it is even more important to carefully assess the sources . After all, there is not much difference between GA and FA criteria and an AfD discussion. It all boils down to the question of how we deal with these sources. Notability would be maintained on the basis of the very same sources upon which some want to keep it as a GA and you just might as well nominate it for FA status and let others try to show that these sources are not high-quality. But maybe these general issues should be discussed elsewhere with more input from other users.--Assayer (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I reviewed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Joachim Helbig, where the nominator was asked to use the history of LG 1 by Peter Taghon. That work is held by only a few German libraries. It is still in print, but quite expensive. I find it strange when it is argued that the bar should not be set "artificially high" in terms of evaluation of literature and sources, so that Wikipedia remains "accessible to the average person", while it seems self-evident that literature is being used and asked for that I would consider literally inaccessible, because it is rare and hard to get. Talking about Taghon's book, it is designed to be a chronicle and documentation, based upon memoirs and documents of veterans.--Assayer (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the situation you refer to about Taghon, so I can't really comment on that, although I agree that it sounds problematic; however, I will clarify my concern. It is regarding your statement: "I consider none of the literature used for this article as being up to the standards set forth in WP:SCHOLARSHIP." Leaving aside the point about whether they cover this topic specifically (because I cannot comment on that), works like Weal, Shores and Cull, etc. seem very much like mainstream works, and as such the types of books that the average person wishing to contribute to Wikipedia might cite. Thus it creates a dangerous precedent to set down a blanket statement that such sources are not RS without providing evidence of that as it leads to precedents being misunderstood, which will potentially be applied elsewhere and result in new editors being given the wrong impression and most likely scared away. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Rupert, and to an extent, AnotherClown. It appears to me that this is a part of a wider campaign to destroy articles like this: particularly K.e.Coffman who frequently makes large deletions to articles without discussion. It appears the strategy here is to set the threshold of reliable sources so absurdly high that anything added to this article, regardless of the author or his publisher, can be regarded as non reliable. I see Hooton is now also under attack and for no good reason. Hooton is an expert on the operations of the Luftwaffe. The wing and group this man led belonged to that organisation. By default he can be considered reliable, after all Hooton is intimately familiar with the way the Luftwaffe worked. Many claims can be cross-referenced with other combatants loss records, particularly the British and Americans and Hooton has also done work in this field. He doesn't need to be familiar with the personal life or career of Helbig. The same for Shores and Cull. Dapi89 (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

For matters of clarification: I might have been mistaken and overly harsh in generalizing that none of the literature used for this article meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I would maintain, however, that the bulk of specific references is to sources that are not up to that standard and I do not know any sources to substitute those. That someone could perceive it to be "an attack" when I call someone like Hooton "a respected author in the field" was beyond my imagination.--Assayer (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe that editor Dapi may be referring in part to this edit (diff), which reverted my good faith attempt to reduce the amount of intricate and inconsequential detail, including, for example, the registration number of the subject's car ( "AWW 44-3425") and GPS coordinates of where the traffic accident occurred (44°42′04″N 0°42′20″W), and many more. I believe my edit was following the "summary style" approach and was an improvement, but for another discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not posted a comment here as I don't write on Luftwaffe personnel. From a quick view of the article it seems that it could use a little copy edit work on words used; I don't know the sources used, so I will be judge them. As for RS standards for GA, mainstream works are allowed (as they should be; as long as not pov pushers or fringe or blatantly not RS) but certainly the bar should not be only those produced by "academics". There has to be balance here; this article is for general readers and this project is voluntary and frankly many publishers are a mixed bag when it comes to books they publish on a subject such as World War II and Nazi Germany. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's been argued that only academic sources are allowed; for example, I said above "mainstream or academic authors". The problem with the article as it stands, even after recent improvements, is that the majority of citations are not to the mainstream sources. By looking at the current article, I see 20 citations to Berger, Taghon, Schumann, Miller and Stockert combined, vs 5 citations to Weal, Hooton, MacLean and Shores, with the latter being mostly about the unit overall or other events, rather than the subject himself. For example:

• In June 1942, British commandos targeted Helbig's unit at their base in Heraklion, and succeeded in blowing up seven Ju 88s.
• The small passenger liner SS Ellenis of 876 GRT, carrying 278 wounded, was sunk on 20 April in Patras and SS Ioanna of 1,192 GRT was sunk on 21 April in the same harbour.

References

I don't see the mainstream authors covering the subject of "Joachim Helbig" directly and in detail, or am I missing something? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not wrapping up

Still up to your habit of slandering material you haven't personally examined or even dug into the author's background, eh? I told you that I owned a copy of Taghon and that it was RS by every stretch of the imagination, yet you still persist in claiming that it's not RS, presumably because it was published by VDM Nickel. If you don't believe my assessment that it isn't RS how am I to take your assessment of all the books that you believe to be non-RS that I haven't read? You know a bit about the various KC books, but know very little about Luftwaffe books, and don't appear to realize that. I know very little about KC books and am willing to defer to your opinion on those books that I haven't read, but you are apparently not willing to do the same. If you'd done even a modicum of research you could have found out that Peter Taghon is an author who several books on WW2 history in Dutch, French and German with a variety of publishing houses. I'll even include here the Worldcat to his bibliography for your edification.

And I'll reiterate my previous comments and echo most of the previous commenters that you're setting the bar too high in judging what's RS. Academic authors don't generally write about such specialized topics as aviator biographies, individual ouvrages of the Maginot Line and ships, forex; no, they write about more general aspects of the subjects like organizational histories, place in the culture of the country and general shipbuilding programs. The detailed and technical stuff is generally left to non-academics who are interested enough in the topic to invest years, and often, their own money, to research their topics. Some of their work isn't worth the paper it's printed on, but much is worthwhile, but they need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. I also find your attitude rather insulting to non-academic authors like Barbara Tuchman and Martin Middlebrook who have done superb work without the resources of a university and are often far less prone to academic fads. Middlebrook was a English poultry farmer, for Christsakes, who interviewed survivors of the first day of the Battle of the Somme, a resource almost totally ignored by academic historians, and almost single-handedly overturned the reigning paradigm of WWI studies and revitalized that field. But you would deny somebody like him any mastery over his topic just because he lacks academic standing.

Mainstream means not fringe, like conspiracy theorists or UFO cultists; I dunno what definition you're using. I'll grant you that there's definitely a pro-Nazi fringe out there, and a general purge of Kurowski from biographical articles is definitely in order under that rubric, but I'm not at all sure that I agree with you about the other authors that you deem non-RS because you've shown me that you are biased on this topic by your persistence in naming authors like Taghon non-RS. I've been very clear in stating that I derive my judgements from examining the works themselves, but it seems that you are very quick to pronounce judgement without taking the time to fully examine the evidence. I think that you would do well to do the same thing to avoid unjustly tarring authors as unreliable when that's not the case. You also might want to examine the possibility that some of your own sources like Smelser might be biased themselves. Just because they're academics doesn't make them immune to bias.

I'm both pleased and dismayed that you've finally started editing the article in accordance with your standards, however much I might disagree with them. Pleased in that you're finally actually doing some of the work as opposed to just sniping from the sidelines and dismayed in that you've cut out a lot of material that I deem both relevant and pertinent. You seem to have a very narrow view of what's appropriate for a article where length is not a concern as I've commented before. Personally, I consider most incidents that happen to a unit relevant to a biography of that unit's commander as he's in command and responsible. Now I have to go back in and restore all that and I'm honestly not looking forward to the task as I'd rather be working on South African frigates and the like for the Africa De-stubathon. But you're welcome to come and examine my sources for any pro-apartheid biases!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If there are concerns about Smelser, then here's a page for more information: Ronald Smelser, as well as The Myth of the Eastern Front, which offers multiple reviews of the book. Have RS evaluated Taghon's work in a similar fashion? Are there reviews of the book that we could look at? So far we only have one editor's opinions that it's RS which I do not find sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Taghon's probably only been reviewed in German-language aviation history magazines and possibly on English-language fora that I'm sure that you'd find insufficiently academically rigorous. But, again, you don't seem to grasp that, in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS; it needs to be deemed non-RS by an authoritative source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the last round of opinion-driven deletions. Dapi89 (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me if I question the rationale behind this revert diff, as it comes form the editor who strenuously objected, across multiple fora, to the removal of Kurowski from the Otto Kittel page -- hence the 30,000-word Franz Kurowski article and the subsequent GAR. That article was delisted, with dubious content purged. (Here's the Kittel article prior to recent changes). So whose "opinions" are at play here is a matter of some debate.

The article is currently failing criterion #4: "It is not stable due to edit warring on the page" and should be delisted. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

We're not going to have a drawn-out debate about what is, and what isn't, an opinion or who is giving them. The facts speak for themselves. Citing someone else's work is not an opinion. Removing them on the grounds of intricate detail and accusing them of bias, is.

If you'd like to cast your mind back, I'd asked you repeatedly to show sources on where, how and why Kurowski was unreliable on Kittel. You prevaricated for quite some time, and still haven't shown any direct evidence. I also find your comments on Hooton and Weal disturbing, and I would repeat the comments from Sturmvogel 66. Needless to say, Kittel will be revisited and your apparent desire to reduce that article to a few lines will be undone. The same goes for this article.

Further, I'm getting tired of the misleading edit summaries you leave on articles directing editors to check a discussion which you say gives you carte blanche to undertake deletions on an enormous scale. I come to them to find no such agreement was ever made. Opinions indeed! Dapi89 (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you also seriously suggesting this article should be delisted on the grounds there is an apparent edit war, which you started!? You will really try anything and everything to get this article taken down won't you. Dapi89 (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't rolled most of coffman's edits back as I wanted to keep the ones that were worthwhile. Oh, well, I'll work my way through it, once I get back from the Library of Congress on Monday to see what really happened on 15 August since I don't have Bergstrom to hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• "I'd asked you repeatedly to show sources on where, how and why Kurowski was unreliable on Kittel" -- right, because it's not a completely impossible thing to do. Kurowski wrote over 400 books, including on such obscure subjects as Kittel, so it seems highly improbable that there would be another source that would discuss Kurowski's coverage of Kittel, right? Several editors attempted to clarify:

• "Sorry, that's not how it works. A source is not considered reliable by default and only becomes unreliable with respect to particular statements explicitly refuted by other sources. On the contrary, the onus to show reliability is on whoever proposes the source. In this case, the source has been seriously criticised, so we would need a very strong argument indeed to accept it."

The response was "No Stephan, no. A clear lack of understanding."

I would be curious to know if editor Dapi considers Kurowski a reliable source at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The misleading edit summaries continue. If Sturmvogel wants to specify what he wishes to keep then I have no issue with that. But Coffeman shouldn't assume it was the deletion of reliable sources. And if it is, then I've got a problem with it. I also have a problem with you attacking Bergstrom and attaching weasel word tags to his statements. Once again you're targeting good sources without justification.

Your response is evasive as usual. If you had evidence that Kurowski is unreliable on Kittel (and it IS just about Kittel) then you would have presented it. You haven't. Simple as that. These 400 books have nothing to do with the subject. And no, you claim he's unreliable, you prove it. He's innocent until proven otherwise. Do you understand? Else it is nothing more than your opinion. That's how it works. It's laughable to suggest otherwise Dapi89 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I took the question whether Taghon is a RS to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Additional input sought for a GAR re sources. As to former Nazi propaganda writer, youth literature and Landser-pulp author Kurowski, I do not think that this merits further discussion.--Assayer (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I've left some comments there. I'm not convinced why you're asking for opinions when there is no cause for it. If Taghon was unreliable, I'm certain we would have seen the critic's source already.

As for Kurwoski, the fact remains. Incidentally, the information on Kittel can be sourced from others. But of course, no matter who by or when, I'm sure Coffeman will object, as he has done to Austrian and German Archive–assessed sources. Dapi89 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Since we are still on the topic of Kurowski, I would be curious to know if editor Dapi considers him to have been a reliable source for the Kittel article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

None of the information given by Kurowski has been contradicted or proven false by other sources or you. I've collected information from a whole host of other sources that make your opinions on him (and mine) redundant. Dapi89 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

So it's a "Yes" then? And this version of the article Dec 2015 was built on reliable sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You read the above, I assume you did so properly. It can be restored to that condition with other verifiable sources. Dapi89 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This whole thing is of a piece with an ongoing campaign by coffmann (with a supporting role by Assayer), to remove all sources they don't deem worthy from a large number of articles, using a ridiculously high bar, and never ever refusing to drop the stick regardless of the feedback they get from experienced editors. I'm frankly sick to death of it, and from the comments above, I'm clearly not on my own. It is wasting a lot of people's time that could be spent writing articles, and is detracting from the enjoyment of the volunteer editors who actually contribute to this encyclopaedia. What possible harm could come from using some of these sources for the bare facts they are being used to support? There isn't anything pro-Nazi being added to the articles by using these sources, even if koffmann's claims about the publishers were proven. The whole pattern of behaviour is tendentious, especially with the parallel discussions at RSN (which also go nowhere), and the complete lack of acceptance by coffmann that community norms rule on WP, not his personal views. Sooner or later, someone is going to look at this campaign in detail and report it at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Summing up

Summing up for any potential closer:

• 1 editor (the nominator -- myself) iVoted for delisting: K.e.coffman
• 3 editors mentioned delisting, although without submitting a formal iVote: Assayer; Roches; CCCVCCCC
• 1 editor mentioned that the article is currently not at GAR, but could possibly be brought up back to the GAR level: AustralianRupert (quote: "I agree with you that in its current form it is not a GA; I disagree with you, though, about what needs to be done to bring it back up to GA.")
• 8 editors commented on the discussion without expressing an opinion as to keeping / delistings: Sturmvogel, Kierzek, DeadMary, Auntieruth55, ÄDA - DÄP VA, Peacemaker67, Ian Rose, Anotherclown
• 1 editor advocated keeping the article as GA, although without submitting an iVote: Dapi89.

I think I captured everything. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments by Shearonink

I am going to deal with a completely different matter entirely than what all has been mentioned above - the sourcing/phraseology/possible POV etc It concerns me that the article does such an incredible leap in time in the 1943–45 career section. In one sentence he's surrendering to the Allies in 1945, in the next one he's working post-war in an unnamed civilian profession and in the last sentence he's dying 40 years later...
What?
What did he do in the intervening years? This is a WP:BIO, it should tell the story of the man's entire life. So where are the details about those 4 decades? Even Bergstrom's Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict... mentions that he was the director of a brewery and also the name of the brewery. It's one of the largest breweries in Germany, I don't understand why his employment there isn't mentioned in the article. Shearonink (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: G'day, this is certainly a fair point, IMO. Do you have page numbers and the name of the brewery? In my opinion, this would be a fair addition to the article, but I do not have access to the source, otherwise I'd add it myself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have taken a look through the article history and see that some of this information (about the brewery) was actually removed from the article awhile ago: [11] I think it might have been removed due to concerns about the sourcing of the information. Anyway, I found a Google snippet view of Bergstrom p. 127, so I've added this to the article. This is my edit: [12]. That is probably all I can do, to help in this regard, though, sorry. I wonder if potentially the header "1943–45 career" shouldn't be changed. Potentially "Later military career and post war life"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Yeah, if it is mentioned in the lead, then it should be given some more details in the main text. Helbig was the director of the Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss-Brauerei brewery, one of the largest in Germany. This is mentioned on Page 127 of Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited by Christer Bergstrom ("became director of the Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss brewery") and on Page 41 of Luftwaffe Aces: German Combat Pilots of World War II by Franz Kurowski ("manager of a well0known brewery in Berlin"). The German WP has an article on Helbig, in it is an unsourced statement that Helbig "...On 9 June 1945, Helbig fled and hid himself unrecognized in West Germany for years. Later, he was managing director of Schultheiss brewery in Berlin (West)." Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it is probably best not to reference Kurowski for this information in the article, given that this source has been the subject of earlier concerns in the review and elsewhere. I believe Bergstrom is probably ok for this information, but I will leave that to the other reviewers to comment. Some of the issues surrounding the lack of information about the remaining 40 years of the subject's life may stem from concerns about the sources that actually mention this information. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am somewhat aware of the issues that people have with Kurowski, but the man lived for 40 years after the war...somehow. But if the information doesn't appear in references, then oh well. Shearonink (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss-Brauerei was formed as late as 2006, when Berliner Kindl teamed up with Schultheiss. Before that there was Schultheiss and, after a merger in 1972, the Dortmunder Union-Schultheiss Brauerei AG, renamed in 1988 to Brau und Brunnen. Schultheiss always remained a brand brewed in Berlin.--Assayer (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Assayer: G'day, would you suggest just saying "Schultheiss" and piping it to Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss-Brauerei? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's how it's been done in the German Wikipedia. Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss-Brauerei is certainly anachronistic. Besided, it seems as if Helbig was managing the brewery plant in Berlin, and not the whole Schultheiss brewery business. Another question is, if there are really some valuable information to be gained by linking to that article, and if not a simple "brewery" would do.--Assayer (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. @Shearonink:: what are your thoughts on this approach? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I made the following change: [13]. Please feel free to adjust if you think it needs further work. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing

I am closing these old GARs and I shudder when I look at this one. I am hoping all the participants here can come to a consensus as to whether in its current state (this version) the article meets the good article criteria. It has been open long enough (with three months since the last comment) and there is plenty of advice above about what does or does not need fixing, so I am hoping for a simple Keep or Delist. @K.e.coffman, AustralianRupert, Dapi89, Assayer, Sturmvogel 66, Auntieruth55, ÄDA - DÄP, Shearonink, Kierzek, Anotherclown, Dead Mary, Ian Rose, Carbrera, Peacemaker67, BlueMoonset, MisterBee1966, Roches, and CCCVCCCC:

@K.e.coffman, AustralianRupert, Dapi89, Assayer, Sturmvogel 66, Auntieruth55, ÄDA - DÄP, Shearonink, Kierzek, Anotherclown, Dead Mary, Ian Rose, Carbrera, Peacemaker67, BlueMoonset, MisterBee1966, Roches, and CCCVCCCC: AIRcorn (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delist -- the concerns about the article have not been sufficiently rectified; pls see a recent 3rd party comment (March 2017) re a disputed "Unreliable sources" tag: "This does put them [the source], at best, at the low end of usability. At worst they are not reliable at all. The tag still appears reasonable." [14] /via Richard Keatinge. Given the insufficient RS, I don't believe its possible to build an NPOV bio of the subject to a GA level. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Al-Shorta SC

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

Result: Revoked. Original GA was determined to have been by a sockpuppet, so GA listing was revoked; closing this well after the fact. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The article was first nominated for GA status here on January 10, 2017 by Hashim-afc, the nomination was subsequently removed by Hashim-afc here on the January 27, 2017, and then the article was renominated by Hashim-afc here on March 24, 2017. A GA review for the article was started here on March 24, 2017 at 05:48 (UTC+9) by Yakaba99, an account which was only created two miniutes before on March 24, 2017 at 05:48 (UTC+9). The second edit made anywhere on Wikiepdia by Yakaba99 was to start a GA article review. Not only does this seem suspicious both timing and account wise, it also seems questionable that an editor with no history of any editing of Wikipedia articles is the best person to review an article for GA status. Moreover, it seems unlikely that a GA of an article could be properly completed by such an editor in a single day.

As for specifics about the article, in Talk:Al-Shorta SC#Conclusion, Yakaba99 states that The images are all relevant and have suitable captions as well as fair use rationales where appropriate.. However, assessing non-free image use is complicated even for experienced editors and, as I posted at here, there are specific concerns with the way some of the non-free images are being used in the article. These are things that a new editor would probably not be very familiar with, so perhaps require further discusion. It's possible that if the non-free images whose use is questionable are simply removed, then the article would still qualify for GA. However, I think it would be better for more experienced GA reviewers to asses the article and make that determination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Marchjuly (talk · contribs). The first thing I would like to say is that I did not create an account 2 minutes before I started the review. I created a user page two minutes before I started the review so that people who saw the review could know more about me as this was my first edit. I am a massive football fan and have been reading Wikipedia for years and know a lot about it (I have made many IP edits) and now I want to get involved in helping improve football articles so I created an account. I knew about good articles from reading about them before and I decided to review Al-Shorta SC as this is about a football club, and GA article reviews always lead to pages being improved. I am also going to review the India national football team article soon, which was nominated to be a good article a few days ago, and am hoping to review a lot more football-related articles as I want to improve them. I have read a lot of good article reviews in the past so I know how to do them effectively. A lot of the GA reviews I came across are completed in one or two days; if you have a lot of free time on your hands this really isn't difficult! I can promise that I am not a sock-puppet of User:Hashim-afc and I did my best to give an honest review and pointed out a lot of issues in the article to improve. I also pointed out that I wasn't sure that the use of non-free logos in this article was correct, but in truth I forgot about it the day after which I take responsibility for. I still believe the article would qualify to be a GA article if these non-free logos were removed as they are not essential to the article. But I am absolutely fine if you want a more experienced editor to make the assessment, it makes sense. While I may be a new user in that I only created an account recently, I have been editing Wikipedia as an IP for a long time and am familiar with a lot of Wikipedia policies. Yakaba99 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Legion (season 1)

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this article meets criteria 1A. Some articles have been passed recently, and members of GOCE have been trying to copyedit them post-review to help them meet 1A. However, my attempts to copyedit on this article have been reverted, based on a Wikipedia article as a grammar reference. I used grammar references when making the copyedit, Grammarly' rules for semi-colons clearly say the conjuction should be deleted. I was asked to discuss it on talk, but I've decided to nominate it for reassessment. I don't want to become involved in any disputes about the article, I am just a copy editor and GA reviewer. In my opinion the article does not meet the 1a criteria, it should not have been passed with grammar errors, and I don't think it quite meets the "Well-written" criteria yet. Though it is close, I do think it needs a copyedit or a more thorough review then the one it received to pass 1a. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Arguing over semicolons and parsing rules about commas versus semicolons, while simultaneously jeopardizing article stability themselves in the process [15] [16], seems like a disruptive waste of the community's time and patience with a spurious request. Sagecandor (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the editor who passed the review should obviously allow other editors an opportunity to comment, I am opting to discuss with the editor who initiated discussion on my talk page, because it's not his fault that the GA review was not done thoroughly. So, withdrawn for now but I will say this much, part of being a GA reviewer is close-reading and noticing things like where the editor missed commas, so you can fix those errors before passing an article, This article does have some missing commas, and may have other simple errors or typos, but I am looking at it closely now and discussing it with the editor (something which should have happened in the original GA review.)Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"simple errors or typos" = not a reason to waste the community's time and patience with this process at this page. Sagecandor (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Simple errors and typos are not the issue, and I appreciate BlueMoonset's advice on this. I filed this too hastily, and I'm going to need to take some time to think about. After a long discussion last night, I don't think the lede is where it needs to be. The editor seems to have lost all interest in working on improving the article after I withdrew the GAR. But I will give it some time. Semicolons are not simple punctuation error—they are a catastrosphe when they are used irresponsibly. Every piece of grammar advice I have seen on this says semi-colons are useful, but they must be used with extreme care, judiciously—and with good judgment. I am going to take some time away from the article and read it again in a few months. As it is, there are numerous very long winded complex sentences that are connected by semi-colons. On my first read through, this made the article nearly incomprehensible to me. This seems to be a consensus in the literary world/grammar sources, so I am surprised to find myself so highly criticized here for asking that we think of our reader's when writing, even though it may take a little extra effort on our parts to do so. Either way, I will take a long break from this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Baby I

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

Result: Listing undone. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Article was reviewed by a now confirmed and indeffed sock account of MaranoFan. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delist. Some sources are unrelibale, some formatation of sources is not well done. The live performances topic is too thin it should have been expanded. The user is a sock puppet. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I am closing this. The original listing has been reverted after the SPI editor who confirmed the sockpuppeting deleted the original GA review page. As there is no GA review extant, the listing based on it cannot stand, so the listing has been undone, and the original GA nomination restored with no loss of seniority. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Counter Logic Gaming

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

Result: Delisted Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I came across several maintenance templates on this article just now, and would like for someone to further assess the matter. A good article cannot have these templates. Cognissonance (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Primary or unreliable sources up the wazoo. This is an easy delist. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delist: At no point should this article have been promoted. Pardon my soapbox, but we need higher standards than this, especially for the subject of esports. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy Delist - Echoing others this shouldn't have been promoted. There are too many issues with this article and I believe this should be immediately demoted. GamerPro64 01:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• I agree it should be delisted. Requesting that an uninvolved editor close the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. –Cognissonance (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Luis Muñoz Marín

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

Result: Very valid concerns have been raised here, especially regarding sourcing, and since no action has been taken to correct them, I will delist this.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I am asking for a community reassessment of this page as I believe it no longer meets the criteria for a GA. Large chunks of this article lack sources, and much of the rest of it is based on a single source, which is a little problematic. There are also issues with neutrality, which are connected to the sourcing issue (since much of the puffery is unsourced) but some of the language would be a problem even with sources. I'd delist it myself, except this is my first time participating in the GAR process, so I thought I'd take it slow. Vanamonde (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore

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

Result: Legitimate concerns. Closing as delisted DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• 8 dead links  Done
  
• Unreliable references: IMDb, Daily Mail  Done
  
• Ref #28 isn't complete
• Ref #36 isn't complete
• Works and print publications should be italicized, publishers should not  Done
  
• Works and publishers should only be wikilinked once Not done

Hmm, not sure if this is a hard and fast rule esp. for sources that cite page numbers. I did shorten each subsequent mention of what I think this was refering to though, the 2015 autobiography.--A21sauce (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the Daily Mail and dead link issue, at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed overcite issue, took out IMDB link, italicization issue wasn't there. A21sauce (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Nissan Leaf

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

Result: This article no longer meets good article status on the grounds that it is too long and contains numerous issues with poor sourcing.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Article has grown far too large

• The current version of this article has grown to 17,522 words (readable prose, excluding infoboxes, captions, etc). The version that was assessed as GA back in 2010 was only 5,062 words. There is no hard and fast rule, but Wikipedia:Article size says that when an article reaches 50kb readable prose, it's about time to consider splitting or pruning. This beast has grown to more than double that, 104kb.

Note that article size is not a GA criterion, but an excessively large artilce can have problems with criteria 1 Well written (prose is clear and concise, complies with MOS), 3b (staying focused) and 4 Neutrality, giving due weight. The obvious issues here are poor organization, such as the battery discussion in multiple places, and excessive detail. There is a great deal of consumer guide style analysis of costs that is not likely to belong in an encyclopedia. None of the FAs about cars are anywhere near this large, but are in the 6k to 7k word range. Many GAs about cars are only 2,000-3,000 words, and none of them exceed 7,000 words. Holden Commodore is the longest one, a car made for almost 40 years, and it's only 6,800 words.

I have to ask again: Why is this article so long? What is special about this topic? The Mitsubishi i-MiEV electric car is only 6,600 words. What's the reason? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Partial list of other issues

This article would fail GA based on its size alone. It doesn't make sense to asses the problems in all 17,522 words since the GA version of this article would have closer to 5,000 words. Once it's down to a reasonable size, then a detailed assessment would be worthwhile. Here is a partial list of some of the issues with the current version, just to get a sense of how much work needs to be done to get this back to GA quality:

• Grammar and punctuation errors:
  • "With the 24 kWh electric vehicle battery (total capacity; usable battery capacity is about 21.3 kWh[34][35]) it consists of 48 modules and each module contains four battery cells, a total of 192 cells, and is assembled by Automotive Energy Supply Corporation (AESC) – a joint venture between Nissan, NEC and NEC Energy Devices, at Zama, Japan"
  • "Nissan stated in 2015 that until then only 0.01 percent of batteries, produced since 2010, had to be replaced because of failures or problems and then only because of externally inflicted damage."
  • "(In the United States models, only comes with SL trim.[49])"
• Repetitive reference to 10 year life span "The battery pack is expected to retain 70–80% of its capacity after 10 years but its actual lifespan depends on how often DC fast charging (480 volts DC) is used and also on driving patterns and environmental factors.[33][41] Nissan said the battery will lose capacity gradually over time but it expects a lifespan of over 10 years under normal use". "Is expected to last 10 years" and "Nissan expects a lifespan of over 10 years". Which is it?
• Overlinking United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency, battery pack, model year, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom
• Promotional language:
  • "Some vehicles have already covered more than 200,000 km (120,000 miles) with no battery problems" The fact that some exceed the expected average is normal; that's where averages come from.
  • Most of the paragraph on battery life is sourced to Nissan's claims rather than independent sources.
  • A list of bullet points devoted to Nissan's advice for battery maintenance
  • Buried at the end of the section, only two sentences spent on evidence that the batteries are not quite as good as initially claimed. This should be rewritten giving more prominent placement to contrary views, and most of the content should come from the assessment of independent experts, not Nissan's claims.
  • Wikipedia's voice argues against the critics of the battery: "Nissan reported that in Europe only 3 of 35,000 Leaf batteries had failed."
  • Costs of battery pack are given. WP:NOPRICES requires reasons why we are including street prices, such as comparison with similar products and reasons why these prices are of special interest. Same goes for prices of battery replacement program.
  • Also contains a list of prices by country, again without justification per WP:NOPRICES.
  • Further down, a section on battery issues is forked off from the main battery section. It cites crowdsourced information. Why do we introduce the topic of battery failure in the first battery section, and don't mention that this is incomplete, and that we are going to revisit it in depth later? Wouldn't it make more sense to consolidate everything about the batteries under one heading, so that the positive claims can be set directly against the negative criticisms, and the defenses of the criticisms? Forking different points of view from one another is poor style, and not considered neutral.
• WP:WEASEL, WP:EDITORIAL, WP:ALLEGED: "It is notable...", "actually", "claimed", "However" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• comment I've split off the market/sales section into a different article. It's messed up the refs in both places, but the referencing bot should hopefully sort that out soon. The length is down to just over 50k readable prose now.GliderMaven (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good start, but it's hard to believe that you could take a 17,500 words article, and quickly chop off 8,000 words from a single section, and have the result still be a Good Article, if it was to begin with. The basic questions are: why are some sections of this article so incredibly long? The development section is a brief two paragraphs, then the Specifications section runs to over 5,000 words, although I think that's a mistake. There's sub sections on range for each iteration, and a sections on operating cost, Total cost of ownership, payback time etc, that don't belong under Specifications. It hasn't been thought out at all. Why don't any other car articles break the fuel economy section down into 3 sub-sections on operating cost, total cost of ownership, and payback time?

  I'll note again that large swaths of this excessive detail only cite Nissan as the source. No article should devote so much space to paraphrasing product press releases. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Further notes

• Development history
  • Run on sentence "Nissan also developed the Nissan Hypermini, ran a demonstration program and sold limited numbers for government and corporate fleets in Japan between 1999 and 2001"
  • Very long and confusing sentence. Which one included an 80 kW electric motor? Does the US EPA have a "driving cycle, navigation system, and remote control and monitoring via a cellphone"? Or does the car (is it the EV-11 or the Tilda?) have an 80 kw motor, 24kw battery, a navigation system, remote control, and monitoring? "Unveiled in 2009, the EV-11 prototype electric car was based on the Nissan Tiida (Versa in North America), but with the conventional gasoline engine replaced with an all-electric drivetrain, and included an 80 kW (110 hp)/280 N·m (210 lb·ft) electric motor, 24 kWh lithium-ion battery pack rated to have a range of 175 km (109 miles) on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's LA-4 or "city" driving cycle, navigation system, and remote control and monitoring via a cellphone connection through Nissan's secure data center to the car'"
  • The source here is described as "Abuelsamid, Sam (2009-07-27). "Nissan shows off new Versa-based electric vehicle prototype". In fact, it is simply a copy of a Nissan press release [17].
  • "Goodwin, Antuan (2009-04-02). "Test-driving the Nissan EV-02 electric car". cnet. Retrieved 2010-04-25." sounds like an objective review, but in fact none of the test drive is in this article. It's just another collection of statements from a Nissan marketing guy.
  • Two of the five different sources in this paragraph are press releases, though only one is marked correctly.
  • The Development section is too short, and lacking in substantive details, instead favoring a list of advertised features that Nissan chose to tout. What do independent experts say about the development history of this car? What about it's intended market niche? It's goals? Did Nissan want to profit off this car? Burnish it's green image? Develop new technology? Why did they develop it? Were there problems during development? Such a long article but it's lacking in important details.

• Battery replacement program
• this source (Blanco, Sebastian (2013-06-20). "Nissan Leaf battery replacement will cost $100/month, offers new pack at any time". AutoblogGreen) is a preliminary announcement of the program, which is short on the final details of how it would work. We devote a whole paragraph to the June 2013 version of this program, then add another paragraph that traces the development of it to the June 2014 version. How important is it to devote space to every detail of the program, including incremental versions of it?
• The Blanco source above does point out that the existence of battery replacement is a "change of heart from Nissan", an admission that their original lofty claims about their batteries were overoptimistic. Why was Nissan wrong about their batteries? How did it affect the business model of the Leaf? How did car owners feel about this? Did they think it was a bait and switch? This is a topic we should cover more here.
• We have a forked off "reported issues" section below that tackles all this in depth, but why do we leave the reader hanging with these questions? While a criticism type section is allowed, the essay WP:CSECTION makes a strong case that a better organization is to integrate the issues in context. So battery problems go with the battery section. Now we have broken chronology: 1) Nissan rolls out the car promising batteries that last 10+ years. 2)consumer complaints, controversy, lawsuits 3) battery replacement program 3.5) what was the reaction to that anyway? 4) class action settlement. Besides the reasons for integration in WP:CSECTION, simple chronology argues for telling the battery story once, in one place.
  • Since this article has a bloat problem, we also want to avoid redundancy when possible. When you have to tackle the battery in 3+ different sections, and you're telling the events out of order, you have to do some review to keep the reader up to speed. This article can't afford to waste space on review and repetition.
  • I expect this issue is going to come up again and again. Most components of this car are covered in the same way as the battery, out of order, and in multiple sections. So the need to consolidate applies everywhere, not just the battery. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's great that you are taking a detailed look at an old Good Article, but I think you're looking for the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. That is for reassessing articles that are currently listed as Good Articles but may not meet the criteria anymore. The nomination process is for evaluating articles which are not currently listed as Good Articles. Knope7 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not the least bit surprised that I have failed to follow your 1,000 bureaucratic rules to perfection. Pretty sure that's about par. The point is, this article hasn't been anywhere close to GA status for years. (And the editor most responsible for driving it away from GA status has reverted everybody else's edits on the grounds that it's a GA!)

But I can't just say, "Hey, GA people, fix this" because they will always say, "No, too busy." So I'm doing it myself. Obviously that doesn't meet whatever byzantine hoops are required, but I'm pretty sure the outcome is the same.

This thing needs to be delisted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving from GAN to GAR and listing as a community reassessment per discussion at User talk:Dennis Bratland. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments etc from others

Comment: The references are not in very good shape:

• The following references are dead or seem to be dead: #93, #83, #70, #66, #60, #69
• These can't be found: #30, #5, #65, #16
• These require registration/subscription: #116, #88
• This one can't be found: #6

So, not sure that GA Criteria 2A is being fulfilled in this case. Also...the SIZE of this article - it's insane! If you printed it out this article would come to 40 pages! I think it needs to heavily-edited and then what's left could possibly be split into sub-articles. Shearonink (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

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

Result: Kept. No support for nominator's assertion that the article fails the GA criteria, and no response from nom in more than two weeks. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The main issue here is that the article is not stable, which is a major GA requirement. While there is no actual edit warring, probably since the article falls under ARBPIA, the article has had hundreds if not thousands of edits since receiving GA, and there is talk page agreement that it's missing large amounts of information in both the Background and the Long-term impact sections. I think the article should be delisted until it stabilizes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The requesting editor has just added a neutrality tag (without contributing any useful edit himself) to a section of the article so as to support this reassessment request which otherwise would likely fail for lack of any good reason to suspend the listing. The claim that the article is missing large amounts of information is false. The editor is recommended to follow the Wikipedia article reassessment guidelines (reproduced here for ease of reference):-

Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:

   Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
   Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
   Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
   Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also disagree. The nominator's concern appears to be re WP:GA? number 5: "Stable". The footnote attached to that criteria says "... good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion". Since reaching GA status, the article has been undergoing a peer review over more than a year, including a GOCE Copy Edit, with considerable improvements being made, with the intention to reach WP:FA status.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those comments addresses the issue I have raised. This article has gone through substantial changes since being listed, not just copyediting or "changes based on reviewers' suggestions". It is likely to receive more substantial changes in the near future.

I hope some uninvolved editors will show up here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For ease of reference, here's a diff that contains all the changes to this article in the last 3 months [18]. Those are not just copyedits and this is not a stable article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - it is common, if not the norm, that GAs evolve a lot on their way to FA (which is the purpose here), due to the higher standards there. Articles are required to be stable before being GA nominated, not necessarily after, as long as the instability is leading to improvements. The next step here would simply be to improve the article further, which is already happening, until everyone is happy. But yes, this article should be stabilised before an eventual FA nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: this reassessment request seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Stability means for a Good Article. To quote from the GA criteria: Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. (Footnote adds: Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.) There appear to have been extensive revisions—good faith improvements, I'm guessing—but as the nominator points out, no edit warring. Without a major and extended edit war/content disagreement, there are no grounds for delisting that I can see. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the preceding comment. There has been no recent instability, so what is the complaint? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: It's not clear to me what "Good Article" status means. Does it refer to a point in time, or to the article itself? I would think the latter is much more consistent and coherent. Therefore, if an article has had major changes since its assessment, it should automatically be given a reassessment. I don't know how the GA process works, so I can't really say if this is common practice. But it seems sensible to me (modulo the effort required to actually assess the article). To that extent, I agree with NMMNG. However, do we really need a GA reassessment now, since other procedures (for FA) are already in the works? If the latter succeeds, the former is moot. Perhaps, just wait for the latter to be finished and then worry about the former. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)ç
• Comment: Good Article Status is defined at WP:Good article criteria. To propose a delist (which in addition assumes that a fix is not possible), it is enough to show that the criteria are not met. A large number of changes since listing does not by itself affect good article status per the criteria.Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: A majority of discussants at here and the article-talk-page agrees about problems with the current version of the article (esp. with the quality and reliability of the sources).Thus, weighing the arguments from the participants, there is a Consensus for a GA-delisting.Godric on Leave (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The majority of the sources used when it was made a good article were of very poor quality (please see discussion on article talk page.) The notability of the subject is questionable - WP:BLP1E may apply. Mostly, it hard fails the verifiability requirement of being a good article, and without the information included that was previously sourced poorly, the article'd be tiny and could hardly be considered to meet the 'broad coverage' requirement of being a good article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't followed this article for a while, but I see a talk page discussion on sources and content (and there is clear disagreement between editors), and a number of recent edits that haven't gained clear consensus on the talk page. I didn't have time to go through every edit, but I doubt that the current revision is any better than the version that passed GA. What is obvious is the number of sources removed from the article: this was without consensus as evident on the talk page. Something needs to be done to the article, and leaving it in its current state (with GA status stripped) is certainly not the best solution for readers. feminist 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

An article being "tiny" has never stopped an article from being high quality. If being tiny was grounds to remove an article from its current status then MissingNo. should be removed from Featured Article. The vagueness of the nominator's when it comes to the sourcing in general here is rather unprofessional as its lack of specifics prevents people from actually fixing the article to maintain its GA status. GamerPro64 14:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably other "tiny" articles have better sourcing than this one did. I don't know if some things have changed in the last three years, but a distressing number of the sources here are/were not reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

how did this article pass GA in the first place? several nonRS: campusreform, gameranx, cinemablend, gamesnosh ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't explain why Daily Dot and GamePoltics were also removed. The ones you mentioned besides campusreform, which I know nothing about, are unreliable on here. GamerPro64 17:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, again I have to ask how that passed GA originally, it's riddled with WP:CRYSTALBALL. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspect the article was incompletely or just not screened. Artw (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The GA assessement is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Fine_Young_Capitalists#GA_Review ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I would have to agree with PeterTheFourth there. Artw (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved with this GAR, but as the (second) GAN reviewer, I take issue with the idea that the version on December 3, 2015 was "riddled with WP:CRYSTALBALL" and therefore I didn't review it properly. The bit in the article I promoted said that TFC responded to criticism by "by offering to sell" t-shirts. That's not the same thing as "sold". The wording means that it was just an offer, not that it actually got sold. --PresN 17:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

per wp:crystalball "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."

1. The t-shirts didn't happen. Should not have been included.
2. "Later, TFYC reported a resolution to its disagreement with Quinn, though founder Matthew Rappard later stated their agreement never went through" That's reporting on something that didn't happen.
3. There was the part about SNless that I had to take out, because it didn't happen either.

Those are the crystalball problems.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

An interview (from a questionable RS, probably nonRS) was used to support these claims:

1. "most would go to charity," a crystalball and unverifiable via the interview
2. "TFYC reported a resolution" ignoring the crystalball part of it not having happened, this should not have been included because an interview from only one party can't be used to verify a resolution to an issue between two parties.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

All of those "events" were to take place in the past. The article correctly stated that they had been planned, but did not happen- i.e. that the plans were real, but did not move beyond plans. Crystalball is about future events, not past events that did not make it out of the planning stages. Had the article said "TFYC plans to release t-shirts", or "TFYC is going to release t-shirts", then you'd be correct in calling it crystalball, but it didn't. You are fundamentally misreading the guideline. Additionally, I'm not going to argue whether or not those sources are reliable, but to hold that for any agreement regarding multiple parties that you need sources from all the parties to include it is absolutely ridiculous. So, if a game developer gets a publishing deal with another company, we need statements from both companies? If there's a trade agreement between 15 countries, we'd better end the sentence with 15 citations? If a source is reliable, and a party claims that an agreement has been made, then at most you could insist on a wording that "X said they reached an agreement with Y" instead of "X made an agreement with Y", but even that is usually going to be pedantic; removing it altogether is just dumb. --PresN 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd recommend just deleting/redirecting this article if this is the way it's going to be reviewed. This was a flash-in-the-pan piece of gamergate fluff that got some press for being controversial but never went anywhere. If we're going to hold it to the standard that a) anything they said about themselves or their plans in interviews doesn't count, and b) any reporting done by pro-am sources that didn't exist long enough to make it on VG/RS doesn't count, then frankly there's like 2 paragraphs left. Maybe less; does an indiegogo campaign made by TFYC count as a reliable source for even itself? I mean, TFYC isn't a reliable source, apparently, about their own plans and intentions, so all we can source is that a campaign supposedly by them existed, which probably isn't enough to support an article. --PresN 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• "All of those "events" were to take place in the past." Per wp:crystalball: "Wikipedia does not predict the future", they should not have been included. Predictions that could be wrong should not be included. Looking back from 2017, it's clear that many of those predictions were wrong (or unverifiable); they should not have been included
• "anything they said about themselves or their plans in interviews doesn't count" Actually, certain self claims are ok, but Wikipedia is all about what is verifiable, and controversial claims that aren't verified should not have been included. Self-report of controversial claims need secondary sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• uncontroversial: "We call ourselves TFYC. We claim to be radical feminist" - can put that in from an interview.
• controversial: "We have settled a dispute with someone we were in conflict with." - cannot put that in without a secondary source
• needs verification: "We donated $x dollars to charity." - in this case, given that TFYC got mixed in with GG, this is could be controversial, and as a fact, it is not verified though a self-claim.

• "just deleting/redirecting this article" I deleted all the stuff that needed better sourcing (and reverted); there might still be an article left after that. But perhaps the decision on the RS to stew for at least a week. And then after that see what's left.
• "flash-in-the-pan" seeing as TFYC have gone in active, maybe that is reason to merge it in the GGC article.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: There's a book that mentions TFYC that might be worth using in the article. Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age. GamerPro64 02:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Thanks. I'll look into it. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OMG that's a lot to digest. I think a fair bit of that could be used, but I notice some problems but those can be dealt with, I think. But given how long I think it would take to integrate that source, and how weak some of the other sources are, I think removing the GA is the right thing to do for now. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not an expert on this article, but perhaps we should just revert the article back to the reviewed version considering that there's little new information and the state of the page has steadily regressed since then? Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Satellizer: Many of the issues (incredibly poor vetting of sources, crystal ball stuff) were present in the reviewed version. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Satellizer: The article should not have passed its last review. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone know if an uninvolved editor needs to delist this as a GA? Or can I do it? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been over a month since anyone weighed in here. The article as written is clearly not GA quality and it should be removed. ForbiddenRocky: I don't know what the protocol is here, but as no one is stepping up to the plate, I'd say go ahead and delist it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Easy call.Closing.Wait!Godric on Leave (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Metrolink (California)

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

Result: delist 07:16, 24 September 2017 Sportsguy17

Lots of cleanup tags can be seen throughout the article, including "Citation needed", "Clarification needed", and a multiple issues tag in one section. I'm not sure as to whether or not this article can be saved so I'm reaching out to the community to help me decide. Best, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The rolling stock section suffers from the usual railfan cruft; that's reason alone to delist it if that can't be addressed. Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mackensen: Since I'm not super familiar with WP:TRAINS besides a limited set of articles I've edited, can you explain what is and is not considered railfancruft vs. actual information that can be included (I'm going to take a stab it and you can tell me how good my assessment is)? I see stuff about where certain locomotives had previously been assigned or where they will be assigned after retirement, their usage, and when they were involved in accidents. Those all don't seem like necessary info. If I knew nothing about trains and read the article, I'd not only have absolutely no desire to remember that information but I also would get a bit lost from that. Now, other information such as upcoming retirements and new equipment orders that can be confirmed with reliable sources plus equipment written off from notable accidents seem like it should be included. Is that more or less correct or am I missing a piece? I'm just guessing based on GNG, but I'm also less familiar in the process of determining what is useful information vs. railfan cruft. Nonetheless, the rolling stock section is an enormous mess. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 14:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, all the stuff in the Notes section. It's unnecessary and unsourced; in many cases unsourceable. Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mackensen: Given your comment above and the fact that the nominator hasn't edited in 4+ years, is it okay for me to just outright delist it given the unlikelihood of the issues being resolved in a timely manner? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the comments above and the lack of response from the nom (4+ years of no editing), I'm delisting. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Nero

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

Result: Article problems have not been resolved. Discussion of such is dead in the water, and all have seemingly lost interest. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This article has degraded significantly since its Good Article selection and now is poorly written. It needs an extensive re-write by someone with experience of the topic and who can commit time to do this. Personally I don't think it is even close to meeting GA status at this time and minor changes will probably not fix this. Stingray Trainer (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stingray Trainer: I am doing a copy-edit but can you be more specific?Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: To start with the introduction reads like a long list of short statements/facts rather than a narrative overview of the article. There is duplication (e.g. murder of his mother is repeated) and the sentence structure leaves a lot to be desired. This is why I felt it needs to be done by someone with extension knowledge of Nero rather than myself. The rest of the article is in much better shape and mostly needs a tidy and minor improvements to bring it back up to a high standard. Stingray Trainer (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stringray Trainer: If I understand you correctly, you feel it should be re-assessed for failing 1b(lede) with minor copy editing? What about the excessive use of primary sources? I've tagged these in some places, intending to improve the sourcing when I've completed the read through. I think using Suetonius as a source, without secondary sources is a major problem (and the article is templated for it, so this should also be considered for GAR- wouldnt articles templated for sourcing issues usually be quick failed?) I agree with you that it does not currently meet GA criteria. I am not too familiar with the procedure though - would we have to remove it from GA and then renominate it, or could it be improved while this discussion is open? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Stingray Trainer, as nominator at GAR, it is your responsibility to notify the main contributors to the article (if any remain active) and also the various related WikiProjects (they are listed on the article talk page): see WP:GAR for the instructions on how this process works. Seraphim System, since this is a community reassessment, anyone who has taken part in the evaluation may not close it, and the article may not be delisted unless the consensus is to do so (and is so assessed by the closer). The ideal end of a GAR, per the instructions, is that the article is brought to meet the GA criteria. As this is not always possible, articles do get delisted with some regularity, but community reassessments, which this is, tend to be a fairly lengthy process. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I agree that it would be quick failed if this was a new recommendation, but I am also not sure for the process for re-assessment (i.e. can you quick fail it?) - hence why I put this to a community reassessment. As per BlueMoonsets points it apparently appears I am required to do a lot more than just nominate this article - this will happen in due course, but a) I don't think there are regular contributors to notify; and b) I don't have time to do that this week due to work, but should get around to it shortly. As per your point reference Suetonius - I'm sure there is a policy reference this sort of thing, but whilst it is technically primary research,it is also a source that is widely quoted as fact (due to a general lack of other evidence) and may be acceptable. Hopefully we can get some advice. Stingray Trainer (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

my understanding of this is that it is still WP:OR. Yes, Suetonius is widely discussed but we need to stick to the analysis of secondary sources, not our own analysis of primary texts. So while it is ok to cite Suetonius, the analaysis and propositions need to be cited to secondary. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stingray Trainer: now that I've done some work on it I can say more—some of the details from Suetonius I have not been able to find in secondary sources. They are not emphasized anyway—for example, insinuations that Nero may have poisoned Claudius. Instead of working backwards to source the primary as it is written in the articles, I am preferring to follow the account in secondary sources. I have rewritten the family section. Just thought you should take a look because I've done some major editing and let me know what you think. (I'm saving the lede for last.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Stingray Trainer I've done a lot of work on this article. There is still more to do (including revise the lede) but I have restructured to make the chronology clearer, I've removed some content which was sourced to primary but either not discussed in secondary analysis, or the secondary analysis had different conclusions. I have tried to follow the secondary sources for the analysis and to resolve issues of due weight (the sources I used most were Shotter, Griffin, Champlin, Malitz and Scullard). Can you look it over and let me know where you see problems? (except the lede). This is a high traffic article so it would be nice if we can fix the issues instead of just demote it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, you would be more likely to get a reply if you spelled Stingray Trainer's name correctly in your pings (Stingray, not Stringray). Generally, a red link when the user's sig and other pings have been blue indicates a typo somewhere or something likely to interfere with the notification you're looking for; preview is your friend. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks, I think I fell asleep promptly after posting this, this article really needed a lot of work as it was almost entirely sourced at primary sources, and so far I have been the only one working on it. There is still more to do, but it's really not ever ideal to have only one person working on it. The premise of Wikipedia isn't that we won't make any errors, I appreciate your fixing a typo but Occam's razor is helpful here- red links don't show up in my color scheme which is kind of annoying, I will look into fixing this - but it's not because I didn't look over the comment after I posted it, or that I don't understand the concept of a red link, that is a lot to assume, but thanks for fixing this one. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually I see the username typos haven't actually been fixed, so I fixed them myself. I think it's pretty obvious that not every color scheme displays red links correctly and that I would have fixed it myself if I'd seen redlinks. I know what a red link is, why would I just leave it like that if I had seen them? Obviously, if I am pinging, it is because I want a response after putting many hours into improving the article. For future reference, usually when someone sees a typo like this, they can fix the typo and just leave a note that it has been fixed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, Wikipedia pings only work if they're added with a valid sig in the same edit, so correcting the typo won't get the ping to work retroactively, since there isn't a new sig with the correcting edit. My previous post should have gotten a ping through to Stingray Trainer, so that should be set. Just so you know. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That is good to know, thank you Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Stingray Trainer, Seraphim System, and BlueMoonset: it's been more than a month since anything has happened on this review page. The article still has cleanup tags for overuse of primary sources, and use of broken or outdated sources. The "secondary sources" list includes a Russian docudrama(!), a link to an archived page from a geocities site, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Nero. There are three citation needed tags in the article, and a load more paragraphs in the body of the article without any inline citations. If these problems haven't been fixed in two months since this review began, I am doubtful that they are going to be in the immediate future. Thoughts? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's now 27 days later (or 28?) since Caeciliusinhorto asked for a reply. Nothing has been received, unfortunately. It's probably time to delist. Let's try once more, otherwise the shiny badge shall be no more (who said I was such a poet, eh?) My name continues to not be dave (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The problems I list in my previous comment still haven't been fixed. I would agree that it's time to delist. Do you want to do the honours, My name continues to not be dave? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• • Will do. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I have been on hiatus. I did a lot of work on the article, but there is yet more that needs to be done. It is a high traffic article and I was hoping that others would discuss/contribute instead of simply delisting it because it wasn't done. It was a lot of work! But if no one else is interested I will continue when I get back to editing and re-nominate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Clover (creature)

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

Result: As noted, this article does have problems with sourcing and the writing style. Improvements have not been made yet, and there has been no objection to delisting.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I happen to bump in to this article fairly recently and was quite shocked to find out that this was promoted to GA status even though a number of claims in the article require citations. This shouldn't be listed for now until those citation templates (and that one that requests a clarification) are resolved. Bluesphere 06:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delist: The article is not substantive, the lead does not touch base on main points, the content is largely in-universe and the one external link is for the film and not Clover. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Matt Striker

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

Result: The concerns raised by the original commenter have been addressed, and since no new issues have been brought up since then, this article can be kept.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is written like an autobiography. It is an extensive document with heaps of redundant, irrelevant, repeated information. Many of the sources are unreliable and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorrybutnope (talk • contribs)

I don't mind working a bit and improving this article. Its quality has definitely decreased throughout the years. I've already done a little cleanup. I'll work a bit more on it in the next few days. In the meantime, please list any specific concerns for me to address. Nikki♥311 01:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the issues initially brought up. As previously mentioned, I'll be happy to address additional concerns. Nikki♥311 23:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars

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

Result: I agree with the clear community consensus on this matter and will delist based on unresolved concerns over article size, sourcing, and scope.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

To my dismay I am nominating this article for reassessment. Sourcing is the main concern. As can be seen huge amount of sourcing is needed. Other sourcing problems includes lots of primary and fan sources. There is also chart spam over proposed text and other maintenance tags such as "too long" . Also looks as if leads from sub-articles are just pasted here......lots to fix. --Moxy (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree- This article has obviously grown a lot since 2008 when it was named a good article. Movies have come out since then and a lot of attention was drawn to the series. It's grown too fast to the point where it was not all quality work. Plus there are too many sub-sections. Why are all the movies described in detail when each has its own substantial article? And since there are multiple maintenance tags, I do not believe it should remain a good article. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree-The thing is that this article focuses solely in the film franchise, instead of focusing on Star Wars as the multi-media franchise it is. The only solution is that this article should be renamed into Star Wars (franchise) and the films should be split into an article called Star Wars (film series) to receive the focus they deserve, and allow the other media (animated series, video-games, comics, novels) to be properly described in the franchise article. We would keep the film tables at the top of the Star Wars (franchise) article and an additional super brief additional paragraph (or two paragraphs maximum) about the films plot overview, but split most of the info regarding the films and their developments into the new article Star Wars (film series), we could also merge the whole sequel trilogy article there instead of as stands right now, having two articles saying the same things about the sequel trilogy in different words, and also explain there the Holiday Special and the Ewoks films as non-canon Star Wars Legends films. I think that's the way it should be solved but no-one listens to my split suggestion, despite how the article here is the one of a film series, instead of the one of a multi-media franchise, the split would also make easier to keep both articles in good status, since both having less information is easier to manage. The article for the The Simpsons (franchise) of how the final Star Wars (franchise) article should look albeit, the SW franchise would have more tables for the media.Rosvel92 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

The suggestion to split the article hasn't gained any consensus, in part because this article is the franchise article and the films having more coverage makes sense per WP:DUE. They're the seminal, most high profile, most influential pieces of the franchise, the part of the franchise that most are familiar with. Yes, it's a multimedia franchise, but to pretend that the other pieces of media carry the same weight as the films is silly. A solution is to reorganize the article, expand reception to cover more than the films. I personally believe that paring down on individual film plots. I'm the past, I proposed to merge the individual film sections into larger trilogy sections, perhaps pare down on film specific development information and leave that for the film articles to streamline the structure—but that also has not gained consensus, per SUMMARYSTYLE, so I doubt it will be wise to implement. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Rosvel92 - I agree with everything you said except the film tables. I think they too should be merged, with a much smaller film table replacing them that merely lists the basics on each film. TenTonParasol - The films are certainly the centerpiece, which is why they should indeed be given the most weight. BUT they should not be given the ungodly amount of coverage that they currently receive in the article. A good franchise article is that for the Star Trek franchise; there is a main page which goes through the films, tv series, EU etc., but each of these links to an article covering them in more detail. I believe this style should be applied to the Star Wars franchise as well. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Title	U.S. release date	Director
Saga
A New Hope	May 25, 1977	George Lucas
The Empire Strikes Back	May 21, 1980	Irvin Kershner
Return of the Jedi	May 25, 1983	Richard Marquand
The Phantom Menace	May 19, 1999	George Lucas
Attack of the Clones	May 16, 2002
Revenge of the Sith	May 19, 2005
The Force Awakens	December 18, 2015	JJ Abrams
The Last Jedi	December 15, 2017	Rian Johnson
IX	May 24, 2019	Colin Trevorrow

Title	U.S. release date	Director
Other
The Clone Wars	August 15, 2008	Dave Filoni
Rogue One	December 16, 2016	Gareth Edwards
Untitled Han Solo film	May 25, 2018	Ron Howard

I think we're in agreement that some things needs to be pared out of the films—like specific film development. But we're disagreeing about the methods. I don't think a split is the way to do that. I personally believe you just figure out what's necessary for an overview and leave it here, send the rest to be covered at the individual film articles. I personally agree the level of detail is too much, and should be covered in more summary, but there is no consensus on how much is too much. Even my own proposal, which simply involves cutting things out without a split, has been considered to be insufficient wrt the level of detail.~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing with the table example. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The only films table, I meant keeping on the franchise article was the one at the top. The tables of cast, crew, reception, oscars, etc, should be solely on the Star Wars films article (which would mostly be just most of the films section as it stands right now). The Franchise article would be the films table a small overview, and the in other media section merged with the Star Wars expanded universe (but ditching the in other media subtitle)Rosvel92 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

I was referring to the table Wilburycobbler constructed above. I was going to start a separate section about it, but Moxy mentioned there are too many tables. I think the Oscar table should definitely be converted to prose. And I feel like the RT and MC table should go entirely, and that section be turned into a prose summary of reception of the franchise. I think I formerly proposed that the crew table be merged with the first table if possible, seeing as they duplicate information. This would reduce the number of tables from six to three (trilogies, standlone films, box office totals). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I've merged all applicable content into the Star Wars (film series) template. The Star Wars article is now much more succinct and to the pointWilburycobbler (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted it because there's no consensus! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This thing is like the US health care bill, in that there will never be a consensus on exactly what should be in or out, so I merged all applicable content to the film series article. At the end of the day our only consensus can be between either cutting the crap out, or retaining a bloated article, and we have clearly chose the former. So I decided to be bold. Wilburycobbler (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

We've barely had a discussion on it. We could always agree on what information to pare out exactly without splitting it into another article. We've agreed the article is bloated, but we haven't agreed on how to deal with it. There's more than two options. And since I felt the bold move wasn't a good one, I reverted it.~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A franchise article is supposed to be an overview, not an in-depth analysis. As it is, the article contains waaay too much information about each film in the form of both prose and infoboxes. And it shouldn't even be covering individual films in the first place! That's what the film series articles are for! Again, see Star Trek. Wilburycobbler (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

And I've said I agree. I just don't think splitting the content off into "Star Wars (film series)" is the way to do it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the split discussion suggestion at the top of the films topic and at the top of the article? Since I suppose, now is clearly been discussed? Rosvel92 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Regarding the table bloat, I've just converted the Academy Awards table into prose. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Modi/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page

Result: Continued Listing as GA. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been frequently watching articles of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, that are written much better than this article, they are rated at C class. I am surprised this article qualified as GA. Article has tons of issues, raised entire last year[19] and even recent times, but I am writing down how it fails GA criteria.

Fails #2, because the article has BLP violation, on lead it claims or at least tries to push Modi to be complicit of 2002 Gujarat riots, despite the whole claim is a dead horse following the clearance. Allegations (especially refuted) should be never on lead and if they should be on the article, sources need to report the events after the acquittal, in place of pushing less accepted thoughts. However this article with the sentences such as "His administration has been considered complicit", "is generally considered by scholars to have been complicit",(giving 3 sources all dating years before he was acquitted of all charges) with such wording it treats the allegations as obvious convictions. Genuine issues with BLP have been raised before on talk page, but ignored.[20]

Some good examples would be, that we don't see mention of Obama's alleged illegal warring in Libya on Barack Obama,[21] we don't see Putin's alleged role in the bombing of Moscow building. Even the article of Kim Jong-un is less negative. So why we are seeing similar claims on the article of Narendra Modi?

Fails #3 because it still gives minimal or no details about his output of last 3 years as prime minister, although it provides a huge section for 2002 Gujarat riots, which could've been reduced to 3 sentences without requiring a section. The lack of details about his relationship with other countries, encouragement in sports,[22][23] is also missing, more could be provided.

Fails #4 lacks neutrality; like we can see, other than that the lead is unnecessarily balanced to the extent that it is too repetitive (mentioning Hindu nationalism identity twice as well as "2002 Gujarat riots") the last part of the lead is itself childish, with its claim that Modi is "controversial", because every politician even mayor happens to be controversial. Large amount of content has been also forked from 2002 Gujarat riots to the section Narendra Modi#2002 Gujarat riots. Article has trivial material like criticism for "half-sleeved kurta", which is not even encyclopedic.

Fails #5 its not stable; few examples of edit warring[24][25][26][27] can be found and content dispute still continues, with editors other than me, finding genuine problems with the sourcing.[28][29][30]

I would say that this article really lacks even basic requirements of B-class, let alone GA. I would be one of the editors posting on the talk page, but first the GA rating would need to be removed as GA rating itself serves as justification for not removing/modifying the content. Lorstaking (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• This "reassessment" is quite absurd, and shows only that this user has not read the relevant policies. The article does not say Modi was complicit in the riots. It says scholars consider his government to be. If readers are unable to distinguish between "Narendra Modi" and "the government headed by Narendra Modi" that is their problem, not Wikipedia's. Modi has not been acquitted. He has not been acquitted, because he was never tried for any crime. He was investigated by a supreme court committee. The committee found insufficient evidence against him. This fact is mentioned in the lead, quite appropriately. What Wikipedia says about Obama and Putin is quite irrelevant here, and should be raised on those talk pages. The notion that the riots are given undue weight is once again absurd. The riots are given three paragraphs, despite the huge coverage they receive in scholarly sources: see [31]. In contrast, his Prime Ministership is given 27 paragraphs. Indeed, the section about his prime ministership was so long that folks asked for it to be trimmed. I do not even understand most of the other complaints about neutrality. The complaint about "controversial" is, once again, quite misguided; many major political figures are controversial, and if sources describe them as such, then so must we. Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe we need to go by the common standards of writing articles and it is relevant to look at other articles. Since multiple editors had raised concerns over the sentences, it had to be resolved rather than keeping on mainspace. And if you want to preserve the preferred sentences, then don't expect having better rating. If article doesn't say Modi was complicit, why it even mention his role? He wasn't acquitted? It is still WP:UNDUE, it rather reads as the article has been designed to claim him as complicit because he was the Chief Minister of the state government at the time and he has been largely singled out in the entire riots. If you are saying that he hadn't been tried for any crime it makes even more WP:UNDUE to mention the entire riots in the article. The lead is providing undue weight to allegations. Yes every politician is controversial and it is childish to mention that on the lead or entire article, and here, it has been mentioned that Modi is controversial but after repeating the already mentioned subjects. Lorstaking (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Due weight is not based on what editors like, or how many editors like something. It is based on coverage in reliable sources. For example, of the 9000-odd scholarly sources that mention Narendra Modi, approximately 2000 also mention the riots. The numbers are even higher for the sources that cover this in detail. Thus, per WP:DUE, the weight given to the riots is very very low. If you want to change this, you need to demonstrate that there are things in sources of equal weight that are not being covered in the article. Otherwise, this just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support stripping of good article status. As per all the points noted. I had brought this page on Biography of living persons noticeboards a few years ago[32] because of source misrepresentations, but not much has changed in fact worsened when it comes to WP:NPOV. The comparison of the lead is somewhat worse than what it used to be years ago, despite Narendra Modi is himself highly applauded internationally for his efforts.[33][34][35][36] However this article continues to paint a negative image of him. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Can we give much weight to the opinion and cherry-picked sources of someone who socked using multiple accounts and has/had a very distinct pro-Hindutva agenda? I think not. You're entitled to your opinion, yes, but it should count for little in any neutral assessment 0f any article related to Indian politics. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - For all the reasons described.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. No substantive evidence has been provided that the article violated WP:DUE. No concrete suggestions for improvements have been made that have any basis in policy. And I do not often play this card, but the fact is that the inexperience of some of these folks with the GA process in showing: whereas Midnightblueowl, who reviewed this, for instance, has a hundred GAs and nearly as many GA reviews; and I have 20 of each myself. Vanamonde (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delist Yes there are huge amount of BLP, NPOV violations. I was one of the users who raised issues on talk page[37] but I was met with dissatisfaction even after providing much better sources than what this article has. Controversial edits were made without consensus days before GA started. Capitals00 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose: I was the editor who reviewed this at GAN and, after a lengthy discussion with Vanamonde (which entailed a range of prose changes), the article was passed as a Good Article. I am not thoroughly convinced by Lorstaking's argument that it fails the GA criteria. Rather, this looks to me as if it is more of a content dispute and an editor potentially using GAR as a means of pushing a POV. There is of course a pro-Modi lobby here at Wikipedia as in the real world and I am wondering if this attempt to have the article change may have more to do with concealing criticism of Modi than genuinely adhering to Good Article criteria (if I am wrong on that, I apologise, but I think we need to bear it in mind as a possibility). Editors have raised comparisons with articles like those on Putin and Kim Jong In, although both of these articles are in a fairly sorry state (the Obama article is rated FA but frankly it shouldn't be and will probably be delisted soon). It would be better to hold the Modi article up against other FA-rated political biographies like Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khruschev, and Nelson Mandela. How does it stack up against those in its coverage of controversies? Unless very clear evidence can be presented that this article misrepresents the Reliable Sources then I would suggest dropping this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: You are comparing biographies of dead people with a BLP, is there some difference? 2 of them being communist dictators and one of them being someone who had been jailed for 27 years. All I find no more than one negative sentence on Nelson Mandela, Nikita Krushchev and Vladimir Lenin on lead, while Narendra Modi's article lead is smaller and contains 3 negative sentences. Also I am not seeing any content forking on these 3 articles either. So your comparison with this articles is largely uncomfortable. Yes there are issues with sourcing like it has been already mentioned, "giving 3 sources all dating years before he was acquitted of all charges", that's how POV pushing has been done of this article. How come one cannot provide the sources for those claims that came much after the court verdict? Obviously because such source would differed the preferred POV. Issues have been well raised on talk page entire time if you haven't observed, if you really want to compare the article, then try doing so with other Indian political leader GA, Mayawati, you will find this article's quality is actually bad. Capitals00 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I still think that this is primarily a content issue that could be dealt with in a more appropriate manner. For instance, why wasn't this raised as a Talk Page section first? (Or was it?). For me, GAR just seems like the wrong place to be raising these issues at this stage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I had raised few issues,[38] but they hadn't been answered appropriately and in fact I was told by this same user that article is GA that's why information should stick. You have asked above if this article has misrepresented sources, I find a bunch of misrepresentation on lead itself.

• "His administration has been criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty, and education indices in the state" cites [39] but nothing like this can be found there. And the other source it cites is [40], which the other user with access had already confirmed that there is no use of "criticise" in entire document.
• "His administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots" is using sources[41](from 2007) that doesn't even mention Narendra Modi, while other one doesn't use the word "complicit" or anything same[42], it only says "accused of failing to stop" which is far from any complicity.
• None of the sources claim that he is controversial nationally and internationally both. Sources must cite it exactly otherwise it is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. [43][44] only states the controversy regarding 2002 Gujarat riots, none of the sources tell that he is controversial for his "Hindu nationalist beliefs", and "cited as evidence of an exclusionary social agenda" is not supported by any sources.

And that's with the lead alone, I would be finding more misrepresentation of sources, but for now this seems enough alone to maintain that article is in really bad shape. Capitals00 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

These "objections" are mostly hot air. I responded to Capitals00's points on the talk page. I supported two of his five proposed changes, and explained the problems with three others. He neglected to respond; that is not really my issue. As with Lorstaking above, it would appear that Capitals00 is unable to tell the difference between Modi and the government run by him. Thus, the sources in question need to discuss his government, which they do. He also seems to want to see the exact sentence from the article in the source, which of course is impossible, because that would be a copyright violation. The article is largely based on scholarly sources; replacing them with media sources, which you folks seek to do, would definitely make it worse. The Shani source most certainly mentions Modi, and directly states that the rioters had help from the authorities. On page 169. Have you even read that page, Capitals00? I thought not. I have yet to hear a substantive objection to anything in this article. Pankaj, this is not a vote; supporting complaints of no substance does you no credit, and does not help your cause. If you folks had kept track of the GA review, you would have seen that Midnightblueowl actually raised substantive issues, and that I acted on most of them. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes you have used a partisan source from 2007 to make a problematic claim doesn't adhere to NPOV. How about use a source that comments on the clearance? Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The "clearance" is just one aspect of the issue and has been dealt with time and again. For all the news stories that report it, you'll find a bunch of academic/clearly independent sources etc that continue to raise the issues. You need to appreciate that the media in India tends to be particularly slavish to both politicians and the legal system. We usually need to look elsewhere for genuine analysis: even a couple of non-Indian sources from reliable publishers would trump an entire months' reporting. We give more weight to some sources than others for a reason. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support removing GA for reasons stated above. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nominators reasoning is invalid. Looking at each point:

1. Doesn't fail #2. The body of the article clearly contains many scholarly sources on the complicity of the Modi administration in the 2002 riots. The nominator raises the "acquittal" argument which has been much discussed and, to summarize, Wikipedia gives more weight to scholarly sources and less weight to government commissions or court judgements.
2. Doesn't fail #3. At least not per nominators arguments. The lack of details about his relationship with other countries, encouragement in sports,[14][15] is also missing, more could be provided - these are WP:CRUFT and I'd say that the article would fail GA status if they were included!
3. Doesn't fail #4. "Controversial" is well documented (and much discussed on these talk pages). I'm surprised (or perhaps not) that it is being raised again.
4. Doesn't fail #5. Yes, there is edit warring but the content is reasonably stable. Edit warring occurs because various POV editors raise points similar to what the nominator is raising but they haven't been getting much traction. There is no reason why an article on a controversial subject cannot be a good article despite the presence of POV pushers as long as they are kept at bay. In a sense, the fact that the nomination is merely reiterating the various issues that keep getting raised on the talk page but never get anywhere shows that the article is actually quite stable!
5. As I state above, the issues raised by the nominator all are content issues that have been raised multiple times on the talk page but have not gone anywhere because they either want to remove information well backed up by reliable sources or add information from less reliable or primary sources. When you find that your content choices are not getting traction, the traditional way to deal with that is through dispute resolution. Not by seeking to demote the article. We have a well referenced and comprehensive article and that makes this a "good" article.--regentspark (comment) 14:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• You seem to be saying that many editors raised concerns with the edits but their concerns were totally ignored. So we are claiming him to be complicit in the disguise of his state? That's WP:UNDUE and doesn't deserve anywhere entire article, because there are enough academic sources that have commented on his clearance, and I had provided them on the talk page but I am not seeing them to be included, instead we are seeing sources that were published years before the clearance. Most of the negative content is clearly not "well documented" like I have highlighted out above. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that many editors raised concerns but that their concerns were shown to be invalid. A good example is the "clearance" issue you've repeatedly raised on this talk page. As has been explained (e.g. here), we give more weight to scholarly sources and "clearances" don't mean much (though, of course, they can be mentioned). "Controversial" is another much discussed example. So, no, nothing is being ignored. Rather, the changes sought by you and others are not making their way into the article because, again as I say above, the things you want removed are well supported by reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 16:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Much has been already discussed here or there, I would point out that one needs to see Barack Obama#Foreign policy, an FA article, that details his activities and relationships with other countries, we can't find same for Modi. And all of the sources used in the foreign policy section of Narendra Modi are one year older. Article is lacking updates. Lorstaking (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You should then be listing what specific updates you're seeking on foreign policy etc. I'm trying to assume good faith here but it does seem odd that your very first edit to the talk page is a GA reassessment. --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• By initiating this discussion I was only telling that the article fails GA criteria and if editors are ready to work on it they should, but it seems that while most editors oppose the current article, not everyone is ready to work on it. After seeing more of these comments, it becomes concerning that article includes is contrary to WP:BLP, contains misrepresentation of sources, non-neutral content and WP:OR. It can be assured that the article is no where near the quality of C-Class articles such as Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, either. But I think we are going around in circles, it is better to seek community opinion for the GA now. Lorstaking (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - RegentsPark has analysed the issues well. Modi has a troubled past, and it would seem that his fans would like it to disppear. As far as the facts are concerned, Modi has never been investigated, charged or acquitted. He was only "questioned". The Special Investigation Team has determined that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him, which was accepted by the Supreme Court. This makes no difference whatsoever to the scholarly assessments of Modi's conduct, which we report faithfully. The objections being repeatedly made on the talk page as well as here basically leads me to the conclusion that all this business needs to be covered in much more detail than done at present. I will be happy to work on that. This really makes no difference to the GA status. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose-This reads more like a content dispute than that of a reassessment of GA criteria. As summed up by other editors above the article does not fail GA in fact the changes suggested in the review would certainly fail this article.It must be remembered that the article serves to report what ever is the opinion of reliable sources and not what is considered to be the truth--⮘RADICAL SODA^(FORCE)⮚ 11:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose what appears to be primarily a political rather than quality-based reassessment. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support This article doesn't meet WP:NPOV and portrays an overwhelmingly negative tone. It needs substantial copy-editing in order to meet GA status. --RaviC (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't checked who the author of this article is. I hope they won't mind my saying that the article has a much bigger problem than one of meeting or not meeting certain WP criteria. The article has no narrative, no affect. It has been drained of all life blood. It reads like a list of events in a person's life. You might as well rename it Modi sutra and park it at FLC. Is the author really interested in writing this? If so, forget about GA, FA, ..., go read a bunch of books on Modi. Then reread them. Then put away all your books away and write. I mean this sincerely. And, if you are not interested in writing it, then why are you? Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • PS. Thinking this over. It might be that the author is trying too hard to tread a narrow, circumspect, path, given Modi's detractors and supporters, given the lack of any scholarly work on his life, Modi's own tendency to be highly secretive. If that is the case, then perhaps the author should wait until such scholarship etc appears. There have to be backstories. A person can't just announce at age 62 that he has a wife, whom he married as a teenager and later deserted citing high principles, and it all happened in an emotional vacuum for both parties. A 17-year-old boy of very modest means in 1967, couldn't just run away from home, turn up in all kinds of exotic Himalayan locations, return home two, or was it three, years later with no tangible recollection of these trips in the memories of others, nor explanation of how he was able to afford them. By listing these events in a highly cautious, non-judgmental, tone, the article appears to give credence to them. This in turn makes the article less credible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As you well know, F&f, Wikipedia articles are not "written". They accumulate mass over time and periodically cleaned up. I doubt if there is anybody with an NPOV frame of mind who is seriously interested in "writing" an article on Modi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I just took a look at the comments. I didn't realize that people are thinking the article is too critical of Modi. My sense is that by using circumspect language it is too easy on him. As for as GA criteria are concerned, it certainly meets them. So, I oppose removing it from GA status, but generally wanted to tell the authors to rewrite it with some verve, when they eventually submit it for FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for coming by. This topic is so contentious that making any changes to it is fraught with difficulty; and if that were not enough, there is a string of people who come by wanting to turn it into a hagiography, and another (less common) set who want to add the odd insulting statement. Keeping the article on the straight and narrow between these is inevitably going to make it rather dry, and very circumspect in tone. Does it go too easy on Modi? That's a complicated question. Scholarly sources are, on the whole, more critical of him than this article. The print media has a mixture of attitudes; and the visual media, from what I have heard, is rather more supportive of him. What that tends to mean is that anybody trying to move the article from being based on media sources to scholarly sources is going to run into the same cluelessness that is being trotted out on this page. Hence the circumspect tone. If you want to help move it towards a more balanced outlook, you are more than welcome. With respect to your initial point, though, I'm not sure I agree it's a problem. For a contemporary political figure, providing narrative of any kind is a questionable enterprise, because really we do not know how history will see his figure; and so we need to be a lot more wary using heavy editorial voice than in an article on, say, an 18th century figure on whom most scholarship is already in. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support per OP. Note that this article qualifies for WP:BLP. Crawford88 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• The OP has made no policy-based arguments, and therefore a comment that only says "per OP" should carry no weight whatsoever. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seeing as this article would fall under the aegis of WP:BLP and clearly violates the Balance guideline "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content", there is no justification whatsoever for conferring GA status upon it. Karodimal (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: As of this posting, this editor has made exactly three edits to Wikipedia to pages besides this one. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment : I feel the article is fairly neutral and to achieve this has both affirming and denying sentences in single sentence! could be night mare to read, definitely not a GA Material. since with lot of PR companies constantly working and he is still active public figure which is going to be constantly updated would really not prefer to keep it as GA --Shrikanthv (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't read the article for a while (I'll make the effort soon) but many of delisting supporters above are familiar to me from past discussions here and elsewhere regarding issues related to what might be called right-wing politics in India. Such people continually try to massage criticism out of articles/promote image-enhancing stuff. Most of the arguments above are old issues, discussed time and again with the same people - just check the archives and consider whether we really want articles such as this to be written by people with a clear political agenda.

Fowler's point regarding general prose/structure etc, by the way, would be valid if this were a candidate for FA but it is not and it is highly unlikely ever to be. That it does take on the appearance of a list in places is entirely because of the aforesaid supporters, as a trawl through the history over the last few years would demonstrate. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting I've read the article now and it appears to meet the GA criteria. The objections are mostly from new-ish accounts and the usual pro-Modi suspects who have pretty consistently wanted to glorify the man. The article could be improved, sure, and I have no doubt that there will be new academic sources etc as time goes on, but it satisfies the criteria and that is all that matters in this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Fails Point 4 is true. Just now corrected a major update error was true 6 yearsa go is not true now Washington Post clearly tells he was denied us visa but now Modi made a historic address to Congress and BBC ,Guardian and Telegraph also tell he has risen from Pariah to world leader.He was contraversial before he became PM is true but not now after he became the Prime minister he is world leader today.His image has made 100% U turn after 2014.BBC Pariah to friend: Narendra Modi and the US come full circle

  Telegraph From pariah to 'rock star' world leader: Narendra Modi prepares to visit Britain

  Washington Post Once banned from the U.S., India’s Modi set for historic address to Congress

  Guardian Narendra Modi: from international pariah to the G20's political rock starChantrises (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  As I pointed out on the article talk page, the articles linked by you consistently indicate that Modi is still controversial. It seems to me that many users don't understand the meaning of the word controversial. Look it up: Giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement; subject to (heated) discussion or debate; contentious, questionable; disputed[45] No one can argue with a straight face that this doesn't fit Modi. There is nothing wrong with being controversial, all it means is that opinions differ on the person. A rock star can, for example, be controversial. Academic papers are often controversial. Heck, the effect of humans on the climate is controversial. Of all the points about Modi, love him or hate him, the statement that he is controversial is perhaps the most accurate. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)