Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 22

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 23)

Good article review (archive)

(Page 21) →

To archive an article from the review page, check over the review, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a review is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves reviews which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.

Wanamaker Organ

Result: Delist 4-2

Has only four citations so fails verifiability. Delist. LuciferMorgan 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Promoted without review November 2006 by a Sysop user:DVD R W. Problems I found from scanning the article: Weak lead; Random wikification of stand-alone years (why does everyone do this?); article could use more wikification; copyrighted main image (says non-replaceable in the template, but it still exists, so it is replaceable with a free image); No page specifications for references; Reference 4 is incorrectly formatted; Article as a whole lacks sufficient inline citation. Potential COI: One of the main contributing authors, (User:Adambiswanger1), is the son of Ray Biswanger, proprietor of wanamakerorgan.com and author of Ref 2. The article seems balanced, however. It's not a bad article, but it does need some work, particularly with inline citation. --LaraLove^T/_C 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Unfortunate. It is a very nice article. It could use a minor tone down on the almost-promotional language at points. However, the main issue is the lack of citations and references. Vassyana 10:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Pretty tidy little article, but I must give another voice calling for more inline citations. Also, two sections are NOT well written, they are very listy and need to be turned into proper prose (those two being "Organists" and "Architectural layout"). Needs some work to be GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Retain This is that quite usual thing, an article written out of one main reference. I see only one "challenged or likely to challenged" fact here, and that has a separate note, to Whitney. Finding Biswanger, for anybody not related to the author, may be a problem; but I have no doubt where to look for the facts here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems to me that this is the kind of article that WP:GA was originally created for. There is not an awful lot one can say about a particular pipe organ, but this one is notable and worthy of a short article. For such an article the lead doesn't need to be particularly long, and sourcing facts by inline citation is only "preferable for longer articles" in WP:WIAGA. In this case, "more inline cites" would probably amount to adding a bunch of extra links to footnote 2: I don't see that this would add much to the verifiability of the article. It is pretty obvious what the source is.

I toned down the language a touch, fixed the placing of images, and formatted the external link. Other editors appear to have addressed some of the other (minor) issues mentioned, such as the wikilinking of years. I would fix the issue of lists if I agreed with the point: I think this material is easier to read and more engaging in its current format than it would be as prose. Geometry guy 11:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of interest. This needs to be archived soon, and I will do it, with no change to the article, unless there are further comments. Geometry guy 23:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been 4 delist comments and only 1 keep. That's 80%, which means it should be delisted. If it is archived with no change to the article's status then I'm reverting - I'm not letting the juvenile antics of the Maths editors disrupt Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As there has now been a further comment, I won't archive it. Geometry guy 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC) PS. Please assume good faith, thanks.

• Keep. I'm sad that this process so often seems to reduce to counting (first citations, then "votes"). This article has improved since it was listed, but only one of the reviewers calling for delisting has commented further in the last two weeks, and this comment consisted only of counting votes and did not address the substance of the comments made by more recent reviewers.

This is a difficult one to call, but, as I explained above, the material in this article is clearly sourced, and I doubt that further inline citation would add much. Consensus is needed to take action in a process like this, and I don't see it yet. Geometry guy 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This process doesn't seem to reduce to counting in my opinion - it comes down to Maths editors trying to abuse the process to further their own ends. I already had the juvenile PMAnderson from the project attempt to derail one of my FACs for no reason whatsoever, and now it seems you've joined in his antics here. And as concerns consensus, there's consensus to delist this article and it isn't difficult to call whatsoever - just because you and your Maths friends don't like GA, don't try to purposely abuse this process. You and PMAnderson aren't funny at all, and need to grow up a bit. LuciferMorgan 15:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not in league with any "Maths friends", thank you. I value my independence as an editor and am not responsible for the behaviour of others. Both User:Lara Love and User:Mike Christie have commended me for my responsible contributions here, and User:Jayron32 has apologized to me for doubting my good faith. So your unsupported remarks don't bother me a bit.

Now how about commenting on the article instead? Geometry guy 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Inverclyde Line

Result: Issues corrected. Retain GA.

This is another train GA passed in March 2007 by anthonycfc. Due to citation issues, I vote speedy delist. LuciferMorgan 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist Only one statement looks like it is for want of referencing, and the lead needs expansion. I'm not sure that this article needs much else. It doesn't have much references, but I am not sure that it NEEDS much more, since it is likely that all of this information came from a small number of reliable souces, and it does use inline citations where needed. I would like to see page numbers for the print source, and the image needs a better place (it clashes with the notes section). This one is not as bad as other train articles, it needs fixes to remain GA and those fixes are relatively minor. If there is NO editor taking custodial care of it, then the fixes won't be made, and it should be delisted, but it's not terribly far from GA quality. As an aside, if there is an issue with another editor, this is not the forum to discuss it. Please bring it up at that editors talk page. I see no reason to have what should be a personal conversation in a public forum like this.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the editor Jayron, so please don't hint at this. I don't need the hassle, no offence. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant no offense either. Since the Trent Valley Line discussion has been archived, my comments above seem out of context; there were several comments there made by several editors that were starting to degenerate into a discussion of the editor-in-question. My comment takes that into account as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, but I'm not questioning the integrity of the editor - I don't even know him. All I wished to know, as Homestarmy did in the other GAR, why he felt this one met the criteria that's all. LuciferMorgan 17:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional keep if additional references or citations to the references being used are provided. Lead is a little short, but not ridiculously so. — Deckiller 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The last stubby paragraph about the airport does require a citation. Beyond that I have no idea, and the writers are unlikely to have any idea, what is required to meet these comments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I formatted the references and relocated the image, as I don't think there are any custodians. Considering the lead is only one sentence, it's in definite need of expansion. Completely unacceptable. You can't summarize an article in one sentence. Past that, I also added a reference for the info regarding the new expansion. Jayron, is that the needed ref you were talking about? LaraLove^T/_C 05:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I fixed the lead. Expanded it to a full paragraph, which should be adequate given the short length of this article. Since LaraLove fixed up the reference problem, this article seems easily GA quality now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Little Hunting Creek

Result: 4-1 Endorse Fail

Article was failed due to length, which is not a good article criterion. Specifically, the reviewer questioned the notability of the article, which is also not a good article criterion. If the article is not notable it should be removed; there are no tiers of notability for judging article quality. Some more specific feedback is warranted, such as whether some major facets of the topic have been omitted. Ketone16 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• List as GA, While it is short, for a tributary off of the Potomac river, this seems like a sufficient enough description to be called at least minimally comphrehensive, though I don't really know what kind of standards creek articles go by, or even if there are supposed to be any, surely some creeks don't have nearly as much notability as others? Also, I found the article to nicely fulfill all other GA criteria, although the bottom of the watershed section isn't inline cited, it seems overall well-referenced anyway, and pictures are not mandatory. I'd add in a sentence or two in the lead though about the wildlife and recreation, generalizations will do. Homestarmy 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Fail - The lead is weak. History is inconsistent with website of topic. It is not broad in its coverage. Insufficient wikification. Although images are not required for all articles, images should be included when available. For this topic, images could easily be taken and included; for that reason, this article fails GA criteria 6b. There are some issues with the prose and minor grammatical mistakes (some of which I fixed). It's not a bad article. Impressive referencing, but it still needs some work. LaraLove^T/_C 06:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Some more detailed comments would be useful. How is the history inconsistent with the website? How is the wikification insufficient? The only problem I found was in the citation dates. What topics would make the article sufficiently broad? What are the grammar and prose errors? The only grammar error you corrected was replacing "3" with "three"; the rest were slight style corrections. Images are not yet available, but perhaps could be corrected. There are several good images of the creek online, but nothing suggests to me that they are in the public domain. The problem with taking photos of LHC is that you generally have to go into someone's backyard or travel by boat (or air) to get a shot of the whole creek, unless you want the view to be largely obscured by trees. You can take a photo from the stone bridge, but the creek takes almost a 90 degree turn after its mouth, so you don't see the whole creek in the shot. You can also take a photo of the stone bridge from a road that crosses the South Branch, but you only get a picture of the South Branch and not of the much wider creek. Ketone16 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Fail - the lead is insufficient (the lead should be a summary of the whole article), it doesn't cover the flora of the region, or the geology of the region, and a couple of paragraphs are only one sentence long. The article could be associated with, and use the style guide of, the WP:RIVERS project. A photo of the stone bridge would be nice, along with text about its building.-Malkinann 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the lead paragraph is "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, [and] explaining why the subject is interesting or notable" (WP:LEAD). Suggestions are welcome. A geology section may be more relevant for a river than a creek. Perhaps a couple of sentences about siltation in the creek should be added to the watershed section? Some information about flora could be added, but I'm not sure that the creek is notable for its flora. It contains mostly reeds and water lilies, and the banks of the river are ordinary Virginia deciduous forests. I climbed down into the briars and muck to get a photo of the creek -- it's tough to get a good one without going into someone's backyard or getting a boat. I was also lucky enough to get a shot of some nesting bald eagles -- the first time I've personally seen them on the creek. Ketone16 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Fail - the lead lacks, unfortunately.--Manboobies 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestions welcome. Ketone16 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the fail The review was inadequate, as no suggestions or specific problems with the article were listed. However, it does seem lacking, there are a few things specifically that need cleaning up, vis-a-vis the WP:WIAGA:
  • The lead has two problems:
    • 1) It includes information that is not part of the article. The lead should not do that; it should only summarize information that comes later in the article.
    • 2) The lead seems to give the short end to some sections of the article: The last two sections of the article, on wildlife and recreation, aren't well covered by the lead.
  • The history section seems to jump 200 years without explanation. Pourquoi?
  • The way that it jumps between measurement units (statute vs. nautical miles) seems random, and there is no metric equivalent given; not every reader of the article comes from a country where miles (either form) are a standard. Pick one unit, and stick to it, and include mile/km conversions where appropriate.
  • There are a few too many 1-sentance paragraphs that need expansion somehow. This might be the length issue that the original review was noting (though, I must agree, that there is NO length requirement at all for GA's, only a broadness requirement). The recreation section, for example, ends with two 1-sentance paragraphs that just hang there without any further explanation or comment.
  • Not that it has any bearing on the GA status, but have you checked any free maping sites (the U.S. Census bureau maintains one) or sought other means to create a map? This article could REALLY benefit from one (though I agree that it doesn't hold up GA status, I just thought it would really help the article in general).

While the review left with the fail looked inadequate, it does appear that the article is not quite GA status yet. It is a good start, if the above fixes can be made, I would recommend renominating it at WP:GAC for another go at it. There's some work to do, but it is not awful... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the detailed comments, Jayron32. I will look into these issues, but it will take a while. The primary reason right now why there are gaps or paragraphs seem short is a lack of sources. The creek became was notable because of George Washington, but I haven't found much that's notable that happened there in the years between colonial times and modern times, when the residential neighborhoods were built. A bridge was built over the mouth of the creek in the early 20th century, so I could add that. Fort Hunt was also built about a mile away, but I don't think the creek figured much into its history. As for the lead paragraph, the sentence on wildlife is written the way it is because that section is primarily a list of wildlife, and I didn't want to reproduce that list in the lead. As for the units, I prefer statute miles over nautical miles (especially because the branches aren't navigable by water for very far), but the U.S. Coast Pilot reference I cited uses nautical miles, so I retained the figure. I certainly can put in metric equivalents and think about standardizing the units. I can also look into other issues you mentioned, such as a map, which might go well in the watershed section. The colonial map is actually surprisingly good, but it doesn't label the branches (or even show the Paul Spring branch) or modern neighborhoods, or show the modern bridge. Ketone16 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid

Result: 5 months since fail. Return to GAC.

Several comments Jayron32 posted at I Not Stupid's peer review contradict ExplorerCDT's reasons for failing the article. As ExplorerCDT has not edited since 8 February 2007, I did not contact him.

For example, regarding the prose, ExplorerCDT commented: "[It's] not the best it could be. 5 on a 0 (terribly written) to 10 (well written) scale. Too many two-sentence paragraphs, short sections...". However, Jayron32 commented that "GA's [sic] require correct grammar, spelling, and no overt violations of the Manual of Style with regard to article organization. FA's [sic] require brilliant, compelling prose, with a strict adherance to ALL aspects of the MOS. Thus, GA's [sic] may be passed with less stringent requirements on the quality of writing."

Regarding broad coverage, ExplorerCDT commented: "[The article offers] only a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms [sic] Singapore's education system. Does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices, omits a few important themes of the movie." In contrast, Jayron32 commented that "GA's [sic] require only "broad" coverage while FA's [sic] require "comprehensive" coverage; thus GA status may be accorded to articles that are often far too short to be considered Featurable."

Who is correct - Jayron32 or ExplorerCDT? Since both are likely to be correct to a certain extent, who is more correct? Based on who is more correct, to what extent does I Not Stupid meet the GA criteria for prose and broad coverage? Completely, nearly, or way off? Note that ExplorerCDT raised concerns over images, which were not rebutted by Jayron32, so even if Jayron32 is deemed correct on both counts, I Not Stupid would still not meet the GA criteria until the issues with images are addressed. In the peer review, I requested advice on how to address the concerns with images, but to date, I have not received any such advice - could someone post such advice at the peer review?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Since I am being quoted, I feel compelled to comment. I see no contradiction between my responses to the Peer Review and ExplorerCDT's comments for the GA nomination. ExplorerCDT noted that he thought the article did not meet GA requirements for being well written; I merely pointed out that GAs have less stringent writing standards; I never said they had NO writing standards. Also, I stated that there was less stringent standards on completeness of coverage; not no standards. Clearly, ExplorerCDT felt that the article, at the time he reviewed it (as noted above, over 3 months ago!) did not meet even GA standards. I am not making any comment on the version of the article that ExplorerCDT reviewed, or on his review; it was some time ago and the article has changed siginifantly since then. Since this is neither a recently failed GA NOR a listed GA with current issues, I am not sure what is to be done here. Since the article is substantially different from the version reviewed, there is no point in taking the issue up here. I recommend that a Renominate at GAC is the best course of action if seeking GA status.
  • Double checked. It was 5 months ago that the article was failed. This article as it stands now resembles NOTHING of the article that was reviewed. The reviewed was handled correctly, it was clearly NOT GA standard at the time. This article is much improved, and would probably pass if renominated at GAC. I still recommend that course of action. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Peer Review looks for things which are often very different from the things in GA reviews, i'm not sure the basis for comparison here is very sound. Also, if explorer hasn't edited since February, I presume that means the review was some time before then, and several months have passed, I don't think Explorer's comments then necessarily apply to the article now. Homestarmy 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Return to GAC - This doesn't belong here. --LaraLove^T/_C 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. A comparison between the version ExplorerCDT failed and the version when this GA/R was filed reveals that apart from minor-copyediting and formatting-related edits, the article did not change much during the 5 months (although I significantly expanded the Reception section after this GA/R was filed). This GA/R is a request for clarification on the GA criteria, and to what extent the current version of I Not Stupid meets them, as Jayron32's comments made me feel that ExplorerCDT was applying FA standards when failing the article's GA nomination.

For example, although an article "too many two-sentence paragraphs [and] short sections" would probably not meet the FA criteria of "brilliant, compelling prose", would it meet the GA criteria for prose, which requires "correct grammar, spelling, and no overt violations of the Manual of Style with regard to article organization"? After all, two-sentence paragraphs and short sections have nothing to do with grammar, spelling or the Manual of Style. Is a rating of "5 on a 0 (terribly written) to 10 (well written) scale" sufficient to meet the GA criteria for prose?

Similarly, is "a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms [sic] Singapore's education system" sufficient to meet the GA criteria of "broad coverage"? As it "does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices [and] omits a few important themes of the movie", the article would probably not meet the FA criteria for "comprehensiveness".

Once the outcome of this GA/R cum request for clarification is clear, I may renominate it at GAC. Prior to that, I will address any concerns raised at the article's ongoing peer review. The article could do with another copy-edit and more referenced information in the Production section (due to systemic bias, references are hard to come by). Moreover, ExplorerCDT commented that the images were "terribly placed" and "aesthetically unpleasant", and that there were "too many images per word count [sic]". Is this still the case, and if so, how do you suggest I address this issue?

I apologise in advance if you think I am wikilawyering or overly focused on the wording of the criteria. The Singapore education system is very stressful, and many Singaporean students, including myself, have adopted the habit of studying "for the test" rather than learning properly. Perhaps I'm applying this bad habit to other aspects of life, treating my article as an essay and GA as an exam I hope to pass.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to indict another editor. Given the extraordinary time (5+ months) between nominations, it would be most appropriate to just go ahead and renominate at WP:GAC yourself. While repeated renominations in a short time would be WP:POINT-making (see Talk:Brazil) and not appropriate at all, this one has been cleaned up and changed and it is fine to give another editor a chance to apply the GA criteria to it. If this is meant to be a referendum on ExplorerCDT's particular review, you are not going to get it from me. The article should be renominated, and some other editor will pick it up and review it. It will probably pass. But it should be put through the standard reviewing procedure and not listed as a GA through the "backdoor" like this because Hildanknight has issues with a FIVE MONTH OLD review. If you simply renominated it as I suggested over a week ago, a proper review would have been done and the issue would be gone. The above attempts to get me and other editors to say bad things about ExplorerCDT are a waste of time. I am not going to do it in this venue, and I would think that no one else is either. Renominate it and get it over with already! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Close and renominate. 5 months is too long for GA/RBalloonman 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I will respect the 3-0 consensus to close this discussion and renominate the article at GAC. However, could someone please tell me how I can address the image issues - as I have received hardly any advice on them? Once given a proper answer, I will let this go. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Barcelona

Result: Mistaken nomination. Delisted after previous GA/R.

Strong DELIST recommendation

The entry as it stands is little more than a PR blurb of the kind turned out by Barcelona Council. All attempts to include real information about the city (for example, its woeful housing shortage, serious environmental problems and the like) are censored by the likes of "Andromeda". If Wikipedia really wants to be taken seriously as an independent, reliable source of information, someone needs to cut the kind of crap that appears in the Barcelona article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SERRALONGA (talk • contribs)

I think you may be mistaken, this article is not a GA, the previous GA/R delisted it. Homestarmy 15:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian Adams (wrestler)

Result: No consensus. Article custodian agreed to renominate at GAC.

I quick failed this per the GA review of the Undertaker article. The editor has complained repeatedly on my talk page so I'm putting it here. Basically, the entire article presents his fictional career as a wrestler as a biography, (see WP:WAF). There's no information about his early life, personal life, contracts, motivations behind why he did anything, girlfriends, wives (is he married?), education, where he lived. Basically he was born, he started wrestling, then he stopped wrestling. His fictional career as a wrestler is presented as a biography, although there is ome out-of-universe perspective and its not as bad as the Undertaker, his wrestling career is written largely from an in-universe perspective and the sources are deficient (IMDb.com is used for biographical details and WWE.com, which treats the info from an in-universe perspective is used for all the matches).

For instance, instead of saying "x punched y because y punched x's girlfriend." A wrestling article should say, "McMahon felt x had the charisma to be a champion and so he scripted in scenarios which portrayed him as the hero, while y, who McMahon felt was only suited to be a villain due to his lack of charisma, was scripted to be x's foil and often did things such as punch women, steal, and lie. Y often complained to McMahon about the limitations he imposed on his character. Y felt he could be a charismatic champion, and ten minutes before his bout with x, y nearly refused to go on stage because he was scripted to lose." I'm not saying the whole article should be like this but it should contain more sources that explain why things happened. Unfortunately, these do not exist except is some rare cases. I looked over a couple of wrestling articles today and Montreal screwjob is a decent example, it's not great but a lot of it is written in a correct perspective. Quadzilla99 00:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the editor who didn't like this article being delisted has a very good explanation for this articles lack of information on his non-wrestling related activities, then I Endorse failure, it is nowhere near broad enough for GA status. Homestarmy 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was never up for delisting, I put it for GA Review (not FA Review there is a VAST difference between the two, though it seems sometimes people forget that). The reviewer, stated that the article "quick failed" review based on the Undertaker GA delist review. My "complaining" on his talk page was asking him nicely (4 different times) to explain to me what part of the quick fail criteria the article failed (I did express a little frustration and unhappiness about his objectiveness in my last reply, but I was still very civil). He NEVER ONCE gave an answer or even hinted at any type of an answer to my question on the quick fail; he didn't even refuse to answer the question, he just acted like I never asked him. I've never contented that the article was 100% GA material or that it wasn't able to fail review (though I think it's at least close to passing or I wouldn't have submitted it), I only asked on how to improve the article and why it quick failed. Again, I NEVER received, and the reviewer never gave, an answer on why he quick failed it.

The reviewer keeps saying (on my talk page and now here) that I used IMDb.com and WWE.com as main sources for the article when they were backup sources verifying other information already found in other sources...and even if they are the only source for match outcomes, what better source to use than the organization that put on the match and announces the official decision? Out of 42 total reference citations in the article, only 11 of them are from the two sources he is concerned about, and out of those 11 only 3 of them where not sourced (or able to be sourced) elsewhere (five were match results)...that is hardly the majority of the references used.

The reviewer never mentioned, until his last substantive response to me (his last response only said he was putting it up for review himself), that there were gaps in information in the article. I do see and acknowledge that there is little information outside of his career included in the article, and that is due to the fact that the information can not be substantiated by a source that would pass WP:RS, and rather than including unsourced info I didn't include the info (wrestling articles seem to be one of the most critiqued type of article on wikipedia and stuff that isn't required to have citations in a non-wrestling article is required in a wrestling article...but I digress). So, should I include the info without sources (which is allowable for info not likely to be challenged in a GA article) or leave the info out? I know the right answer, WP:IAR would tell me to put the info there without the sources, but other people on Wikipedia will not allow that for a wrestling article...but I again digress.

I don't know how bringing this article here will tell me why the reviewer quick failed the article...but at this point...I just about don't care anymore...it's not worth getting mad about. Maybe if I'm lucky this process will actually give me something to go on to improve this article so I can move on to other wrestling articles that desperately need improving. - Theophilus75 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A complete archive of our discussion about the GA Review can be found at User:Theophilus75/adams discussion. - Theophilus75 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave you several answers, you just refused to accept them. Lets' just let others comment that's why I brought it here. Quadzilla99 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, Theophilus's explanation, if its true, does sound like a very good reason for this article to not have key biographical information in it, if the information simply isn't there to be verified, then that's that. I'll look at this discussion though to see what else is in it. Homestarmy 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse failure Ignoring the arguments between the two parties and looking at the article itself. The Lead is not an adequate summary, the article is not comprehensive given it focuses solely on his wrestling career, there's unencyclopedic language in there ("gimmick", "and Vega were kicked out the group", should be "of the group" but still kicked out is not encyclopedic), grammar is weak (use of the clunky "would be" construction), "Wrestling facts" looks like a trivia section, a lot of it is written in-universe, and the sources aren't up to snuff. Aaron Bowen 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Question What do you mean by "use of clunky 'would be' contruction," I'm not familiar with that term? - Theophilus75 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying "Frank would go on to lose to..." say "Frank lost to..." instead of "Tom would advance to the..." say "Tom advanced to the..." "Would go on to..." is better said as "Went on to..." etc Aaron Bowen 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll remove the word "would" the 3 times it is used and replace it with something else. - Theophilus75 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse failure for the following reasons:
  • Article referenced entirely to primary sources (no secondary sources at all; all refs are merely match results) See WP:RS for a discussion of why secondary sources are preferred to primary sources.
  • Lead is woefully inadequate per WP:LEAD requirements
  • Article is a gross violation of WP:FICT: It treats a fictional character as a real person.

For those reasons, it was right to delist the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for your review! First, the references are not "merely match results." If you would look, references 1-5 & 7, are not a list of match results; additionally, unless my understanding of a secondary source is wrong, each of those are also secondary sources. The only primary sources are sources 6 & 8-13 (which account for a total of 8 out of 42 total citations in the article and some of those are double sourced to secondary sources).

According to WP:RS, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." The secondary sources here meet this criteria, ESPECIALLY when taken into the context of professional wrestling.

WP:FICT is not applicable in this article, you would need to look at WP:BIO (that is what concensus is right now and the repeated criteria such articles are held to).

Lastly, WP:LEAD is a guideline, not a requirement...but I do (and have) conceded that it could use some added content. Theophilus75 06:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse failure Per Quadzilla's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse failure per above. This really is unfortunate, and has been discussed before. Wrestling articles just don't stand much of a chance of attaining GA or higher. Confidentiality clauses and copyrights limit the number of third-party sources to practically non-existant. And considering the characters are characters, they can't be portrayed as real per WP:WAF. As for WP:LEAD being "a guideline, not a requirement", it's part of the GA criteria that the lead meet standards which, in this article, it does not. That aside:
  • The lead, along with being weak, could use more wikification.
  • The article, as a whole, has inconsistent wikification. "The Undertaker", for example, is improperly wikified. It should be done for the first appearance.
  • There are issues with prose. For example, the first sentence in "Early career" is a run-on (and other sentences in the article are missing commas, particularly around years, and there's at least one misused semi-colon).
  • Under "WWF: The first stint (1990-1991)", "... WWF and immediately became a WWE World Tag Team Champion" uses both WWF and WWE. There should be a consistency. As this was before the name change, and the rest of the article uses WWF, I feel it should be WWF. Also, should "Superslam" be "SuperSlam", as written in a following section? The last two sentences of this section should be merged into one.
  • This entire article could use a good copy-edit.
  • Under "WWF: The second stint (1992-1998)", "In 1993 Crush was injured in a WWF Title Match match by Yokozuna and had to take several months off (kayfabe)." ← What is (kayfabe)?
  • There are two single-sentence sections. This could be merged into one. Not to mention the information is somewhat confusing. Is it the spinal injury of 2003 the same injury that forced his retirement in boxing?
  • "Wrestling facts" is messy and somewhat trivial. This needs to be cleaned up.
  • As for references, I think they would benefit from the cite web template. The addition of more reliable sources would also be nice. Fan sites with bio pages just don't come off as reliable to me. I doubt, however, that there will be much found on the web. I think this would be a library task.
• Although the article has issues to address, it's obvious that a lot of work has been put into it. If the above issues are addressed and some additional sources can be found, this may actually be able to achieve GA, which would be a success for Wrestling articles in general. Good luck. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, I really appreciate it!!!! Got a question...if it is known that wresting articles have problems finding sources, and WP:RS says, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." Wouldn't it make sense that when it comes to the topic of wrestling that the common sources available (obviously within reason) should be considered to be reliable sources? - Theophilus75 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fans have a tendency to exaggerate, so I'm not totally sure. This is something to look into. LaraLove^T/_C 19:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't disagree that fans do have a tendency to exaggerate, but I believe there is a difference between a "fan site" and (using a wrestling term) a "mark site." ESPN.com is a sports fan site, MLB.com is a sports fan site, Canoe Network's SLAM Sports is a sports fan site (including pro-wrestling). Then there are other sites that are created by Joe Blow who are wrestling marks (or even smarks) whose sites I may or may not consider reliable, that I think could be appropriate to use for finding information that is not likely to be challenged as long as long as there is solid secondary sources from (what I consider) "fan sites" that are reliable. - T-75|talk|contribs 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. When I speak of fan sites, I refer to those created and maintained by fans (aka "Joe Blows"), not professional writers, such as ESPN.com. In this case, I don't necessarily consider "mark sites", as you say, to be reliable. Citations to "fan sites", as you refer to them, would be appropriate, as they are considered reliable. LaraLove^T/_C 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I understand the concern about the sources, unfortunately, for this particular topic (more so this particular individual) sources are difficult to come by. The information has been sourced to the best of my ability and I do not believe there is no any info that is likely to be challenged that is not sourced. As for the "in universe" concern, I thought I had done a very good job of fixing most of that. I am going over the article against (and have already made some more changes since your comment), but if it isn't too much to ask, would you mind pointing out (even on my talk page) what parts of the article really seem to stand out to you as in-universe (if you don't have time I understand). My main concern with this article is to improve it the best I can, even if it doesn't reach GA. - T-75|talk|contribs 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rarely would I consider a fan site to be reliable unless it went to extraordinary measures to distinguish itself as a reliable source. EG it had evolved to becoming a recognized brand on the web. Many of today's reliable sources started out as blogs/personal websites, but evolved into notable sources.Balloonman 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think I may agree with you, but would use different terms, after all, ESPN.com is a fan site. There is a discussion above about this though. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not every article has some inalienable right to be a GA, if the sources aren't available then that's too bad. I'll give you an example, let's say a friend of mine from high school is a pro athlete, and he made a pro team but never played. I want to make his article a GA but there aren't enough sources, his college website is crappy and has no bios, he never had more than one small interview with a local paper. He plays a boring position like offensive tackle or long snapper. You know what? That's too bad. Same thing with anyone or anything who doesn't have enough sources to make them a GA, an actor, a wrestler, a rock band, a very small city. Aaron Bowen 17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for that note Aaron, I totally agree with you (and even said so above)...as a matter of fact, with few exceptions I think I've agree with just about everyone's comments here. I still am curious about your note that the article was too "in universe" and I am still curious if you could point out what needs to be done to fix that. Just because an article can't get to GA at this time doesn't mean it should be abandonded when it can still be improved on. - T-75|talk|contribs 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not too familiar with this whole process (how long it takes, whether this is a concensus decision or an admin makes their owne decision) let alone am I familiar with what a "concensus check" is. All I know is I was working on this article trying to get it to GA, worked on it a bunch, nominated it, and some guy "quick fails" the article but is unable (refuses) to tell me why. So I ask him why and he brings the article here. And yes, I FULLY understand that not all articles will be able to make it to GA, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be improved upon when possible (I still want to improve the article even if it is NEVER a GA or higher).

I appreciate those who've made comments on how the article can be improved. I've read everyone's opinions here and done my absolute best (along with some help) to correct those problems and concerns. I feel the article has been vastly improved. Does that mean I don't think it can still be improved on? Absolutely not, I know it can. Do I think it is GA quality now? I'm not certain, but I think it is. Looking at WP:WIAGA, I don't see it failing one of the points (though I'm not saying I'm not missing something either). I've added six more sources, mostly reliable secondary sources. I've taken the article out of universe (though one person says I haven't but he can't tell me why he thinks that). I've restructured the sentences, cleaned up the sections and someone who does a descent job of copyediting has gone over the article repeatedly.

All I want to do is improve the article the best I can. Frankly, I didn't even want to bring the article here (lesson learned: don't ask honest questions of the anti-wrestling article crowd)....all I want to do is improve the article. So, a request...to help me improve the article...if you have ideas on how to improve the article, please let me know. If you have already given suggestions, I feel I have addressed your concerns, please look over the article again and see if there is anything else and if you would change your vote based on how the article is now (not how it was 2 weeks and 102 edits ago). Thanks for all you of your help! - T-75|talk|contribs 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. I think this "consensus check" idea is an honest attempt by LaraLove to address some problems with this review process, in particular the fact that if an article has improved substantially, then an early delist vote may no longer be valid, because the reasons for the delist recommendation no longer apply. The choice of the words "consensus check" also reflects what a review process should be trying to achieve. However, it isn't working, as comments like "I'm voting above the line" and "these are the votes that count toward consensus" clearly demonstrate.

  The reason it isn't working, it seems to me, is that it doesn't address the underlying problem, which is that this is not a vote, or at least it shouldn't be: see in particular WP:VOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring. Consensus is not determined by weight of votes, but by weight of argument. GA/R seems to be unique among similar processes (WP:FAR, WP:FAC, WP:AfD, WP:CFD) in treating the process as a vote, even to the extent of recording the vote count in the archive. This is entirely contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, and generates exactly the kind of problems we see here. Aaron Bowen has begun a discussion of the talk page. I encourage others to contribute. Geometry guy 10:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question: LuciferMorgan, can you point out areas that still read in-universe to you? LaraLove^T/_C 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus check

The article has been significantly improved. It is requested that it be looked over once more for a possible change in recommendation. Please keep comments in the above section. Only list recommendations with optional brief explanation here. LaraLove^T/_C 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse failure Still mostly in-universe, and uses poor sources. I'm not really a fan of this "consensus check" thing by the way. Aaron Bowen 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Fail since I don't like consensus check's, it strikes me as an attempt to negate the previous votes, I'm voting above the line.Balloonman 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC) ^{(Moved below line by LaraLove, considering these are the votes that count toward consensus.)}

• Renominate at GAC - Great progress has been made to fix the in-universe issues. I've done some copyediting. I think this article is up to standards, at this point, but considering the difference between the reviewed version and now, it should be renominated and receive a second review. LaraLove^T/_C 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse failure Still mostly in-universe. LuciferMorgan 09:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre

Result: Relist - Several concerns were raised about the article, but unanimous consensus was that these concerns were not sufficient to merit delisting.

Strong Speedy RELIST recommendation

The article was not properly delisted. In fact, it was delisted in a manner stinking of vandalism. The GA parameters remain in all articles so that none of the Wikiprojects would not notice this surruptitious action. The nominating author was not noticed. The passing reviewer was not noticed and this wikipedian has a long history of failing every one of my GA nominations she reviews and attempting to get my successful GA nominations delisted. Please see article, its talk page, and the message I left at User_talk:PrinceGloria#Seeming_bad_faith. I attempted to fix the {{ArticleHistory}} template, but was unable unsure what action to name when an author by unilateral unrequested review delists and article without following procedures. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relist Nominator support as explained above. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Neither the nominating author nor the person who passed the article have to be notified when an article is immedietly delisted, the lack of changing the wikiproject parameters was likely just a mistake, (I've had to clean up some articles more than once where people haven't changed parameters) and for vandalism, Gloria really knows how to vandalize convincingly if this is vandalism, I would of just removed the template or something if I was vandalizing, but Gloria took the trouble of typing up a large rationale for delisting, if only all vandals gave such helpful vandalizing edits... Homestarmy 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relist I make no comment on the person who delisted it. Having thoroughly reviewed the article, I would never consider it feature quality, but it easily passes WIAGA. There are minor things to fix, and I have no objection to performing the recommended fixes on the talk page (though minor, they all would certainly make the article better). However, even in its current state, the article seems easily quality. So I say relist, but don't feel the need to avoid making the article better per the suggestions of the delister. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• relist - i agree with jayron in that the article is not feature quality, but does pass WIAGA. i also agree that the list of fixes on the talk page can be incorporated and would improve the article. i believe the article should stay at GA while incorporating others' suggestions. given the activity of WPChi on other chicago related articles, it is likely the fixes will be incorporated in short order. LurkingInChicago 14:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Virtually every WP:GA that is agreed to be sub WP:FA caliber has room for improvement. I am very annoyed at this wikipedian and would prefer if any editing is required in response to her suggestions, that someone else do them. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - since I have been called out personally, I feel obliged to comment in the very limited time I have. Please do note that the article contains a selection of very trivial information, veers off-topic at times and has poor structuring, to take three of my more major reservations. I sincerely believe those are pretty basic issues and it is really not excessive to expect the article not to exhibit such flaws when aspiring for GA.
  I would also like to note that User:LurkingInChicago is a member of the WikiProject involved in creating and promoting this article, so there might be some conflict of interest. Regards, PrinceGloria 20:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  PS. I prefer to go by the handle "PrinceGloria", you can perhaps refer to me as "PG" whenever you do not feel like wasting your time typing.

• Conditional relist - It needs a good copy-edit. Otherwise, it looks good to me. LaraLove^T/_C 06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• So, trivia sections and poor flow are OK with you? PrinceGloria 08:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• They are not OK, but WP:TRIVIA is not part of WP:WIAGA 1b, so I would only consider a clear-cut case as actionable, and that is not the case here. Geometry guy 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't consider "In popular culture" sections to be inappropriate as "Trivia" sections are. It's not a bulleted list of random information. It's a paragraph of interesting information written in such a way as to have some quality of flow. WP:TRIVIA recommends that trivial information be worked into the article, a task which "In popular culture" sections typically achieve, in my opinion. As far as flow, I did a copy-edit, but I didn't find many issues with flow. Feel free to tweak the prose where you see fit. LaraLove^T/_C 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• I am sorry, but this is just a renamed trivia section enumerating something that might be "interesting", but it is not encyclopedic at all. Further discussion on that in the article's talk page PrinceGloria 19:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relist - The fact that PrinceGloria cannot understand why the marquee is famous, when it is used in nearly every montage for TV stories about Chicago, its font was used for the title of a movie that grossed $170 million, and the last one was donated to the Smithsonian, suggests some sort of irrational bias against this article. S/he took more effort to enumerate problems with the article than it would have taken to simply fix them. Speciate 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  This is a common complaint about this process. Reviewers are under no obligation to fix minor issues that they find, but it is certainly helpful when they do. Please assume good faith, though! Geometry guy 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. I agree this meets the criteria. It could and should be improved, but I see no reason for delisting. However, I urge editors of the article to take PrinceGloria's suggestions for improvements in a constructive spirit. Geometry guy 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist The article (as all can) could use a couple or three improvements but it still appears to be GA material in my eyes.--VS ^talk 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Result: Bad faith nomination. Keep - Unanimous consensus.

Personally, I don't like George Bush. But I do like the Wiki. That's why the GWB article needs a going over. Someone locked it before this line -- "What do you get when you mix a Bush with a cheny ... One Fucked up country" -- was caught and edited. Have another look at the whole article.

• comment Articles are not delisted because of vandalism. I trust the GWB article the most, in fact, because so many people are watching for sleeper account vandalism. hbdragon88 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• There's also substantial admiration for GWB throughout the world. He is able to build international partnerships and tackle complex intertnational issues like revamping the Kyoto Agreement or getting missiles into Europe. Most of his problems come from unruly Republicans and noisy Democrats. Sure, he doesn't speak well, but lots of people like and admire him, but this WP article sounds more like it was written by Bush bashers, and I support a wholesale top-to-bottom review 154.20.137.51 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm not even sure I completely understand the nomination. Are we supposed to be looking over it for vandalism or for quality? A quick glance leaves me thinking it's a good article. LaraLove^T/_C 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep agree w/ laraBalloonman 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep — questionable nomination. — Deckiller 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... does seem like a bad faith nomination...Balloonman 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I spotted a couple of minor problems with image layout, and also one paragraph with a link to a "main article" but no summary of that main article. Nothing here that would merit delisting though. Geometry guy 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)