THC Science

↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Manual opening steps

Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
- If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

Manual closing steps

Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
- If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
  - remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
  - remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
  - add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
- If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
  - remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
  - remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
  - add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
  - blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
  - remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
  - remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment Talk notices given
Treehouse of Horror VI 2024-04-10 Siege of Szigetvár 2024-05-05 Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow 2024-05-07 Cubs Win Flag 2024-08-18
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project

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

03:57:17, 05/05/2024: Siege of Szigetvár

01:11:44, 18/07/2024: Stonyhurst College

06:13:05, 05/08/2024: Muammar Gaddafi

19:30:48, 21/08/2024: Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time
20:37:41, 21/08/2024: Current date for reference

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Articles listed for reassessment

Kony 2012

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

Result pending

Article is incomplete. Nothing about the $12.6 million in donations raised or how it was spent? Nothing about the legacy of the film or the current whereabouts of Joseph Kony? Schierbecker (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States Special Operations Command

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

Result pending

Way too much uncited content. Schierbecker (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Mumbai attacks

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

Result pending

This article is difficult to follow because it is written poorly. Every statement should answer the five Ws: who, what, when where and why. This article does not do this. For example: "NSG Commando Sergeant Gajender Singh Bisht, who was part of the team that fast-roped onto Nariman House, died after a long battle in which both perpetrators were also killed."

How did he die? He just died?? Poof, dead?

Here is another example of bad writing: "Before his execution in 2012, Ajmal Kasab,[25] the sole surviving attacker, disclosed that the attackers were members of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba,[26] and were controlled from Pakistan, corroborating initial claims from the Indian Government.[27] Pakistan later confirmed that the sole surviving perpetrator of the attacks was a Pakistani citizen."

We are neck deep in this article and we are confirming the identity of the terrorist group as if this were new information. Also Pakistan found out he was Pakistani after they executed him? Schierbecker (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taliesin (studio)

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

Result pending

This article has a lot of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also an "Introduction" section whose information I think should be redistributed to other sections of the article (like history) or removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KJP1

I think this, very Good, article is easily capable of the light wash-and-brush up required to bring it to present citation standards. I don't agree that the Introduction should be removed - it's basically a mis-labelled Lead and just needs to be repurposed as such. As to the para.s that don't end in cites, I don't see that many, and many/most could easily be addressed, merely by combining what are sometimes too-short para.s anyway.

I see the main editor has been notified. Obviously, if they're intending to pick it up, I'll step back. I'll Watchlist it and come back if required. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This gives an idea of what I mean. I think there are about half a dozen ^{[citation needed]} tags that need addressing, and a sweep to make sure all the lead material is covered, and cited, in the body. I'd reckon it needs 2 hours work max. KJP1 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - Have moved the Intro to the lead, combined some short para.s, and addressed the ^{[citation needed]} tags, which meant finding about 3/4 cites. All paragraphs now end with a cite, and the citeless lead material is covered in the body. The result is here. Are there any outstanding concerns? KJP1 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A separate point on titling - I find the current "Taliesin (studio)" a little odd. It implies the article is just looking at Wright's studio within the wider Taliesin complex, which it isn't. Personally, I would rename it "Taliesin East", which would bookend nicely with Taliesin West. I see the GAN Reviewer made the same point in 2014. KJP1 (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: I would move the edits from your sandbox to the article so that other editors can see the changes on their watchlist and add comments. I have no opinion on a name change. The prose looks a lot better. The History.com sources should be removed. "Weekly Home News & August 20, 1914" does not point to a citation in the bibliography. "Storrer, William Allin (2006)" does not have any inline citations pointing to it. These are my only major concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - OK, moved the text back over, without experiencing the attribution issue I feared (phew!). Taken the History.com's out/re-sourced Weekly Home News as I couldn't access it/put Storrer in Further reading. I hope we are good? KJP1 (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No further concerns. I hope that the source mentioned in the "Further reading" section is used in the article as inline citations, but that doesn't prevent me from declaring a keep. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. United

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

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text, including multiple paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Robson

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

Result pending

This article contains many uncited statements and paragraphs. The lead should be reformatted into 3-4 paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Hannigan

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

Result pending

There are multiple uncited statements, particularily for the end for the later parts of her career. Short, 1-2 sentence paragraphs should be merged. The lede is too short and does not summarise all parts of the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gadsden Purchase

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

Result pending

This article contains lots of uncited paragraphs. The "In popular culture" contains a lot of one-paragraph statements which could be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tension between payment and military seizure at the end of the lead should be explored in the body, which from what I can see only notes a proclamation by Lane. CMD (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Maynard Keynes

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

Result pending

The article, at 12000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG. There is a lot of uncited prose, and an overreliance on block quotes. Unreliable sources are used as intext citations and the "Cultural representations" section is full of one-sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batman: Anarky

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

Result pending

There is uncited text throughout the article, and the reception section is too long and disorganised. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof aye, this article has problems, definitely major enough that I don't think they can be easily fixed. The reception section, aside from being too long, consists largely of very confusing and contextless block quotes. The "themes" section might as well be written off as original research, as it is almost entirely cited to the comic itself, so it appears as though this is the editors own interpretations of the comic. It is severely lacking in citations to reliable, secondary sources, citing only a hand full. And as the nominator said, a lot of the text is entirely uncited, in sections you'd expect to be fully sourced. This is definitely a delist from me. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the "unsourced" bits aren't really unsourced. Here's an example: Cam Smith, Ray McCarthy, and Josef Rubinstein completed the ink work for "Anarky: Tomorrow Belongs to Us", "Anarky", and "Metamorphosis, respectively. That might be false, but it's not unsourced - the front of each issue will say who inked it. If there are other parts that are a problem, can you point them out specifically? I've only just skimmed it, but it's things like that that I found, so they're fine.

I removed the disorganized part of the reception section and it already looks way better. I haven't followed up with any of those sources though, nor have I checked to see if there are major omissions in that section. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I have added cn tags to the article. If the article is citing the comic as its source, it will need an inline citation (with the exception of the comic's plot summary). I agree with Grnchst above that the Themes section should not be citing the comic, but rather what secondary sources have said about the comic. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Trail

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

Result pending

This article falls well short of the standard for GA. There is way too much uncited text. Schierbecker (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist due to the large number of "citation needed" tags. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it looks like WP:HALFLIFE has gotten this one. I'll try to work on the missing citations, but until then I will have to !vote to delist. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tanzler

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

Result pending

This 2007 listing that was last reviewed in the 2009 sweeps fails GACR 2a, having multiple unsourced areas and a largely unsourced crufty "pop culture" section. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the pop culture section. Not only was it unsourced but there were hardly any items that were notable on their own. The one thing I kept was a note on the mausoleum pieces being used in an exhibit (which is also unsourced). I will try to look at finding where the unsourced info came from but I don't know if I can find relevant information. Recon rabbit 04:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

130th Engineer Brigade (United States)

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

Result pending

This older GA promotion is part of the new GA Sweeps initiative. There is significant uncited text (pretty much all of the post-promotion additions, which reflect more recent activities of the brigade). The article also cites Global Security, which is now considered to be unreliable. Hog Farm _Talk 23:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson

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

Result pending

Sending this article to GAR as part of the new GA Sweeps project as there is significant uncited text. I'm also not convinced that all of the MMA fan sites cited are reliable, such as Bloody Elbow. I raised concerns on the article talk page a week ago, but improvements have not been made. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ticelon who has done some work on this. For Ticelon's benefit - I have tagged some areas with CN tags that need sourced yet, and the lead needs updated with some of the more recent information. There's also a need for someone to assess if all of the sources are reliable enough or not (Bloody Elbow shows up as unreliable on the source quality highlighting tool, but I'm not certain what discussion that is pulling from). Hog Farm _Talk 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asia League Ice Hockey

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

Result pending

This 2010 GA has not been updated adequately in a decade. There are also a few uncited paragraphs and subsections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As original reviewer, it's definitely atrophied since the original GA so will need a fair bit of work to maintain GA status. Wizardman 22:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gardner (British writer)

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

Result pending

An "additional citations needed" banner has been present since 2019 for his works. The "Death" section is uncited, and the lede could be expanded and reformatted into two paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Fifteen minutes to add the citations is a little easier than the whole GAR thing. The lead could be expanded, but it currently contains the core information, and anything added would be adding just for the sake of adding, which doesn't do anyone any favours. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pace SchroCat, I'm not sure MOS:LEAD is met -- I would put it a little more strongly and say that there's a great deal of key information in the body that isn't in the lead, meaning that the lead serves only as an introduction to, rather than as an abridged version of, the main article. However, I agree that this should be straightforward to fix. SC, do you plan to make some additions -- I'm happy to give it a go if not? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, UndercoverClassicist! I have limited time this week, so your input would be valued. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to before Thursday or so, but will give it a go then if nobody else has. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done this. It might be a bit long, but honestly I think that's mainly because the article itself is a little sparse: I would advise editors thinking that it is overweight to look at expanding the body rather than cutting it by too much. I know almost nothing about Gardner except what is in the article and easily accessible in its sources, so please read it accordingly! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat and Z1720: thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks fine. - SchroCat (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks fine, I do wonder if the article can be expanded with more sources, but I'm not willing to look for them at this time. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrobeats

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

Result pending

This article has a handful of unsourced statements and an unadressed maintenance template. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 17:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of the unsourced statements please? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-2010s section, last sentence of first paragraph
Beginnings section, first paragraph
Final sentence in Name section.

— lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 02:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I've added a source for the mid-2010s section.

The Name section had a source already prior to the quote, I've moved the source down so it's clearer.

The mid 2010s section I think was moved around a few times, the sources were there but further down than they should have been. The only sentence fully lacking a source was "By the late 2000s artists within the burgeoning scene were beginning to become stars across the continent", I've added one to accommodate this. I removed "The style of music had a variety of names which made it difficult to market outside of Africa." as I could not find the source for this edit.

Would this resolve that particular point? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing those issues Harry. However, the article has gone through major edits since it was listed as GA, it has been through some traumatizing edit wars which led to ANI. Therefore, I do believe a careful and thorough reassessment is required before the article can be listed again. Prose, spot checks, references, plagiarism and so on must be reexamined

Thank you again, and you too for spotting this. dxneo (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I agree with that (most of the article hasn't been changed all that much since then), but I am obviously bias so I guess I'll leave it up to consensus. But from my recollection, the edit conflicts where about whether "afro-fusion" could be listed as an alias, and the details of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrobeats#Nigerian_afro_house section, both of which are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. There was a side debate about whether it could be said "afro-rave" was created by Rema, but I believe that was settled. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's entirely true. See this revision, this, this and this just to mention a few, where the latter revision states that the information was incorrect and irrelevant. It was not only on one sub-section but throughout the entire article. I also noticed that the article is REFBOMBED which is not a good thing. I myself have previously removed wrong information cited to reliable sources here, they just write wrong some stuff that does not cross match with the sources and I truly believe that it has happened more than once. Another thing, some sub-genres are "user coined", to clarify, they just mix two genres and list them as sub-genres of Afrobeats, and if I'm not mistaken, even amapiano and Afropop were listed as such. The background of Afrobeats does not check out. Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where? And why is it referred to as the umbrella term? Last time I checked, there were no sources to support that statement. The lede/opening statement of this article needs to be rewritten to highlight important keys only (and maybe move all the cited parts of the lede to its background section and relevant sections so that it can comply with WP:CITELEAD). dxneo (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I am now looking into this, this is not just a matter of reassessment anymore but if whether the article pass the GA criteria/requirements at all. Here is the version of the article that passed GAC. However, its information does not check out. "Afrobeats, also known as Afro-pop, Afro-fusion," cited to this and this, this does not match the content in any of the cited sources and that's just the first line of the then-article, and the prose is also not good.

Question is, how did it pass its first GAN? dxneo (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree there's more citations than there perhaps needs to be, in some sections. This is the biggest issue with the article, if you were to ask me. I also agree that the Lede could perhaps be improved, it's maybe a little awkward after the first paragraph (the last paragraph is well suited there too, though, I think).

The sources supporting "afro-pop" / "afro-fusion" being listed as /aliases/ were discussed previously here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afrobeats/Archive_1#Afropop_/_Afrofusion but I've accepted it's best to move on from trying to re-add that information. But, for the record, it was definitely supported by a number of sources.

"Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where?"

Why not all of the above? Abrantee (from the UK) coined the term and the UK played an important role with its popularisation outside of Africa, but it was an amalgamation of sounds flowing out of both Nigeria and Ghana that formed what we know of as Afrobeats. This is, in my opinion, covered thoroughly in the History section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrobeats#History (with regards to how all three countries played important roles in the development of Afrobeats). Afrobeats as a term was basically marketing (from the UK) to group all this stuff together (which included sounds/genres from both Ghana and Nigeria), hence the multi-national origin. Would you not agree that this is supported within the #Name and #History sections and if not, how could this be expanded on in your view?

"why is it referred to as the umbrella term?"

It originated as an umbrella for a fusion of sounds, see Abrantee's quote for example,

" For years we've had amazing hiplife, highlife, Nigerbeats, juju music, and I thought: you know what, let's put it all back together as one thing again, and call it Afrobeats, as an umbrella term." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/19/the-rise-of-afrobeats

This is straight from the guy who named the sound.HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a discussion but your POV, no one responded to that and beside, there was no consensus reached and again why were those sources not cited there? The intel still not check out even now because no sources support that claim in the article. I got multiple DYKs, GACs, and GAs I have to review, so I am lacking time to personally re-review this but I'll try. One thing we can all agree on is that a whole lot of cited information from the article was removed because it did not check out with the references, and what does that tell us? Sure we/you may try to rewrite the lede and cite a few source but this is a very big article, it needs a lot of time to be rewritten and for it's content to be cross matched with the sources. I'm sorry, but I do think delisting is the way to go here. I'll definitely help rebuild the article. dxneo (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This archive is full discussions on blunders and inaccuracies. A lot has to be addressed here. Few days wouldn't be enough to solve all of this. dxneo (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is implied unless otherwise debated WP:EDITCON. That was the original state of the article so it did not need an explicit consensus until that point. It's not my fault nobody responded to me when I provided more sources.

Anyway we're side-tracking a bit but I do want to address this point. If we look at the last revision where this content was intact https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afrobeats&diff=prev&oldid=1187682282 - those two specific pieces are supported by sources at the end of the paragraph. For example,

https://www.villagevoice.com/sound-culture-fests-afro-caribbean-rhythm-mission-this-goes-deep-into-roots/ "new Afropop is part of a family of club-friendly mainstream African music often packaged for export as Afrobeats."

https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/the-evolution-of-afropop "But if Afrobeats as a term doesn't serve the style, what can we call it? With its constant genre-blending and reinvention, the most accurate term to describe the wave of music flowing out of Nigeria and Ghana is Afropop" and "While specific artists have chosen their own titles – Wizkid, Davido and Burna Boy have referred to their sound as Afrofusion"

If you checked the version that passed GA, these sources are also there at the end of the paragraph. Hence, this information /was/ sourced, albeit the sources were perhaps placed later than they should have been (but, at the time, I felt like placing them at the end of the paragraph was apt as they covered the entire paragraph. If this was less than helpful, then I apologise, but I am just addressing the suggestion that this content was unsourced).

In my opinion, this content should never have been removed from the article to begin with. It was (and is, if you google for more) always supported by sources (both originally and later on, via the talk page) and consensus should be built about why those sources were inadequate, if they are at all and if the content could be better sourced elsewhere, but ultimately I had to give way to revision or end up fighting an edit war over two words.

Say what you want about later additions that you have removed, but when I wrote this article I meticulously made sure every single piece of it was sourced. I know, for certain, that the bulk of this article is well supported (and the stuff that has been added since then has been vetted by me, you, and other editors to ensure it is since then). I, and I do say this respectfully, do not agree with the characterisation that the article is in a poor state outside of (perhaps) an excessive use of sources in some areas. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, another inaccuracy. Redbull was suggesting, that's not a fact. Not sure about Davido and Wizkid but Burna Boy never referred to Afrobeats as Afro-fusion, this is what he said in an interview with Billboard. Burna Boy is actually implying that he created the genre, not the other way around. By the way, every statement must be adequately sourced, if I don't find a reference after the punctuation then I'm safe assume that it is definitely original search. Meaning the article was actually never in "Good Article" state. In between the time of it's GA promotion and now, it has gone through major changes. Again, what worries me the most is the above-mentioned archive and the fact that cited content was removed because it was believed to be wrong. dxneo (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, goes without saying that we disagree on that - I think those sources are adequate (and it was not OR as the sources were there) , but regardless, I provided others on the talk page (linked above) which supported this. Burna Boy rejecting the afrobeats moniker mostly ties in with what's already discussed in the #Name section (it being a relatively common thing).

Anyway moving on, which specific parts of the article do you feel like there's a concern (lede aside)? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I have DYKs, PRs, GAs, GACs and article splits to work on now. Therefore, I'll leave the reviewal process to someone else but I'll keep one eye open at all times. I'll be around to help where I can. dxneo (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)

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

Result pending

There is little post-2013 information in the article. There is uncited text, including entire sections. The lead, at 5 paragraphs, is more than what is recommended at WP:LEADLENGTH. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shall return from my break momentarily to fix the lack of citations absent throughout the article. Please allow me some time to gather them. I won't be able to help with the lede nor the lack of content in the shootout era. Perhaps another editor would be willing to crack at that. Conyo14 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help trim the lede. As for post-2013 - the article notes cup winners and notable outdoor games, as well as some tourneys. I'll add a little blurb on future award winners' debuts, perhaps, but besides that I'm not sure there's much we realistically can add that's not unnecessary bloat. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I believe the uncited sections are now complete. Please let me know if there is more on that front that needs to be addrssed. Conyo14 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14: I added a cn tag. I do think the article needs more post-2012/13 lockout information. What were the ramifications of the lockout in terms of finances? What rule changes appeared because of the collective bargaining agreement? The article focuses a lot on the earlier years of this article's scope but neglects post 2012-ish, in my opinion. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the cn tag. Conyo14 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed spacing. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see how the article holds up in terms of what has been accomplished in the GAR. I've trimmed the lede, added more fluff to the 2012–13 lockout, and included a section about the realignment and further expansion talks. Citations have been fixed throughout the article. Is there more to add on? Conyo14 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence and paragraph about loss of revenue, and the bounce-back after the lockout. I don't know of rule changes due to the CBA change. Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2024 ::*I feel very confident about a Keep Cos ^{(X + Z)} 15:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Opinions Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cn tag. After that is resolved it should be OK to keep. Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Conyo14 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Cerro Maravilla murders

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

Result pending

This 2007 addition has 8 citation needed tags and might also contain questionable/unreliable sources and need cleanup. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems interesting and there are two fully unused books in the further reading; please delist if I don't return within a week. Queen of Hearts ^talk 21:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Queen of Hearts do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @AirshipJungleman29 yes. I've made some edits but they've mainly been adding more things as opposed to fixing what's there. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Partition of Poland

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

Result pending

There are a lot of sources listed in the "Further reading" section, and the prose looks like it is underdeveloped. The lede does not summarise the impact/aftermath of the partition, and the Background section needs to be split up. There are other prose problems caused by small, one-or-two line sentences. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by prose being underdeveloped. The article can certainly be expanded, and some references should be replaced by more reliable works (and copyedited). Lead can be expanded easily, and adding some headings to Background shouldn't be hard. Whether the article is more B-class or GA-class is pretty blurry; it would not pass in the current form a GA with an experienced reviewer, but it is relatively complete and reasonably referenced. Still, as our standards improve, it is shifting more towards B-class, yes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'll ping some folks interested in Polish history who may have more time than I and perhaps could work on this: @Marcelus @Orczar @Merangs _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article writes very honestly about the Partitions of Poland it contains a good WP:NOTE, WP:RS is well written, the only thing missing that you can agree with is WP:LEAD which is too short, also the background, but in itself the article deserves to be good. Keep it Czekan pl (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Large chunks are cited to Encyclopædia Britannica, which is not in keeping with current expectations around sourcing. It also does read as oddly short given the topic, in addition to the prose issued mentioned. CMD (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: - The topic is brief as there are three related and continuous articles that are part of a series - Second Partition of Poland and Third Partition of Poland, not even mentioning the main one outlined by user Czekan pl above.

The quality of the writing is good enough and the topic is brief due to the split between first, second and third partitions, however, the references are somewhat untidy. I think it is best to utilise the Harvard citation template for in-line citations and the Template:Cite book for a reflist. Merangs (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Poland during the Piast dynasty

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

Result pending

Article has degraded since its original review in 2010. Concerns about unsourced content have been expressed on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the un-sourced stuff, but I will read the whole article in a moment and maybe I will find more errors such as lack of sourcing or poor encyclopaedic content because yesterday I joined wikipedia and read the rules and instructions all the. Koncerz777 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few not to tighten up already with the beginning missing a better sentence completion or missing something:

The tribe of the Polans (Polanie, lit. "people of the fields") in what is now Greater Poland gave rise to a tribal predecessor of the Polish state in the early part of the 10th century, with the Polans settling in the flatlands around the emerging strongholds of Giecz, Poznań, Gniezno and Ostrów Lednicki. Accelerated rebuilding of old tribal fortified settlements, construction of massive new ones and territorial expansion took place during the period c. 920–950. The Polish state developed from these tribal roots in the second half of the centuryhere. ^{Here there is a need to clarify for what reason it ceased to be a tribal state, because it is true that in the middle of this century it ceased to be but it had many factors that would be worth taking into account}. According to the 12th-century chronicler Gallus Anonymus, the Polans were ruled at this time by the Piast dynasty. In existing sources from the 10th century, Piast ruler Mieszko I was first mentioned by Widukind of Corvey in his Res gestae saxonicae, a chronicle of events in Germany. Widukind reported that Mieszko's forces were twice defeated in 963 by the Veleti tribes acting in cooperation with the Saxon exile Wichmann the Younger. Under Mieszko's rule (c. 960 to 992), his tribal state accepted Christianity and became the Polish state. ^When? Koncerz777 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also compare with the last reviewed version linked at the top. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary McLeod Bethune

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

Result pending

This article contains a 5-paragraph bloated lede, numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, and short, one sentence paragraphs in a very long "Legacy and honours" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has lots of deficiencies. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has seen a flurry of activity since this GAR was opened. Could you provide additional feedback following recent edits? Zsinj^Talk 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to keep working on this article to address the issues raised. Other editors are active and making improvements. I welcome further feedback, review, or support at the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsinj and Firefangledfeathers: Since reviewer time is limited, please post below when the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Latest revision as of 18:11, 24 May 2024

Articles needing possible reassessment

Articles listed for reassessment

Kony 2012

United States Special Operations Command

2008 Mumbai attacks

Taliesin (studio)

Comment from KJP1

D.C. United

Laura Robson

Lisa Hannigan

Gadsden Purchase

John Maynard Keynes

Batman: Anarky

Appalachian Trail

Carl Tanzler

130th Engineer Brigade (United States)

Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson

Asia League Ice Hockey

John Gardner (British writer)

Afrobeats

History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)

Cerro Maravilla murders

First Partition of Poland

History of Poland during the Piast dynasty

Mary McLeod Bethune

Leave a Reply

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|Process of quality control review}}
-{{Redirect3|WP:GAR|For the [[Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Guide to abuse reports|guide to abuse reports]] use [[WP:GTAR]]}}
+{{PP|small=yes}}{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header}}
-{| class="messagebox standard" style = "background-color:#ffe3e3; text-align: center"
-| ''[[#toc|'''↓  Skip to table of contents  ↓''']]''
+<div style="padding:0em 0em 1em 0em">''[[#Articles needing possible reassessment|'''↓  Skip to table of contents and archives  ↓''']]''</div>
+{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines}}<!--Full text of nearly entire page-->
-|}
-<!-- When the backlog template is unnecessary, move it into here so that the nominations stay listed on the GAtasks template.  {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/backlog}}-->
-[[Category:WikiProject Good articles|Good article reassessment]]
-[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
-{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines}}
 __TOC__
+==Articles needing possible reassessment==
+{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/notices given}}
+{{see also|Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023}}
+The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{tl|GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.
+{{User:AnomieBOT/C/Good articles in need of review}}
+*{{#time:H:i:s, d/m/Y}}: Current date for reference
+The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a [[WP:FAC|featured article candidate]], please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
-==Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)==
+{{-}}
-:'''Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to [[WP:GAR]] for reassessment and possible delisting of its [[WP:GA|Good article]] status. Include <nowiki>[[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]]</nowiki> in the section heading.'''
-<!--
- Add new articles below this comment using {{subst:GAR|Article=ARTICLE.NAME|Reason=RATIONALE ~~~~}}.
- But do not even think about adding a new article below this line until you have added a notice on the relevant article's talk page. See text above.
- Discussions are archived once consensus, or lack there of, has been reached. Once archived, return to the original notice and detail the results with the link to the archive.
--->
-===[[Battle of France]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Battle of France|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Battle of France|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Battle of France|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Battle of France|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Battle of France|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
+==Articles listed for reassessment==
-I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|GA sweeps]], and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. Although multiple sources have been added since the [[Talk:Battle_of_France#GA_Re-Review_and_In-line_citations|last recommendation]] to include them, I don't believe it to be sufficient for the length of the article. [[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
+<!-- This page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add articles here. To list articles here, add {{subst:GAR}} to a new section on the article talk page and follow the link this generates to create an article reassessment page. Discussions are archived once consensus, or lack thereof, has been reached.-->
+{{User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment}}
-*'''Comment'''. Much of the article is well-referenced; I count a total of 62 in-line citations. However, two sections lack any citations. The Prelude section would be stronger if it contained a citation on Hitler's peace overtures. The section on Dyle Plan also needs citations. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
+<small>[[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/|Subpages]]{{*}}[[:Category:Good article reassessment nominees]]{{*}}[https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Good_articles.html Good article cleanup listing]</small>
+[[Category:WikiProject Good articles|Good article reassessment]]
-===[[Tofu]]===
+[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed]]
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Tofu|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Tofu|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Tofu|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Tofu|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Tofu|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-This article was found during sweep process. It carries a lot of information, but I feel that it's a little too much (per criteria 3b). The references are not uniform. Also, trivia section was found. It definetely doesn't deserve a bold delist, so I want others' opinions.  [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Allegory in the Middle Ages]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Allegory in the Middle Ages|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Allegory in the Middle Ages|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Allegory in the Middle Ages|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Allegory in the Middle Ages|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Allegory in the Middle Ages|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-Has been listed as in need of citations for 11 months.  As it stands, it is unsourced and reads like OR. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist'''. Paucity of in-line citations means that it fails GA criteria 2. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist''' needs citations[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Stillwell Avenue]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Stillwell Avenue|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Stillwell Avenue|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Stillwell Avenue|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Stillwell Avenue|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Stillwell Avenue|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-I would like a second opinion on this article, based on concerns at [[Talk:Stillwell Avenue]]. Thank you.—'''[[User:JohnnyAlbert10|<font color="red">J</font><font color="blue">A</font><font color="gray">10</font>]]''' <small>[[User talk:JohnnyAlbert10|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JohnnyAlbert10|Contribs]]</small> 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse fail''': While the reviewers choice of words "too short" may have been a bad choice, the crux of his arguement, that the article lacks the broadness required of a GA as spelled out in [[WP:WIAGA]] seems quite accurate.  The history section, for example, contains 3 unrelated facts crammed into one paragraph.  80 years of history condensed into 3 short lines does not seem to be broad enough at all.  Also, the "future and culture" section?  The title itself makes no sense.  If both topics are to be covered, they should be part of separate sections "Future plans" and "in culture" or "culture of the street" or some such.  Also, we have a superlative statement (largest subway station) that is left unreferenced.  That needs referencing, as all superlatives are inherently challenegable.  This seems well below [[WP:WIAGA]] standards at this time.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Opus Dei]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Opus Dei|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Opus Dei|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Opus Dei|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Opus Dei|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Opus Dei|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-I am not personally involved in the article, and am actually not sure whether the article should be delisted or not. However, one user has delisted the article without giving any time for concerns to be addressed, and I think it is much better that a consensus be reached (especially as it is not 100% clear this article should be delisted). Some of the concerns can be found at [[Talk:Opus Dei#Delisted the article as GA]]. [[User:Shudde|<font color="Blue">'''Shudde'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Shudde|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' on the GA list.  I honestly don't see the POV problems the delister is complaining about.  The article is comprehensive, indeed an excellent overview of the subject, and it DOES present both well publicized positive and negative perceptions of the organization.  The sources are approrpriately used; it cites both secondary and primary sources as approrpriate.  While I would agree that for obvious cases, it is quite allowable for an article to be delisted without discussion, this was right to be brought here.  I see no major issues with this article as it stands now.  Indeed, I would recomend an FA run in the future.  This seems quite close to meeting the requirements of an FA.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist'''. I do think that there's a neutrality issue with this article, as noted by the editor who pre-emptorily delisted it. I'm particularly concerned about the ''Replies to criticism'' section. If whatever's important in that section was distributed elsewhere in the body of the article then I might be persuaded to change my mind, but as it stands it does look a bit like "set 'em up and shoot 'em down". --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' as the article meets GA criteria and is well-balanced. I'd prefer to see the criticism and the rebuttal integrated into, rather segregated from, the rest of the article -- but that certainly isn't grounds for de-listing. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-* '''Comment: Well this is a first''' Of all the articles I have ever read and come away knowing no more than before I began, this is by far the longest and most meticulously documented. I lean toward  Delist, because I have no idea why O.D. is so powerful, and the criticisms were glossed over in a hurry. Please feel free to persuade me to Keep... --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' There are definately some problems with the article.  The introduction is very choppy and should be smoothed out.  I saw a lot of criticism of O.D. throughout the article.  The controversy section used a lot of weasel words (name critics and supporters.)  The controversy section was also where the article was its weakest.  The criticism section should be strengthened, while the rebuttal section should be shortened.  But overall, I thought the article is clearly a Good Article.  I do not, however, agree with Jayron in thinking that it is "quite close" to becoming an FA.  Too many sections where the prose wasn't quite there.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-::'''Comment''' Nowhere near FA; still very questionable on GA. I think it's a diligently created puff piece, frankly. Glossed over everything. To repeat, I learned nothing except what I could have learned if I had bothered to find some pamphlet in some Catholic library somewhere or other. --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-::'''Diligently created puff piece''' would be a good summary of my opinion of the article as well. Nowhere near FA, and very dubious for GA. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Principles of learning]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Principles of learning|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Principles of learning|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Principles of learning|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Principles of learning|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Principles of learning|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-Article was quick-failed for lack of inline citations, but there is no such requirement in either [[WP:GA?]] or [[WP:V]]. Although inline cites are commonly used, they are not always required. They are only specifically required 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" which are not applicable to this article. Many editors object to the overuse of inline cites because they are unnecessarily distracting. This article is a compilation of several public domain sources which are in general agreement on the topic, which is the practical application of the "principles of learning." Each alone supports the entire article (with the minor exception of the Navy source which omits ''Recency''). The text of the article is mostly verbatim transclusion of the best examples and explanations from each, with some minor editing to make the presentation generic. There is no need for inline citations on each sentence to show which of the documents each came from. The article meets [[WP:V]] and should be assessed on its merits. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 14:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-:'''Comment''' None of the references seem to be from educational psycologists, but instead, various parts of the U.S. federal government....? That seems very odd, especially since the lead says that education psycologists are the ones who I suppose agree about these principles of learning. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-:'''Endorse fail'''. The sources supplied are geared towards training, in particular training the trainer, and are at best tertiary; the article needs better quality sources. I agree with the review comment about inline citations. It is not sufficient merely to list a number of sources in a ''References'' section, unless all of the material in the article could be considered to be general knowledge and therefore not needing to be sourced. Which is not the case with this article. Much of the material could be challenged, such as the effect of stress on learning for instance. I also believe that the article is substantially incomplete, focusing as it does on teaching as opposed to learning. There is no mention of the students' learning strategies for instance, topics like distributed vs massed practice, transfer of training, promptness of feedback, learning to learn, or individual differences in learners; this is perhaps because the article seems to focus on ''training'', as opposed to ''learning''. There is much else that could be criticised in this article, and although it may be a reasonable start it barely scratches the surface of this topic and is unbalanced. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-::You are correct that the article is geared toward training--I intended that to be clear from the lead. The refs also cover student strategies, and other factors but in separate sections, so this could be covered in separate articles. This article was intended to be focused on a much narrower topic, rather than be a complete treatise on the subject of learning. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 12:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-::*'''Reply'''. Then the article ought to be called the ''Principles of training'', not the ''Principles of learning''. But it doesn't cover either subject in sufficient detail, with sufficient references, to be listed as a GA as it stands. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 02:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-:'''Endorse fail''' as failing reviewer. I no way suggested that an article must have, "inline citations on each sentence". But in general, facts must be attributed to particular sources for strong verifiability. Simply take a look at all other articles listed at [[WP:GA]].  Leaving it to readers to figure out which facts are associated with which sources is not acceptable verification for GA-class articles. Regardless, as mentioned above, the source material isn't exactly the most topically appropriate. If you don't want to use any inline citations, that's fine. But it's not Good Article class work. [[User:VanTucky|'''Van<span style="color:#FF4F00">Tucky</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|Talk]]</sup> 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-::If you check the history or the refs, you will see the text of each section is taken from different refs on a sentence by sentence basis, to the point that virtually each sentence would require a cite. This would be unnecessarily distracting because the refs are all in basic agreement. There are no citable facts per se, there are merely descriptions of each principle as commonly applied. I agree that inline cites are generally a good thing, and I certainly know how to use them, but I don't think they are necessary or desirable in this case. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 12:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-:::Again, if don't want them, then the article doesn't necessarily need to have inline cites. But if you want to be GA class, it must. Read the quote from the criteria provided further down. Good Articles must have inline citations. Period. [[User:VanTucky|'''Van<span style="color:#FF4F00">Tucky</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|Talk]]</sup> 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-:'''Endorse fail''' Published opinion is what this article is about, and that needs citing.  While such opinions may be held by those in high accademic standing, and such opinions may represent a majority opinion in the scientific and educational psychology community, they are still published opinions, and must cite where they come from.  Without inline cites, it is impossible to tell which reference each idea is tied to.  Also, I would agree with the above assessments over the kinds of references.  I am a teacher myself, and there are GOBS of texts on this topic.  This article seems to rip text from half a dozen U.S. government publications, and cites another half dozen texts.  With the hundreds there are to choose from, many of which present differing ideas on these principles, I have serious concerns over broadness with this article AS WELL AS referencing.  While I abhor the notion of "quick failing" an article (I have never done it, and never would) and would prefer to see reviewers take the time to leave comments necessary to improve the article to GA standards, I would endorse the failure of the article for the reasons outlined above.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-::The article does transclude text from six U.S. Government publications, the other refs are further reading, not cites. The article is not intended to be broad, it is intended to narrowly focus on the practical application of the principles, as stated in the lead. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 12:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse fail.''' To quote from GA criterion #2, a Good Article "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged." The article in question lacks any in-line citations, which means that it fails. Sorry. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse fail''' without any citations, I have no idea of how accurate this article is or upon what basis the editors used to write it.  The principles may be accepted, or they may not be, how do I know?  Because the article claims it is so?  But doesn't back it up.  Are these views universally held or accepted only by a certain segment of educational psychologist?  Sorry, this article is stating as fact something that I can see groups questioning/challenging.  As such, it needs citations.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Computer program]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Computer program|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Computer program|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Computer program|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Computer program|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Computer program|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-I cannot see how this got promoted to GA status. It seems to me it is pretty far off by many standards. For such a big topic the article is way too small ([[WP:WIAGA|criteria 3a]]), the lead section takes up half the article (1b), the prose is faulty in a few places and not always easy to understand even for someone who knows the topic well (1a). I've looked at an older version of the article, good job to everyone who has improved on that, but I'm sorry I don't see how this meets the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]].--[[User:Sir Anon|Sir Anon]] 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Rebuttal''' I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.
-:# Regarding "For such a big topic the article is way too small": Whereas the topic of computers in general is a big topic, the topic of computer programs is quite specific, namely it's only the instructions for computers. [[WP:WIAGA|criteria 3a]] requires that the article address the major aspects of the topic. And the footnote says, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles ... to be listed." What major aspects of the instructions for computers are missing?
-:# Regarding "the lead section takes up half the article": [[Wikipedia:Lead section]] says, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable ..." The computer program article's lead section is capable of standing alone as a concise overview of computer programs. It covers computer programs that are software and computer programs that are hardware. The fact that it takes up half the article is because the other major aspects of computer programs covered outside the lead are just summaries of wikilinked articles. The reader can visit the main article for information on that aspect of computer programs. Maybe paragraphs two through four should contain their own headings.
-:# Regarding "the prose is faulty in a few places": please be specific.
-:# Regarding "not always easy to understand even for someone who knows the topic well": please be specific.
-:Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] 01:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*<strike>'''Delist'''</strike> The lead seems to be a haphazard list of mentioning what sorts of things happen when a computer program is executed, it mentions RAM and the CPU, but its hard to tell why they are mentioned to the exclusion of every other part of a computer that a program ultimately has to run through, such as cables, various buses, etc. etc.. "Without a computer program, a computer would not run" or whatever it says in the lead is not very specific, because "run" is not defined; does that mean provide a useful function, or that power won't come on, or what? Plus, it is too small. It's certainly not an easy topic to write about since the subject covers so many things, but that doesn't mean we can let things like this slide through :/. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Rebuttal''' I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.
-:# Regarding "a haphazard list of mentioning what sorts of things happen when a computer program is executed, it mentions RAM and the CPU, but its hard to tell why they are mentioned to the exclusion of every other part of a computer that a program ultimately has to run through, such as cables, various buses, etc. etc..": It seems you're referring to the computer programs that are embedded into hardware. It is not a haphazard list; instead, computer programs embedded in hardware are 1) in ROM to boot and 2) in devices to function independently. The article says, "The boot process is to identify and initialize all aspects of the system..." followed by examples. These examples were chosen because Silberschatz chose them in his book. I don't think computer programs initialize cables, but if you have a source on how computer programs initializing busses, then that would be a nice addition.
-:# Regarding '"Without a computer program, a computer would not run" or whatever it says in the lead is not very specific, because "run" is not defined': [http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/program.html Webopedia] says, "Without programs, computers are useless." Whereas this is probably most true, I chose "would not run" to be not as negative. The purpose of the sentence is to [[Wikipedia:Lead section|explain why the subject is interesting or notable]]. I would consider the fact that computers "run" to be an axiom.
-:# Regarding "Too short": please see my previous post.
-:Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist'''. This article is ''way'' short of the mark, both in terms of its content and its writing. It doesn't even make sense in several places: "... system software includes utility programs to help maintain the computer." Eh? How does a sort program, for instance, help to "maintain the computer"? It's stretching credibility to include COBOL as an example of self-modifying programs (presumably on the basis of its ALTER verb), and there's no mention at all of topics like generative programming. In short, the article is poorly written, missing lots of important information, and what information is there is sometimes dubious. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-**My guess on that sentence would be that the editor was referring to things like Scan Disk and whatnot, though that would qualify as OS software, not something hard wired into the system. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 01:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Rebuttal''' I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.
-:# Regarding '"How does a sort program, for instance, help to "maintain the computer"?' According to the [[Utility software]] article, "[utility programs] ... help manage and tune the computer hardware, operating system or application software, and perform a single task or a small range of tasks; as opposed to application software which tend to be software suites." I chose to shorten this information to the minimum words with no loss of meaning. I can now see the ambiguity of the word "utility". The sort program is a utility at the application level. But the context of utility in the sentence in the article is system software.
-:# Regarding "It's stretching credibility to include COBOL as an example of self-modifying programs (presumably on the basis of its ALTER verb)": it's exactly the ALTER verb that enables COBOL programs to modify themselves.
-:# Regarding "[[generative programming]]": this looks interesting. Thanks for introducing it to me. Maybe Wikipedia readers would like a paragraph of this in the [[computer program]] article.
-:# Regarding "the article is poorly written": Do you mean there are punctuation problems? Grammar problems? Subject/verb agreement problems? Parallel structure problems? Transition problems? Spelling problems?
-:# Regarding "missing lots of important information": You only mentioned one topic missing: generative programming. Yes. Now that you mention it, with the advent of [[application servers]], generative programming would be a nice addition. However, this is not "lots of important information".
-:# Regarding "what information is there is sometimes dubious.": The information in the article is well researched and sourced.
-:# Regarding "My guess on that sentence would be that the editor was referring to things like Scan Disk and whatnot, though that would qualify as OS software, not something hard wired into the system." Yes. Scan Disk is a utility program. The article does not claim that utility programs are operating system software. (I'm a believer that the operating system doesn't extend that far from the kernel itself.) However, the article does categorize utility programs as system software, of which the operating system also belongs.
-:Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-::'''Reply''':
-::#"Poorly written" in that some of the sentences don't make sense. For instance: "Computer programs may be categorized along programming language paradigms: imperative, declarative, or visual." That sentence confuses language categorisation with program categorisation. I have never seen or heard anyone describe a computer program - as opposed to a programming language - as being declarative, for instance.
-::#I was just giving one example of the kind of information that's missing in generative programming, and it has absolutely nothing to do with application servers. Another example is the history of computer programs. Who wrote the first one? When did it run? How do computer programs run? What does a binary instruction look like?
-::#Here's one example of dubious information: "Application software includes middleware, which couples the system software with the user interface." Whose definition of middleware is that? It's certainly not a definition that I would recognise or agree with. "Editing source code involves testing ...". Does it? ''Editing'' the source code? "The sometimes lengthy process of computer programming is usually referred to as software development." Software development involves a good deal more than writing computer programs, and may not even involve writing "programs" at all in these days of component based development.
-::#I remain convinced that this article ought not to have been promoted to GA and ought to be delisted. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 13:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-:::'''Thank you''': as a result of your specific constructive criticisms, numerous edits have been made to the article. Yes, the history of computer programs could be added. Yes, application servers that generate computer programs as html, css, java, and javascript would qualify as generative programming applications. Wikipedia is a good example of an application that generates computer programs as it generates these pages to your browser. Regarding your questioning of middleware and editing: as a result of <s>Morgan's</s> Moore's law, the technology as evolved faster than the vocabulary can keep up. The nuances expressed in the article are just those nuances from one standpoint. The more quality editors joining the article, the more nuances can be further explored. However, the fact that nuances can be ambiguious, does not mean that the expressed usage of the vocabulary is not of high quality. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-::::Having been myself a professional computer programmer for over 20 years I would be more than happy to help in working on the article; it's a widely misunderstod field. But the fact remains that as it stands this article ought not to have been listed as a GA. So I have to stick with my '''Delist'''. It's a very broad subject, and I can see that the article is developing along the right lines. Nevertheless it isn't there yet, and it shouldn't have been listed. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 00:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist''' The article is unnecessarily jargon-laden, and not well written for the uninitiated reader.  While I would except that certain deep-level topics within any discipline would need to be jargony in their language, a topic as broad as this one should be much more accessable to the uninitiated reader.  Also, per [[WP:LEAD]], the lead is not really a summary of the article.  There is information in the lead which does not appear later in the article, and there is information in the article which is unsummarized by the lead.  The article is NOT well-organized, either within each section, or as a whole.  There is no reasonable or logical flow to the article; its simply a random jumble of statements about computer programs.  This easily seems to fail the "well written" criteria of [[WP:WIAGA]], and also seems to fail the broadness requirements, but to be honest the article is so disorganized, I have a hard time even deciding that.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 06:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Rebuttal''' I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.
-:* Regarding "The article is unnecessarily jargon-laden and not well written for the uninitiated reader.": The article starts out with simple concepts, then branches out to the nuances. Fortunately, Wikipedia is rich enough to have wikilinks for most of the vocabulary used.
-:* Regarding "Also, per [[WP:LEAD]], the lead is not really a summary of the article." I now agree and have made the proper edit.
-:* Regarding "The article is NOT well-organized, either within each section, or as a whole.": Here is the organization of the article:
-::* Essential characteristics of computer programs
-:::# Computer programs that are software
-:::# Computer programs that are hardware
-:::# Computer programs, both software and hardware, manually inputted
-:::: Note: manually inputted computer programs are significant because it gives the reader an idea of the mechanics of what now is automated and therefore hidden.
-::* Categories of computer program
-:::* Categorized by function
-::::* system
-:::::* operating system programs
-:::::* maintenance utility programs
-::::* application
-:::* Categorized by language paradigm
-::::* imperative
-::::* declarative
-::::* visual
-::* Peripherial information regarding computer programs
-:::* Execution
-::::* How programs are loaded
-::::* Many programs can simultaneously run
-:::::* Simultaneous programs through software techniques
-:::::* Simultaneous programs through hardware techniques
-:::* Programming
-:::* Self-modifying computer programs
-:::* To be added: [[generative programming]]
-:Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] 08:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Recent edits''':
-:# Regarding "the lead section takes up half the article": I read too much into [[Wikipedia:Lead section]] says, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article..." I added headings for paragraphs two through four, and it now looks consistent with Wikipedia.
-:# Regarding "How does a sort program..." belong to system software: I addressed the ambiguity of utility programs by saying that utility programs also solve application problems.
-:# Regarding '"Without a computer program, a computer would not run" or whatever it says in the lead is not very specific, because "run" is not defined; does that mean provide a useful function, or that power won't come on, or what?': I replaced "computers would not run" with "computers are useless".
-:Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''  I'm glad to see someone is taking an active role in the GAR - alot of good editing has come of it, and hopefully there is more to come.  From my own perspective, I too don't think the article is GA-worthy, but mostly for some pretty simple (and hopefully simple to rectify) reasons:
-:#The lead is still somewhat weak.  Particularly the second and thrid sentences.  The second sentnece is poorly written and somewhat vauge, and the third reads more like an argument then an encyclopedic entry ("Morever" especially).  Also, I still don't think it really summarizes the rest of the article.  Ideally, I'd recommend at least a sentence dedicated to each section, though you may be able to squeeze a few together.
-:#The citations should be immediately after punctation and without a space.  This.<ref>fdsg</ref>  Not this. <ref>asdsaf</ref>
-:#Many of the sections seems somewhat small, especially the subjects containing a Main Article link.  For many of these sections, it may just be a simple matter of lifting a few sentences or a paragraph or two from other articles to fill things out a bit.
-:#Along the same lines as the previous point, and after lookin at the organizational bullet points posted above, I definately would say things could be expanded considerably.  Some of those bullet points mentioned above are only represented by a single sentence or two, when I'm sure they could be expanded to a fairly robust section/subsection.
-:#Lastly, organization-wise, I would say the article would benefit from some subsections, rather than a whole bunch of full-blown sections.  The good thing about turning some sections into subsections would be that a) they wouldn't need to be as long as a full section ideally should be, b) the content is organized more logically and readably, and c) you could introduce some ideas behind various subsections in the introduction to the full section.  I'm not sure if the way I said that made any sense, but hopefully that was clear.
-:Hope all of this seems doable. [[User:Drewcifer3000|Drewcifer]] 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Take a fresh perspective''': The article has benefitted from the abondance of constructive criticism. If you still see logical edits to be made, then please [[Wikipedia:Be bold|be bold]]. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-*<strike>'''Keep''' The article, especially the lead, has massively changed for the better, even if improving the lead was not intented. Although I think the article could be more comprehensive, such as including information on history of computer programs, the main stuff about what a computer program is is there, and I see no further GA related problems. You'll want to have more than three or four inline references if you want FA status, and the last two subsections in the first main section as well.</strike> [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-:*The lead seems to have disappeared to almost nothing. I wonder if we're both looking at the same article? In any event, it's patently clear that the article is not stable, an automatic GA fail. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-::*The article is rather on the short side, has many sections, and some of them are sort of small to bother summarizing in the lead. At least, that's what I think of it. However, the article instability is a direct result of this GA/R I presume, (Unless there's some edit war i'm not seeing?) and instability created as a result of the GA process is exempt for stability rules. I don't know if that's formally in a guideline somewhere or not, but it has been the informal consensus around here anyway. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-:*I really don't see the problem here. The article when it was listed clearly did not meet the GA criteria. Some work has been done on it since this objection to its listing was raised, but not nearly enough. Your argument about some sections being too small to summarise in the lead seems to be disingenuous, as the lead is supposed to be a short summary of the article. Two rather desperate looking sentences hardly constitutes a summary. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-::*Hmm, it seems you're right, but when I looked at it earlier today, it was at least several sentences long. Now, it is too short. I'll avoid making another decision until the editing stops mostly, but if the current lead is what the main author is shooting for, this article should never be a GA. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Follow up comment:''' The article has yet again been majorly reworked, but I don't think it is enough to be a GA yet (see comments by others above). To add to what others have already said about the lead and the sizes of the sections, I don't agree that we can declare that it meets the stability criteria, while there is no edit war there is one editor who is obviously not happy about the article and about its scope ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Computer_program&diff=next&oldid=169089089] and more recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_program&diff=170627690&oldid=170609273]).  I see no point to rush it to a GA status.--[[User:Sir Anon|Sir Anon]] 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' I truly appreciate the work that Timhowardriley has done on this article.  His dedication to it is quite impressive and should be commended.  However, this is a good time to bring up the value of collaboration.  I recommend bringing some more people on board to work on this article.  I have this problem when I edit articles as well, and I have found thata few extra people working on an article, tend to smooth out the "rough edges".  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Attaining_.E2.80.9Cstrategic_distance.E2.80.9D This link here] is to an excellent essay by Tony1, an excellent editor here at Wikipedia, that explains what I am talking about here.  Part of the problem is that Timhowardriley is VERY knowledgeable in his subject matter.  I know two things about computer programs: Jack and Shit.  When I read this article, I have a hard time parsing the language of it.  It is an issue of overall flow, and of the jargony language that is used.  What is patently obvious to the expert is NOT always so to the uninitiated, and being a general knoweledge encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to be understood BY the uninitiated to a subject matter.  Also read [[WP:SUMMARY|How to write in summary style]].  An article like this should be more an overview article, which should lead to more detailed and more expert-appropriate articles.  See, the problem is not with any one sentance, or with any one word, its the overall tone and flow of the article that gets in its way.  I highly recommend bringing more people on board to help with this, such as other editors with a specialty in Computer Programming, AS WELL as some unitiated copyeditors, perhaps someone from [[WP:LOCE|The League of Copyeditors]] who are GREAT at helping with cleaning up the prose.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-:*'''Comment''' Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, I know a great deal about computer programs and programming, and I know that that this article does not even get close to doing justice to that subject. It's not a copyedit that's needed but a complete re-think. As to to the wider issue of helping to improve the article, fine. But that's not the issue being discussed here. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 04:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-:::Be careful I am also a professional software engineer with many years experience. There is a lot of stuff about programming and programs that professional developers know that does not belong in what should be a high level introductory article that should be easy to read even for some one with little or no computer science background. As it is there is probably too much technical terminology in the article right now.[[User:Rusty Cashman|Rusty Cashman]] 20:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-::*Sorry, I will no longer try to find ways to improve an article.  I am sorry if I thought that was the purpose of Wikipedia.  It is apparently not.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 04:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-::*Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to have lost your way. We are not discussing the "improvement of articles", or the "purpose of wikipeda"; we're discussing whether this article ought to have been listed as a GA. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-:::*You are still right, and I am still wrong.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist''' for the moment. It was my mistake to pass it in the first place. While the article is actually improving as a result of this discussion there is currently an edit war going on over the lead. While I think a compromise will be reached (I am trying to come up with some compromise wording right now), it is not good to have so unstable an article labled GA.[[User:Rusty Cashman|Rusty Cashman]] 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist''' The edit warrior responsible for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_program&diff=next&oldid=123929339 this] version of ''Computer program'' still has the article on his watch list. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Goldfish]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:goldfish|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:goldfish|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:goldfish|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:goldfish|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:goldfish|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-Poorly-written and absolutely chock-full of {{tl|fact}} tags. Some major sections are completely uncited. [[User:VanTucky|'''Van<span style="color:#FF4F00">Tucky</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|Talk]]</sup> 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist'''. It definitely needs more citations. I also dislike the lists inside the "Varieties" section, they would do better in a better article in my opinion. The "Description" is way too short as well. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>[[User:Bibliomaniac15/Straw poll on straw polls|A straw poll on straw polls]]</small> 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-'''Delist''' I get the feeling that this used to meet criteria in its past; the first several sections are all adequately referenced and well written.  The last 2/3rds of the article, however, have poor prose, and are in desperate need of citations; even beyond the fact tags are several statistics provided, as one example.  All statistics need a source, per [[WP:SCG]], the relevent guide for this article.  Its a shame given the quality work done on the first 2-3 sections, but as an overall article, this is clearly below [[WP:WIAGA]] standards.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-:You're completely right Jayron. I remember reading the article not too long after it passed, and it was good. The usual stewards of the article got burnt out with the large amount of vandalism that was going on for some time and left, so it's now in the sorry state you see. [[User:VanTucky|'''Van<span style="color:#FF4F00">Tucky</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|Talk]]</sup> 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
-::My heart aches. This one could be turned into GA by a dedicated editor. The ingredients are all there. '''Delist.''' --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist''' due to lack of citations. Additionally, the description section needs expansion and the prose are clunky. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist''' per above comments. More citations are needed, prose could be improved and fact tags need to be addressed. [[User:Raime|<font color="blue" ><b>Rai</b></font>]]-[[User talk:Raime|<font color="green" ><b><i>me</i></b></font>]] 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist''' per above... but also the lists are long and the prose reads as fluff---"they also die if they don't eat in a week." It isn't very encyclopedic.  I do agree with Jayron, the first 2-3 sections were very strong... then it crashed.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 04:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Silent Hill 2]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Silent Hill 2|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Silent Hill 2|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Silent Hill 2|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Silent Hill 2|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Silent Hill 2|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-My third successful GA. It has, since its nomination, swelled in its plot summary and gained an OR tag. Does it just need a bit of work or should delisting be considered? [[User:Lenin and McCarthy|Lenin and McCarthy]]  |  ([[User talk:Lenin and McCarthy|Complain here]]) 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
-:<s>'''Conditional Keep'''</s> A decent article for a great game, but there are a few things that stick out to me.  First off the plot section should definitely be trimmed down.  I'd say it needs to be about half of what it is now, but that's just a guesstimate.  Also, there's a few instances of in-line citations having a space in between them and the sentence.  It should be this,<Ref>sdf</ref> not this. <ref>sgfsd</ref>  Also the in-line citations need to be formatted consistently and need to give proper and full attribution.  Some of them are all over the place.  Although the Music section has a main article link, I think you should add in a bit more prose than just a single sentence.  I'd also trim down the External links a bit.  Also, this sentence is a bit confusing "and he has been manifested from the perspectives of the film's characters rather than that of James, as he does not appear in the film."  If you can fix those things, I'd say it definitely meets GA criteria.  Hopefully that doesn't seem like too much work. [[User:Drewcifer3000|Drewcifer]] 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist''' Due to lack of improvement based on the above. [[User:Drewcifer3000|Drewcifer]] 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' - Are you sure the version promoted meets the GA criteria? if it does you can be bold a revert back all those versions. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|<b><font color="#0000DD"><font color="#0066FF">Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb<font color="#00EEFF">e</font>a</font></font>n</font>~</font><font color="#FF3333">H.</font><font color="#FFCC00">Q.</font></b>]] 13:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' I don't see how the plot is swelled. The current version of the plot is 10,1 kilobytes, reviewed version is 8,98 kb. The refs are the main reason for the increased size. --[[User:Mika1h|Mika1h]] 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Barbara Gordon]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Barbara Gordon|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Barbara Gordon|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Barbara Gordon|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Barbara Gordon|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Barbara Gordon|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-As per my peer review at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Barbara Gordon]], this is not a good article. It is far too excessively focused on the minutiae of DC comics trivia and continuity, and fails to provide an overview of its most significant claims - that Barbara Gordon, in both of her major comics incarnations, is a cultural icon in some sense. Furthermore, the article is appallingly presentist, with half of the character history being spent on the last four years of comics. The article is not a good article, and requires a thorough rewrite from first premises to become one. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 14:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-:'''Delist''' I would agree with the above assessment.  The balance between in-universe and out-of-universe perspective is WAY off, per [[WP:FICT]] guidlines, and the article is fails the [[WP:WIAGA]] broadness guidelines in both of its sub-criteria: It ignores major aspects, as Sandifer notes above, and also delves into unnecessary details.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Marsileaceae]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Marsileaceae|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Marsileaceae|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Marsileaceae|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Marsileaceae|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Marsileaceae|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-Failure to use a specific template is not the same as failure to produce a broad article.  The specified template is a ''guideline'' used by [[WP:PLANTS]] for ''species'' pages.  It is in no way a straightjacket that all plants articles must meet.  Many articles do not follow that "standard" template, and many ''should'' not follow that template.  The [[Marsileaceae]] is one such article because a) it is not about a particular plant, b) it is not a plant that is cultivated except in specialized botanical gardens, so the "cultivation" section wouldn't apply, c) it does not have economic uses, except for occasionally substituting four four-leaf clover, which is hardly deserving of an entire "Uses" section.  In short, the "broad coverage" criterion was misapplied by the reviewer.  It means '"broad coverage", not "specific format". [[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] 04:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-:<s>'''Endorse fail''' The article has two inline cites (not none as noted by the reviewer) however, some additional references seems to be required by [[WP:SCG|the scientific citation guideline]], which asks for specific citation for statements such as these:</s> :*"In all, the family contains 3 genera and 50 to 70 species with most of those belonging to Marsilea." Statistics need citations always.
-:*"The majority of species (about 45 to 65) belong to the genus Marsilea, which grows world-wide in warm-temperate and tropical regions." Again, contains a statistic that needs a reference.
-:It is understood that SCG has different citation requirements than do other citation guidelines, but there still are some citation requirements.
-:Also, the broadness criteria seems to not be met.  It was not the use of a specific template (in the Wikisense) that the reviewer objected to, it is that the article does not adequately address all major aspects of the topic.  While a GA does not require the depth of coverage that an FA does, it does require that there be no major omissions.  For example, the ecology (such as relation to other species/relation to its environment) is not covered.  Also, no information is given on human interaction with this class of life, such as uses of these plants, or perhaps how these plants are cultivated(if useful) or controlled(if pest).  Based on these shortcomings, it looks like a fail was an appopriate act to take.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-::The citations criticism is accepted and has been corrected. However, please note that the ecology/human interactions criticism is inappropriate.  There are about 350,000 species of [[plants]], and for most of those species little or nothing is known of how they interact with other species, and most plants have no human uses.  Requiring an article to say "nothing is known of the ecology and there are no uses" imposes an unmeetable criterion, since such a statement would require a citation, and no such citation will exist when no such information has been published! It is a catch-22 to require an article to contain original research in order to meet "good article" status.  The broadness criterion only requires ''known'' and ''published'' information to be covered, not ''unknown'', ''unpublished'' information. If the information is so obscure that it is not published in books or articles about the plants, why should lack of that information in the article be a hurdle to receiving "good article" status?  These plants are not cultivated, controlled, or used (beyond the little blurb in the article).  In fact ''most'' of the world's 350,000 species of plants are not cultivated, controlled, or used by humans.
-::And you are mistaken about the reason for failure.  The reviewer said: "This template contains numerous section topics not addressed by the article, hence the failure of broad coverage of the subject."  The reviewer specifically failed the article for not including information she assumed should be in the article, whether or not that information actually exists, basing her decision solely on the misapplication of an inappropriate criterion: the [[WP:PLANTS]] template.  The template does ''not'' apply to larger groups of plants and was never meant to be applied that way. It is merely a guideline, intended for use on pages covering a ''single [[species]]'' of plant, or in some cases a genus.  It was never intended to apply to pages that cover larger groups of many disparate species, such as this article on a [[fern]] family.  The broad coverage criterion is being misapplied.  --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] 12:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Return to GAN''' The article appears to have addressed the citation issues.  Also, I can understand and accept the above arguement for broadness requirements.  It is my opinion that the best course of action now is to seek an additional full review, by returning this to GAN.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Renominate''' I didn't see the two Harvard references, but it still needs work. It is, however, obviously not a quick-fail in consideration of that. [[User:VanTucky|'''Van<span style="color:#FF4F00">Tucky</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|Talk]]</sup> 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Opinion only''' I was the original reviewer and failed the article for lack of broad coverage, citing the non-adherence to the plants template.  Not that the template should have been followed to the letter, but it raised plenty of questions for me about broad coverage, that's all.  Contrast the sections in this article with those in [[Fabaceae]], also a family-level article, which has sections on taxonomy, description, uses, images, refs and sources.  FWIW.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mmoyer|Mmoyer]] ([[User talk:Mmoyer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mmoyer|contribs]]) 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-*:That's not a fair comparison.  [[Fabaceae]] is the bean family, one of the largest, most diverse, and most economically important groups of plants on Earth.  It includes over 600 genera and more than 16,000 species, with countless crops ([[peanut]]s, [[pea]]s, [[lentil]]s, [[clover]], etc.) and a large number of kinds of trees. By comparison, the [[Marsileaceae]] is a group of small aquatic ferns with at most 70 species in 3 genera, and no economically important crops come from the group.  Equivalent rank (family) in a classification does not indicate ''anything'' about the relative size or economic importance; it is merely a scientific label.  One plant family may include only a single obscure species of [[Marchantiophyta|liverwort]] with no economic or horticultural relevance, while another may have thoudands of members familiar to people all over the world.  Compare for example [[Takakiaceae]] and [[Poaceae]].  --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Mark Foley scandal]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Mark Foley scandal|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Mark Foley scandal|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Mark Foley scandal|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Mark Foley scandal|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Mark Foley scandal|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-I believe this article was unfairly failed due to "stability" issues, when the article itself has barely been edited in the past few months. I feel it is a Good Article. [[User:FamicomJL|FamicomJL]] 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
-'''Renominate'''. I suggest that this article should be re-nominated. I really don't see much wrong with it. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-'''Endorse fail'''.  The stability issue is due to the Transwiki tag in the article.  I would endorse that that entire section needs to be moved to Wikiquote or Wikisource as described in the template.  The problem with stability seems to be not that the article has NOT changed, but that it NEEDS drastic changes, and a GA review should NOT be undertaken until said changes have been made.  I think the reviewer needed to explain that better, but the Transwiki should be completed before a proper GA review should be done since that changes that will make to the article will be significant.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 03:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-:Egads, I wish I hadn't read that. Disgusting. well, you can say ''Renominate'' or you can say ''Endorse fail,'' either way you wanna cut the cake.. but this shouldn't be GA until after the transwiki issues are cleaned up for sure. I think it should be sent through [[WP:LoCE]] as well... but a lot of work has been poured into this article; that much is abundantly clear. --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 04:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-: ..and OH PS I sympathize with those who brought this into GAR; the review was unusually cryptic.  But still not GA time for this one yet. --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[Norman_Finkelstein]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Norman_Finkelstein|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Norman_Finkelstein|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Norman_Finkelstein|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Norman_Finkelstein|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Norman_Finkelstein|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-The reviewer did not provide a basis on which to bring the article up to the standards. Apparently failed based on a POV tag in the reference section, but the discussion on the ref section has been over for weeks. [[User:Avruch|<font color="#008080">Avruch</font>]][[User_talk:Avruch|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]] 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
-:I see you have removed the tag, now. I would have thought a re-nomination would be in order. --[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''. Re-nominate the article. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Renominate at GAN with original nomination date''' - Use the edit summary to detail why you're backdating. Also, format the references. See [[WP:CITE]]. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''[[User:LaraLove/My heart|<font color="00CED1">❤</font>]]'''[[User talk:LaraLove|<font color="FF1493">Love</font>]]''' 04:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Renominate at GAN''' [[User:Drewcifer3000|Drewcifer]] 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Renominate at GAN, motion to close'''. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-**[[WP:BOLD|go ahead and do both]]. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
-===[[John Herivel]]===
-:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:John Herivel|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:John Herivel|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:John Herivel|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:John Herivel|action=watch}} Watch])
-:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:John Herivel|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span>
-''Listed as a result of current GA sweep ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force]]).'' Whilst this article meets many of the GA critera, I believe its coverage of - and focus on - its subject are questionable. The majority of the article relates to a single event in John Herivel's life (in considerable detail); further biographical information is sparse. IMO not GA standard for a [[WP:BIO]] article, but I'd like further opinions ;)  [[User:EyeSerene|<font color="RoyalBlue">EyeSerene</font>]]''<sup><small>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<font color="OliveDrab">TALK</font>]]</small></sup>'' 13:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''. I am leaning toward "Keep" as GA since the article's subject -- Herivel and his role in [[Cryptanalysis of the Enigma]] -- are noteworthy.  Also, the Herivel article contains useful material not found in the Cryptanalysis of the enigma article. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
-**Would a name change+redirect be the way to go then? If a person is only notable for one thing I understand that it's difficult to write about him/her without writing about that thing, but my feeling is that this article takes it too far. [[User:EyeSerene|<font color="RoyalBlue">EyeSerene</font>]]''<sup><small>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<font color="OliveDrab">TALK</font>]]</small></sup>'' 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''. (Fair warning: I'm the primary author on this one). Firstly, I don't believe there's much extra published material that could be added to give more details about John Herivel's life; the biography is "complete" in that sense, at least for the time being, although EyeSerene is quite correct to point out that it's not very detailed. And yes, the article does essentially deal with two interrelated topics at once. That was a conscious decision, and I would argue that it's not necessarily a bad approach. You could split out the article into two stubby articles, but I think it makes for a better encyclopedia article to treat both together &mdash; indeed, that's always how the topics are treated in the sources. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 10:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist'''. Rename. Renominate. On very narrow grounds (for astoundingly, I enjoyed the article and under slightly different circumstances would argue for its inclusion). If the name of the article was hidden from me, and I was invited to guess what it might be, I would opt for 'Herivel's Tip'. That's what the article is about, and I do think it is important that the name of an article reflects  its content. When I open a can of [[Pea|peas]], I feel cross when I find [[Chickpea|chickpeas]] inside. Certainly I can settle for the closely-related legume, but the fact of the matter remains that I was misinformed; the can labeler should have taken a little bit of extra care at accurately identifying the contents. As for the closely related (and unwritten) biography of John Herivel, it would be a thin article indeed; John Herivel appears to have succeeded in conducting a quiet, uneventful life in which he has written some interesting books. So a fellow who does a neat bit pattern recognition gives rise to a Good Article on that work, and the article on his life is otherwise brief. So be it, so long as the contents of the various articles are identified in unmisleading ways. [[User:Gosgood|Gosgood]] 20:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Strong Keep'''. I find this article to be definitely interesting. Oppenheimer only did one thing in his lfe, did he not? --[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Rename and keep''' - Quality wise, it's good. Although, I would like to point out that "Interesting" is not a criteria for GA. It covers the topic of Herivel's Tip very well, but there is entirely too little biographical information to consider this a biography. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''[[User:LaraLove/My heart|<font color="00CED1">❤</font>]]'''[[User talk:LaraLove|<font color="FF1493">Love</font>]]''' 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delist, rename and renominate'''. This clearly isn't a biography, but what little biographical information there is may not be relevant to an article called ''Herivel's tip''. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Rename and Keep''' The whole proces of delisting, re-nomming etc. is a boring exercise. Just rename the darn thing. --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 06:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''rename and keep''' I would concur.  As a biographical article, it would fail on Broadness grounds quite handily.  As a description of an historical event, it is adequate.  A simple page move and rename would be sufficient to keep this on the GA list.  That is not to say that Herivel himself will not someday have an article about HIM, but this one isn't it... This one is about the event and the name should reflect that.  Otherwise, it seems to meet criteria quite well.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Conditional Keep, rename, and refocus'''. seems to meet the criteria, there's just a mismatch between the intended focus of the article and the actual content.  Renaming and redoing a bit of the prose (mainly the lead and the after the war sections) should be enough.  Mind you, this is a '''conditional keep'''.[[User:Drewcifer3000|Drewcifer]] 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''. I have some sympathy for the "rename and keep" position, but what does it actually mean? It seems to mean that keeping the article on the GA list is conditional on renaming it. Okay, so does that mean someone should close this discussion and rename the article? Would this article, in its present form (and it hasn't been edited since February!) really meet the [[WP:WIAGA|criteria]] if its title were "Herivel's tip"? I don't think so: with such a title it fails at least [[WP:LEAD]] and 3b (focus), as pointed out by [[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] and [[User:Drewcifer3000|Drewcifer]]. I think it would also fail 3a, as an article purely on the tip needs to provide more context about Bletchley Park and the Enigma machine, rather than essentially beginning with that fateful evening in February 1940. More on "cillies" and "bombes" would also be helpful to the reader.
-: As a process, GAR can only decide whether an article meets the criteria or not, and endorse keeping or delisting. So, in my opinion, "Conditional keep" or "Do X and keep" is a temporary position that reverts to "keep" if the conditions are met, and "delist" if the conditions are not met. I think that Gosgood called this one about right with his "'''Delist'''. Rename. Renominate." Only the "delist" was bolded, because that is the only decision that GAR can make: the rest is just a suggestion. It is up to individual editors to rename and renominate, because that requires work.
-: Of course, this is more than just a process: it also draws in a bunch of editors with a lot of GA experience, and so we can sometimes do better than just making recommendations and suggestions. In my view, if this article is not going to be delisted, one or more of us have to get stuck in and rework it. I'm tempted myself, but I thought I would raise the general question here, because this sort of GAR has arisen more than once before. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-:: I really don't think we should be in the business of renaming articles, since there's already a separate process for that, and what happens if editors disagree with us? Articles don't ''have'' to be GA's after all, so they shouldn't ''have'' to be renamed as the result of a GA/R. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 20:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-::: I think you are right. Of course individual editors can rename and rework the article, but it isn't the role of this process to decide that. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that the article as it presently stands should not be listed as a GA, and I don't think there's much doubt that simply re-naming it wouldn't make it fit the criteria either, for all the reasons stated above. Surely the only course is to delist it, work on it, and then re-nominate it? Sure, it's a nice article and very interesting, but it doesn't fit the criteria. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-:: I'm inclined to agree that delisting seems to me to be the best way forward, and if some of us want to join in the effort to rename, rework and renominate, so much the better. But if the "rename and keep" folks have a strong argument against this, I'd like to hear it. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-::: Nah, that;s fine.  I would endorse that move.  I think it would take VERY little work to make a GA for this under Herival's tip, or whatever the new title would be, but if you want to delist it and renominate it under the new title, that seems fine.  I would endorse that decision. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 05:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-(undent) It doesn't deserve to languish in GAC for a month. If one of y'all would agree to review it immediately upon its revision, then I can accept delist, revise  &amp; renom. --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-:That seems to be a rather novel interpretation of the GA criteria. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 06:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-::Novel? Seems like excessively ''following'' the rules to me. I just said that to go along with the crowd (since I am G-guy's bad-hand sock). My real view is this: leave the GA intact. Fix the !%&?% thing. Move on. :-) --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 06:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-:::Well here's ''my'' real view. This article does not meet the GA criteria and it ought therefore to be de-listed. I fail to see the point of having any criteria at all if they're going to be ignored whenever an individual editor believes that an article is "interesting". --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuarum]] 07:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)