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.

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. 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

1. 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.
2. 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
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. 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.
4. 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).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. 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.
4. 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.

Disputing a reassessment

1. 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.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. 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

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 Good article status. Include [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]] in the section heading.

Mortal Kombat II

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

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

Finns

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

Too short lead. The "Swedish-speaking Finns" is tagged with {{contradicts}}. BorgQueen (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed the {{contradicts}} tag, as I fail to see any contradiction here. Also expanded the lead to two paragraphs, as required by the GA guide. Martintg (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Lead still does not comply with WP: LEAD; adding a sentence to serve as a second paragraph does nothing to satisfy the conditions. Major sections (e.g. Etymology, History, Genetics and Theories of the origin of Finns) have no representation. An article this size should have a lead with two or three substantial paragraphs. Article is poorly written (both in style and grammar), Theories of the origin of Finns section has no references and existing references are not properly formatted. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the sections you mentioned are now mentioned in the lead section now. The article is not poorly written, although the sentences in the Definition-section are short due to the fact that the article refers to several main articles on specific groups. The contradict-tag was placed by the person who started this reassesment. To my view, there is no contradiction between Finns and Swedish people. Such disagreement would, should one exist, not burden this article but the article Swedish people which suffers badly from the lack of proper references. I added references to the section "Theories of the origin of Finns" which has lacked them. Now, there should not be any unaddressed points. --MPorciusCato (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to set the record straight; User:Vuo placed the {{contradicts}} tag, not me. See this diff. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for wrongly blaming you. BTW, are you satisfied with the lead section? --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lead looks quite okay now, in my view. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article looks fine in its current state, it looks like all problems have been addressed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Lead is indeed fixed, but article is poorly written per my previous assertion. For example, weasel words include "In some texts", "there are ... some people who", "used in a few written texts", "A few studies", etc. WP:MOS violations abound, e.g. use of "Interestingly", WP:NOR, e.g. "is a tricky matter" and that's to say nothing of the prose quality and grammar errors (editors really need to read the Comma (punctuation) article). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Swedish-speaking Finns section seems to contradict itself; its says most Finland Swedes consider themselves Finns (which isn't to be backed up by the reference), then says 82% say they have their own culture and are merely Finnish citizens. Narayanese (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradict fixed now Narayanese (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund the Martyr

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

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

Other major contributors to the article have already highlighted problems and major changes that the article needs here [1] and here [2].

The image of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not appropriate while the image of St. Edmund [3] has been copied from here [4] and is a breach of copyright. Hence the article suffers from a lack of appropriate images.

The article is poorly written. A couple of examples: the death of St. Edmund is given as 869 yet the article provides the date of 870 of his last battle! The online reference to Edmund’s patronage has not been checked and pandemics has wrongly been cited instead of epidemics. The article states: Other accounts state that his father was King Æthelweard but when you follow the reference here [5] there is no mention of King Æthelweard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the copyright violation: It is not the fact that the book in question is out of copyright but that the scanned image used is the property of the person (or organization) that scanned it and their permission is required. If the image had been scanned by the "uploader" directly from the book it would have been fine, but that is not what occured, he took someone else's image. The site in question may allow its use if following procedure is followed [6] (and only for “study or religious purposes”), however, it has not been followed, and is therefore a violation of copyright. Further, there is yet another copyright violation. The image here [7] has been copied from here [8] without the required permission from the copyright holder. EdChampion (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1920 Palestine riots

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

The main critic I would make are :

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

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

• delist. It doens't comply with the current criteria for a GA, mainly concering the notes and references. Ceedjee (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

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

Tim Tebow

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

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

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

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

Covering of the Senne

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operation Gibraltar

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

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

• Delist. I agree with the nominator. Statements like: "The Mujahids attempted to artificially create a sense of revolt by indulging in arson, murder, rape and robbery ... " need more reliable references than those that are provided. Plus I think it also fails on tbe well-written criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes zoster

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apple Inc.

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

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

Delist. I agree with Severa that this article does not meet the guidelines on neutrality and stability. For example, the article cites studies without revealing the non-neutral affiliations of the authors. One such study was the subject of a full article in the New York Times about the non-neutrality of the authors, and yet this Wikipedia article does not even mention the non-neutrality in the footnotes. See "Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties" (August 26, 2005). In typically biased language, the Wikipedia abortion article refers to "medical researchers notably from the American Medical Association" when in fact the study was merely published in JAMA, and "AMA disclaims any liability to any party for the accuracy, completeness or availability of the material or for any damages arising out of the use or non-use of any of the material and any information contained therein."[9] Click on another footnoted link in this Wikipedia article, and the first thing you see is an advertisement for "Abortion to 24 Weeks".[10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pikachu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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