↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

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

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.

Stillwell Avenue

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

I would like a second opinion on this article, based on concerns at Talk:Stillwell Avenue. Thank you.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

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. Shudde ^talk 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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". --Malleus Fatuarum 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Majoreditor 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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... --Ling.Nut 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.Balloonman 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Ling.Nut 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of learning

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

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. Dhaluza 14:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Homestarmy 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dhaluza 12:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. VanTucky ^Talk 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dhaluza 12:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. VanTucky ^Talk 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dhaluza 12:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Majoreditor 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.Balloonman 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer program

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

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 (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 GA criteria.--Sir Anon 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.

1. 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. 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?
2. 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.
3. Regarding "the prose is faulty in a few places": please be specific.
4. 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 Timhowardriley 01:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist 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 :/. Homestarmy 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.

1. 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.
2. 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': 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 explain why the subject is interesting or notable. I would consider the fact that computers "run" to be an axiom.
3. Regarding "Too short": please see my previous post.

Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by Timhowardriley 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Homestarmy 01:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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?
5. 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".
6. Regarding "what information is there is sometimes dubious.": The information in the article is well researched and sourced.
7. 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 Timhowardriley 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

1. "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.
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. I remain convinced that this article ought not to have been promoted to GA and ought to be delisted. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Morgan'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. Timhowardriley 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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

1. Computer programs that are software
2. Computer programs that are hardware
3. 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 Timhowardriley 08:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Recent edits:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 Timhowardriley 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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:

1. 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.
2. The citations should be immediately after punctation and without a space. This.^[1] Not this. ^[2]
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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. Drewcifer 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 be bold. Timhowardriley 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Homestarmy 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Homestarmy 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Homestarmy 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 ([1] and more recently [2]). I see no point to rush it to a GA status.--Sir Anon 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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". 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 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 The League of Copyeditors who are GREAT at helping with cleaning up the prose. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Malleus Fatuarum 05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are still right, and I am still wrong. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfish

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

Poorly-written and absolutely chock-full of {{fact}} tags. Some major sections are completely uncited. VanTucky ^Talk 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. VanTucky ^Talk 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My heart aches. This one could be turned into GA by a dedicated editor. The ingredients are all there. Delist. --Ling.Nut 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist due to lack of citations. Additionally, the description section needs expansion and the prose are clunky. Majoreditor 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per above comments. More citations are needed, prose could be improved and fact tags need to be addressed. Rai-me 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.Balloonman 04:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hill 2

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

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? Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep 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,^[3] not this. ^[4] 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. Drewcifer 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Due to lack of improvement based on the above. Drewcifer 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Are you sure the version promoted meets the GA criteria? if it does you can be bold a revert back all those versions. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Gordon

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

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. Phil Sandifer 14:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marsileaceae

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

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". EncycloPetey 04:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail The article has two inline cites (not none as noted by the reviewer) however, some additional references seems to be required by the scientific citation guideline, which asks for specific citation for statements such as these: :*"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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --EncycloPetey 12:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. VanTucky ^Talk 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoyer (talk • contribs) 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  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 (peanuts, peas, lentils, 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 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. --EncycloPetey 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Foley scandal

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

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. FamicomJL 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate. I suggest that this article should be re-nominated. I really don't see much wrong with it. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Ling.Nut 04:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..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. --Ling.Nut 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman_Finkelstein

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

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. Avruch^Talk 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed the tag, now. I would have thought a re-nomination would be in order. --Peter cohen 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Re-nominate the article. Majoreditor 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Renominate at GAN with original nomination date - Use the edit summary to detail why you're backdating. Also, format the references. See WP:CITE. Lara❤Love 04:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Renominate at GAN Drewcifer 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Herivel

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

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

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 ;) EyeSerene^TALK 13:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Majoreditor 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. EyeSerene^TALK 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 — indeed, that's always how the topics are treated in the sources. — Matt Crypto 10:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 peas, I feel cross when I find 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. Gosgood 20:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I find this article to be definitely interesting. Oppenheimer only did one thing in his lfe, did he not? --andreasegde 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Lara❤Love 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Keep The whole proces of delisting, re-nomming etc. is a boring exercise. Just rename the darn thing. --Ling.Nut 06:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.Drewcifer 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 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 Malleus Fatuarum and 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. Geometry guy 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Homestarmy 20:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Geometry guy 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Geometry guy 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(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 & renom. --Ling.Nut 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a rather novel interpretation of the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuarum 06:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]