• Delist - There are some issues to be dealt with... both minor and major.
  • There's a missing parenthesis end in the first sentence... poor first impression, really. Other small MOS errors in places.
  • Stand-alone years randomly wikified.
  • It is over illustrated, and I believe in staggering images.
  • There aren't enough references, many unsourced statements/claims, and the few references aren't properly cited or formatted, which bothers me.
  • Fact tags are GA disqualifiers.

It's a nice article and has potential, but it has a ways to go. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per above. Underreferenced with fact tags, but a good start. ChicagoPimp 17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. Needs lots of references. --Victor12 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. What I find the most disturbing is that the user that "reviewed" is in direct conflic of interest with the article. Over illustration is a main issue, and the neutrality too. AlexCovarrubias 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. This article does not accurately depict the country. Please read the Special report on Brazil at the Economist and compare with this article. Then, you will understand my concern User:RobertoMalancini 10 May 2007

Anaximander

I believe this article meets the GA criteria. It was failed today for the following reason:

Talk:Anaximander#More_sources_-_GA_comments

Please add more sources. I just had a brief look at this. Many sentences are not sourced. Please source them and renominate this for GA. Thanks" --Aminz 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing Sources quoting the policy in Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." As best I can tell, any fact open to challenge in this article is sourced. Not every line has to be sourced. The GA standard is different from the FA standard, and while I am strongly supportive of sourcing (and have failed articles for weak or missing sources) I believe that this article should be listed. I ask that you review and list Anaximander. Argos'Dad 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're familiar with this article, would you say the references given at the bottom cover most of the article? The problem with a lack of internal citation is that its quite impossible for a non-involved reviewer to know how much of an article is supposed to be referenced by the refs at the bottom and how much is OR just by looking at the article if there are no internal citations. By internal citations alone i'm sort of on the fence, but if the references below really do comprehensively cover this article, then i'd support it for GA status. Homestarmy 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have much involvement with it before I nominated it, but I have done some work on this article and I do not see any OR in it. The sentences that are not sourced are not in doubt. The bulk of the article and any thing that sounds extraordinary is sourced. Argos'Dad 03:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail. The reviewer's comments are quite inadequate, as they give NO guidance for improving the article so it can be renominated, but I would have failed it for the same reason, and left the following list of sentances that require sourcing:

• Very few documents can provide details on his life. According to whom? This fact should be referenced to someone who said it, as it is an interpretation, and if the author of the article is the only one making the assertion, it is OR. Statements like this, that present an interpretation of something, need to be referenced to WHO made the interpretation. Several other sentances below suffer from the same problem...
• Anaximander would have reached the pinnacle of his career around the time of Polycrates, tyrant of Samos. Really? You just said in the sentance before we could not make such statements, as the documentary evidence does not exist. Who is making this assertion?
• It is very likely that leaders of Miletus sent him there as a legislator to bring forth a constitution or simply maintain the colony’s allegiance. According to whom?
• He is the first philosopher to employ, in a philosophical context, the term arkhế (ἀρχή), which until then had meant beginning or origin. For Anaximander, it became no longer a mere point in time, but a source that could perpetually give birth to whatever will be. Superlative claims are always challengable... Source this please.
• However, it is generally accepted that this quote is not Simplicius' own interpretation, but Anaximander's writing, in "somewhat poetic terms". Who offers the interpretation that it is "generally accepted"?
• Anaximander's bold use of non-mythological explanatory hypotheses considerably distinguishes him from previous cosmology writers such as Hesiod. It confirms that pre-Socratic philosophers were making an early effort to demythify the genealogical process. Anaximander's major contribution to history was writing the oldest prose document about the Universe and the origins of life; for this he is often called the "Father of Cosmology" and founder of astronomy. Again superlative claims. Who calls him these things? Who has called him "bold"? Who has noted that these ideas of his are noteworthy to report here?
• Anaximander was the first astronomer to consider the Sun as a huge mass, and consequently, to realize how far from Earth it might be, and the first to present a system where the celestial bodies turned at different distances. Again, superlative claim, so challangeable...
• The map probably inspired the Greek historian Hecataeus to draw a more accurate version. Really? Who is making this claim?
• Anaximander's innovation was to represent the entire inhabited land known to the ancient Greeks. Was he the first to do this? If so, and it is important, who says it is important. Again, superlative claim...
• Anaximander, surely aware of the sea's convexity, may have designed his map on a slightly rounded metal surface. How do we know he was aware of this? Who claims he designed his map this way?

Thats a start. When interpretations of data are offered, a source for such interpretations are required. When superlative claims are made, sources for such claims are required. Both of these kinds of statements are easily challengable...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks you Jayron32 for these precisions. As a major editor to the article, I'm very familiar with the subject. I can assure that the references provided cover the article. I mainly used Marcel Conche's book, which provided all primary sources and some secondary sources, all listed in the references, and I second checked them all to ensure they were accurate. What sometimes seems like OR is usually Marcel Conche's analysis. I don't have the books at hand, but I will try to get them back so I can provide the exact secondary sources for the points mentioned above. However, as Argo's Dad suggests, the article is not in nomination for FA, but for GA. Sourcing every sentence is not necessary. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never said once that each sentance needed to be referenced. An article that sourced every single sentance would be resoundly rejected at FA as excessive anyways. Also, don't disparage GA as a somehow inferior process where standards should not be upheld. GA's standards of referencing are largely identical to FA. See and compare WP:WIAFA Criteria 1(c):"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. and WP:WIAGA Criteria 2: It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:(a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and (c) contains no original research. Don't imply that GA reviewer should let things slide because well, "It's only GA". Our standards are real, even if different in some areas from FA.

Back to my point: where a superlative claim is made (So-and-so was the first to....) or where an obvious interpretation of data is done (It is believed that so-and-so did this because...), sources ARE needed because these statements are challengable.

Where an entire paragraph gives a straight set of facts from one source (So-and-so was born on XXXX to John and Jane Doe. He grew up in Anytown USA, where he attended Anytown State University and majored in Criminal Justice...) it is quite appropriate to reference the entire paragraph with a single reference.

Also, where an entire SECTION of the article is referenced to a SINGLE source, it may also be appropriate to simply indicated such in the reference section:

• Personal Life: Doe, John (2002). Biography of Tom Jones Any University Press, ISBN: 12323454376

Professional Life: Smith, Jane (1975). Tom Jones: The Greatest Guy Ever Dick Williams Publishing, ISBN: 94509800

Still, which ever method of referencing is most appropriate for this article, anytime a statement makes a superlative claim or expresses an interpretation, it is likely subject to challenge and should be referenced to a specific location where such a claim or interpretation is made, either a specific webpage or page number(s) in a book.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polymerase chain reaction

I was surprised to see that this was a Good Article. I feel that there are some issues with the whole layout of the article (example: the history of the discovery is at the end instead of the beginning-middle). There are also referencing problems in the article. This is a 33KB+ size article, and there are only a total of ten references. Science-related articles should contain many more references, since without reliable sources, it would be easy for some vandal to go unnoticed and make a falsified claim about the process. I think the article needs a cleanup, and I would recommend sending this for a peer review. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, not even close to satisfying WP:SCG, most sections are compleatly without citation, and there are too many lists which don't appear to really need to be lists, possibly failing WP:EMBED. Homestarmy 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, not nearly enough references for a scientific article. Lists should be changed to text. ChicagoPimp 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

This article is about a critic of Islam. The BBC article on her [1] in its title says:"Ayaan Hirsi Ali, known for her outspoken criticism of conservative Islam, seems unable to avoid controversy". seems unable to avoid controversy and yet her article(now listed as GA) does not mention any criticism/responses of her. This article not only fails WP:LEAD: " briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any" but also fails the GA standards (comperhensiveness). I would like to request for this article to be De-Listed until it reaches the standards. --Aminz 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premature - Yes, some criticism needs to be mentioned, and there are fact tags to clean up. Strictly technically speaking, the fact tags clearly violate GA criteria, but the (confusing) guidelines above suggest posting on the talk page first, giving the article's editors time to resolve the issues. It's only fair. - Merzbow 06:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please show me the guideline that requires a criticism section for a critic. If there is notable criticism of her, it can be included, but I don't see a guideline or policy requiring it.--Sefringle 06:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Clarkson

I believe this article does meet the GA criteria. It lacks many citations, and the Lead has information that is not in the main body of the article. Clarkson's early years are limited to only two short sentences, and many sentences like "Clarkson is most associated with the British motoring programme" without facts is POV. A lot of (short) paragraphs read like trivia. The references section should also be looked at for the right formatting style, and if they actually are references, or just filler. andreasegde 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delist: End is listy, badly structured (too many short sections). weak lead, one sentence paragraphs. Not very broad, bio section way too short, unless he was really young which he isn't. Numerous citation needed tags, not nearly referenced enough. Fails GA criteria #1, #2 and #3. IvoShandor 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article is comprehensively referenced, and even a cursory examination of the citation needed tags indicates that many of them are spurious (in several cases, a "citation needed" tag appears in the same paragraph as a citation for the relevant material). I see only minor issues here (eg, the laundry lists), which should be worked out on the talk page. Interestingly, a number of the short paragraphs were introduced by the nominator, immediately after he inappropriately replaced the article's free image with a fair use image. Nandesuka 12:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Nandesuka actually works on the article, so his opinion is biased. I did split the Lead into three sections (to show what was needed) moved a couple of references to the end of sentences, and I put a fair use image on the page, which was reverted (no problem at all). This review is supposed to be conducted by neutral editors. andreasegde 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is a bit different but I stand by my original vote minus the speedy, it appears to be quite unstable at the moment. IvoShandor 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort this out on the talk page and I'll change my vote to keep. IvoShandor 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just not sure which version I should be reviewing, which is why I still say delist. IvoShandor 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The version I see right now looks GA-like. The section on Engineering needs some clean-up, but on the balance this seems a fine article. If there are real stability problems (and not just minor fixes but real content disputes) than maybe a 1-month cool off period to see if it can be stabilized, but other than the non-encyclopedic tone of the Engineering section, it looks fine.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Image:Clarksonpie1.jpg has a broken licensing tag and needs to be scaled down and tagged with {{furd}} . ShadowHalo 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I shrunk it Shadow. Quadzilla99 09:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marquette Building (Chicago)

Nominated for delisting. Poor structure, history section really is more than that, the restoration section and much of the history section is really just about architecture. Thus the actual history present is stubby at best and fails the broadness criteria as well. In addition the lead doesn't meet WP:LEAD, several facts find their only mention within the lead. In general the article is far from broad and such a famous example of Chicago architecture surely has more information available than this. IvoShandor 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see multiple other problems, I can note them here if others would like. IvoShandor 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as-is. Looks fine to me. I think you should list the other problems. GreenJoe 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have done some minor rearrangements, which do make the article better (by addressing your concerns), but don't think much more is needed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will list them when I get a shot, today or tomorrow or sometime soon. IvoShandor 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my issues and, for the most part, why I say delist:

• Several one sentence and short paragraphs/sections.
• Unencyclopedic exact address in the lead.

 Done moved. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, the address needs to go entirely. IvoShandor 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why would it need to? This is a building, it does have an address, I see nothing "unencyclopedic" about it, just like about the geographic coordinates. That said, this is a minor issue, and the article is still far below GA quality - who decides whether to delist it or not? PrinceGloria 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really has no significance to anyone reading the article outside of Chicago. Coordinates do. It's indiscriminate information, Wikipedia isn't a phone book. Just my opinion. IvoShandor 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that policy agrees with me. IvoShandor 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Kinda sorta. IvoShandor 09:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading the policy. It says an article on Paris should not mention the address of your favorite cafe. However, if the favorite cafe is itself an article the policy does not say to exclude its address. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I fully support Tony here. Which is not to say the article merits the GA status as of now, as it very clearly does not, due to other, more grave concerns raised here, which have not yet been offset. PrinceGloria 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there is no need for the building's address in an encyclopedia article, it provides nothing but to make the article read like a travel guide. Mention the street it is on, if it's relevant, sure, but what use is the address? Policy or no, it just looks bad and unprofessional in my opinion. It is indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. You can keep it if you want, this article still isn't up to GA regardless. IvoShandor 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead doesn't really represent a good summary per WP:LEAD, there are still several detailed facts that appear only in the lead.

 Done added some. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole article needs a copy edit.
• Need citations:

• It is considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School of Architecture

 Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The building features several distinct elements that have earned it honors as a Chicago Landmark, a National Historic Landmark, and a National Register Historic Place.

Not necessary IMO. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't tie these together without citation, it would represent unpublished synthesis, or OR.

• Around 1950, the terra-cotta cornice was removed from the Marquette Building when an additional story was added.

 Done cited. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The preservation of this building was championed by the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.

• Broadness

• Surely the history section of a 112 year old building considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School cannot meet the broadness criteria if it is only six sentences long.
• The architecture section isn't very thorough or broad either, on the interior it only describes the lobby on the exterior it only describes the sculpture and the windows.
• Consider adding a section where you can discuss its landmarks statuses, its awards and why it is such a significant example of the Chicago style of architecture.
• The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building

• The one and only ; ), Who is the architect?

• This part of the architecture section could use a rewrite, it is really choppy: The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building.[4] These are large panes of glass flanked by narrow sash windows. The grid-like window frames and spandrels are facilitated by the steel structure which enables non-load-bearing masonry walls.[4] This was one of the first steel-framed skyscrapers.[3] The building is built around a central light court featuring an ornate lobby.[5] The lobby is decorated with mosaic panels made by the Tiffany firm and bronze heads of native Americans, animals, and early explorers. The two-story rotunda lobby contains panels of lustered Tiffany glass, mother-of-pearl and semi-precious stones that depict scenes of the early history of Illinois.[1] The hexagonal railing around the lobby atrium is decorated with a mosaic frieze by the Tiffany studio depicting events in the life of Jacques Marquette.
• The Restoration section seems unfocused.
• At least one full date unlinked.

 Done linked. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• External links always go last.

 Done moved. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The city of Chicago footer template seems like overkill and clutter, it doesn't even link to the article.

Most WP:WPChi articles should get this tag. Good navigational aidTonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the images in the gallery should be moved to commmons and the gallery removed and replaced with a Commons link using {{Commons}}. If you don't want to move the images to Commons at least remove the gallery, per WP:NOT.
  • I have rearranged many of the images (moving most of them from the gallery to the article). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Much of the sections outside of architecture (as noted above) are also choppy, thorough copy editing by unaffiliated eyes should help to resolve the flow problems.

This is all I have for now. Hope that helps. IvoShandor 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just so everyone here knows, as should be obvious from my comments above, this is a serious, good faith GAR with no ill intent or previously implied retaliation involved. IvoShandor 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on these things so far, the broadness notes are important in my opinion. We shall see what others think. I am not wedded to delisting this, it just needs to be better is all. IvoShandor 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of these comments remain unaddressed. IvoShandor 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC
  • I have done a pretty thorough google search and included most relevant facts. I have reconsidered the categories and templates to improve the breadth of its appeal. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am afraid I have to agree with Ivo - his concerns are very valid, and apart from fixing the more minor issues as indicated above, I have not noticed anybody willing to give the article a good refurbishment within a short timeframe. I believe this is an important building, and I actually like it personally, but I think there is no reason why we should keep it on the GA list in its present state. I hope it will be developed into a full-fledged GA shortly, and then it can be renominated. PrinceGloria 07:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well a thorough Google search may not be sufficient in this case, just my opinion, still say delist. IvoShandor 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

There seem to be NPOV problems, such as this line: This raised concern as some perceived his actions as child endangerment, although Jackson has vehemently denied these tabloid rumours. media attention that is negative being stated as "tabloid rumours" seems a bit biased. Strong fox 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Lead is far too long, surely some/most of the stuff about his accomplishments can be better said somewhere else in the body of the article? It seems like a bunch of overkill with so much in the lead. Homestarmy 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist The lead definitely could be trimmed, you could almost make a whole new section with the information there. There are also many citation needed tags throughout the article, and I'm sure other areas could also use some more inline citations as well. --Nehrams2020 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this needs to be re-set, Strong Fox never put a notice on the article's talk page. Editors should be given notice and time to address concerns. Quadzilla99 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my previous reasoning I moved this back to the top, now I'm going to go notify the article's editors on the talk page. Quadzilla99 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Quadzilla99 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the lead the main problem? That can be fixed quite easily. Seems harsh to vote de-list just based on the lead. Some tags are still unaccounted for, but overall the article is teeming with citations.UberCryxic 14:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If the lead is fixed, we can of course change our votes, i've changed my vote plenty of times based on article improvements. These reviews can last quite awhile. Homestarmy 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the lead, the first main paragraph is designed to explain the importance of the subject of the article, ie. to answer the question "Why is Michael Jackson relevant?" after "Who is Michael Jackson?" already being answered in the opening sentence. That's why the accomplishments are listed there. You'll notice a similar pattern for musical acts of equivalent stature, like Elvis Presley and The Beatles. There's a lot of talk about impact, achievement, sales, and so on. It's virtually impossible not to note down things like that for people like these. So far, I have removed the awards from the lead and placed them in another section. I have also mentioned the albums released after Thriller to give his musical career some sort of chronological perspective. Beyond that, the lead seems to be fairly all-right and of appropriate length.UberCryxic 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problems with the first and fourth paragraph, but the second and third go into so many specifics, that it seems less of a summary and more of a compleate list of every important influence Michael Jackson has had on, well, a whole bunch of things. For instance, where the second one lists the artists he's influenced, that kind of thing can easily be generalized into something like "Has influenced a great number of modern singers" or something like that. Then the main part of the article should be where the elaboration on who the people he's influenced are, because then there's plenty of room to explain every influence as much as needed. Homestarmy 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lead is still way too long as far I'm concerned. I don't really care for any rationalizations, it's too long and should be cut. Quadzilla99 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is appropriate that long articles should have leads of three to four paragraphs. This one is more like three paragraphs (the first part is two introductory sentences). Whether you care for rationalizations or not is irrelevant; you're getting some, and in this case they are justified. To Home: those two paragraphs highlight the significance of the subject. At their core they are fine, but we can discuss how much information needs to be modified so it's of acceptable length to you guys. Beyond that, there are precedents that I used in writing those parts of the lead, especially Bing Crosby, whose influences in the lead are explained as follows:
  • One of the first multi-media stars, from 1934 to 1954 Bing Crosby held a nearly unrivaled command of record sales, radio ratings and motion picture grosses. He is usually considered to be among the most popular musical acts in history and is currently the most electronically recorded human voice in history. Crosby is also credited as being the major inspiration for most of the male singers that followed him, including the likes of Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, and Dean Martin. Yank magazine recognized Crosby as the person who had done the most for American GI morale during World War II and, during his peak years, around 1948, polls declared him the "most admired man alive" ahead of Jackie Robinson and the Pope[1][3] Also during 1948, the Music Digest estimated that Crosby recordings filled more than half of the 80,000 weekly hours allocated to recorded radio music.
  • The tone of the lead for that article is similar to the one for Michael Jackson, as are the details. This aside, however, I actually disagree with the assertion that the lead goes into specifics. It really doesn't, merely highlighting the major influences and aspects of Michael Jackson's career. The one part where it may is the third paragraph, although, again, there are tons of precedents with biographies of musicians that include sales figures and other chart accomplishments in the lead. If they are notable, they should be there. And with Michael Jackson, clearly that information is notable.UberCryxic 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the main contributor on the Michael Jordan article which was recently promoted to FA, so I don't need any instructions on how to write an article on a well known iconic figure. Quotes in the lead (specifically about the subject rather than from the subject) are a bad idea unless the quotes are tremendously famous. So for starters I would cut the lengthy quote. Quadzilla99 08:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole thing can go:"heralding and displaying complicated physical techniques, like the robot and the moonwalk, that have redefined mainstream dance and entertainment. At his height, he was characterized as "an unstoppable juggernaut, possessed of all the tools to dominate the charts seemingly at will: an instantly identifiable voice, eye-popping dance moves, stunning musical versatility, and loads of sheer star power."[2]" The first half sentence is unencyclopedic hyperbole and can be lopped off, the previous sentence will be fine without it. The second sentence is a quote which is in general a bad idea for a lead, also contains hyperbole. Quadzilla99 08:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I didn't think it necessary, I've removed the quotation from the lead.UberCryxic 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not questioning your credentials, but it does not seem fair to refuse "rationalizations," as you put it. Quotations can sometimes do a good job of encapsulating a whole lot of information into one or two sentences. That's why this one was found and placed in the lead. It did an effective job at conveying the importance of the subject. The Michael Jordan lead is really not all that different from the Michael Jackson lead. You even talk about awards he's won, which is actually something I removed from the Michael Jackson lead as a response to this review. The Jordan lead, like the Michael Jackson lead with Vanity Fair, also mentions critical perceptions, like ESPN and the Associated Press. The language is somewhat comparable...."widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of all time"......"widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time"....."instrumental in popularizing the NBA around the world"....."redefined mainstread dance and entertainment"...and so on. Now I am beginning to challenge your implicit assertion that the leads of these two articles are notably different. Apart from the quotation, which is not a big deal at all, they are not. Both leads do a good job at highlighting the status and "magnitude," if you will, of the subject. And if you include just career achievements, then the two leads are actually of similar length. The only reason why the Michael Jackson lead is slightly longer is because it has to document his controversial personal life.UberCryxic 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for me on this one.UberCryxic 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: All raised concerns appear to have been addressed and fixed, the lead gives me a good summary of the article. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Lead is currently as long as it ever was (568 words), quotations were re-introduced, there's needless hyperbole and extra wording. Also the list of everybody he's ever influenced does not belong in the lead, it belongs in this type of section. Quadzilla99 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comment As regards what MPD has said length of the lead has not been addressed. Quadzilla99 13:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotation was removed at one point, but I was reverted by another (far more persistent) user with whom I did not want to get into a big discussion or an edit war, especially over something so relatively insignificant. I am still officially supporting the removal of that quotation, but I can tell you right now it will not be an easy process getting it past some other users. There are plenty of precedents on articles about musical acts discussing specific and future artists that they have influenced. If the artists in question are notable, and clearly they are here, there's nothing wrong with mentioning them in the lead. The insinuation that the list represenets "everybody he's ever influenced" is ridiculous; that list really would deserve its own section. The people mentioned are meant to be representative of the various genres in which Jackson has had an impact....and, again, they are famous.UberCryxic 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok the quotation has been removed once more from the lead and placed in another section. Beyond that, I truly believe the lead is fine. Again, take away Jackson's personal life and his career gets the same coverage length-wise as Michael Jordan does in his lead.UberCryxic 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist From an outside view I find this article to be quite biased and in general badly written. It will never progress if the persistent fanboy gushing is not addressed promptly.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask the community to disregard the above "vote." The user has less than 50 edits and is clearly not well-positioned to make a call that requires some quasi-extensive experience with the articles and policies of Wikipedia.UberCryxic 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if I agre with that. I guess if the user cares they can respond, but it's rather drastic to strike out a user's comments. Quadzilla99 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the user is not one that can participate in a consensus-building exercise on Wikipedia, then there is nothing wrong with just completely removing their statements (and votes), much less crossing them out. In fact, I've had personal experiences with this during my FA reviews. The votes cast by recent editors were promptly removed and discarded. Basically, their votes should be ignored, and I wanted to make it firmly clear to whoever is adjudicating whether there is consensus that the above person can be disregarded.UberCryxic 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this actually gets funnier....I just checked the user's history again and I notice that this person has actually made "extensive," if I can use that word for someone with less than 50 edits, contributions in wikispace, particularly for FA reviews. I have no idea what this user had in mind, but obviously these actions on his or her part are inappropriate. I just hope they found out who it was during those reviews.....UberCryxic 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (undent) I don't feel like arguing but usually newly created accounts get crossed out on FACs. Althought the edit count is low, the editor has been signed up for a while. Most voters crossed off on FACs are newly created accounts that are suspected duplicate voters, not low count voters who supposedly don't know the criteria, which is not that complicated especially now incidentally. Quadzilla99 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just so we're clear, do you believe that the user's vote should not count? If so, then I do not really care which part you cross out. If you want, you can go ahead and cross the username only. Makes no real difference to me. If you do believe that the user's vote should count, then we are going to have somewhat of a discussion on our hands, to put it mildly.UberCryxic 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I have gone ahead and arbitrarily crossed out the "vote" as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.UberCryxic 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do think the user's vote should count, I've notified him/her and I'll let you two discuss it if he wishes to come here and comment. Usually users who appear to have registered just to vote on an FAC are discounted, that user registered 8 months ago. Hopefully he/she will come comment and I won't have to carry this on any further. Quadzilla99 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long they have been registered for is irrelevant. I've seen people who've been registered longer than this and they have like 20 or 30 edits. I believe the informal requirement for participating in these activities is something like registration for a month and at least 100 edits in mainspace, not wikispace. The edits that this person does have are all in areas that he or she should not have been involved in to begin with.UberCryxic 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, I don't see what notifying the user will accomplish. Obviously that person will claim that his or her vote is legitimate. But the whole point is that when it comes to matters like this, opinions from these users are trivial.UberCryxic 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It offends me very much that you would cross out my vote like it was nothing, not to mention that you didn't even tell me about it. I may not have have many edits but my opinions are as valid as the next persons. And anyway, just because I don't have many edits, it doesn't mention I haven't read the relevant wikipedia policies or the edit history of the article I'm giving an opinion on - believe me I've done both. Its presumptuous and rude of you to think otherwise - and act on - without any evidence. If you don't agree with my opinion fine, I can accept that, but removing it is another issue altogether and something I don't at all appreciate.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not mean to insult you in any way. Your vote was crossed out or removed because that is common practice with inexperienced users who get involved in consensus-building activities. What's actually presumptuous is your edit history on Wikipedia; I'm amazed that the majority of your less-than-50 edits have been made in wikispace. You should be aware that those kinds of actions are completely inappropriate. Regardless of what you think of your understanding of Wikipedia, you simply are not allowed to participate, at this stage anyway, in FA or GA reviews. As I said, this isn't about your opinion. Your opinion here is irrelevant. Another way to put it.....you don't have an opinion when it comes to this matter. You can't have 50 edits on Wikipedia and go to GA review pages saying you think articles should be kept or deleted. You need more of a history in mainspace before you can do something like that. Hopefully this is all clear. Again, your vote is irrelevant and will not count. I just want to make sure everyone, but especially you, understands this.UberCryxic 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The user has now been blocked on charges of sockpuppetry for one week. I have again crossed out the above vote, which can now be safely regarded as disposable.UberCryxic 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a major problem with this article, and I'm now gonna tell you why. There is a lot of CRAP on that article. It's a breeding ground for people to dump trash about Michael, and then the SAME hypocrits go back and claim that there are fan boys gushing out. I must say it's a convenient way to keep the article in its overly bias state. It's actually an extremely clever method. Of course, most people here are tabloid junkies who hate Michael so it makes it easy to just pile up hateful posts and dump 'em in the article. That's why this article is bias. Don't try flipping this around. This article still paints Michael as a molester and then an musician. It should be the other way around, but unfortunately it ain't, and it's sad to see these haters then try to accuse unknown fans of coming on and dumping out crud. Sad... really really sad. --Paaerduag 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep since this delisting consensus was started because someone said that the article is full of fan gush, which is totally ridiculous and acutally the REVERSE situation is occuring, I have decided to cast my vote to keep the article as a good article. I will not believe these ridiculous rants by haters claiming that the article is full of fan gush, it is acutally full of haters gush which is disgusting and bias, and should be removed. --Paaerduag 07:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as the article includes a lot of well-balanced information. However, some additional information concerning Jackson's personal relationships may be included. Onefortyone 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The problem seems to be the lead for most delisters. Note that the article is over 100k, meaning that the four-paragraph lead really isn't too long given the article's size. I think it could be trimed down though, and leads generally shouldn't need that many references. The point is that to me, it still passes GA criterion (though it's certainly not an FA yet).--Wizardman 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delist: The lead is too long and the article being long doesn't justify this because it is too long as well. The point in pulling information from articles and creating other articles is to shorten the main. I understand his status is our culture involves a lot of information and it's not easy to pull information, but that's the point. Additionally, fact tags are always disqualifiers for me. And I don't see how this article is negatively biased in anyway. It seems well balanced, in that respect. I think it's a very well written article, but doesn't currently meets GA standards. However, it shouldn't be that difficult or time consuming to address the few issues. LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Omega

Too few references, other issues such as solo linked years.Sumoeagle179 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Solo-linked years is actually permissible, and recommended in most cases, per WP:MOS. Dr. Cash 07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Solo linked years is generally not recommendable, see WP:DATE; specifically here there is considerable dispute though. In my experience in FAC's they're not well liked. Although that's an easy fix. Quadzilla99 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this review need any more attention, I see a 1 to 0, and although there's no rule against it, I don't really think its a good idea to act on a 1 to 0, its just one vote so to speak..... Homestarmy 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, 1 to 0 is no consensus, default keep. I will look at the article if I have a chance. IvoShandor 11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too few references in article, and source of references is narrowed primarily to APO references. Expanding references to a broader variety of sources would likely increase content and improve verifiability. Background of formation is sufficient, but article needs a section of significant contributions, expansion of charity events and/or community service. For having 300k members, a mention of notable alumni also would help. ChicagoPimp 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist for lack of independent sources, and in general needs more references. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taking into account the recent changes to the good article criteria, I don't think the lack of references alone is a good enough reason to delist the article from GA status. Dr. Cash 20:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: The GA criteria has not weakened its stance on the use of reliable sources OR on the use of inline citations in longer articles. This article fails on both counts. Every source comes from A-Phi-O directly, and there is no attention given to information generated independant of the organization. While the tone of the article is fairly good, I have serious NPOV concerns when an article ABOUT an organization is ONLY referenced to information provided BY that organization.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per everything Jayron32 stated. LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]