This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 36)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 34) →

Peterborough local elections[edit]

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

Result: No GAR action, but all parties support relisting the article at GAN, with the original reviewer placing the article on hold until concerns are addressed. Geometry guy 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with decision not to list this as a good article, as per comments at Talk:Peterborough local elections#Good article nomination (3). Chrisieboy (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think that the article should have been put on hold as a worst case scenario rather than failed outright. The reviewer even said that he thought the necessary changes could be implemented in a day. This article was a GA nominee for over a month and I see no reason to kick it back so quickly. I think this was a mistake by an inexperienced editor acting in good faith, and I hope he keeps reviewing articles for GA. However, I don’t think that the political control section is a good example of the text not being neutral and I do not perceive any bias in that section. I recommend that this article be put on hold. To Chrisieboy: you may want to consider adding information on the mayor (role etc.) from here and here. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree. If the original reviewer would agree, the best solution is to put the article back in the nominations list, and place it on hold. Geometry guy 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As the original reviewer, I would reluctantly support putting the article on the nomination list again, after all if you do not agree with my (re)view, let someone else review it. Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why since you said it wouldn't take long to implement the fixes. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it should not be taken as an indication; the history of the article showed reluctance to improve via GA review notes, as with Mouse nightshirt 's review.Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why bring it up if it should not be taken as an indication that it won't improve during the hold period? Although I would have liked to have seen the article being improved and the points you raised during the assessment addressed whilst it's here. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the diffs between GANs demonstrate a "reluctance to improve" the article and many of the earlier reviewer's comments have in fact been addressed. However, I do not agree with some of the objections that have been raised in this review.

In particular, (1) the statement Although the powers of the Mayor have diminished over time, the role has retained its importance is hardly controversial and the very next sentence is followed by a ref. which supports the whole paragraph. I do not think this is just cause to fail under criteria 2a. (2) A list of civil parishes is not "unnecessesary detail" in an article about local elections. Parish councils are elected; and (3) I cannot accept that "it does not represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. Please consider rewriting the political control section." I have taken great care, in tone and use of language, to present the material in an encyclopedic manner here.

I believe the article meets the six criteria and therefore support it's listing; although I welcome the opportunity for discussion and resolution here. At a minimum I think it would have been only fair to have placed the nomination on hold. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I did not point to diffs, but actually to the fact the article has been on GAN for so long, and that based on a previous reviewer's experience (put it on hold for a week, but no one stepped forward to correct the problem(s) ), I thought it would be better to fail it, with the clear assumption that no one was looking after it... and yeah, apparently there were people looking after the article, proving my assumption was wrong. Anyway, how much the article has improved since its last GAN? Has anyone tried to address my concerns? and more importantly: Do you think it deserves GA status?? I think we should answer these questions before we point fingers at the "inexperienced editor".
Second, (1) I still think this important phrase needs sourcing, so that you do not get people on your back demanding its removal, it is clearly a POV, do not you agree? (2) A list of perishes could be put in a table perhaps (I NEVER said it was an unnecessary detail, but rather shortening it and making it more relevant) to make it neater, or might I dare saying putting it in a different article with a link (if there is no article already). (3) You did a great job there, but here is my concern :

 Cllr. Abdul Razaq (Central)...... Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Business Improvement.

That paragraph might need a bit of work there. Also, other point which I have mentioned in the review:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; Fail, The article should provide a broader historical background and relate more to the public and local sentiment

Kind regards; Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Auawise, are you willing to put the article back on hold if Chrisieboy undertakes to work on the article over the next few days, fixing issues that you raise? Geometry guy 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Auawise's remarks, clearly I do think the article deserves GA status, as I have already said. I think the diffs show considerable improvement and many of the previous reviewer's comments have indeed been taken on board. I do not agree that the phrase regarding the mayor's role is expressing a point of view in any way whatsoever and I do not think that the section Political Control needs rewriting in the way that has been suggested. I also feel that the section Local Government gives the "broad historical background" that the reviewer finds lacking. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer- I have nothing against the article or the contributer(s) but respect, having said that, the answer to your question is "yes", I mean, why would you assume that I will do anything to stop it from being a GA? This is not true! you know what? Just leave it the same way I found it and I will list it as a GA right now (of course if you agree)!! Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would not be happy simply to list this as a GA, which is why I asked the question. This article is close to GA, but there are issues, especially with the broadness criterion to stay focused on the topic. Reading it, I actually wonder if this article needs to be renamed to something like Peterborough local government or Peterborough local politics, since it it doesn't stay focused on the electoral process.

On the other hand, it would be a pity simply to return it to GAN, given the long delays that are likely. This is why I suggested that it be put on hold by Auawise, with problems being addressed by Chrisieboy and others. However, if Chrisieboy thinks it should already be a pass and is therefore reluctant to fix the article, then my recommendation will be instead to endorse the fail and suggest renomination at GAN. Geometry guy 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That would be my preferred option if others are in agreement. I am willing to have some dialogue and to try to reach a consensus though. It is clear to me that Auawise has acted in good faith. I am not suggesting this is suitable for FAC, but it is essentially a good article. Given the dynamic nature of this project and the subject-matter it will continue to evolve even if promoted. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we seem to have reached an agreement. If Chrisieboy gives us his word that he would improve the article, then I think we should take his word and make the article a GA right now, and skip the on hold period. If you agree Geometry guy and Nev1, I would urge Chrisieboy to relist the article and I will pass it. Regards Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 10:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my comment above: I am not in favour of skipping the hold. However, if the article is renominated, then this is no longer a matter for GAR, and I will archive this discussion. Geometry guy 12:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, relist and put on hold? Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I think should happen. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna (Final Fantasy)[edit]

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

Result: Consensus achieved, article delisted. Malkinann (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet the following criteria:

• 1. Guidelines for lead sections and fiction (it is not written from an out of universe perspective).
• 2. Some entire sections are unreferenced.
• 3. A "Reception and criticism" section is missing.

Link to the article when it was promoted to GA. Kariteh (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for the delay in listing this at GAR. This is due to downtime at the toolserver. Geometry guy 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Delist per nomination points #1 and #2. The lead is underdeveloped. The in-universe presentation is an obvious problem. And the "Final Fantasy X2" and "Other appearances" sections lack citations. Majoreditor (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Lead is way too short for this size of article. Lacks references. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per all the above. The plot-summmary type sections are on the over-long side too, and the external links need trimming. EyeSerene^TALK 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Per above concerns (violation of WP:LEAD, GA broadness criterion and inadequate referencing. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above; too much plot, no lead, scope not fully explored. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above: poor lead, too much in universe. This discussion could be closed: could someone else try it, and give me some feedback on the process changes? Geometry guy 12:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finns[edit]

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

Result: Delist. The up-to-date comments all raise GA issues with this article which have not been addressed. Geometry guy 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at the references, they all seem reliable (its publications and goverment sites), except perhaps number one (uses language to determine ethic group). The bits about Finland Swedes (sections Swedish-speaking Finns and Terminology) are largely backed up by references in the Swedish-speaking Finns article, and the Genetics of the Swedish-speaking Finns section explains why the Finland Swedes are included in the infobox. However, the bits about Wiik needs a reference (the one ref in there doesn't mention Wiik), and the ref for the number of Finns in Sweden is a political motion, it doesn't even mention a number! (another of the sources in the Finns article says over 450,000). Also, Subdivisions section lack refernces entirely. Narayanese (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist The Subdivisions section is not fully referenced, and is somewhat poorly written. Narayanese (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. The terminology section needs generic references to support its general approach. The genetics section is very underreferenced, given its controversial title (the title could perhaps be changed). The references are badly formatted: e.g., source information should be provided, not just a weblink. Geometry guy 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist in its present form. Although the article is basically sound and has the makings of a GA, there are quite a few issues to be addressed before this is GA standard. It contains significant gaps in its referencing (particularly the Terminology and Subdivisions sections), prose issues, and a number of MoS violations. To take two examples, uncited factual statements include "The Finnish speakers form the large majority of Finns.", and unencylopedic (speculative) prose includes "As the meanings of these terms have changed in time, these terms may well be used with other meanings than those given above, particularly in foreign and older works." I fixed some of the MoS bits though ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mimicry[edit]

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

Result: Delist. Substantial arguments have been put forward that the article does not meet the broadness/conciseness criterion. No counterarguments have been put forward. Geometry guy 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I've contributed to a lot myself last year and hope to continue with. It was listed as a GA while I was away from Wikipedia over the summer and I was pretty surprised to see it listed. I had rated it myself as a start, and while I wouldn't necessarily object to a B class rating I don't feel it's GA material yet. There are a few areas that are missing in terms of coverage, and others that are probably covered in too much depth. Most of the article is on classification and only a little deals with evolutionary and theoretical aspects (signalling theory, modelling etc). I think we need to get a stable set of daughter articles first, then prune off some of the content and expand on other areas. After that a peer review would be desirable, then it might be reasonable to seek GA status, but I don't think it lives up to its current assessment. Richard001 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This one is a difficult one to call, as it depends on a certain amount of subjectivity to determine how high the standards for GA are, particularly with regard to broadness and focus (#3). It seems to me that some evolutionary and signalling aspects are discussed within the classification, as well as in the separate section on evolution, so I'm inclined to say the article is more-or-less broad enough for GA. However, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, especially if other subject area experts comment here. Alternatively, if the classification were spun off as a daughter article, then that daughter article might reach GA standard quite quickly. Geometry guy 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With classification, my personal intention was/is to create a daughter article on classification, because the subject is quite technical. There are a lot of classificatory aspects not currently covered (read the Pasteur article if you want the details), and some are covered but are probably too technical for a general article (hence the need for a daughter article, compare with say the current Britannica article by Wickler). I doubt we have any biologists here who specialize in mimicry (there are few who do), but there are some that would know a little about it. Because it's quite a narrow area most won't know much, but it's possible to become reasonably knowledgeable with enough reading. I think User:Dyanega would probably be the most knowledgeable Wikipedian on this topic. Richard001 (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: There are also still a lot of bullet pointed lists, which are sort of a vestige from the articles earlier days which have no yet been prose-ified. Richard001 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Richard, I'm really sorry that GAR is not proving to be much help deciding what to do with this article. I intend to close this discussion fairly soon with a "No action" result unless that changes. Note that if you feel strongly that the article should be delisted, then once this discussion has closed, you just need to find an independent editor to look at it: if they agree with you, they can delist it by following the delisting guidelines. Geometry guy 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I'm glad that you're working on this article and that you feel it is too short, because you seem to be pretty well-versed in the subject matter. However, there is no such thing as a perfect article. GA is supposed to be about 60-80% as good as a featured article, which still isn't a perfect article. Is near enough good enough? -Malkinann (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article just has too many problems to be GA material. I've had a look at an article at the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences and it has a much better coverage of different aspects; only a small section is devoted to classification. It's not a great article itself, being focussed mainly on the two 'classical' forms of mimicry and often oversimplifying things, but it has a better balance of topics. And balance and underdevelopment aren't the only problems; some sections are too detailed, there are surely some errors or at least things that need citations... I just don't feel it's GA. I know this is a difficult one because anyone unfamiliar with the topic (though I'm not a specialist by any means) will find it difficult to assess the article's quality. I think this is one of those rare cases where I should just ignore the rules and delist it myself. I've given people ample time to object to the delisting, after all. Richard001 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think we should go with the article author on this and delist as requested. GA is, after all, voluntary; there's nothing to be gained by forcing an unwanted status on this admittedly very good article. If reasons (other than those already given regarding coverage) are needed, there are possibly one or two prose and organisational issues, but that is really just nitpicking. I expect when the article is ready, GA assessment will not be too difficult ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. As a non-expert I was open to be convinced that this needed delisting, and for me the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences article has swung the balance in favour of delisting. That article is an imperfect treatment of the subject, but it clearly reveals inadequacies in the balance of our article. My own comments above that "some evolutionary and signalling aspects are discussed within the classification" are irrelevant: in a broad and focused article, these issues need fuller separate discussions. I had been concerned that this article was close to the borderline on criterion 3. I am no longer so concerned. Geometry guy 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to see there's some agreement. Do you want to do the honours then, Geometry guy? Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As few have commented, I'll follow the archiving guidelines and wait until 7 Feb. Why the rush to delist? Geometry guy 12:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you wish; I'm not very familiar with the process myself. Richard001 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WhatamIdoing:

Richard001, I understand that this article isn't all that you hope it will eventually be. The official six GA criteria are:

1. It is well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.

In your opinion, which of these criteria are not met by the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Richard's objections are that the article is not sufficiently broad, and that the portion of the article dealing with classification is overdetailed - criteria 3a and 3b, although he hasn't put it like that. -Malkinann (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 would be the main one. It could also certainly be written better, and I have no doubt a specialist could find at least a couple of factual problems with it. It's also not very stable, though recently I haven't been editing much so I guess right now it's fairly stable. The images are good enough for GA, though we could still improve the media more (video and audio would make it excellent). Richard001 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Reach[edit]

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

Result: Delist Geometry guy 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for GA almost a year ago. My main concern is that it fails criterion 2 (b) - particularly reliable sources. The use of George Starostin [1], Mark Prindle [2] and this website suggest that the article is using opinion pieces as though they were fact. The main problem is this - can Mark Prindle and George Starostin be considered professional music reviewers? That's what it comes down to. From the style of Prindle's writing, you'd think not, although he appears to be notable as a person (although that's distinct from making him a reliable source). Starostin's writing is much more coherent but he's notable as a lingustics professor and not for his amateur music reviews, despite being prolific at them.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Even though this is a short article (which is fine), the lead is rather short: it doesn't cover, for example, the critical reception. Geometry guy 09:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per nom and per G-guy's observation. The article has issue both with RS and Lead. Majoreditor (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per all the above. The references, regardless of quality, also lack retrieval dates and would be best formatted using the templates on WP:CITET. EyeSerene^TALK 10:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loituma Girl[edit]

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

Result: Delist. Geometry guy 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails:

Criteria 1: much of the Commercialization section is about the song, not the animation

Criteria 2: many facts are unsourced

For these reasons, I believe this article should be delisted. --Jedravent (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should all just be merged into Ievan Polkka?--SeizureDog (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's survived a deletion attempt. But it does not seem to be of GA quality. --Jedravent (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was no consensus, so you could still try merging, as long as you leave a redirect. Geometry guy 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The article's lead is deficient as it doesn't summarize all of the article's main topics. However, I'm more concerned with the lack of citations. Majoreditor (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Inadequate lead, background section addressing “Ievan Polkka” and “Bleach anime” is needed for proper readability and article is under-sourced (numerous cite tags). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: per all the above. There are far too many citation needed tags, a copyedit is needed, I spotted a few MoS violations, and the focus, coverage and lead are problematic. EyeSerene^TALK 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. I agree with the above, and don't have any further comments. Geometry guy 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl in the Fireplace[edit]

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

Result: List as GA. While the review raised several issues, and the article did not meet the GA criteria at the time, the issues were fairly minor, and the article has been improved in the light of this and comments here. It now seems unreasonable to require it to be renominated and the consensus is to list it as a good article. Geometry guy 19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was up at WP:GAN and failed by User:Auawise on the following conditions:

• 2. Factually accurate?: Fail; The Plot section has no references at all
• 6. Images?: Fail, one image only used with the infobox

I have never seen a plot section needing to be sourced, even in FAs of TV episodes- pick any one, eg. "Homer's Phobia". Secondly, seeing as images are routinely removed from tv episodes for being "too numerous", I hardly see how having one fair use image is "bad". David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List/overturn. David is entirely right. Plot summaries are sourceable to the episode itself (which isn't bad, primary sources are allowed), demonstrateable by the article for Homer's Phobia - the episode cites BBC's episode guide, but doesn't for the plot summary. Images are not required in episode GAs either, and are entirely supplemental. Will ^(talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above. Those two conditions are never a problem for other episode GAs. I was particularly surprised with the "one image only" comment. — Edokter • Talk • 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree that plot sections don't need references, as long as they are faithful to the episode and are written in a fairly matter-of-fact way, with no analysis, interpretation, or opinion. Also, one image is plenty here, as images will likely not be free. However, I just want to issue the usual reminder that a GAR checks an article against all of the criteria, not just issues raised by the original GAN reviewer and the nominator. So far I've spotted minor copyediting issues, and issues with the lead. For example, it would be worth adding a sentence on the production to the lead. Geometry guy 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The idea of failing a recent television programme article on the basis of too few image is a nonsence, and the antethisis of wikipedia's aim. The only really relevant images are copyrighted, there are free images of the original characters the programme was based on such as Madame de Pompadour, but I really dont see the need. A good WP article should have as few copyrighted images as possible, I even feel that the one left in this article is still excessive and fails WP:NFC#8. Attempting to meet WP:NFC 3(a) is something that should be rewarded not punished, failing the article on this basis will discourage editors from creatively meeting WP:NFC Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC criteria do not, and should not be considered when assessing and article for it's status, other then that NFCC criteria are met. Good/Featuerd Artices are assessed solely on their content, not to encourage/discourage use of the type of media. As long as fair use is permitted on Wikipedia, article are not checked for including fair use media. In fact, most featured articles include non-free media. — Edokter • Talk • 13:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to the previous assessment is that part of the reason this article was rejected was lack of images. The assessor seemed to want images for the sake of having imgages, and there are very clear barriers to this article increasing it's images, ie the WP:NFC, and I do not feel this was taken into account. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - "The Plot section has no references at all" - reference is from the episode itself, and there are external links to check the plot. The number of Images is irrelevant - I don't recall seeing a criteria demanding images. StuartDD _{contributions} 15:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think it is unfair to quote only 2 of the criteria and leave my entire review, so here it is:

1. Well written?: Not completely; e.g. the first sentence does not even mention the number of the episode.

2. Factually accurate?: Fail; The Plot section has no references at all (please note that I recognize the difficulty of finding resources for this section)

3. Broad in coverage?: Questionable; e.g. The episode must relate more to other Doctor Who episodes.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Fail, one image only used with the infobox

Other criteria exist.

First, I admit that I have made a mistake with the image criteria. Second; How can a reader be sure of the plot without sourcing? I can go right now and start an article about an episode that it is entirely the work of my imagination, how can you be sure that it is true? I know and I have expressed my understanding of the difficultly of finding suitable resources, and you can see that in point number 2.This is an encyclopedia, and you can not be the source. The 're-nominator' took part of my review and made it sound as if it was bad judgment, Please see the entire review; he did not even bother to copy the link to the review or at least the criteria on which I, as a reviewer, failed this article. Regards. Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List as GA - It's acceptable that a plot section is written from personal experience of the episode in question, as long as it doesn't contain too much in the way of interpretation, which this doesn't. The lone image is up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_21#Image:Thegirlinthefireplace.jpg although it seems like it will be kept. -Malkinann (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm leaning toward a recommendation to list as a GA. My only concern is over the image's fair use status. The article's editors have addressed concerns about the lead by adding information on production and reception. Majoreditor (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not as up on Fiction GA criteria, so I'm not going with list, but failing an article because it only has one image is against the GA criteria. As I understand the GA criteria, an image is not required at all, it is desired, but it is not required.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (I've redone bullets and indents above to make the discussion tidier and easier to follow - I hope no one minds. Geometry guy 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment, But no one failed it on the image criteria. Many other things were taken into consideration, it might fail criterion 6a and possibly 6b, but that was not the reason it was failed! Please before posting your comments here, go and read the article throughly. Thanks!. Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 11:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the disputed fair-use rationale for the image is the only clear-cut reason to have failed the article. The other reasons you've listed are either minor (such as episode number) or subjective (plot section has no references).

In retrospect, it may have been better to have placed the review on GA Hold rather than summarily failing the article. All of these issues may have been resolved by asking the editors to address these concerns. Just a suggestion - not a criticism. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Auawise has reviewed the article as requested, and performed a compotent job in doing so. There have been significant improvements in this article since the review, however the version of the article that was submitted for a GA review failed to meet the standard. I fail to see why the editors of this article cannot accept this review, treat it as the constructive feedback it was, and which has lead to the recent improvements in this article. If they feel the new version of this article meets the GA criteria, then there is nothing to stop them resubmitting it,but the review on the old version remains valid Fasach Nua (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that the old review remains valid - there is a clear consensus here that sources are not needed for the plot of episodes, which was one of the reasons given for failing the article. On the "significant improvements" - some, such as the putting of the episode number in the title, were as a direct result of the old review, but others are as a result of the reassessment procedure. Sometimes, GA re-assessors edit the articles boldly to help bring them up to speed on issues. Copyediting is one of the biggies, because it's hard for someone who has been constantly working on an article to see the grammar niggles. I see Geometry guy's done some copyediting, and that the lead has expanded a bit, (probably to help bring it in line with WP:LEAD) but that's not changed the bulk of the article - the changes are not significant enough to warrant renomination, I think. diff FA does not stand for "frozen article", neither should GAR. -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malkinann is correct. GAR focuses on an article's current version. Majoreditor (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article will be up to GA standards if the IFD discussion closes as Keep, which I suspect will happen within the next few days. Until then we shouldn't list the article. Majoreditor (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This hasn't been a particularly tidy GAR, but the IFD is now closed as Keep, and the discussion above is mainly either neutral or in favour of listing the article. However, I think a moment's thought is worthwhile before using GAR to promote an article to GA (rather than e.g., closing with no action and suggesting renomination), so I would like to ask: are there any objections to listing this article as GA? If there are none in the next couple of days, then I am happy to close this discussion on that basis. Thanks - Geometry guy 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection here. — Edokter • Talk • 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "restart" as stalled, as is done at WP:FAC? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been done in the past at GAR, but typically (I believe) to restart discussions where the article had substantially changed and comments were not only stalled but out of date, which isn't the case here. Geometry guy 22:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objections to listing the article now that the IFD has closed as Keep. Majoreditor (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Result: Endorse fail. The review was supported, and the article needs a good copyeditor. Geometry guy 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed because of

1. a (prose): b (MoS):

"Sorry, the prose is terrible"

Articles should really not be immediately failed on prose and MoS mistakes, especially trivialities such as accidentally leaving in an "and" or using "on" instead of "with" - proven by the fact it took me only nine minutes to fix the objections. As I've written GAs and FAs before, (hell, one episode passed FAC last week) I do know the quality of prose that's required for GA/FAs. Will ^(talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List, if I reviewed this article I would have put it on hold for these types of objections instead of immediately failing it. Tarret ^talk 19:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse fail Cursory glance reveals the following: 1) Per WP:EPISODE, plot summaries should not exceed 100 words per minute; plot section is currently ca. 829 words for 72 minute episode. 2) Per WP:FUC, “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary”. Both images used essentially only depict Doctor and Host and are not substantially different as to warrant both uses. 3) Some questionable sources including a blog. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The "ten words per minute" guideline is rarely stuck to - in fact, only one episode featured article (and there are about a dozen) is below that, and that's tommorow's front page article, Through the Looking Glass (Lost). (and it's 822 words, which is still only 11 words/minute). Also, regarding the sources - Outpost Gallifrey's reliability has been proven again and again (if you don't believe me, check how many people they cite for fact-checking their canon keeper guides), and all of the blogs are hosted by UK newspaper sites, so they can be interpreted as professional reviews. Unless you mean the thing about News of the World, but that's there for context. In fact, the line after that said that Davies initially dismissed that rumour before Kylie confirmed and the BBC then publicly annouynced it. Will ^(talk) 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  FA reviews do not catch all policy violations; although other articles may not have been checked against WP:EPISODE, this one has and it is in violation. Number of people cited is not relevant unless those individuals can be established as reliable (i.e. experts in their fields as defined in WP:V). The same applies for the blogs; they are considered self-published works and, therefore, the authors must be established as being experts. If you can establish this, I will happily strike the concern. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, in the Doomsday FACs, two people actually asked me to shorten the plot from about 650 words. Even though the guideline said 450 words, neither had a problem with the 550 word version. With the blog cites, I told you why they're reliable - they're hosted by newspapers. How exactly does that differ from a column in that same newspaper? Besides, I really don't need to explain this - if it can pass through the fine toothcomb of FAC, it can easily pass through GAC. Will ^(talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No editorial oversight. Verily, you needn’t explain anything to me. The choice between working with others or being dismissive and combative is one you’re free to make – and obviously have. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  How exactly does one need an editorial oversight for an opinion? Will ^(talk) 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  One doesn't. One needs it for that opinion to be considered a reliable source. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the reviews, all of them except for the Guardian Unlimited blog are carried by the newspapers themselves. For the Guardian Unlimited blog, the guy's well known enough to have a Wikipedia article. And he's been the newspaper's critic for eight or nine years. Will ^(talk) 01:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List My concerns have been addressed. Please note the caveat, however, that GAR is meant to determine “whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed”. Despite the review’s failure to appropriately or adequately articulate concerns, issues warranting failure did indeed exist at the time; failure of the nomination, therefore, was not entirely inappropriate. In a nutshell, both the review and article were flawed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Welcome to Dr. Who month at Good Article Reassessment.

Will, I understand your point about failing the article versus placing it on hold. Some reviewers take different courses of action. In any case there were legitimate criterion #1 concerns which kept the article from passing outright. You may want to continue to sharpen the prose and address MoS concerns -- and then re-nominate the article.

I'm unsure of what to say about the length of the plot summary other than (a) it does seem long, given the article's length, and (b) guidelines on plot summary aren't always followed. Majoreditor (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a "plotectomy" - the plot summary is now under eight words a minute (574 words/71.9 minutes). Will ^(talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't this: "The Doctor also uses the catchphrase allons-y in the episode, a running gag originating in "Army of Ghosts", where he muses that he should use the phrase more often, particularly if he met someone called Alonzo, so that he could say "Allons-y Alonzo".[10]" be better suited for the Army of Ghosts article? -Malkinann (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC) +:The running gag does get uses a lot (definition of one, I suppose) during the third series. He actually does use the phrase "allons-y alonzo" in the episode. Will ^(talk) 11:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's written, "where he muses", implies that the Allons-y Alonzo musings cropped up in Army of Ghosts, not in Voyage of the Damned. As such, all the Alonzo stuff would be better suited to Army of Ghosts, not here, and it should simply read "The Doctor also uses the catchphrase allons-y in the episode, a running gag originating in "Army of Ghosts".[ref]" -Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List per above; the plot is definitely not an issue any more. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Comment. The article is improving, but still needs much work. The prose are better but aren't yet up to GA standards. Some examples:

• The episode also includes several references to outside the show's fictional universe: Most notably, the episode is dedicated to Verity Lambert, Doctor Who's founding producer, who died a day before the show's forty-fourth anniversary. Why the capitalized "M" following the colon?
• The scene in general had to be carefully manufactured due to health and safety concerns, in particular, some shots in the forklift truck needed a stunt double as Minogue did not have the adequate license. This sentence is complex and awkward.
• The song is loosely based on the episode, from the captain's point of view regarding the Doctor. Not the sharpest of prose.

The article will pass GA if it has the benefit of additional copy editing. However, GA review isn't the best forum for fixing articles. Consider re-nominating after the issues are addressed. Majoreditor (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse fail. What is it with Doctor Who episodes and convoluted prose? Yes, the reviewer could have put the article on hold, but "Sorry, the prose is terrible" remains an accurate review, and the examples listed by the reviewer are just the tip of the iceberg. (My apologies for not being able to resist the obvious cliche!) The prose issues begin already with the third sentence of the lead ("The episode introduces..."), which I had to read three times before I was able to parse and digest its content. The article is riddled with sentences which try to say three different things at the same time, and wind up being ambiguous, inaccurate or confusing. By the time I got through the plot section my head was spinning — and I watched the episode. The article really needs a good copy editor to go through it: see this guide for some tips.

On the other hand, in my opinion, the prose is essentially the only remaining problem with the article, apart from (perhaps) a few very minor examples of OR by synthesis (e.g., were the host "reprogrammed" or just "programmed"?). I'm sorry that this review is a bit brutal: good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 11:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? Will ^(talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its still being edited. I endorse fail because there are too many grammar and punctuation errors, I understand it is only human to make mistakes but this article needs to be polished (literaly!) before it can go up for GA status again.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Have you thought about listing it at WP:LoCE? -Malkinann (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail - I would say this is a tough one to call, but overall, it is a fail. Problems pointed out by the reviewer should have been corrected and the article relisted at GAN, NOT GAR-which is put there for a reason folks!- Cheers. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Fail. The article is much better, but still needs additional copyediting and prose improvement. With a little work it will be ready for GA re-nomination. Majoreditor (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planetes[edit]

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

Result: Delist. bibliomaniac15 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have passed GA in 2006, but that version did not meet the GA criteria, nor does this one. It is not well-written, is badly formatting and does not follow the Anime/Manga MOS, is not well sourced and appears to contain a lot of OR , and it has an excessive amount of non-free images added for decoration purposes. At best, it is a B quality article, but it needs more work to be a GA and I feel it should be delisted because of this. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The article is poorly written and under-referenced. There are also MoS issues; for example, the lead should be better-developed. Majoreditor (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Needs a massive cleanup on formatting, and additional reliable sources. The images are in bad shape too; some of them don't have fair-use rationales, and it's not like we need four separate character images.--十八 10:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: Agreed -- poorly written, underreferenced, badly organized. I took a poke at it a couple weeks ago when I added it to my TBD list of things to clean up, but didn't think to bring it up for a reassessment. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the plus side, the character descriptions really are that, and not plot summaries of what each one did. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The lead is poor, and the plot section is not really a plot section: it contains critical analysis (e.g. `...more often the concept of collecting "trash" in space is merely a storytelling method for building character development.') which needs to be sourced. In general the information in the article is based too much on primary sources. Geometry guy 19:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ivan[edit]

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

Result: No action. Geometry guy 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article, despite reaching A class in the past, was strewn with grammar problems, red links, no consistent reference format when I found it on February 1. While it has improved since then due to the efforts of a couple editors, I'm not quite certain we've improved it enough to meet GA standards nowadays. Any comments pro or con GA status for this article would be appreciated. If it no longer meets standards, please comment as to what needs to be fixed, in your view. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is in much better shape than a fortnight ago. However, it needs additional copyediting. Majoreditor (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have done additional copyediting to the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A cursory glance reveals some issues:

• MoS concerns: Full stops are used for image captions despite caption not being a full sentence. There are also issues with sandwiching of images and tables.
• Reference concern: Retirement section needs to be sourced.

 Done Thegreatdr (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Broadness concern: impact on areas such as Venezuela, Cayman Islands, Jamaica and others is apparently substantial enough to warrant headers, but these areas do not receive coverage in “Aftermath” section.

ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acamprosate[edit]

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

Result: Delist. This could have been individually delisted. It manifestly fails many criteria, e.g. WP:LEAD as well as the issues below. Geometry guy 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main concerns are that the article broad enough and that it goes into unnecessary detail. Specifically, the section detailing the results of a single study is too much detail for an encyclopedia, and was recommended for removal with the original GA comments. Without that section, the entire article is only three paragraphs long, one of which is a quote from the FDA. While there's no rule against GA stubs, but I'm sure this subject could be significantly expanded. --jwanders^Talk 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The article isn't broad enough. It doesn't address the drug's commercial status -- for example, sales volume, how many people use the drug, competitors/alternatives. Majoreditor (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per nomination reasoning. Broadness criterion is not met (e.g. usage information, development information, etc.) Article is also heavy on WP:JARGON (e.g. the only real explaination of its function is "by blocking glutaminergic N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, while gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptors are activated"; that sort of phrasing needs to be explained for the layman). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dante's Cove[edit]

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

Result: GAR was unnecessary for this: as detailed below, it manifestly fails the criteria and could simply have been delisted. Geometry guy 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO fails 3)broad in its coverage. A)Links to the episodes article but Does not have a synopsis of episodes. Should be written in summary style. B)WP:UNDUE to "The Religion of Tresum" and "Saint". Tags had been added to the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Fails just about every GA criterion:

1. Lead does not adequately summarize the article (WP:LEAD). Saint and Religion of Tresum are entirely in-universe(WP:IN-U).

2. Heavy reliance on primary sources (violation of WP:V/WP:RS). No reviews at rotten tomatoes apparently resulted in this statement: “Formal reviews for Dante's Cove have been light and the series has failed to attract enough reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes to date to garner a rating”, which is, at best, synthesis (i.e. OR) and statements such as “Whether this establishes that the two series are indeed set in the same location remains unclear” also appear to be OR.

3. Broadness concerns: no explanation of typical plot, situations or storyline; episodes is not expanded upon; and statements such as “the cast and crew of the two shows socialized during the shoot” are unnecessary detail and not relevant to the topic (summary style violation).

6. Fair use tags for DVD images are entirely scant and inadequate. Additionally, minimal use is required per WP:FUC (i.e. at most one can be used to a depict a DVD cover). We can only use fair use if exclusion would be a detriment to understanding the article; this article is not about the DVD releases.

It’s concerning that the reviewer left minimal comments and didn’t even leave a signature. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that it's too late for it to mean anything, since no one had the courtesy to notify me as the GA noominator, I want to respond to some of this: It has no episode synopsis because one of its GA reviews was failed because it had episode synopses. You might want to get it a little more together so that us poor dumb folk in the middle know what actually is and isn't required. Stating the fact that there is no Rotten Tomatoes rating is not synthesis. Neither is stating the fact that the show has not been heavily reviewed. Stating the fact that it is unclear whether the two series are set in the same place is not OR.

This article has been bounced around in the GA process for months. I wonder if you have any notion just how discouraging it's been watching this article get ignored, failed for basically nothing, relisted, delisted, contradicted, on this near-endless cycle. Great Wikipedia experience. Thanks to everyone concerned. Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsboro Civic Center[edit]

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

Result: Listed by reviewer. Geometry guy 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the inexperience of the reviewer and their follow up responses, I feel the reviewer is not as familiar as is needed with GA criteria. Thus I do think this meets GA criteria and should not have been failed. See above remarks for further details. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Reference to remarks is on the article's talk page, and the original reviewer has withdrawn their assessment. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a great short article which is almost, but not quite, up to GA standards. The original review correctly notes that the article misses the mark for criterion 3. It's curious that the article barely addresses the Hillsboro Civic Center's purposes and uses. Examine Ottawa Civic Centre, XL Center or Peoria Civic Center; they communicate raison d'etre.

That said -- the article is well constructed and come darn close to passing. Many GA reviewers would have placed the article on hold, allowing Aboutmovies the opportunity to address concerns. I'm sorry if I digress from discussing the merits of the article, but it's worth noting that GA-Hold is a good tool to employ in these circumstances. Majoreditor (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed the issues raised and will re-list at GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List. The article is now sufficiently broad in coverage. The original reviewer concurs. Everyone is in agreement. I recommend speedy-close. Majoreditor (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garci scandal[edit]

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

Result: Delist. Majoreditor (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for GA status on 2006 but sadly it's quality went downhill since there are lots of maintainance tags. --Howard the Duck 05:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - Unsourced quotations, Evidence section is mostly unsourced, has outside links in the body of the article, a number of citation needed tags, and the images are in a gallery. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Ealdgyth. The citation tags haven't been addressed, and some images are dumped into a slapdash galley. Majoreditor (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. Also has poorly formatted references, and a pop culture section which needs reworking: the prose in the humor section is particularly embarrassing (providing humor in itself). Geometry guy 12:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per sourcing issues articulated above (number of citation tags even seems to warrant quick failure). Additionally, Garci01.jpg‎ does not have FU rationale. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. The article hardly has any citations, topping off with only 21 citations (which includes duplicate citations) for the whole article. And the article is not that small where 21 citations would be sufficient. Maybe it should be renominated when more sources are found. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this discussion can be closed. Could someone do it, and give me feedback on the archiving guidelines and procedures. Thanks Geometry guy 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I've followed the archiving instructions (I think) and am crossing my fingers ..... Majoreditor (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta[edit]

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

Result: List as GA per WP:SNOW and following comments from failing reviewer: “I recognize that this is a very good article. I know many now support it. I think it is GA in many respects. I have no problem if it gets promoted against my fail". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sort of an uninvolved party here, just starting this Good article reassessment on behalf of the others involved. I had initially provided a sort of "Pre-GA review review" on the article's talk page, I didn't want to review the article myself because I had been requested to do it, and because I didn't want to skip ahead of other GA candidates. My Pre-GA review notes are still on the article's talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) did his own GA review, put the article on hold, and then failed it, for lack of Western reviews of Preity Zinta's work. (I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just summarizing what occurred). I'd like for some other traditional GA Reviewers to take a look, because a few of the editors who were working on the article disagree with the GA Review. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note. The reviewer asked to add reviews from The New York Times. I added one. But there are no others. He kept on asking for "well respected Western newspapers".
A) This requirement is not supported by the WP:WIAGA criteria.
B) I can't invent them. I found only one NYT review describing her performance in the film Salaam Namaste (which makes its presence on the article) and nothing else.

Apart from that, all the refs are reliable (mostly Indian newspapers, and leading websites), reviews are representative and represent the majority view; there is one NYT review (the only I could find. There are no other reviews. What can I do?) and two reviews from Variety.

Why should I care for Westerners/Easterners? Nobody said that she's an international superstar. She is an Indian actor, not an American one. She works in the Indian film industry. Using reviews from Indian newspapers, is pretty obvious. It is important to present representative comments by critics from well respected newspapers, regardless of what country they are published in. The Times of India, The Hindu, The Tribune, Rediff -- all of them are reliable and well respected, not less than American newspapers. And there are three Western reviews. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like your statement "why should I care for westerners". You state many times in the article that certian films were internationally successful and if so you are going to have to include one or two American reviews to try to get an even coverage of it (which you have and as it is I think it is fine, I thought you wanted to remove any whatsoever). The majority though should quite rightly be Indian reviews and the Times of India should be regarded as a sort of Indian euqivalent to a source as reputable as the NY Times. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I said "Why should I care for Westerners/Easterners?" and by saying that, I mean that it doesn't matter who the reader is. The matter is that there is a reader and he does understand the matter, regardless of what country he comes from. As you yourslf said, would anybody on the Angelina Jolie article expect to see reviews from Indian newspapers?

Secondly, there are Western reviews. Two from Variety and one from NYT, the only I could find.

The fact that several of her films did well internationally, doesn't make them American or Western. The films are Indian, and it is expected to add Indian reviews. But just for the record, Kal Ho Naa Ho, Veer-Zaara and Salaam Namaste (Bollywood's top-grossing films overseas), all of them are accompanied by Western reviews: Variety, Variety and the NY Times, respectively. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your're misinterpreting what I am saying and vice versa. I fully agree that the vast majority of sources should be Indian as long as they are reputable sources. I thought you were disagreeing about using any western or eastern reviews at all even for the internationally released films and were thinking about removing them. As I said, as it is, the proportion of reviews is exactly as I think it should be and it would be silly to try to use more American reviews in comparison. I see you were talking about readers rather than reviews of which I fully agree with you and think it is extremely important to not write the article specifically for somebody in the west or east. Wikipedia is global and this view that it should be written for an American is not valid. Sorry to chip in Shahid ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment I've always thought the critical statement in WP:V is "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context". I don't disagree that western sources would be a nice supplement, but if they don't exist, they don't exist. I don't know that we can reasonably expect western sources for an Indian actress. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I say. I can't invent them. I found one NYT review and added it. Your note is precise, western sources would be a nice supplement, and that's what I did; I added two from Variety, and one from NYT. What else can I do if there aren't any other? And in fact, she is an Indian actor who works in the Indian film industry, the obvious thing is to add comments by Indian critics. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Elcobbola has hit the nail on the head. Western sources are helpful but not essential in the case of this article. Majoreditor (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the GAC reviewer. There were several reasons other than lack of Western sources that caused me to fail the article. The stacked references that you did not address are a big problem for me. There were other issues. They are a way to sneak five or ten refs in for a single point that is not Kosher. I also enumerated an opinion on the article being underlinked in some places where I was not sure of terms (or a reader migth be unsure) and could not quickly navigate to them. I noted 13 NYT articles based on an NYT search for her name. I also found at least one BBC article. I mentioned several ways in which 5 or so of these articles could be included and said that I would consider the Western perspective well represented with 5 well-respected Western articles (not necessarily film reviews). You said you would attempt to do so and did not. I guess about 90% of English WP readers are non-Asian. I think their perspective should be represented. This article has had careful review at WP:FAC, WP:GAR, and WP:PR. I feel that considering the numerous objections in those discussions, a promotion should be handled cautiously. I think if one read those discussions closely, one might review my comments and say "We should be careful promoting this contentious article." In that light I think the things I have pointed out should be addressed. I think both WP:BLP and WP:POV should be considered with respect to Western reviews.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Since the FAC and the GAR the article has seen major improvement, so the point is not really valid. In fact, you were supporting several aspects which were discouraged in the FAC, so what do you expect from me to do?
  • "The stacked references that you did not address are a big problem for me" - Let me repeat your words - "for me". But apart from being a big problem for you, is there any formal prohibition against such format? I saw this firstly when I went through Cillian Murphy's FAC, and it was suggested there. John also said that it was not prohibited. Now, I have no problem to fix it. I can format it in five six minutes, but is it really prohibited?
  • Linking - When User:Sandygeorgia edited the article and helped improving MoS caches, she removed links to words like basketball, saying they were not needed, as it is something very obvious and clear. That's also a minor concern. And again, I can do it. But I need to have a clear explanation of whether it should be done or not.
  • As for the reviews, there are three western reviews. Editors above pointed out that western reviews are not a duty for this article. My explanations are listed above; she is an actor who works in the Indian film industry, so the obvious thing to do, is to illustrate the way she is preceived in her own country. She is not an international star, nor is she an American. There are no other western film reviews with detailed description of her performance. As you said, in the NY Times, there are not necessarily film reviews. And I did try to work on it. I really did. But none of those 13 links except for one, was valid. Please give me a precise link to one film review which can be quoted. But the fact is that there are no such reviews. As for BBC, reviews for Indian films there, are presented in a special Bollywood section led by Indian journalists, so the reviews there are not really western. From my part, I'd gone through the most respected Indian and even non-Indian newspapers to find representative reviews for her performances. A "well respected newspaper" doesn't necessarily mean "an American/Western newspaper". Wikipedia is global and this view that it should be written for an American is, IMO, wrong.
  • Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems you continue to ignore discussion of the stacked refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, you say I disagree with things from prior debates. When reading the article I think a reader might want to see a link on several terms. I listed them. I may have gone overboard, but you did not link a single one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't ignore the refs case. I did mention them above. My question is, is there a formal prohibition about using stacked refs? If the points are valid, I will address them. As I said, these concerns are minor. Let me just consult someone else. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m not aware of a policy or guideline addressing stacked references. I think Tony’s concern – and correct me if I’m wrong – is that stacked references may disrupt the flow of the article and, consequently, hurt readability (analogous, in a way, to the concerns outlined in WP:OVERLINK). Personally, I’m not bothered by reasonable amounts for contentious assertions (over three and you’re pushing it), but the impact on “clear prose” could be a valid interpretation. Instead of a lengthy debate here, perhaps it’s simplest to go through the article and keep only the strongest, most reliable, etc. references. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "stacked refs" - I mean, multiple sources in one footnote. The case is that some sources were cited to backup the same claim, so I collected them into one footnote. I thought, instead of having a [1][2][3] it's better to have only [1]. Please see ref number 7 in the article. So is it prohibited? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what's going on. Although I don't know of explicit prohibition, I don’t know of precedent either; it certainly seems to be against “house style”. I think I’m with Tony on this one; it posses certain organizational and consistency concerns. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will format. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But it looks a bit loaded (She was ranked second for the subsequent three years.[86][87][88]) Is it really a big deal, putting more than one source within an individual footnote? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• N not done. At least two refs remain stacked (with multiple citations in a single ref). There should rarely be as many as three refs follow a single punctuation mark. You may want to reorganize the article. However, since I only see one triple ref point in the article it may be O.K. The fact that you had to unstack some refs means the article as it was was not supported. Thus, this GAR should fail. However, with minor modifications it might pass.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I continue to believe that the majority of the following words should be linked (this was the original list): single mother (seems to be linked twice later in the same paragraph), heroine, columnist, car accident, Los Angeles (using {{city-state}}), commissioned officer, Indian Army, literature, basketball, boarding school, psychology, criminal psychology, modeling, audition, commercials, catalogs, middle class, fiancee, Delhi, poetry, screen time, lead actress, Killer, critic, prejudice, reporter, protagonist, junta, accolade (transwiki), patriotic, hospital, ensemble cast, affair, Telethon, humanitarian, Blood donation, army base, temple, and paranoia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, stacked references do not constitute a sufficient reason to fail a GAN, when actually there isn't a formal prohibition. I will finish tomorrow. As for the words, I'll ask Sandy for her opinion. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Y Done! Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the refs are no longer stacked after these edits: [3] [4] [5]. They were part of the fail. Do you have any further comment on the linking which by itself would not be a reason to fail, but which was an issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just popped over to the article, wondering why it hasn't appeared at FAC yet (I was very involved in the first failed FAC). I was asked to look at it almost a month ago; at that time, it was certainly ready for FAC, and I can't see anything in the article that should hold up GA. As far as I can tell, this article is well ready for FAC, and quite beyond GA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There hasn't really been participation by uninvolved parties. In the absence of actionable !votes, the best we can do is close as "no action" due to lack of consensus. For what it’s worth, I’d pass it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• GA - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• GA. Good (if my vote counts, this article is well beyond GA standards, these editors have been through enough, and objections I saw on the talk page are invalid. The article shouldn't be overlinked, western sources aren't required, and refs are combined in one set of tags all the time.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Any editor can comment here, and editors are encouraged to make recommendations such as "List as GA" based on their arguments. However, this is not a vote: what counts is weight of argument and the good article criteria. In this respect, I would encourage User:Blnguyen to amplify his recommendation, for instance by mentioning which comments are convincing, or by refuting the case against listing, or by making new points.

  I would like to draw attention to Sandy's comment about refs combined in one tag. Geometry guy 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• GA. I've reverted vandalism on this article once, and thought it was interesting reading. It was difficult to figure out what "stacked references" meant above. At first I thought it meant [1][2][3]. Successive ref marks are mildly discouraged at FAC, increasing with 3 or 4 or more successive ref marks. One way to avoid this is to combine the refs into one footnote. Gimmetrow 06:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So can I restore the refs as they were before my change? I just thought, if two or three different sources are cited here to back-up the same claim, why can't we put them within one individual footnote - it even looks much better. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's anything wrong with combining references in one footnote. That's why I found this rather puzzling. Gimmetrow 07:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as stacked refs goes, I meant multiple citations in a single footnote. I had never seen it before and could not find a policy. Since I had never seen it I presumed it was stylisticly frowned upon. If it is O.K., then pile 'em all in. I generally use separate footnotes for each citation myself. Is there a policy somewhere that I overlooked. Personally I think it looks confusing to see three citations within a ref tag. I may make some changes in the last paragraph at Joanne Gair if it is preferred to have several in one tag.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there is no policy one way or the other. There have been FACs where people objected to three or more successive ref marks together, and one solution is to combine or "stack" the references, as you call it, so it's perhaps mildly encouraged. I could probably find a FA that has it, but here's Hezbollah at the point it passed GA. Gimmetrow 02:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as overlinking, I missed your reply because you left it on your own talk page. I would have hashed it out with you because I think many of the terms in my list should be linked. I think a term like Indian Army should be linked and is now. I think a city like Los Angeles should be linked and it isn't. I missed your reply which contributed to my objection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the lead is tremendously important. Many readers just read the lead and many of those just read the first paragraph. Part of the discussion said as follows. "Here is my problem with the current lead. All award winning actress WP:FA's except Judy Garland state clearly in the first paragraph a summary of her awards in a manner similar to two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress which would be appropriate in this case:

  Angelina Jolie - She has received three Golden Globe Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and an Academy Award.

  Jenna Jameson - By 1996, she had won the three top newcomer awards from pornographic film industry organizations. She has since won more than 20 adult film awards

  Bette Davis - two-time Academy Award-winning American actress of film

  Diane Keaton - Academy Award-winning American film actress,

  Vivien Leigh - She won two Academy Awards

  Miranda Otto - Logie Award-winning Australian actress

  Sharon Tate - Golden Globe-nominated American actress

This has not been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead is very important, and I expect this is an issue that could be fixed with a single sentence. Geometry guy 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that as a GA reviewer, when I note that this article fails to give a comprehensive explanation of the actresses critical recognition in the first paragraph as almost all other positively reviewed actress articles do, that adversely affected my review decision. I like the article and wanted to pass it. There were too many suggestions that I thought could have been addressed that weren't for me to do so, but I continue to acknowledge as I did in the review that many would pass it with few changes. I am just saying I did not flip a coin and say well I guess I should fail her. There were many things that could arguably be done to improve the article. I still think it remains underlinked, I think the lead fails as noted above. I recognize that this is a very good article. I know many now support it. I think it is GA in many respects. I have no problem if it gets promoted against my fail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am aware an article is not required to have Western refs. I just think they could be easily added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on combining references. The relevant guidelines are WP:CITE and WP:Footnotes. The former points out that "Notes" sections combine both general footnotes and citations, and does not anywhere say (as far as I can tell) that there should only be one citation per footnote. It would appear from Sandy's comments that one cite per footnote is not an FA requirement, and my interpretation of the GA criteria is that it is not a GA requirement either. Since the GA criteria are intended to be more permissive about citation issues, I'd be surprised if others disagreed, but anyone is welcome to start a thread at WT:WIAGA.

In my own personal opinion, the solution to this issue, and the related issue of multiple footnotes citing different parts of the same source, is to use separate "Notes" and "References" sections as described by WP:CITE#Shortened notes. This is mildly encouraged by WP:Footnotes#Style recommendations, but is certainly not a GA requirement! Geometry guy 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you are aware of the problem. Separating notes and refs is not the answer to this problem. These are all citations (to the best of my recollection). Think about a single point that is supported by multiple {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} citations. The question is whether it is Kosher to do something like this: <ref>{{cite web}}{{cite web}}{{cite web}}</ref>. I call this stacked refs. I.E., a single ref with citations stacked in it. No one seems to have any policy guidance. I would like to know what is preferred because as mentioned above I have my own concerns with an article I am authoring because if stacking is preferred I have to rework the last paragraph at Joanne Gair.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the problem, and I believe that "stacking" is neither preferred nor discouraged. Sometimes it is helpful, sometimes not. Concerning notes and refs, I agree that this is not the answer, but it is one approach that can help, as long as the citations have author and year information: your example then becomes e.g. <ref>See (Tiger, 2006), (Guy, 2007) and (Georgia, 2008).</ref> with the cite web templates in the references (or possibly external links) section. But I digress. Geometry guy 09:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, when the Intelligent design article was recently in FAR, it looks like what had been a string of 6 references, one after another, at the end of a sentence has since been "stacked" into 2, and that the article remained an FA thereafter. So, on that basis, I guess there is cause to say that stacking references isn't a necessary impediment to GA, or even FA, status. And, although my own judgement regarding this article is clearly open to quetion, and I might be counted as an involved party, I can't see any reason not to give it GA status. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "policy" guidance I know of. Named refs cannot be combined, so successive refs are inevitable on a large article with named refs, but having more than two or three successive refs tends to look "unstylish" to some. This has been noted at FAC before, for instance: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islam/archive2. Gimmetrow 19:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say named refs can not be combined, I think you are supporting unstacking. Please clarify.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on sources. The real dichotomy is not between "Western" and "Eastern", but between "National" and "International". Zinta is first and foremost an Indian movie star, so it is entirely reasonable that most of the sources are from India. However, to the extent that she has achieved international notability and acclaim, it is valuable to provide international sources. "International" does not necessarily mean "Western", even less, "American": it means from countries other than the country of origin. It is also helpful to readers to provide English language sources: this is the English Language Wikipedia, not the Western Wikipedia; fortunately, of course, English is widely used in India.

I went through the article looking at the sources and tried to find a few more myself. I think the article makes excellent use of English language sources, and provides a good sprinkling of international sources where relevant, but I have a few suggestions. First, there is a large Indian community in the UK, and several of the films have been successful there. It may be that UK based media are a good place to look for international sources. I also wonder if there was any Australian reaction to Salaam Namaste. Having said this, my own search for a UK review of Kal Ho Naa Ho found a New York Times review, and my search for an Australian review of Salaam Namaste found a BBC review! (The latter might be useful: I can probably retrieve the link if you don't find it.) Geometry guy 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have all the links to all the reviews, thank you. The Kal Ho Naa Ho NYT reviewer almost does not comment on Zinta's performance. As for BBC -- all the BBC reviews are written by Indian critics and journalists. It is a special section on the site monitored by Indians. She even once won a "Best Actrerss" poll at BBC film cafe. See her awards page. But the review is poorly written, and there is no detailed comment about her performance. It only says that she and her film co-star played the role convincingly. I also looked for some Australian reviews for Salaam Namaste, but did not find unfortunately, but I added a NYT review so it's great. BTW, Kal Ho Naa Ho, Salaam Namaste, Veer Zaara were the top-grossing Bollywood productions of their respective years in the overseas market. The BBC also comments about:

• Her performance in Armaan, "Gracy Singh gives a pleasant performance but somewhat gets over shadowed by the superb acting of Priety Zinta." - but I can't add that because it's a bit unfair isn't it?
• Her performance in KANK, "Preity Zinta too gives her best. Watching her in the scene where she confronts Rani during the wedding reception makes you realise how excellent she is as an actress."

Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have it well covered: as I said, my own efforts were rather unsuccessful, but I'm glad if they were a small help! What I really wanted to find was not a review but another profile piece on Zinty in a reliable international source. Instead I found an unreliable UK fansite! Sigh. The internet owes a huge debt to Wikipedia, and it is not paying it! Geometry guy 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List as GA. The article has a number of minor issues which could be improved. In addition to those mentioned above, I think it needs a copyedit for prose style. For example, the last sentence of the lead tries to do too much, and the use of noun phrases leads to some heavy sentences in other places: see this guide.

In my view these minor issues are not significant enough to prevent listing this article as a good article. I hope that the suggestions made by the reviewer and in this discussion are appreciated, and will be considered: this does not mean following all suggestions, but considering them in the light of improving the article. Since the reviewer has indicated that he has "no problem if it gets promoted", I believe that this discussion can be closed fairly soon. Geometry guy 22:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give more examples of bad prose? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: the following are just my opinion; if you take the article to FAC, you may receive more extensive and professional copyediting advice.

• The lead: the last sentence of the first paragraph "Following this,..." (what/who was "subsequently credited?).
• Early life and background: "Zinta, a self-confessed tomboy" (tries to do too much, and may involve a bit of OR by synthesis); "particularly William Shakespeare and poetry" (awkward); "Although she earned a degree" (WP:WTA: implies people with degrees should not become models); I fixed a couple of other minor points.
• Early career: "canceled" (I saw "modelling" earlier, so I assume the article is written in a variant of English, such as English English, which doubles final "l"'s like this one); "Introducing Zinta,..." (long noun phrase).
• Breakthrough: "even credited" (why "even"?).
• Success: "Zinta's next release..." (she didn't release it); "at different award ceremonies" (do you mean "several"?); "and, among other awards..." (separate sentence would probably be better); "a story of two men" (presumably these are played by the co-stars: the sentence could be reworked to clarify this, e.g., "a story set about two men, played by..., who love the same woman." This also replaces the gerundive by a subordinate clause); "cynosure" (I had to look this up, and so will many WP readers; "pivotal role" or something similar might work better); "acting performance" (are both words needed? Anyway, your prose is much better than that of Rajeev Masand!); "after heavily shooting for" (reminds me a bit of Eats, shoots and leaves! I'm not sure if actors and actresses can be said to shoot a film).
• Columnist: "The column caught the worldwide attention of readers..." (surely you don't mean that! Also, I hope those emails were not only "addressed", but actually sent :-).
• Humanitarian work: "During her years..." ("film industry" presumably - and several charities).
• Personal life: "Zinta used to visit..." (why "used to"?).

I hope that helps. Geometry guy 19:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your involvement, help and suggestions. Much appreciated. Please tell me, do you have some idea for "after heavily shooting for" as pointed above?

Also, the prevention of using "her release" strikes me as a bit odd. Does it really imply that she released the film?

As you pointed out, the thirs paragraph in the success section has this "and, among other awards...". Your suggestion is to divide the sentence.. but it doesn't look good IMO. Do you any suggestion please? Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of edits. The first point really requires reading what the source says. For the second one, I'm not sure how flexible one can be about "release", but your fix works well, and I've suggested another fix in the same paragraph. For the third point, don't be afraid of short sentences in an encyclopedia article. This phrase is no more linked to the previous one than any of the other sentences about the film. Geometry guy 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List per G-guy. Majoreditor (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List This article is so far past a GA it isn't funny. Its ready for an FA and has been for a long time. Even Sandy Georgia thinks so, and I consider her one of the strictest reviewers on here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List per G-guy. Universal Hero (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

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

Result: Keep. The case for instability was not manifest. The case for lack of neutrality was generally refuted. Geometry guy 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contacted WP:CHICAGO, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:USPE, WP:WPBIO, WP:USC, User:Tvoz. (User:Wasted Time R already involved in discussion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article still be considered GA status? A quick look at the edit history and the arguments on the talk page shows that this article no longer meets criteria #5: "The article is stable". I realize that this is probably only a temporary condition, but it will most likely last at least until the general election in November. Do we really want to display this article as a good article for the next 9-10 months when it obviously is suffering from multiple on-going edit wars? Previously, it was an excellent article and deserved the GA status, but lately I can literally refresh the page and get a different article all day long. I suggest is be delisted until it again becomes stable. (In the interest of disclosure, I have only made 2 or 3 edits ever to this article and am not adamant whether or not those get reverted.)--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Background/comments. This article was recently brought to GAR, and I closed the discussion as inappropriate for GAR, as it concerned a content dispute: see the discussion here. For further discussion of stability issues, particularly in relation to presidential candidates, see here. I hold the view that instability caused by a content dispute is only likely to be a GA issue in one of the following cases:
  1. Disagreements between editors are compromising the quality of the article;
  2. It impossible to assess the quality of the article because it is changing so much;
  3. The article will change substantially in the near future, so assessing its quality now is pointless.

Otherwise content disputes should be resolved on the article talk page, or using dispute resolution processes, and not GAR. In particular, for articles with political significance, there is a danger that GA status will be used as a political football, which is something I hope anyone who cares about GA will oppose at every opportunity! :-)

So what is the situation here? The most recent diff probably illustrates the kind of changes that are going on at the moment. This restored a sentence to the lead which may or may not be OR: by WP:LEAD, it should be covered later in the article, so the OR issue hinges on whether it is, and whether citations are provided: see the talk page discussion for information about this.

However, that aside, if you take the current version and go back a few days (I went back three) to a previous version by the same editor, you get this diff. There is actually very little change: the main difference is that content has been added to the "College" section, and the super Tuesday results have been updated.

I don't see article quality being compromised here. I also don't see unstable change, just good old fashioned incremental improvement. I suggest, as in the previous GAR, that we leave it to the editors to sort out their differences on article talk. And actually, from what I see, they are engaging each other in high quality discussion. Geometry guy 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is stable. When the POV-warriors show up, there are always quite a number of conscientious editors who keep the article stable in the basic GA version. Here are the two versions (current versus today's):

6 June 2007 GA version

11 February 2008 (current version).

• There aren't any huge changes since GA promotion that would merit delisting. Bellwether ^B_C 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.I do not think it qualifies for GA. It is not stable enough for GA and would be much less stable if not for the extreme article control being exercised by a few watchers. In addition, many editors view it as not being NPOV compliant as evidenced by the content of this talk page topic and, to a lesser extent, this one. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC
  • Please note that this user is one of the users who periodically attempt to force their POV into the article, and who slap NPOV tags on it when those who are trying to keep it at GA status revert his "changes." It's stable, M.ge, and it's no thanks to you, as you've attempted many times to make it unstable. POV-warriors trying to force unnecessary--and even harmful (to the article)--changes does not an "unstable" article make. Sorry. Bellwether ^B_C 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note. At GAR we base our discussion on whether the article meets the GA criteria. Some of these criteria (such as stability and NPOV, which seem to be the main issues here) are partly subjective, but the role played by individual editors in bringing the article to GAR is irrelevant. In particular, just as GAR has no precrime department ("this article is about to become unstable"), it has no counterfactual department ("this article would be unstable if it weren't for the editors controlling it"). WP:OWN is not a GA issue: it needs to be resolved through other channels. Stability and NPOV are GA issues, but decisions here are based on the state of the article and policy, nothing more, nothing less. Geometry guy 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's no need to speedy close. This is a complex article with a complicated edit history. We'll need some additional time to examine the article. Majoreditor (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, it's not that "complicated." On one side of the fence stand folks like myself, who may or may not like Clinton (I don't), but are interested in keeping the article neutral and at GA status. On the other side are POV-warriors--who are normally, but not always, anti-Clinton--and who attempt to make the article unstable by starting faux content disputes, where none exist. The basic content of the article is fairly stable, especially for an article that is basically documenting a current event. The only "instability" comes from the attacks of the POV-warriors. Bellwether ^B_C 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Majoreditor's comment is partly in response to a thread which has now been moved to user talk (NB. I do not support or oppose how it was moved to user talk, but I think user talk is the right place for that discussion). Geometry guy 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would (reluctantly) agree with Majoreditor here. I was initially tempted to close this GAR as a content dispute, but decided against. Assuming good faith (as I always try to do!), this is clearly a suggestion by an independent editor that that the GA status of this article needs to be looked at carefully. My "reluctance" now only stems from a concern that this GAR discussion may end up not being very helpful. I would ask everyone to please prove me wrong by basing comments here purely on the article, its recent edit history, and the good article criteria. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the only problem cited in the initial request for review, is Criteria #5 "Stability", and this issue has been shown to be not an issue (per both GeometryGuy and my own posts), I am still strongly in favor of a quick close. This article is definitely not unstable, per the above-mentioned criteria. Bellwether ^B_C 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the level of edit wars is identified in criteria#5 as an ingredient of stability, I think it would be useful for editors to have a look at the attack thread Bellwether moved from here to WilliamThweatt's user talk as an example of the type of edit wars and personal attacks some of the primary editors of this article engage in all too often[6]. These bad faith assumptions and attacks result in an extreme level of instability and edit wars which turn away many good editors and thereby diminish the quality of the BLP, in my opinion. As exemplified with the unprovoked attack on WilliamThweatt right here inside this nomination, edit wars and arguments at the H.Clinton BLP are initiated and prolonged by some of the regular contributors as much as, if not more than, the irregular contributors. Not only do these altercations destabalize the article, they also make the concept of "Good Article" seem totally out of place in regards to this BLP as it currently stands. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the kind of utter nonsense that those of us trying to keep the article up to GA standards have to deal with. Take these kind of discussions to talk. Categorizing what I wrote as an "attack thread" is more of your hyperbole, and is, as I said, utter nonsense. Bellwether ^B_C 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition, as GeometryGuy mentioned, NPOV criteria may also be something to consider if the editors so choose to do so. I'll be saying nothing further regarding this reassessment. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your supposed NPOV "concerns" have been answered numerous times by multiple editors. You simply choose to ignore us. Bellwether ^B_C 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Usual note. GAR discussions are not based on agreeing or disagreeing with the nominator's issues, but on whether the article meets the criteria. In my view the stability issue raised by the nominator is weak, as I indicated in my initial post to this discussion, but that's not the only GA issue, and all of the GA criteria need to be addressed. Geometry guy 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So, even if no other issues were even raised, that doesn't matter? That seems a bit silly, but okay. It would seem if the nominator was only concerned with one aspect, and that aspect is shown to not be any sort of real problem, then the review would close quickly. I'm not sure I understand the point of undergoing all this rigamarole, when it's basically two or three POV-warriors that continually rehash the same NPOV "concerns", and who pop in from time to time to try to insert their views into the article. I'll leave this discussion to those of you who are more familiar with this process. That an article can be nominated for review on such thin evidence is discouraging to those of us who work hard to make it a good article, no matter our political views. (And mine are quite clear, and not biased for Sen. Clinton, just for the record M.ge.) Bellwether ^B_C 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone can nominate an article for GAR at any time, although inappropriate nominations may be procedurally closed: this happened for the previous GAR nomination of this article. As for considering all of the criteria, this is again because GAR focusses on whether the article meets the criteria, not on editor disagreements and content disputes. I'm sorry that you find this discouraging, but the plus side is that if this discussion closes as "keep" it is not merely a rejection of the nominator's concerns, but a reassertion that the article is good, and the GAR can be quoted if the status of the article is challenged again. Geometry guy 18:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. It's like sausage-making; the end product is good but the process is stomach-turning.

The article is surprisingly good. There are minor MoS problems and some dead links needing repair; these issues don't merit de-listing. And yes, there have been POV issues which creep into the article. However, the consensus process is doing a decent job resolving POV creep.

Thoughtful individuals may disagree on the definition of article stability. To me, this one is more stable than wobbly. Sure, it's a frequently-edited article subject to periodic, short-term edit wars. However, the edit wars tend to play out quickly; so do most of the less dramatic content disputes. Recent disputes over relatively minor issues don't hurt the article's overall quality. Majoreditor (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am wondering whether Majoreditor would say it would qualify for a new listing right now. Is the bar for de-listing higher than the bar for a new listing? Just wondering about that aspect. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR evaluation uses the same standards as GAN. GA-listed articles don't enjoy free passes here. Check out some of the other GAR discussions as examples. Majoreditor (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've looked at the recent edit history and been through the article, and find Majoreditor's analysis completely accurate, albeit a little too incisive to read immediately before or after eating :-)

My initial comments above about the stability of the article stand. Further I have not found any serious GA issues with the article in any other respect. I tried to fix a few minor points on my read-through, but did not fix every issue I found, only a few indicative examples. For instance, I think there is a tendancy to wikilink long phrases, which is not helpful; there is also a tendancy to cite sources mid-sentence, which is sometimes necessary, but it breaks up the flow for the reader, and so it should be minimized. There is also a tendancy to pile on noun phrases, where a good encyclopedic style would use multiple sentences, or at least semicolons. Tony1 has a great guide on issues like this. These are mostly not GA issues, though.

I changed one section heading to a more neutral title: describing HRC's First Ladyship as "uncharacteristic" is an implicit, unsourced suggestion that there is a "characteristic" role. That may be true, but it needs to be sourced in the article, not implied by a section heading. The external links need some formatting, and access dates would be appreciated. I made a start by adding cite web templates, but there is still some tidying to be done here. I have to say, though, good work! As Majoreditor suggests, reading the edit history is a bit painful, but reading the article is really not unpleasant at all! Geometry guy 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My initial comments also stand. The article is pov by omission, shallow, trite and censored to the point of sanitized boredom. It's like reading a BLP on Richard Nixon with only a passing mention of Watergate, or a BLP on Dwight Eisenhower without a link to his farewell address to the nation. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your initial comments may "stand", but they are not any truer than they were when you initially made them. Bellwether ^B_C 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, saying your comments aren't true is not a personal attack in any way. Your accusations against the editors who dare oppose you ("like reading a BLP on Richard Nixon with only a passing mention of Watergate") smacks of a real POV-based tirade, and should be disregarded as such. This doesn't mean that you are a bad person, it just means that your opinions on this article are incredibly wrong-headed. _{You should also refrain from simply removing people's comments as a "personal attack", especially when they weren't a "personal attack" at all.} Bellwether ^B_C 04:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully suggest that both of you try to lower the temperature a little, and think twice before adding comments to this discussion which supply no new relevant information concerning the question of whether this article meets the criteria. Thanks, Geometry guy 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck comments, but left small note, that is simply procedurally correct. Bellwether ^B_C 13:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the arguments listed in the nomination, any article with active editorial involvment should be delisted. I am sure Barack Obama is as actively edited and it does not need to be nominated for WP:FAR. Any good article has reasons why it is not a WP:FA. Nothing in this article is so bad that it should be delisted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tony the Tiger's analysis above, and more significantly, the arguments laid out by MajorEditor. This article does not have significant instability, and has not deteriorated in basic quality since it's initial promotion. In fact, I would contend it's a better article now than it was then. Additionally, I say keep based upon the specious nature of the arguments presented for delisting(see below). Bellwether ^B_C 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• De-List per nominator William Thweatt's analysis above as well as many NPOV concerns addressed as recently as this week by editors such as TSOD[7] and ClassicFilms[8]. In addition, recent evidence of instability and major revisions as recently as this week as shown here and here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "polarizing" material is a long story, but to make it short, once reworked it will be coming back stronger and better than before. It wasn't in the article at the time of first reaching GA, in any case. It was added in preparation for FAC, during which discussion (and until very recently) it wasn't objected to. I don't see its temporary removal for renovation as a cause for de-listing, although I strongly feel the article is less good without it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in support of keeping GA status - I am not an uninvolved reviewer, as I work extensively on this article and on Barack Obama and numerous other political personalities, but I was notified of this action (thanks, Tony) and wish to comment. In my view this article meets and even surpasses the standard GA criteria. It is a complex subject that needs to be kept to a manageable size, and it has done so pretty successfully. The article is well-written (not by me) and extremely well-sourced with verifiable, reliable sources; it is illustrated, broad, covering her entire life and varied career including her presidential campaign, and it is neutral. Indeed, like all political articles in an election year, questions have been raised from time to time about its neutrality by both people who think it is too pro-Clinton and those who think it is too anti-Clinton - which I think is evidence that the editors have done their job in keeping it neutral. Various controversies surrounding her, large and small, have been well integrated into the article and its notes and sub-articles, without giving them undue weight. Questions raised about neutrality are thoroughly responded to and discussed on the talk page - there have not been major edit wars such as were seen in some other articles like Mitt Romney which had to be full-protected for a time recently until warring stopped. Hillary Clinton has not been subject to that kind of problem, despite the controversial nature of the subject. In fact it has been remarkably stable, given the subject's prominence in the current news cycle, but this article is much broader than the presidential campaign - and most of it does not change at all. There have been attempts to insert POV material into the article - such as this and many others, but there are many eyes watching it and such edits are quickly removed for discussion on talk if they are not perceived to be mere vandalism. No article, including FAs, is above criticism and improvement, but I see absolutely no reason to de-list this article. (Noted with thanks to Geometry Guy are the comments about reference style which will be addressed - at one point we had them all in the cite template format and will work on catching up on that for refs that have been added since then; will also look at reducing some long wikilinks which I too am not particularly fond of.) Tvoz |talk 18:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've followed this for over a week now, engaging both with the article and the talk page. Improvements have been accepted, poor edits (including several of my own:) have been fixed, vandalism and POV edits have been swiftly reverted or removed, and discussion on the talk page has been constructive and polite. This supports all my earlier comments, as well as the above comments of Tvoz.

Issues such as stability and neutral point of view have a subjective interpretation, and for as long as HRC remains a presidential candidate, there is little chance of clear blue water between this article and the borderlines, so I understand and respect that some editors may feel that this article is sailing, or in danger of sailing, too close to the wind. For now, though, I cannot see any case for delisting this article, but I urge regular editors to be respectful, thoughtful, and engaging towards any new input to the article, and hope the article will continue to improve! Geometry guy 22:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Sunday[edit]

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

Result: No action. Article has been renominated, as suggested here, and is now a GA. Geometry guy 11:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is being assessed properly because of its length. It was initially quick-failed basically for being too short. This is an article for a short film, and there is no length requirement for Good articles other than they not be stubs.

The second assessment again basically said the article was too short. Again, there is no minimum length requirement. It also says the prose is "confusing." I'm stumped as to what about the prose is so difficult to grasp. It says that the lead is not detailed enough but gives no indication as to what details from the article are not summarized in the lead. Nor do I understand critiques like "As for the next paragraph, the two sentences seem to be lacking details. Just to clear things up, they do not need more details...." How exactly can a paragraph be lacking in details yet not need more details? It makes no sense!

As for the reference critique, I really wish everyone who reviews GA nominees would get on board with one idea on the way to write references. One reviewer says to use the Author, page number format and fails articles without it and another fails articles that use this format. Casablanca (film) uses Author, page for a number of its references and it's a featured article! Are we holding good articles to higher standards than featured ones now? And speaking of references, the reviewer states that two sentences seem "opinion-y" but in each instance they are referenced by citations in the following sentence. Does there really need to be a separate citation to the same source and the same page for each of them? Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose listing per my review and my comment below this.
• Comment Let me just explain some things that you questioned about my review. I apologize for the confusion as when I write on talk pages I tend to write colloquially and it gets very confusing. Addressing your concern about the article's failing due to length, it is not the length that I failed it for. An article cannot be failed for length if it cannot be expanded, but if it can be expanded, then it fails criteria 4a by not providing sufficient coverage of the topic. If you can prove that there are absolutely NO more possible details or sub-topics that can be included, then that aspect of my review will become invalid. For your next comment about the lead's details: that was not a major item that I focused on. I was mainly concerned with the topic sentence since it starts to give context on what the plot was ("...tells the story of two young girls and their efforts to save a public concert series."), but then cuts short. All it provides is that there are two girls and a concert series. The minimum that would need to be added would be maybe be this: "...to save a public concert series, which had been degrading due to low attendance." As for the prose, there are some parts that are confusing. I explained as much as I could in the review but I will try to provide some examples. Here is one from the plot section: "Edna (Deanna Durbin) and her friend Judy (Judy Garland) are upset because Edna's grandfather and his orchestra have been fired by the town council from the free Sunday concerts they play because of poor attendance." I separated all the different clauses by bolding every other clause. This sentence is way too long. Maybe some advanced readers like you and me may read this sentence and say, "This is good." But inexperienced users that may visit the article might find themselves looking back to remember what the main topic of the sentence is. As for the exteremely confusing sentence I put in the review, that was a fault in my prose. What I meant to say was that the sentences do not necessarily need details, but they should have more details. Finally, as for the reference section, you can choose whichever style you want, but if you choose the "Author, Page Number" style, you must list what the references are in a separate Bibliography or References section. For instance, as per the example you gave (Casablanca (film)), the article uses the "Author, Page Number" style in their footnotes. If you look below the Notes section, though, you will see that any reference that was cited using that style was listed in full form in a separate "References" section. If you have any more questions, please ask and I will be happy to answer them. This page should also get comments from other authors if you want to see what they think. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Criterion 3a (there is no criterion 4a) asks if the article "addresses the major aspects of the topic" and has a footnote that explicitly states that the requirement is "significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." Suggesting that I prove that there are no possible additional details that could be included indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the good article criteria on your part.
• Neither is there a requirement in the criteria that references be in the format that you're demanding. Criterion 2a requires a reference section and links to Wikipedia:Citing sources which is a guideline and is to be approached using common sense. This article has nine footnotes. Do you really think that anyone reading the notes section is going to look at, say, note 4 "Clarke p. 76" and not be able to figure out that it's the same source as note 1, mandating that all of the information from note 1 be repeated in a separate bibliography? Or that note 7's "Juneau p. 27" is so distant from the information in note 2 that it will stump them? This supposed requirement for a separate bibliography before listing a GA is not borne out by the reviewers of any of the ten articles that I've gotten listed already. I suppose it's possible that all ten of those reviewers are wrong and you're right but isn't it possible that it's the other way around?
• If you thought that a couple of the sentences were awkwardly written, you could have placed the article on hold to give me the chance to work on them instead of failing the article. I have broken the offending sentence down and rewritten it, and have also added the detaill you wanted to the lead. Otto4711 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, I am just giving you my opinion. If you really feel that my judgment it wrong, then just request another nomination. It is not necessary to search for ways to negate my review. As for the first bullet you had, you are probably right and I am just holding the article's coverage to a standard higher than it should be. As for the references, the change that I suggested is very trivial. If you want I could fix it. The statement on the form of the references was just my own opinion that I adopted when an article I nominated got such an opinion and was failed because of it. I apologize if the such opinion is not used in practice, but still I think that it is not that big of a deal that we need to argue over whether a citation needs to be copied and pasted into a section at the bottom of the page, which could take a maximum of five minutes. Finally, as for your third bullet, I would have put the article on hold if the prose was the only reason I failed it (the other reasons happen to be the ones you disagree with). In conclusion, though, whether I am right or wrong with any part of my review, there is no minimum time between nominations (as you probably know from experience), and it only takes about five minutes to renominate the article. And if you do renominate it, I guarantee I will have the common sense that you want a second opinion so I will let somebody else review it. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am simply following the instructions laid out at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I responded to your review here (which, I'm sorry, I found very confusing to read; I would suggest that if you review GA noms in future you use bullet point as seen here or better yet copy and paste the GA criteria and respond to each as is seen here) and I responded to your comment about this reassessment. This is an attempt to build consensus about the article by involving a wider array of editors. Personally I don't like GAR because it seems to generally take about a month to get one completed but if I think the article isn't being reviewed reasonably because of its length then it doesn't make much sense for me to keep putting the same short article back on the list.

• Suit yourself, but I guarantee that since the previous reviewer seems like he had no idea what he/she was doing and my review was just withholding too high a standard for the article, that you were just unlucky. Maybe if somebody who reviewed one of your previous GA nominations might be helpful if you nominated it again. Either way, maybe other editors will comment on this page sometime soon and we can reach some sort of consensus. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 23:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and if you a little more closely at WP:CITE#Harvard referencing and at Wikipedia:Harvard referencing, you will find that the extra referencing section is necessary. If you decide not to use that style of referencing, then if you read the previous sections of WP:CITE, it says that you must provide full citations. If you can find some sort of exception or something that I missed that allows otherwise, please tell me so I do not criticize it again. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 23:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I changed the photo to something much better-looking than the extremely low resolution advertisement that was previously in the infobox. If you do not like, please revert it. I just wanted to see if there was any better image. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the original image. The one inserted isn't from the film. Majoreditor (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Sorry about that. I was not sure. Oh well, the article needs a better image. Maybe if there were any screenshots of the film or something. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is close to GA standards but falls short in some areas. There are minor issues with the referencing. Two or three of the sentences are a trifle long. Some phrases should be sharpened for clarity's sake. The plot summary section could be better developed. And I'm surprised there's not more references to available on-line resources, such as this one on the New York Times website. A better image, while not required, would be nice; there are several you'll find through gsearch which, I believe, pass muster.[9]

While the lead could be better developed, it complies with WP:LEAD standards. And I'm perplexed by the reviewer's remark about proving that "there are absolutely NO more possible details or sub-topics that can be included", as I'm unaware of GA articles needing to clear such a high hurdle.

Overall, it's is a pretty good short article with no major problems -- just some small concerns. I doubt there's much more material to incorporate since the film is a tiny topic. That's fine, as short articles can qualify for GA status.

Otto, the best route may be for you to fix the few small issues that have been raised and then re-nominate the article at GAN. Many GA reviewers would have placed the article on Hold, allowing you time to address concerns. However, different reviewers have different styles, and the decision to employ GA-Hold is subjective. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you let me know which phrases specifically you think are problematic? Otto4711 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I apologize for holding the article to such high standards during my review. Hopefully this article will be able to pas GA and maybe even go further than that. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This looks to me like a case where the article could have been put on hold rather than failed (I emphasise "could" rather than "should" because this is a matter for the reviewer's discretion). However, it seems to me that both nominator and reviewer might be happy if this article were put back on hold as a current GAN: in which case this GAR could be closed and discussion about listing the article as GA could continue on the article talk page. Geometry guy 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine by me. If you would care to weigh in on the article itself that would be appreciated. Otto4711 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmoon[edit]

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

Result: Delist. Reviewers noted a lack of real world content and reliable secondary sources. The lead also fails to summarize the article. Geometry guy 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article, and found it to be deficent one one very imporant regard: there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional character outside of the primary source material.

The article itself goes into great detail about these primary sources, quoting extensively from them. As a result, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it is a regurgitation of the primary sources.

Following a review of this article, I added the Notability template so that this issue would be addressed. It was removed by ReyBrujo on the grounds that "Notability asserted in the article itself"[10], an assertion that I believe is not in accordance with WP Guidelines WP:V and WP:RS, and I have brought this matter to his attention.

It appears that the requirement for reliable secondary sources was ignored in this article's Good Article assessment, and this issue should now be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the manual of style, The term secondary information describes information external to the fictional universe, and is usually taken from secondary sources about the fictional world, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the circumstances of creation. Annotated books are primary sources, yes, but with comments from the authors about the circumstances of creation, which fits the definition. Books are used to reference the plot, but when giving author's insight of the character, annotated books and supplements written in an out-of-universe perspective are given. I believe it is clear enough that reliable sources are used. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go back and get some author interviews from Dragon and White Dwarf. Dragon was published by the same publisher, yes, but I am going to be looking at the interviews. White Dwarf was an independent publisher. ReyBrujo: I'll forward any information I find and we can decide how to use it. Web Warlock (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reassert my previous comment from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Riverwind/1. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist due to paucity of real-world context. NOTPLOT asserts that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Majoreditor (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist as there is no real world context. This reassessment has been up for almost a month and there is no real change in this issue, even with links and information on how to fix the issue.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It has already been delisted. I am keeping the comment here for future reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverwind[edit]

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

Result: Delist. Reviewers noted a lack of real world content and reliable secondary sources, and questioned whether two non-free images are needed; one low resolution non-free image should be enough. Geometry guy 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article, and found it to be deficent one one very imporant regard: there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional character outside of the primary source material.

The article itself goes into great detail about these primary sources, quoting extensively from them. As a result, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it is a regurgitation of the primary sources.

Following a review of this article, I added the Notability template so that this issue would be addressed. It was removed by ReyBrujo on the grounds that "Notability asserted in the article itself"[11], an assertion that I believe is not in accordance with WP Guidelines WP:V and WP:RS, and I have brought this matter to his attention.

It appears that the requirement for reliable secondary sources was ignored in this article's Good Article assessment, and this issue should now be addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the manual of style, The term secondary information describes information external to the fictional universe, and is usually taken from secondary sources about the fictional world, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the circumstances of creation. Annotated books are primary sources, yes, but with comments from the authors about the circumstances of creation, which fits the definition. Books are used to reference the plot, but when giving author's insight of the character, annotated books and supplements written in an out-of-universe perspective are given. I believe it is clear enough that reliable sources are used. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, and quite loosely speaking, this seems to be a WP:COAT issue (under the guise of concern about the review, the comments/concerns really only seek to address what constitutes an RS). This appears to essentially be a content dispute inappropriate for GAR (similar to this); the discussion is better had at WP:FICT, WP:V or the appropriate MoS subpage/Wikiproject. For what it’s worth, the MoS is a guideline and is subordinate to WP:V, which is policy. WP:V says “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. Use of “should” instead of, say, “must” leaves the policy open to considerations of common sense and context. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin has an issue with all the RPG articles and looks for any reason to cast doubt or disparity on them. This is request has not been brought in good faith and it certain part of his biased agenda against RPG articles in general. But do not take my word for it, observe his edit pattern since Sept 2007. Web Warlock (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin reads "should" in this case as "absolutely must, or it needs to be deleted with extreme prejudice". BOZ (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep comments relevant to the GA review/status. Gavin and/or his motivations is not the topic here. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. NOTPLOT asserts that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." The article is very short on real-world context. Majoreditor (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist due to paucity of real-world context. Majoreditor (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delist Although I find the motives for the GAR nomination highly questionable, the article is here and deserves due process. There are serious breaches of at least three GA critera:
  • Criterion 2: All substantive content is sourced with primarily materials, which, in addition to being a WP:V/WP:RS violation, makes statements such as “Weis and Hickman continue diminishing the protagonism of Riverwind” appear to be OR.
  • Criterion 3: Article does not address or provide real world context or analysis – a serious breach of broadness.
  • Criterion 6. Fair-use statements in both images falsely assert that images are low resolution. Low resolution is defined as no more than 300 pixels horizontally or vertically (i.e. less than 0.1 megapixels); both images exceed this maximum and contain no explanation as to why the larger size is warranted. Further, use of two images is not supported by WP:FUC, which states “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.” Images are used “to show Riverwind, one of the main characters in the Dragonlance world” (although the tag on Riverwind_the_Plainsman_cover.jpg‎ states “to show Goldmoon” when the image is purportedly of Riverwind); no explanation as to why two non-free images are needed to achieve this end is provided. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allah[edit]

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

Result: Procedural close. GAR is not proving to be helpful right now. Although the article was stable at the time of review, this is not so clear at present. Once the current intensive editing settles down the article can be renominated. If further problems arise, a new GAR discussion can be opened. Geometry guy 17:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was quick-failed by User:Jackturner3 on the following grounds:

1. There are a lot of problems with the prose in this article...
2. It is not focused and nor does it cover major aspects since "I’m sure there is a lot more that could be said about Allah in Islam in this article since Allah commonly connotated with Islam. If more could be added regarding the use of Allah as a name for God among Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, that would be beneficial as well."
3. It is not stable.

I replied to User:Jackturner3 on the talk page of Allah and left a note on his talk page but it seems that he is too busy with other articles so I am bringing the case here.

The reason number 3 is incorrect. There has been no editwar at least since a couple of month ago. The reason number 2 is incorrect since: As mentioned at the top of the article, "This article is about the Arabic word "Allah". See God in Islam for the Islamic conception of God." We discuss the history of the term and its usage in English etc here. There is indeed a subsection associated to the concept of Allah in various religions. There, I have given some more space to Islam but I don't think there is anything Islamic in the term Allah. It was used before Islam and is the only word for God that Arab Christians use. The association of the term with Islam is due to those who were engaged in Comparative religous studies which is at the bottom of it "artificial". So, I think pointing out to the main article and providing a summary here is sufficient.

I have also tried to address reason number but I don't think the article deserves quick failing.

I would also appreciate any other feedback you might have that may help improving the article.

Regards,--Be happy!! (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ahlan wa sahlan! I agree with Jack that the prose need sharpening. An example:

The concepts associated with the term Allah (as a deity) though differed from tradition to tradition. The parenthetical statement is awkward, as is the use of the word though.

There are also MoS issues. Some of the paragraphs and sections are a trifle short. And footnotes referencing sura and ayah should mention the Qur'an as the source: for example, Qur'an, 6:100, rather than 6:100.

I agree with Aminz that the article is stable.

Some sections need to be broader in coverage. For instance, "In Christianity and Judaism" could be expanded to deal with the unique treatment of Allah among Arab Christians and Sephardic Jews. For example, the Trinitarian formula among Arab Christians is typically expressed as "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God". The "One God" phrase is unique to Christians living in Muslim-dominated lands, resulting from Christian Arab's need to "prove" their monotheism to their Muslim neighbors.

The article has come a long way, but still needs additional work before it's ready for GA listing. You may wish to have another editor or the League of Copyeditors help address prose and MoS issues. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Majoreditor for the feedback. I have made some changes accordingly.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Nomination was not quick-failed, as is incorrectly asserted above; see this edit for the review. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the reasons above. But the article was not put on hold, that's why I said it was quick-failed (my usage seems incorrect per your comment though). --Be happy!! (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, see WP:QFC. Holds, by the way, are not required and are used at the discretion of the reviewer. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, I didn't "quick fail" the article. I actually read the article and commented on it; had it been a "quick fail," I wouldn't have bothered to read the article in the first place. Additinoally, more than 20 edits in a day is excessive and, to my mind, contributes to instability. -- jackturner3 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, thanks for reviewing the article. one reason that I requested for more feedbacks was that I felt you ignored me when I left a comment in response to your review, even after I requested for some clarification on your talk page. I still feel there is some misunderstanding between us. Can you please let me clarify the 20 edits per day?? There was only one edit on the day you failed the article(14th). There was many edits before the nomination of the article for GA (11th) in preparation for nomination. None of those edits were subject to edit war however.

Anyways, thanks again for reviewing the article. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is stable. It's not averaging 20 edits per day; even if it were, it's relatively free from edit wars and content disputes. Compared to Hillary Rodham Clinton (see above GAR discussion) it's quite stable. Majoreditor (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't claiming that there was an edit war going on, only that the nuber of edits a few days before the review made me stop and think a moment. But, I didn't fail the article for the edits, I failed it for the content reasons. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sadly, an edit war has erupted. It may take a few days to play out. In the meanwhile the article isn't stable enough for listing. I suggest we close this discussion as Endorse Fail and let matters settle down. The article can be eventually re-nominate once editors work through their issues. Meanwhile I'll try to help with the article and its talk page discussions. Majoreditor (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List as GA; the article is reasonably well written and there is no need to fail it, let alone quick failing it!! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. F. Skinner[edit]

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

Result: Endorse current status (not listed), but encourage editors to improve the article and renominate! Geometry guy 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any explanation on the Discussion page as to why teh article was delisted -- I found one critique that there were not enough sources -- that seems not to be the case anymore. Thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been de-listed by Cswrye in December 2006. The article has been tagged for cleanup of a section and lack of citations for one or more sections. Majoreditor (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article isn't currently up to GA standards. There are several citation tags. The biography section is under-referenced. And there are some MoS concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is MoS? Thanks for your help! We'll get working on getting this article up to snuff! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS stands for the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Majoreditor (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As Skinner was one of my heroes when I was at university, it pains me to say that I have to agree with Majoreditor, this article is not at GA standard, and its delisting was justified I think. There are too many unreferenced sections, and some of the writing is not up to scratch, such as in the Political views section, which is a collection of disjointed short paragraphs. I don't find the article to be well structured either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ok -- I just wanted to make sure that I needed to make changes before I did -- I'll work on getting it up to snuff and bring it back -- is that the correct order of action? Malleus, would you be interested in sort of 'mentoring' me through this procedure?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied on my talk page, but yes, that's the thing to do now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we close this for the time being, we'll work on it and then re-apply? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy III[edit]

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

Result: Delist FightingStreet (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over this article, and have found it does not qualify for GA status in that the article is not broad in its coverage:

• Although it is reasonable to limit the scope of an article's Plot section, the arguments of Wikipedia:Spoiler allow for a much more comprehensive coverage of the plot as a result of Wikipeida's encyclopedic nature, and every other FF article contains a much more detailed Plot which describes the events of its respective game.
• The article completely lacks a reception or legacy section. This may be undestandable becuase of the game's early release and/or general general obscurity, but the Lead statement "was one of the largest role-playing games created for Nintendo's console" implies that there exists information on the subject.

I find it important to note that the article Final Fantasy III is part of a Featured Topic, and therefore deserves and requires that it is a GA in nature and not simply in name. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is usually the less important part of these articles, today most reviewers prefer to have more "out of universe" than content dealing with the fictional material, personally I would like to see a 'reception' section. For a issue like "needing a more extensive plot" bringing it to reassessment without actually leaving a note in the talk page or other venue in order to discuss it seems premature. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article needs to have more information on out-of-universe relevence, ie, reception in the real world. I recommend creating an appropriate section. In its current state the article doesn't comply with NOTPLOT, thus failing criterion 3. Majoreditor (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The article now has a section entitled "Reception". However, the section is completely devoid of content - not a word. There's also some fact tags in the article. It's clearly not GA-class at present.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Majoreditor (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 February 2008.

• Delist. Reception section is empty; the article is not broad in its coverage (GA criterion 3). FightingStreet (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Development seems skimpy. Reception is blank. Some fact tags. Some stuff could use citations. What's up with the weird blank spaces, btw? Ealdgyth | Talk 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chanology[edit]

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

Result: List as GA. There is no sign that this article is currently unstable, and all recent arguments support listing it. If it becomes unstable, editors may initiate delisting in accordance with the delisting guidelines or open a new GAR discussion in the event of uncertainty or disagreement. Geometry guy 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chanology was reviewed by Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs), and successfully passed and listed as a WP:GA. Sceptre (talk · contribs) then summarily delisted the article's GA status, citing WP:WIAGA, point (5), article stability. The article does happen to be semi-protected, but that is only due to vandalism, and WP:WIAGA clearly states: Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. In his delist comments, Sceptre (talk · contribs) stated that due to ongoing protests that members of Project Chanology are involved in, the article may change in the future. This certainly is possible, but I do not think that that possibility should preclude the article's viability for a current WP:GA status listing at this point in time. Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs) felt that it passed all the criteria, as do I (though I could not do the GA review, as a significant contributor to the article itself). Cirt (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fail - current event = fails stability criterion (there will be another mass organised protest in 2 weeks time, and there's very likely small protests going to be happening until then). Will ^(talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as GA - The article has been stable lately, with no content disputes. As stated above, vandalism does not apply to stability concerns. Yes, there will be upcoming protests, but those are also likely to continue for some time in the future. Should the article never be allowed to attain GA status due to a series of upcoming mass protests? No, the article should pass as a GA article, per the GA Review of Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as GA - Will's reason for delist was wrong. In GA criteria 5, an article should not "change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war." After checking page history, there was no edit war in recent months. Plus Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't care about upcoming protests. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That means, to pass, it needs to pass both of those. It passes "no edit wars", but not "change signficantly" - the event's currentness thus makes it susceptible to significant change. Will ^(talk) 06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh no, global warming is happening right now, let's be bold and delist this FA </sacrasm> (just for those who don't get the joke) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, but will the content of the global warming article be sure to change in a few weeks time? No. This article? Yes. Will ^(talk) 08:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fail/Endorse delist - WP:WIAGA; it's likely to change regularly. Not sure who put the "and" there when consensus is for it to be an "or". In any case, the initial GA review wasn't thorough enough. I suggest the editors take the article to GAN when the event is no longer taking place. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more protests planned for a few months out. Should the article be prohibited from ever attaining GA status, just because a sub-subsection of the article will be updated occasionally? I agree with OhanaUnited (talk · contribs), who rightly stated Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Are there any other concerns about the article's quality other than the criterion 5 issue? Majoreditor (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has raised any concerns/suggestions as to any of the other criteria other than criterion 5. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist for now The delisting was initially based on a quickfail edit conflict, but those criteria do not apply to the article. While it addresses an unfolding event, it does not have a definite endpoint. It's a rough and imperfect analogy, but I would compare the development of this article to that of the general article about a sports team. I'll point to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football as an example since I'm familiar with it. It bears repeating that my analogy is not exact, but this is an example of an article that has attained GA status despite the fact that it will most certainly continue to be updated until an unknown point in the future. On another note, the Project Chanology article has some really picky style/personal preference issues that are mostly a result of the developing nature of the subject, but this doesn't affect the overall quality or stability of the article at this moment. However, this is the main reason why I say "relist for now" rather than just "relist," as I can see certain things resulting in a downward spiral of quality if the core contributors don't remain vigilant during updating flurries. That said, I feel that a future GAR, perhaps after the expected flurry of updates, might be appropriate. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as GA per Cirt. The delister, Sceptre/Will, has been regularly disrupting the progress of the closely-related Anonymous (group) article through subjective misgivings and policy violations. (I will provide evidence if requested.) Taking this into account, I feel it should be borne in mind that his position on the issue harbours a potential conflict of interest, to put it mildly. Ayla (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is no known endpoint to Project Chanology, so it could permanently be a current event. As such, it should not be denied GA status based on critera 5 anymore than an article on the Iraq War should fail for being a current event. DigitalC (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you would support relisting the article as a WP:GA? Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now yes, as I have not seen any valid reasons for its delisting. DigitalC (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification that you support relisting the article as a WP:GA. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should the article be relisted while the GAR is taking place as it was before it was delisted? Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let someone else answer that one, as I am a significant contributor to the article and would not have been the one to do a GA review in the first place. But I will say this much: several other editors have commented both above in this discussion, and on the article's talk page, that the move of quickfailing the article's GA status seconds after it was passed as a GA, instead of first taking it to GAR, was an inappropriate way to go. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm almost 100% sure this is the track record for shortest timespan between listing and delisting a GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it wasn't seconds, but minutes - 8 minutes from the GA Review and pass by Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs), to the GA quickfail by Sceptre (talk · contribs) (As stated above, there was no GAR in-between). Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List. The article is now somewhat stable. There's no edit wars and no major changes in article size or content. It is possible that upcoming events could de-stabilize the article; however, I don't have a crystal ball and can't make a prediction on what may happen. Majoreditor (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Yes, it is subject to regular editing, but nothing which would make the article unstable or controversial, hence, relist. Qst (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Article is stable enough to warrant GA status. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have joked many times about creating a Good articles precrime department, and I begin to wonder if I actually should. If this article becomes unstable, please delist it. If instead it continues to incorporate ongoing events into its text without becoming unstable or failing any other GA criterion, please keep it as a GA. I propose that this discussion be closed fairly soon it seems to me that snow is starting to fall. Geometry guy 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. 10-15 cm of snow is expected to fall in Toronto tonight O_o OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist It is like saying that all BLPs cannot be GA/FA because things could change any day. Criteria 5 is meant to stop articles undergoing edit wars or constant changes due to arguments over quality. See Hulk (comics) for a classic example of that. It is my understanding that it is not related to events that are in effect ongoing, yet the article remains stable. Woody (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist My personal opinion on current events is that it is meant to keep truly breaking events from becoming GA, not to prohibit ongoing campaigns or longstanding events from achieving GA status. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do you think that it is safe to relist? To me, this has passed with 9/2/0 (81.8%). There is support that Criterion 5 didn't apply anyway. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs), I agree with you, but better to let someone else do the actual relisting. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. This is not a vote. In terms of weight of argument, the percentage support for listing is much greater than 82%. Geometry guy 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that at this point in time, we should wait 1-2 weeks to relist. There will be a lot of activity on the article over that time (more sources due to media coverage of 3/15), and we should wait until the article has stabilized before relisting. DigitalC (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my sentiment remains that as long as the article remains stable and the additional potential sources are added in such a manner so as not to change the structure/dynamic of the entire article, but rather only a sub-subsection of the article as a whole, that this should not preclude the article from being relisted as a GA. And then at that point, the article should not be delisted from its GA status every single time a new protest is announced. I think if you look above you will see that many other editors have already expressed a similar sentiment. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Just because there will be edits in the coming weeks does not mean that the article will become unstable. If it does, then (and only then) should it be delisted from GA. DigitalC (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Meantime we still have the matter of this ongoing WP:GAR. Several above editors have expressed comments that there is a snowing sentiment towards relisting as WP:GA... Cirt (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy assassination[edit]

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

Result: Delist. Sweeps observations endorsed, and no improvements forthcoming. Geometry guy 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article for the GA sweeps, and after leaving the article on hold for the issues raised, only a few were addressed. There are still issues concerning sourcing, and instead of just delisting it, I have brought it here for consensus. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with your sourcing concerns. Any chance that an editor can quickly address these issues so we don't have to de-list? Majoreditor (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Sadly, there is no sign of this happening. In addition, the lead is weak as a summary of the article and the notes and references are poorly and inconsistently formatted. There are also images all over the place in one section. Geometry guy 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. Majoreditor (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Sourcing concerns all over the place (one that jumped at me was the statement that Oswald claimed he was a patsy, which has no source). Inline links to external websites. Odd layout (why are the pictures in the middle of the page?) At least one quotation that's not got a direct citation. I think there is a link farm growing at the end of the article also. I did not look at the prose itself, so not sure how well that measures up. Many of paragraphs seem short. I'm not sure what good the listing of all the vehicles in the motorcade is for. Lead is way too short. Needs some serious work, I'd think. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate (device)[edit]

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

Result: Delisted Geometry guy 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After two failed FA nominations (which claimed this article was full of original research), this article was promoted to GA status in May 2006. It has been listed in the improvement drive of the Stargate WikiProject for at least a year (when I became an active editor), but I still see a lot of original research and in-universe perspective. Before start some work on the article (including cutting about half of its current content), I'd like others to confirm that the article no longer fulfills the GA current criteria (lead, fiction, original research, images) and requires massive cleanup to become Good again. I fear others' resistance to cleanup otherwise (founded or unfounded). I particularly ask here because I have kind of a conflict of interest as a fan of the franchise, and have no previous experience with Good Articles about fictional items. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article qualifies for GA anymore. There are multiple reasons for this but my main one is the overcrawling of fancruft, specifically this "kawoosh" nonsense. Carter uses it maybe twice, a dozen or so seconds apart, to refer to the unstable vortex. The adoption of this term throughout the entire article is the ultimate example of pedantic fanboyism and needs to go before this article can be half decent.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Much of the article draws from primary sources. Aren't reliable secondary sources available?

That issue aside, the article has OR tags, which are a no-no for GA status.

If you want to go the extra mile, you can try to square the operations section with current thinking in theoretical physics. The article doesn't accurately represent what happens to information passing through an event horizon (see Penrose, 2004). But, that's why it's called science fiction.  :)

I recommend de-listing the article. You can then focus on improving it; when it's ready, it can be re-nominated for GA status at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Seriously in universe and packed with original research. Adding the word "fictional" from time to time does not an encyclopedia article make! The overblown lead is terrible, and contains self-references and unsupported claims. It is also one of the few places where real world information is supplied. There's an almost total reliance on primary sources. Typical sentence: "The Tollan were an extremely advanced human civilization. Among their most impressive technological accomplishments was the construction of a new stargate." Unsourced, and in universe. This is not only not a GA, but also, unless some really big changes are made soon, it's a potential AfD candidate. Massive cleanup is desperately needed to save it from such a fate! Geometry guy 19:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist This is on my 'pending' list as part of the GA sweep for "Television and Radio shows and series" articles, and I would have delisted it. I can't see the issues being addressed in a reasonable hold period, and (from other articles on the list) I know WikiProject Stargate has its hands pretty full already. EyeSerene^TALK 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. OR and in-universe concerns haven't been fixed. Majoreditor (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I count about (15) fair-use images used in this article that are non-free, and some of them don't even have a fair-use rationale at all, and/or don't have any source information. This could be considered something that would actually trigger a "quick fail", am I correct here? Cirt (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm X[edit]

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

Result: Delisted per unanimous consensus PeterSymonds | talk 18:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article, listed in 2006, has lost some of the GA criteria. Some paragraphs are short and stubby; there are {{clarify}} tags in the article; and the "need additional references" banner is at the top of the article. The tags also indicate prose problems; for example: "Soon he developed a voracious appetite for reading, then astigmatism", followed by the "clarify" tag. PeterSymonds | talk 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good tos have a section devoted to his beliefs. --68.161.152.76 (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I haven't looked at this in detail yet, but the article clearly has some problems. In support of the above concerns, it is not good that a large portion of the lead is a quotation. Also there are many unsourced assertions needing references, e.g., "Tensions increased between Malcolm and the Nation of Islam. It was alleged that orders were given by leaders of the Nation of Islam to "destroy" Malcolm". Alleged by whom, and what is the source? Geometry guy 18:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the lead, tags, referencing and stubby sections aren't addressed then the article needs to be de-listed. Majoreditor (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist unless someone starts work on it soon. The cleanup/clarify tags are worrisome, as are the lack of sourcing on some statements. Some quotations lack source citations. The statement that someone had a nervous breakdown needs a source for that information. Prose flow suffers from very short paragraphs. Why is the template for the Nation of Islam series in the middle of the article? More probably should be mentioned about the aftermath of his death. Perhaps a Legacy section? The external links and further reading sections could use some pruning. The references and footnotes are oddly formated, shouldn't there be a References section if you're using short footnotes in the notes section? Lead section is probably a bit too short for the size of the article. Concerns about the fair use of Image:Savioursday041.jpg, as the picture is larger than the usual size for fair use. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references issue needs to be resolved, but other that, it does seem like a good article. Yahel Guhan 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Nobody seems to be working on it, so it doesn't seem the issues wil be resolved soon. Yahel Guhan 21:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist (as nominator). The references are a big deal, and there are unreferenced sections, such as Marriage and family; as well as numerous unreferenced paragraphs. I'm also concerned about bias, as a number of references used to verify are by Malcolm X himself. Also, books used for footnotes should appear in a "References" section separate from the further reading section. Sentences such as "...is contested in part because his entire body of work consists of a few dozen speeches and a collaborative autobiography whose veracity is challenged...." don't appear to be neutral (underlined particularly by the ellipses at the end of the sentence, which I've removed). External links section is unwieldy and should conform to WP:EL. PeterSymonds | talk 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I think the article falls short of GA standards. In addition to the other points that have been made, the article is out of balance (Malcolm's childhood gets more attention than his work with the Nation of Islam), it provides very little context for his life, and it says almost nothing about what Malcolm stood for (it's merely a catalog of what he did).
  I had hoped to improve the article after PeterSymonds nominated it here, but other commitments got in the way. Until somebody is willing to sit down and fix it, I think the article should be delisted. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trucking industry in the United States[edit]

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

Result: FGAN endorsed; withdrawn by nominator PeterSymonds | talk 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer simply delisted the artile without giving time to fix simple problems such as citing sources for obvious claims. Reviewer had issues with lengthy list of terms, which could easily be moved to a new article. Reviewer noted there was "too much" statistical information, which could easily be fixed with a few days of editing. Simply stated.... I want a second opinion.

• Endorse fail. The reviewer made the right call. The article is progressing nicely but still has a way to go. Keep up the good work and you'll get it up to GA standards, at which point you can re-nominate the article at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse: It's always a judgement call as to whether an article gets held or failed, and it will vary depending on the reviewer. I'd rather see reviewers erring on the side of hold, but I assume User:Cryptic C62 felt there was too much to be addressed in the 7-day hold period. I do wish you all the best in getting this impressive article to GA though. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have made significant edits and added citations to this article since it has been first reviewed. Every issue the last reviewer had with the article has been addressed, except for the lack of "economic impact" section which the reviewer noted would not necessarily prevent it from reaching GA status. I am working on that part... however, every single statement has been sourced and cited. If someone would be kind enough to re-review this article I would appreciate it! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to have the article reviewed again will be to re-nominate it at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Okay, I'll do that. On that note, I withdraw my reassessment. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader[edit]

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

Result: delisted per consensus PeterSymonds | talk 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist.

1. Prose- Fail. Fails Wikipedia:Embedded list. Links to copyrighted material. Includes Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Layout is poor, with several stub sections. Mechanics errors.

2. Verifiable- Fail, contains whole paragraphs and sections without sources. Contains info box with info that isn't true.

3. Coverage- Fail. Has several stub sections that can use more detail. Section concerning early life and 2000 election are too short.

4. Neutral- Fail. Several instances of biased wording. See "Clash with the automobile industry"

5. Stable- Fail. Current controversial candidate. Several lengthy exchanges on talk page.

6. Images- Fail. Contains copyrighted image, Sesame Street image that should be deleted.User:calbear22 (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Let me count the reasons: Nice Shakespearian touch :-) Geometry guy 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article fails criteria 1 due to stubby sections, minor issues with the lead, MoS concerns and use of lists rather than prose for key sections. There may be other issues I haven't yet noticed.
• Criteria 3 runs into problems as coverage isn't particularly broad in key areas dealing with consumer safety and corporate response, and in political involvement. and unless I missed it, the article doesn't discuss his views on the Near East.
• The article is far from neutral. Nader is a controversial individual. He's respected among consumer advocates and populists but assailed by free marketers, chambers of commerce, political conservatives and legal reformers. I see scant material discussing his reception among business and conservative interests.
• Use of the Sesame Street image is problematic. Discussion of the episode should be in the body of the article rather than relegated to the photo caption.

The article requires substantial improvement before it meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. I agree with the above concerns. Additionally, unlike several other presidential candidates, I think there is a case for delisting due to instability here. This article should not be unstable, as Ralph Nader's notability stretches back far beyond the current election; unfortunately, current election events seem to be impinging on this natural stability anyway. Geometry guy 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Fazlul Huq[edit]

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

Result: Delist endorsed per consensus. PeterSymonds | talk 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer has delisted the aricle on the grounds that it does not have inline citation and the prose is poor. The article uses Harvard referencing which is an acceptable style of inline citation. The prose may not be FA worthy but it is reasonably clear and I believe free from grammatical / spelling problem. If not, the reviewer should at least point out a few grammatical / spelling problems that (s)he notices. Arman ^(Talk) 10:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no inline citations at all that I can see and parts are almost hagiographical. The prose can also do with plenty of improvemnt. imo, lack of inline citations itself is a killer. Not GA-worthy. Sarvagnya 04:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like the referencing style may be appropriate, but the article has quite noticeable prose issues. Here are some random examples of sentences with grammatical errors:
  • "Fazlul Huq got initiation in politics in the hands of Sir Khwaja Salimullah and Syed Nawab Ali Chowdhury" - got initiation? in the hands of?
  • "In 1919 Fazlul Huq joined the Khilafat movement. But he had a difference of opinion about non-cooperation with mainstream Congress leaders." - The second sentence is a bit disconnected from the first, since the article fails to provide us with background information about the Khilafat movement.
  • "This difference of opinion eventually made him leave Congress" - awkwardly phrased
  • "Fazlul Huq led a very simple personal life" - what do you mean by "simple"?
  • Inconsistencies in referring to the subject; he's been called Fazlul Huq, Huq, Sher-e-Bangla A. K. Fazlul Huq, and Sher-e-Bangla. Stick with his last name only (Lul).
  • Inconsistent date linking per MoS.
  • Commas would be appropriate after "For 1913-1916", "In 1917" and "and in 1918-1919".
• I've only combed through a tenth of the article and these are the mistakes I've found. I bet if I continue looking, I will find more mistakes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 04:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A few other things; he is referred to with a different name in different parts of the article...eg. I see "Sher-e-Bangla A. K. Fazlul Huq was the key...", "led by Huq", "Fazlul Huq got initiation", etc. Also a broadness issue; Huq's policies in government aren't really discussed, just a "history" so to speak is presented. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't list - The article lacks details on what policies Huq implemented when he was in power. For six years he was the leader of Bengal, which is about 1/6th of the whole Indian subcontinent, and there are only two lines on this. He was later governor of the East Pakistan, which is now one of the ten most populous countires in the world, but there is only 1-2 sentences on his rule at this time. Furthermore the prose has many, many grammar mistakes, and also there was one unreliable source being used. The Muktadara website [12] allows for other people to contribute and declares itself to be "open". These things are not reliable sources. Furthermore, the website allows people only to contribute if they have a certain POV, which causes POV problems: " The participants are expected to respect .... our great war of independence". Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse de-listing. H2O made the right call. The article fails WP:LEAD and lacks in-line citations. Further, the article needs to be copy-edited. The good news is that with a little work the article will be ready to re-nominate at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus PeterSymonds | talk 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Chicago strives to regain its WP:GA status, WP:CHICAGO is looking at other comparable municipalities to strive toward. Unfortunately, this is not what I believe it should be striving toward. The WP:LEAD is more than the max four paragraphs and large blocks of text are uncited. I do not consider this article any better than Chicago, which was duly delisted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. I have corrected the issue with the lead paragraph. I agree that the article's referencing is spotty. Most sections are OK. However, sections on music, media, colleges and transportantion need additional citations. Majoreditor (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. You have corrected the WP:LEAD for flow. However, now the lead is not really cited adequately. I believe a lead is either suppose to be uncited with all facts cited in the main body or completely cited. In order for something that is properly structured to be completely cited it must have at least one citation per paragraph. Otherwise the paragraphs are not presenting distinct points. From there the inadequacy of citation continues, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that interpretation. But in any case, each paragraph in the lead now has one or more citations. The lead is fine; however, some other sections remain under-referenced. Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your efforts. We just need someone to replicate that effort for the main body of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: there is a great deal flexibility about how the lead is cited. There are only two requirements, I believe: (1) anything uncited in the lead which needs citation should be discussed and cited in the rest of the article; (2) quotations and controversial matters (especially those relating to living persons) need to be cited wherever they appear, including the lead. There's a lot of ground inbetween for citing some key points, and leaving the rest to the body of the article. This should be left to editorial judgement. Geometry guy 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few citation requests to the article. Hopefully the editors can provide the needed references or, alternatively, remove the material. If not then the article should be de-listed. Majoreditor (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation issues haven't been addressed. Delist, with regrets. Majoreditor (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Aside from the obvious {{fact}} tag issues, I also see several entire sections & subsections that are unsourced, which is also an issue. The overall organization of the article could also use an overhaul -- I see several subsections within main sections that could be combined to improve readability (e.g. media, transportation, education). Why is there a specific subsection under economy for 'insurance and banking'? It seems rather short, and I'm not sure of the purpose of the additional emphasis here. Likewise, what's with the subsection under 'government' for 'domestic partnerships' (and its info isn't even cited either!)? I'd have to call WP:NPOV here.

Sadly, many of the sections have just been edited to heavily and the text has just gotten a bit too burdensome in the two years since the last WP:GAN. So I'm seriously in doubt that this meets the GA criteria at the present time. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tidus[edit]

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

Result: Kept per consensus. PeterSymonds | talk 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article fails Good Article criterion 3(a) as it's not broad in its coverage: it lacks a section about the critical reception or the cultural impact of the character on the real world.
• It also fails criterion 3(b) as the Game plot section is much too big (it goes into "unnecessary details") and the Other appearances section seems like a trivia section.
• Finally, it fails criterion 6 as the usage of Image:Yuna2.jpg cannot be rationalized: Tidus can barely be identified at all on the picture as his face and much of his body is hidden by Yuna. FightingStreet (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per nom's concerns re: criteria 3a & 3b. The article also relies too heavily on primary sources to the point where it raises OR concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article could do with a good copyedit, especially the Game Plot section as pointed out earlier. A heavy reliance has been indicated on primary sources, especially when considering that refs 3, 4 and 5 all point to the same article on the same website. This could potentially be expanded by identifying reviews of the game that refer to the character, or (possibly better) game guide sections. In terms of reception, a quick search indicates some spin-off merchandise based on the character (figures, jewellery etc.) which would possibly be useful. The image identified by nom is useful in the context presented, as it illustrates an interaction the character has that is described in the prose as "upward swimming". This would be unclear in meaning without the supplemental image, although possibly the connection could be made stonger. Gazimoff (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Guyinblack has done some good work compacting down the plot-laden sections, adding reception information and introducing a handful of third party sources. Gazimoff (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - I agree that it doesn't meet criteria 3. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Article is currently being cleaned up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Reception and legacy" section has been added and sourced. Image:Yuna2.jpg has been removed from the article. I haven't played FFX-2, so I don't know the details surrounding the significance. Someone feel free to add it back in if they can expand the plot info appropriately. Plot clean up still in process. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Guyinblack has done a good job here. The Prince (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Prince. — Blue。 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - recent cleanup is sufficient. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (comics)[edit]

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

Result: Quick-fail endorsed. PeterSymonds | talk 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things to be cited. David Pro (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. David, I'm afraid I don't understand why you brought this to GAR. The article was quick-failed by VanTucky over a month ago due to cleanup tags. Your comment leads me to believe that you don't think the article is GA standards. So what's up? Majoreditor (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This editor would appear to be relatively new to GA, and seems to be finding his way through the various labyrinthine processes. I agree that this is probably a misplaced, though good-faith, nomination, and I've left an explanation on his talk page. EyeSerene^TALK 12:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support quick-fail. Once cleaned up, the article can be nominated again. David Pro (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Mega Drive[edit]

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

Result: Closed for renomination at WP:GAN. PeterSymonds | talk 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many cleanup and fact tags. And needs many references to be cited. David Pro (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any cleanup or fact tags at all. All [citation needed] tags have been cited during the last week or so. I think it deserves to be a Good Article. Zebbe (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The reviewed version of the article had cleanup and fact tags tags. The reviewer correctly quick-failed the article. Since then the article's editors have done a great job addressing concerns. In these situations the best course of action is to re-nominate the article at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Majoreditor (also see my comment on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joker (comics)/1 below). EyeSerene^TALK 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl[edit]

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

Result: Listed as a GA through WP:GAN. PeterSymonds | talk 13:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a video game currently unreleased in NTSC territories and thus information is liable to change when the game does get released in such territories; thus the article fails criterion 5 (Stability). Not currently on Wikipedia:Good articles. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. I can't figure out if the article legitimately passed GAN. There are two conflicting GA templates on the talk page. Who reviewed the article? Did the reviewer pass or fail the article? Majoreditor (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed by User:Cheesefee, but I doubt it was a legitimate assessment. « ₣M₣ » 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a hasty read. My initial reaction was favorable, although the lead could include more material on the game's reception. I'll try to look at it in detail later; if I had to shoot from the hip right now I'd say it meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate at GAN: If the original GA listing was suspect and the article was never on WP:GA, should it have a 'DGA' tag? As regards quality, I wouldn't have had a problem with upholding the original (albeit flawed) promotion. However, as we've moved past that, GAN would seem to be the sensible place for this. EyeSerene^TALK 12:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It originally went through an assessment on November 2, but due to the fact that the game was unreleased and the article was unstable, it was quickfailed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L14 Grarrl Barbarian)} 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Passed by User talk:Redphoenix526. --haha169 (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weather lore[edit]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. Fails WP:WIAGA. PeterSymonds | talk 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing this article for GA Sweeps, I'm not entirely sure if this article should remain a GA, and would like feedback from other editors. The article contains multiple poems, verses, and quotes about weather forecasting before scientific measurements were widely used, and following each one is a brief explanation for why the thought was actually accurate or not. The article has research/sources for many of the explanations provided, but for some, no source is present to verify the thoughts that are explained. I believe it is possible that there may be some original research, but would like other editors to take a look to see what you think. As a side note, do you believe that these poems/verses/quotes should be sourced or are these commonplace? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Wretchedly-composed prose supplemented by an anthology of trite verse. My thoughts:

I once read an article so bad

It made me feel quite, quite sad

That it was list as "Good"

When I thought that it should

Be downgraded and listed as "B"

Delist. Majoreditor (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I think those quotes ought to be sourced, I've never heard any of them (a sign that the article might not have a worldwide view btw). And the article does not tell us who has these beliefs, and does a number a very bold claims in the unreferenced paragraphs. Narayanese (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]