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 3

Good article review (archive)

(Page 1) →

Scotland

Result:KeepI edited this article twice to correct what I believe to be a serious factual inaccuracy, with clear reasons for doing so set out on the talk page. Both times my corrections were edited out, by the author I assume. No explanation was given, so again I have to assume this was for reasons of personal vanity. I corrected this same error elsewhere in Wikipedia pieces on Scotland, again with a full explanation on the talk page, with no problem. I really do not want to make too much of this, but I find this pettiness immensely irritating. Overall, I have to say, the whole piece is superficial and badly written, and have no idea why it is considered to be a 'good' article, or what your criteria are for passing such a judgement. I suspect this same author is responsible for the appallingly bad History of Scotland. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and as a specialist in Scottish history I am surprised by the immense number of quite silly errors I have come across, and the very poor quality of much of the writing. Do you not subject your entries to some form of peer review; or do you just launch the ship, so to speak, and hope for the best?. Rcpaterson 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for an update on article left on User:Rcpaterson talk page Gnangarra 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above remark was born out of a sense of frustration over a particular episode and my first encounter with puerile cross-editing. I am much more 'experienced' now and happy to let matters stand as they are. I do not think the article wonderful, but I have come across many others considerably worse. Rcpaterson 04:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacBook

Result: No consensus The lead section of this article is four sentences and its GA nomination was rejected on the grounds that the lead was too long. I note that in order to become a featured article, the lead of an article is often requested to be expanded beyond this length, so it cannot under any circumstances be a rejection criterion for GA (which, remember, is the road to FA). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks fine to me. Homestarmy 14:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks like a perfect length to me. Worldtraveller 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't offer much insight beyond that of Apple's webpage and at times reads like a sales pamphlet. More discussion on critical reception and product performance would benefit the article. For these reasons, I am unconvinced that this article should become a good article. Cedars 14:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Merapi, Central Java

Just doesn't seem to have enough at all about the place. Tourism there, living conditions, attractions, etc.. Chuck^{(척뉴넘)} 05:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a volcano, not a town, just to let you know, the article looks good and doesn't need that info. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Both miss the point. Tourism/etc about a volcano is inappropriate, it is active and dangerous and kills people. It is _not_ a good article due to the fact that it lacks information about the impact on the surrounding population and culture (or the response to the volcano) , and the "technical" decade volcano info show very little local knowledge apart from what can be gleaned from US based info sources. 143.238.221.62 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a stable article, with some users applying 4 to 6 textual misnomer vandal items at a time - it requires something to stabilise it, otherwise it should be taken off!! SatuSuro 13:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have delisted from GA for instability, incomplete information. Advised on talk page. This discussion can be archived after 7 days if there no further discussion. Gnangarra 16:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesses II

The lead section is really confusing and as per his life, it is really tough to know what happened in his early years, when he was a co-ruler with his father. Other basics informations are left out of his biography ... the prose is also really tough to follow. Lincher 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I really feel this is one of the better good articles. Ancient historical accounts can often be difficult because there are different opinions on the exact timeline of events and often, especially in Wikipedia, there is a compelling reason to report both. If you feel important parts of information are being left out you should raise this on the talk page but it is difficult to vote delist unless you specify what these are. Cedars 03:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist — No references, the dates are a mess and it is tough to read. It could be way better. Lincher 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait — I left a request on the articles talk page to clarify dates in the lead, the article only supports on set of dates. The rest of the article reads ok, I dont know enough about him to decide if other information has been omitted. Gnangarra 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article editers have had 7 days to respond (no response yet), I will move the disputed dates to the talk page and leave a note explaining why. Gnangarra 03:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit done, suggest we wait until after 25th of June then reconsider status Gnangarra 03:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is one editor currently addressing the concerns raised and improving including inline cites, the date conflict has been removed until the variants can be cite so I'd say keep. Gnangarra 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Piłsudski

Virtual hagiography of a controversial early twentieth century dictator. Fails to address legitimacy or consequences of his invasion of the Soviet Union, fails to mention brutal autocracy put in place, fails to mention severe consequences to Poland of his disastrous foreign policy (including nearly eliminating Poland's hard-fought independence), fails to mention his continuous fight to subvert democracy and makes only passing mention of his military coups. The article calls him, among other things, "a benevolent dictator," and "the most brilliant of Polish military leaders," which is both POV and factually incorrect (as many if not most military historians would argue that he was an incompetent strategist). The article has apparently been hijacked by a small group of Polish nationalists, and the Good Article tag should be suspended until NPOV is restored.

If all this is true, then it probably fails both broadness/compleatness of coverage and NPOV, and should be delisted immedietly. Homestarmy 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the articles discussion page it appears the issues have been addressed, theres a GA tag on the talk page, assume it's stays listed. I'll check to see if its in the GA list Gnangarra 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eazy-E

This article is filled with rumors, unsubstantiated data, uncited sources, and requires serious copy editing. Parts of it seem filled with POV or original research. I don't think this at all qualifies for Good Article status and should be de-listed until some serious work is done to improve it. Ameltzer 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Delist : as per above. Lincher 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design

This article seems much more like a thesis on evolution than an encyclopedia entry. The main points of the theory are introduced and immediately after each, "counter-evidence" or "refutation" is presented. Perhaps a "Criticiism" section would be appropriate as to present both sides of the argument, but the attacking manner in which the current article is written is NOT appropriate. The article does not explain the theory from an unbiased, objective perspective.

On a personal note (though, most would disagree with me), it would be best NOT to have an "Intelligent Design" article at all; most people do not know enough about what it is, or have too many misconceptions about it to write on it with any authority. But then again, that's one of the drawbacks you get with a Wiki. I believe the best step would be to invite some experts on the theory to contribute to the article, but I highly doubt this would be probable.

I would fix it myself, but the problem is prominent throughout the WHOLE article, and I simply do not have the time. User:71.112.233.237 19:54, 15 May 2006

I should have to disagree with Anonymous here. The article does not in any way read like a thesis on evolution, although it does by necessity compare and contrast ID and evolution at certain points. This critical (Socratic sense) style is necessitated by ID's antipodal position regarding the genesis, if you will, of certain structures labeled by adherents of ID as being irreducibly complex and/or exhibiting specified complexity.

In addition, as ID has clearly failed to meet a number of scientific criteria (parsimony, falsifiability, dynamism, progressivism, correctability (absent semantic and syntactical shifts in definitions) and provisionality), and yet presents itself as a science, the point-counterpoint style of the article is further merited.

One also wonders to whom, precisely, Anon is referring when he sugguests that it would be of some benefit to "invite some experts on the theory to contribute to the article". The "experts" on the "theory", a term to be used loosely given the abovementioned scientific anomalies of ID, would be Behe, Dembski and Johnson, all of whom a represented in the article with both quotes and links to their various pages, as well as lesser-known members of DI. As all of those mentioned have their own fora for further expounding on the merits of ID as they see them, and as these fora are linked via the article in a standard encyclopedic modality, I would hold that such a suggestion is absent merit. •Jim62sch• 09:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who thinks an article shouldn't exist shouldn't be suggesting a rewrite of it. Keep this labeled as a good article.--Urthogie 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is widely recognized, both within the wikipedia community and outside, as a credible, well-sourced and neutral article. No small feat considering the number and sort of partisans and cranks the topic attracts. The ID article was recently cited an example of a "good article, maybe even an excellent article" on a NPR radio show with Jimbo. Jim62sch explains the structure article being necessitated by the nature of the topic rather well. Keep labeled as a Good Article. FeloniousMonk 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above have pointed out the controversial nature of the subject, and I do understand this quite clearly. I still do not believe that this warrants the "point-counterpoint style" in which the article is written; I do not see many other Wikipedia articles written in this manner.

The article overemphasizes the "faults", if you will, of ID rather than simply telling the reader what it is (which should be the primary purpose of the article). The current article makes it seem as if its primary purpose is to tell the reader everything that is "wrong" about ID. Grouping criticisms into a "Criticism/Controversy" section and being much more brief about them would do a better job of presenting the topic from an objective and unbiased perspective, and if I'm not mistaken, this is the approach most Wikipedia articles take. The style in which the article is written is biased in that it almost immediately gives the reader a negative impression about the topic.

And about the article's acclaim outside of Wikipedia: Those supporting it are mostly (if not all) Evolution supporters, aren't they? Are you sure that this is an unbiased approach to the article? 71.112.233.237 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither NPR nor Jimbo can reasonably be called "evolution supporters."

You're mistaken, many other articles share the same structure as the ID article. I can list some here should you doubt it. That structure is fully compliant with both policy and guideline. The ID article was carefully crafted by many editors on both sides of the topic with an eye toward WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:CITE. It is now one of wikipedia's most well-supported articles, with over 75 cites.

Your concern over the article is misplaced. It's understandable considering your newness to the project. It would be better were you to become more familiar with the project and it's policies and conventions before proclaiming what is and isn't a Good Article by wikipedia's standards. For example, the style guide on Article structures which can imply a view states just the opposite what you propose: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. ... Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other." The position in favor of folding criticisms into the article's body is a deep-seated principle here. The project's founder, Jimbo Wales, states fundamental reasons here for avoiding separate criticism sections: "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." [1] FeloniousMonk 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, its completely reasonable to point out flaws in "intelligent" design, a system which claims to be verifiably true.--Urthogie 13:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown - Should be reconsidered; IMO the point of view is not neutral, with numerous instances of either praise for Dr Brown or, on the other extreme, plain ridiculous passages, e.g.:

'"Prudence" became Brown's catchphrase in his early years, and he cultivated a dour and even miserly airobtaining thick callouses on his plamsw from rubbing them together and cackling with glee, though he is apparently known to friends and constituents as a good-humoured and even romantic man, these are generally seen fro what they are, un-adulterated brown nosing. '

and,

'Blair promised to give Brown complete control of economic policy in return for Brown not standing against him in the election, Him paying for the meal, not lkilling his dog and making sure those "photographs" disappear'

• If "Good article" standards had "humerous" in them, then by all means, this shouldn't be removed. Is it possible to somehow fix those sentences however? Homestarmy 01:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Article appears to have been fixed. Referencing quality isn't great and there are extensive inline links - it really needs to be converted into <cite> format. However, while far from FA, it is probably a "low end" GA for now. TheGrappler 16:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - just doesn't seem quite strong enough to me, especially in the standard of referencing. Metamagician3000 08:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of non-inline referencing is actually very strong in this article: five biographies and one more general book on New Labour. "Bibliography" is equivalent to references, if you look at WP:CITE. The only problem is that references are not inline so the provenance of individual facts is unobtainable - not acceptable at FA, but it'll do for GA. TheGrappler 13:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable view, I guess, but it's the provenance of individual facts that I was referring to. I don't expect it to be at as high a standard as I would for FA, but I'm asking for more than I see here. Metamagician3000 13:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion appears to have substancially addressed the issues, the article has been edited accordingly and GA status retained. If there are no objections I'll archive this discussion. Gnangarra 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea F.C.

I nominated this article. Childzy passed it. Lincher then removed it, saying it was not stable. What do you mean? I'm pretty sure any prominent article will get its fair share of vandalism. There are lots of jealous rival fans out there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see very much vandalism and the edits don't seem to be coming in that fast, nor do I see signs of a content dispute, am I missing something? Homestarmy 02:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep delisted. For 2 reasons. First, the assessment of the GA nominated start with the oldest nominee (this one was added not even an hour before it was granted GA). Second reason, is the stability and for this matter almost 30% of the article was re-written in the course of the last 5 days, not what I would call stable. If you don't agree, take a look at [2], a 10-day comparison is even more drastic [3]. Anyway, add it to the nomination and in a week or two it will be re-assessed and passed (maybe by me because I like the article a lot). Lincher 03:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll re-nominate it. I hope it will be passed in a couple of weeks' time. I see what you mean now. Thanks for enlightening me about Wikipedia policy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol

I believe this article is well written and has good information. Even though it is lengthly, it contains detailed information. If the page were open for editing, I would happily fix the problems.

Thanks, Idol_2006

• Denied: Come on, the article is lock-down because of vandals at this very minute. It is hardly stable.--SeizureDog 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delisted: Missing on citations, missing on NPOVness, plus the section American Idol's youngest contestants is trivia and Spin-offs produced by same company is not even a paragraph long which doesn't meet the criterias. Lincher 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delisted No references section at all for such an expansive looking article on such a rather popular subject? Weird. Homestarmy 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIRTL

This was the closest forum I could think of to voice this concern. I apologize if this isn't the correct place for it. Someone passed this article as a GA but failed to put the tag up or update any of the collateral pages. As I am the primary contributor to said article, I am hesitant to finish the job. I'll probably start by placing a quick blurb on the nominator's talk page. Please advise. JaKaL! 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was passed here JaKaL! 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape

The following reason was left for failing GA

• see WP:WIAGA, rule 5 states a GA must be stable, and with a lock on the page, that is an automatic fail. When the Lock is gone, contact me via my talk page and I'll take a look at this article. False Prophet 01:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The lock is only a partial to prevent vandalism from IP addresses and new editors, This article has one of the highest edit counts(8th) mostly due to vandalism and reverts hence the lock. Locks are used on FA without it being an issue(give me time there are probably GA articles with locks as well(this one for example). Under these conditions it will be impossible for this article to achieve GA status. Gnangarra 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain stability only refers to content disputes and/or rapidly changing real content, not vandalism? Homestarmy 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are correct. This seems to be a common misconception, maybe the guidelines should be adjusted for clarity. Since this is the case, I see no reason why this article can't become a GA (assuming the rest of the requirements are fufilled). Wait for more responses then, if no one here reviews the article, you should place it back up for nomination with a comment explaining what happened here.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagree. If the page suffers constant vandalism, it is not stable. Here's what I'll offer. Take the lock down, and leave it off for 3 days. If it is stable, with no vandalism occuring during this period of time, I'll withdraw my objection, and allow it to go through a review and see if it passes. False Prophet 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note, this article has over 200 edits in the past week, definetly not stability False Prophet 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, see WP:RFP#Runescape, "It's under heavy vandalism a lot, and still gets vandalised by logged in users.--Andeh 19:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC) ". Again, more proof that it is not stable.

The list goes on and on. Here's a list of places that are saying this is not stable

• WP:RFP#RuneScape
• User_Talk:False_Prophet#GA_Review
• History, last 250 edits

I don't know how you can argue about this articles stability, I've listed 3 places where it has been determined that this article is not stable. Any objections still? False Prophet 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How misleading all three quote the last one so the first two con be ignored. I'm not disputing the quantity of the edits as most are vandalism/reverts or unsourced inforamtion. You didn't cliam that the article was unstable you said that because its protected from vandalism its an automatic failure. Gnangarra 01:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three all make different points.

The first one says it gets vandalized alot, the second one backs my original reason, with the backing of an Admin, and the third one shows the edit count. Not the same thing. Secondly, you cite my reason for failing, now I have two more reasons for keeping it off the GA list. Mor importantly, I asked for any objections, and you did not state you think Runescape is a GA. Why did you respond here in the first place? False Prophet 02:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Runescape is "unstable" for this amount of vandalism, then I would say that a good chunk of GA's should be delisted and never offered a chance to be returned to GA status, and probably an even bigger group of FA's, since im pretty sure stability is a criteria there as well, and every single article ever featured on the main page would pretty much have to be immedietly delisted since semi-protection isn't supposed to be allowed. However, in this case, I think this is all besides the point, read the introduction to this article, it reads like an advertisement, and rather than summarize the game seems concerned with lauding technical aspects of RS servers. I think it fails NPOV and the MoS in this regard, and should probably be left delisted. Homestarmy 02:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a page is protected, and when the debate to unprotect it comes up and one of the major contributing editors says please don't unprotect it is gets vandalized enough with the block on, then the article is not stable. Since failing the GA nomination, I have expanded my reasoning for why it is not a GA. False Prophet 03:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does fails NPOV and other stuff so it should be delisted. Note see my above comment on the Shakespeare article, The unstable crtirea is normally for edit wars and stuff like that, not vandalism as it can be fixed. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All high-profile articles are subject to lots of vandalism. For example, should we delist Microsoft from Featured Articles just because the article is frequently vandalised, due to the company being hated by many? If we keep it semi-protected, I am sure it will be stable enough to pass the stability criteria. I once nominated Chelsea F.C. for Good Article. It was passed, then delisted due to stability concerns, and then re-listed. If RuneScape passes all the other criteria, it should probably be listed as a Good Article. If it currently does not meet Good Article standards, but is close to, perhaps a Peer Review is in order. I have sent Yahoo! and Neopets for Wikipedia:Peer Review because I feel they are close to Good Article standards but need improvement. The information in Yahoo! is badly organized but otherwise informative, and Neopets has some POV and OR issues that are gradually being resolved. Comments would be most appreciated. Should we send RuneScape for Peer Review and then nominate it for Good Article? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, the article's intro is just plain not good, and I think it recently had a failed FA nom which summarizes many problems pretty well already. Homestarmy 04:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from talk page see WP:WIAGA, rule 5 states a GA must be stable, and with a lock on the page, that is an automatic fail. When the Lock is gone, contact me via my talk page and I'll take a look at this article. False Prophet 01:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you actually read the article you took this to review when there was 5-6 other articles listed ahead of it then left this message. If there are valid reason for failing then list them so that the editors can fix and reapply. When I fail any article I ensure that my reasons are actionable and that a list of issue is provided. My reason for lodging it here was to get a consensus on how to review locked articles, I'm not a major contributor to the article, I do enjoy playing the game and because of this I when the article appeared on the nomination list I went and had a read. Given this I had no intention of reviewing the article for GA either. Gnangarra 05:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict here, All GA deserve a fair review not get thrown away as this appeared to be. Gnangarra 05:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, it means the reviewing process was not properly carried out. Therefore, we should revert the failing of the article such that it remains on the nominations list, in its previous position in the queue, and should be reviewed at a later date. In addition, when failing a Good Article, actionable reasons must be provided. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thats all any article deserves, Gnangarra 11:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note I am going to quote the good article criteria correctly: " 5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars." In that line I see nothing about vandalism, I see nothing about protection. In fact, I believe that the only conflict the line really tries to protect against are fierce edit wars. Vandalism is not an edit war. This article has one time vandalizations (they vandalize and leave), not long streams of reverts and re-reverts. Therefore, whether or not this article passes GA (I still have not actually reviewed the content), it should certainly not fail on the merits of "instability."--SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reinstated the article in the same position within the nomination list as it occupied prior to being failed as suggested by J.L.W.S. , currently its third on the list. Gnangarra 13:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just failed the nomination for the following reasons:

1. as stated above, the Failed FAC page has ideas for improvement 2. Stability: Note: I am a former Vandal myself, before getting set straight by a friend. Vandals target GA's and FA's, and therefore an article that has 250+ edits in the past 10 days would go to an article with 400+ in the past 10 days. also, seeWP:RFP#RuneScape. And I quote: "please don't unlock this article, it gets enough vandalism as it is from members" The failed FAC page says it is among the 30 most edited pages. Not stable 3. A previous speaker said that the intro is plain and is not up to GA Status 4. As mentioned on the FAC page, there are not enough inline citations for this long of an article. 5. I think that this article is to long, especialy considering that the community section could be split.

False Prophet 16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the end of the day, whether we agree on what the GA criteria means or not, this article should be kept delisted for something :/. Homestarmy 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Rule 5 for GA status is quoted below (emphasis mine):

5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.

Hence, if the instability is a result of vandalism, then it doesn't matter. If there are other reasons RuneScape shouldn't be a GA, then talk about those, but vandalism/protection as a result of vandalism is not a valid reason. Phidauex 21:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare

Nominate this article to be delist as per the arguement for not listing RuneScape it's locked to prevent vandalism thus doesnt meet rule 5 Gnangarra 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the GA criteria is "Semi-protected" a critera for being delisted? That's even stricter than FA standards, which is not supposed to be the objective here. Homestarmy 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Good Article not really a valid reason for removal, the stabily critrea is normally used for edit wars and large sudden rewrites, etc not vandalism as that can always be fixed. See the Tony Blair FARC for example. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My very point was that with RuneScape which is why it was failed.

Quote from RuneScape talk page

see WP:WIAGA, rule 5 states a GA must be stable, and with a lock on the page, that is an automatic fail. When the Lock is gone, contact me via my talk page and I'll take a look at this article. False Prophet 01:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Prophet's interpretation of the GA standards I would say is at the very least controversial, and not being able to have a lock on the page is most certainly not a very literal way to look at the rules, but is a more strict way than how the FA process looks at it, which is quite antithical to how GA is supposed to work..... Homestarmy 06:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone here read the GA standards? WP:WIAGA rule 5 states the following (emphasis mine):

5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.

Hence, a protected status due to vandalism (and not an edit war or dispute) does NOT disqualify it as a GA. If you are wondering whether or not an article meets a qualification, the best thing to do is to actually read the qualification. Phidauex 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we recently changed the stability criteria is the thing there. Homestarmy 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satan

The following information is wildly inaccurate:

In Paradise Lost, Satan is the protagonist and is seen as an ambitious underdog rebelling against Heaven for a democracy. He becomes less sympathetic in the second half as the snake that tempts Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Firstly, it is debatable whether Satan can be described 'the protagonist' although he is certainly a very important character. But the biggest mistake here is the word 'democracy'. In Paradise Lost, Satan is not rebelling for a democracy at all, it is his 'pride and ambition' and his refusal to recognise that he was created by God that prompts his rebellion. He wants to be equal to God. Certainly, he lets other fallen angels speak in the Council in which they decide how best to proceed from the fall. But it is very far from a democracy; most of the other fallen angels wait outside and Satan follows his own preconceived plan of corrupting Man. Also, it is arguable whether he is less sympathetic as a snake because of these lines in Book IX ll.455-470

Such pleasure took the Serpent to behold

This flowery plat, the sweet recess of Eve

Thus early, thus alone: Her heavenly form

Angelick, but more soft, and feminine,

Her graceful innocence, her every air

Of gesture, or least action, overawed

His malice, and with rapine sweet bereaved

His fierceness of the fierce intent it brought:

That space the Evil-one abstracted stood

From his own evil, and for the time remained

Stupidly good; of enmity disarmed,

Of guile, of hate, of envy, of revenge:

But the hot Hell that always in him burns,

Though in mid Heaven, soon ended his delight,

And tortures him now more, the more he sees

Of pleasure, not for him ordained:...

—The preceding comment was unsigned.

• Comment: I think the above would be best discussed on the talk page of the actual article first. However even at a brief glance I do see some reason for delisting. The article is not stable - it is subject to regular vandalism (in fact it was vandalised when I looked at it). It has a tag askign for cleanup at the top, and it is full of {{citation-needed}} tags. So I would say delist.--Konstable 07:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have delisted this article for the following reasons: 1. 250+ edits in the past 10 days 2. I just read the intro, and that itself has 5 citations neededs on it. 3. There is a clean up tag on the article 4. of the past 250 edits, 50 have been vandalism --False Prophet 01:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

This is a "good article" ??? It has a total Zionist bias, only Jewish interests are promoted. Non-Jewish interests are relegated to another article (Palestine) in violation of WP policy. But Jewish interests seem to take precedence over WP policies. Is Jimbo Jewish?24.64.165.176 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) move to top of list as per instructions Gnangarra 07:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep listed I could not find any of your concerns on the article's talk page, perhaps they should be brought up there first. The chances are that this would be discussed between more knowledgable people there than people who review Good Articles. Perhaps there is reason to delist it due to the high number of reverts it gets per day (see its History), but it seems to me that these are not due to any serious disputes, rather minor POV comments by careless individuals. I have compared the 1st June version with 12th June version (here) and it seems stable enough to me.--Konstable 08:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below.--Konstable 08:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Bias in the article, definately I easily found 6 NPOV statements within the history subsection on 2000 alone. example apparently unafiliated civillians where civillians is sufficient. The use of weasel words critics claim. A history section of this size should be summarised and a main article created. The Economics and Military sections don't contain any inline citations. Comment I dont agree with the claims of violations of WP policy, inregards to Palestine, the article is about Israel. I also dont agree to the assertians of Jewish interest over WP policies. Initially i was going to dismiss this out of hand and vote to keep but after reading the article I wouldn't pass it for GA in its current form Gnangarra 08:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You bring up valid points Gnangarra. But these NPOV violations seem rather minor and can be fixed easily rather than deleting the whole article. I could not see any violations that I would consider major enough to get it delisted - they are not a result of a dispute, they are more of some minor weaseling. As for inline citations, the Good Article Criteria specifically state that they are not a requirement for a Good Article, and they do have a large reference section at the bottom.--Konstable 08:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Another thought: I didn't look closely enough at the History section - the whole thing is an POVish mess. This is indeed too much to be fixed quickly. I second Gnagarra.--Konstable 08:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, article has been delisted. Tarret 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Largely consists of lists of people and disciplines, few of which are explained even briefly in the text. The explanations seem adequate, where they appear, but the "Criticism" section, e.g., needs to be much larger. --zenohockey 00:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, much that is important about statistics is missing from the article. For instance, Bayesian methods don't get a mention. Also contains only one image. --Avenue 04:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article sucks, only one image, few links, and no useful information, it's a disgrace to Wikipedia to neglect such an important topic which is even worth a portal!--Lord Snoeckx 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep things cool people, let us not go around with terms like that. By doing so you are insulting both the editors to the article and the person that passed it, without actually discussing the issue at hand - the article. If you read the GA guidelines, you'll see that images aren't required so that can't be used against. "Few links"? You mean it isn't a link farm or it doesn't link to other articles? We should discuss the context and quality of this article. Play on, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the "few links" comment either, and I think "no useful information" is overstating things. The article has improved somewhat since its listing here, with the "Criticism" section being expanded. But the other criticisms remain. These problems mean that, in my opinion, the article fails to meet the good article criteria of being well written and having broad coverage of its subject. It also includes only one inline citation and one image; although these are not mandatory, more would certainly be desirable. -- Avenue 05:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Iraq War

Is not historicly accurate, it seems to over emphisise the Iranian side of the war, as well as shows no impartiality.

It seems to have references, can you point out specific innacuracies? Homestarmy 02:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu (Linux distribution)

I failed this on the basis that as an ordinary encyclopedic reader (and OS X/Windows user), I didn't really pick up on many concepts in the article. See my rationale. There is some dispute about this, so I need one or two more editors to look at it. —Rob (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over this article before and I've taken a second glance after noticing the failed GA on the talk. Reviewing the guidelines for what GA is, I don't see on the talk how this has been infringed upon and I'm baffled as to how this article doesn't warrent a GA tag. I strongly recomend this article as GA canidate. -Zero^Talk 18:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked over the revisions, and they definitely help the article. I still wish there was a bit more detail on why Ubuntu needed to be split off from Debian. But I'm starting to think what I was looking for may be something looked for in a FA candidate, not a GA candidate. In any event I'll revert the decision. —Rob (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killian documents

This article was tagged with {{GA}} which gratified me as I had just finished a rewrite for various reasons. I wanted to find out more about how an article gets named "Good" so I went to Wikipedia:Good articles but I couldn't find the articles's nomination or promotion in the page history. I do think it's a good article but I believe the only fair thing to do is list it here and ask for review. Thatcher131 04:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:KI put the GA tag on here. It was not nominated, or discussed. Moreover, a nomination tag was never placed on the Talk page, as required. Speedy removed accordingly. Lister has apparently done this before. As a long time editor of that page, I'd also dispute whether it's really a good article anyway. Derex 04:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derex, it could be a lot better article, if you would stop calling the other editors there idiots, like you did to me here. Merecat 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George, Duke of Kent

I think much of this article makes POV assertions as though they were fact: for example 'the [royal] family, who are famously philistine...'. Using the verb 'to be' (are) in this sentence instead of a conditional or some kind of hedge such as 'are often regarded as' is inappropriate for an encycopaedia. Other phrases such as 'Given George V's famously dull brain...' are not only too colloquial for an encyclopaedia but would be difficult to verify, frankly. I'm also not sure how reliable the single source from which all the articles assertions about the Duke's personal life is.Daviddariusbijan 22:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casimir effect

Sorry, but I find the section on Vacuum Energy in this article to be quite opaque, despite the insistence by some writers to the contrary, and would suggest it needs to be amended before the article is considered finished.--Adambrowne666 09:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Has been modified substantially. Lincher 17:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procopius

Uhh where to begin, no lead per WP:LEAD, only refrences is some futher reading, writing is rather bad on the article, not good Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lead - rather too short, but it's there. "Procopius (in Greek Προκόπιος, c. 500 - c. 565) was a prominent Byzantine scholar of the family Procopius. He is commonly held to be the last major ancient historian" is a pretty good summary of Procopius in two sentences. I don't understand "writing is rather bad on the article" (I presume you are trying to say that the quality of writing is deficient, but it is certainly one of the better-written articles I have seen on Wikipedia, perhaps because it was based on a Nupedia article: it is written in the style of E.B. though, rather than the blander style that predominates here, and includes phrases like "we know" which would probably be frowned upon by the MoS). The lack of a references section strikes me as unacceptable. The article dates back to the very earliest days of Wikipedia, before the use of a "references" section became standard. It is likely that the "further reading" section actually contains the references used to write this article. Unfortunately, we're unlikely to ever know. There's also no way that the claims in the article could be easily sourced to a particular referece work. So, while I disagree that this fails WP:LEAD and this is surprisingly well-written material, the lack of references probably snuffs this one out, unfortunately.TheGrappler 12:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - referencing not adequate by contemporary Wikipedia standards. Metamagician3000 08:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Because of lack of references, lack of images, short lead and use of phrases such as "we know". I also feel the article doesn't stress the individual's importance. Cedars 07:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dahomey Amazons

I can't tell whether the "further reading" section of this article counts as references or not, and if it isn't I would say this is certainly not a GA. Homestarmy 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I delisted the article. Even if the further reading is references, it still needs some inline citations, so that readers can associate specific facts with the sources they came from. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 06:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalmar Union

Added as a Good Article December 17, 2005 by user:Llywrch.

This topic could be described from many different nationalistic POVs, so a reference would IMO be necessary, which the article completely lacks.

Fred-Chess 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No refs, delist. Homestarmy 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already delisted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berber languages

The article was failed on the sole purpose of not having the ref in the proper format altough there were enough. I thus request a review and a change of decision in this assessment. Lincher 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With that many books, I don't think it matters how the ref format is, unless somebody changed the GA rules to specify inline citation there's no reason why that article should be failed. Homestarmy 20:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without further ado, lets bring it to GA. Lincher 21:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I've not the expertise to properly evaluate this article, it appears that the majority of it was created in 2004 by Mustafaa, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the academic literature on Berber languages, and is well-acquainted with the practices of linguistic description.Timothy Usher 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]