Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 43

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 44)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 42) →

Moonrise (Warriors)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist. Stubby, and uninformative/confusing for readers who do not already know about the books and the authorship. Geometry guy 21:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This article does not meet good article criteria. It needs to be copyedited, sections (especially critical reception) need to be expanded upon, and the citation needed tag needs to be fixed. The Barnes and Noble review needs to be referenced as well. The plot summary needs a rewrite as well. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist: Copy-editing is needed, it relies on references to Amazon, several references are mis-cited, Wands and Worlds is a forum thus not WP:RS, definitely not GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Betty Roberts

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

Result: No action/Endorse fail. GAR closed per nominator request, with some agreement that the article does not meet the criteria at present. Geometry guy 21:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

During the GA nomination the editor doing the review and I as nominator have had a variety of disagreements over content and NPOV. It was finally failed, but I don't think the rationale given was proper:

• Reviewer said that it is self evident that the Oregon Supreme Court is the highest court in the state shows they made an assumption, one of many I think were brought to this review. Why is it self evident that the Oregon Supreme Court is the top court in the state? The New York Supreme Court (and this occurs in a handful of states) is not the highest court in that state, the New York Court of Appeals is the highest in that state. Further, we write for a global audience, who many may not know that.
• Other assumptions were she was controversial and that she was a feminist. That's a nice opinion, but the sources that were used did not state this, so we can't exactly add it. Maybe if I search for her name and add those terms I might find something, but I don't think we should be seeking out specific things like those in articles.
• With the point about tenure, Jacob Tanzer was appointed two year before her and lasted two whole years. Again, the info for when she served was there, and I don't think how long someone served is a positive or a negative, so if the reader cared they could total it up pretty easily.
• As to the resignation, the reviewer takes her word on the husband issue, but not the rest, not to mention the theories the reviewer apparently wants introduced are nice, but that would be original research if we added that to the article. Either we take her word or we don't.
• With the info about the legislature, that is what breadth is, covering the aspect that she was in the legislature. If this was FA, I would agree more is needed, but this is not FA.
• The next two points about the abortion issue and the need for her co-author were only now raised, plus, again, that her opinion on abortion is seen as controversial by the reviewer is a POV. Not to mention I'm loathe to use that source anyway as being a primary source, and I've only used it so far where it was requested or for minor details about where she lived and what schools she taught at. Not that the info can't go in, but it's a little late in the game to be bringing this up.
• With the multiple sources, that was because two were not enough for the reviewer, so more were added to ensure the point was adequately covered to avoid more questions on the issue.
• As to the rest, minor points, and nothing that should prevent a GA. Again, if it was FA, maybe this isn't up to "professional", but repeated sentence structure does not mean it is poorly written. Also, the specific sentences listed during the review were addressed, so again, if these were problems before, it should have been addressed during the review.
• On a side note, her middle initial is R, (I'm assuming Rice from her first marriage), Cantrell is her maiden name.
• Much of this could have been dealt with via the second opinion, which was requested.

Ultimately, this may not be GA at the moment, but there was far too much acrimony for this to receive a fair review in the end. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Question. Several newspaper articles make reference to Roberts' prominent role as a feminist. This article in The Oregonian refers to her careeer as a "liberal feminist", and this article in The Portland Tribune refers to her as "a leader in Oregon’s feminist movement". Why does the article not directly address these aspects of her beliefs and her career? Majoreditor (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, their is not a Portland Tribune article, it is the much less respected Gresham Outlook owned by the same company, but it doesn't call her a feminist (you can make the inference, but it only says she was a leader of the movement in Oregon), and that word is used once. The Oregonian is a book review, not an article on her, and the term is used twice (plus following the label it says "That's not entirely true" in regards to being a liberal feminist, indicating the author of the article does not believe she was a feminist). Keeping in mind BLP, do you think those are sufficient. I'm not saying some people may consider her one, but based on those sources, should Wikipedia make that controversial labeling decision. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. Firstly, you may be misinterpreting what the review in The Oregonian says. The author of the review doesn't say that Roberts isn't a feminist; rather, the author asserts that she wasn't always looking to advance the cause of women:

"With Grit and by Grace," written with Gail Wells, describes Roberts' career as a liberal feminist, always looking to advance the cause of women. That's not entirely true. As a legislator Roberts was considered solid, well-versed on all political issues. Only in editing was her book reduced to one-third its original size, making it appear the feminist fire in the belly was her only driving force. (Book Review: "With Grit and by Grace". Douglas Yocom, "The Oregonian", May 15, 2008)

Secondly, I would suggest that this doesn't involve NPOV or BLP issues. Rather, it concerns GA criterion 3a: addressing the main aspects of the topic. The current article seems incomplete without directly addressing her role as a feminist. Several sources appear to discuss this matter. Why would the article shy away from it? Majoreditor (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the source is talking about her not being a liberal feminist, as it continues with what you quoted: "Only in editing was her book reduced to one-third its original size, making it appear the feminist fire in the belly was her only driving force". That is the book makes it look like she is a liberal feminist due to the editing of the book, and not referring to the part about advancing the cause of women. I think the author thinks she is a bit of a feminist, but not quite the one she has been made out to be by the book. But in general, the sources do not label her as a feminist. A search of the major news outlets (better than a Google search as these normally pass RS) comes up with around 540 hits for her (or at least people with the same name and Oregon, so obviously fewer are her) while adding feminist to the title reduces it to about 40, and again not all are her or are referring to her as the feminist in the article. Even the six part 100+ pages from the oral history in the external links section has the word a total of one time, and it is in reference to labeling someone else, not her. So, yes this is a NPOV, see the WP:UNDUE section about tiny-minority viewpoints. And even if it should be in there (as some may think the ratio is only a small minority and not tiny), do to the relative minority viewpoint it enjoys, it would be one sentence to the effect that "[insert person's name here] thinks/labels Roberts as a feminist".

Regardless, this part about feminism was not left in the review and not asked to be added to the article by the reviewer. It was only brought up to show there were some assumptions made by the reviewer that may not apply to this article. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And as to your second point, its Main aspects as you note, thus a minority viewpoint such as this would not be Main aspect of the topic, at least in my opinion. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It is perfectly possible to discuss Roberts' contribution to the feminist movement without labeling her a feminist, liberal or otherwise. It is clearly not a minority viewpoint that she contributed considerably, and it is utterly clear from her career that she did. This has nothing to do with NPOV. An article without any analytical coverage from reliable sources, when such exists, is not broad, but bland. Geometry guy 10:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• True, and they are discussed, except not labeled as feminist (or any thing else, as I "let the facts speak for themselves"). The problem is that its been labeled as feminist by some sources, whereas many others label it as pioneering. But they generally refer to the same things, such as the showdown with the newspaper over her name, the fact that she was the first woman in both appellate courts, and first woman to run as governor. With some of the other things (mainly legislation) most of those bills/laws were not mentioned in the early sources used to make the first draft, that is pre-her book. And even when they are now mentioned, there is little depth, mainly just mentioning it in passing (leaving out her book and the transcripts of her interview as we need independent sources for claims such as the leader of passing such and such legislation). So I have some reservations about using sources so close to her to portray her as this heroic figure of women's rights who passed all these bills. But I have a serious problem with "without any analytical coverage" as that would suggest we are to analyze the coverage, and we cannot do that. But in general, these would be added (with the proper sources) for the depth needed for FA, not GA, and that's where much of the disagreement comes from. And as to the part you tagged, it is in the 4th and 3rd paragraphs from the bottom of the article portion of the source, it uses "accepted", which to avoid plagiarism/copyright I changed to respected. And with that, I'm pulling this down. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  You are preaching to the converted, Aboutmovies: I'm a big fan of letting the facts speak for themselves and the analytical coverage I am talking about is coverage by reliable sources, not of reliable sources (notice the word "from" above). You seem to be terrified of anything which is not a "fact". Let me remind you that an opinion is a fact as soon as you say whose opinion it is. It is called attribution, or qualification. The article has none, not a single quotation (apart from a court ruling) and not a single attributed response or opinion of any aspect of her life. Her autobiography must be a gold mine of useful material, but it is not used as a source because it is "too close to her". Well, then quote her! Attribute the analysis to her autobiography! You are terrorizing yourself with your own rhetoric. Stop attacking the sources as "labeling her" as a feminist or pioneering. That is their description and opinion, and whichever term they use, it ties together a bunch of related facts in a way which is helpful to the reader. The Wikipedia article should not "portray her" as heroic figure or otherwise; instead it should say how other sources describe her, including her own autobiography.

  By avoiding any opinion at all, you are actually engaging in original research and analysis: you are deciding what is fact and what is opinion, and excluding the latter. Worse, you are passing off opinion as fact. The sentence I tagged ("In time, she won the respect of her colleagues on the court after proving she could do the same work as the men.") is an example. I can find nothing like this in source 6 (not in the third and fourth paragraphs from the bottom either) but even if I could, it is still an opinion that she proved she could do the same work as the men, and that opinion needs to be attributed, not simply cited.

  With this complete lack of anything remotely analogous to the "reception" of a movie, the article manifestly fails to be broad per the GA criteria. Geometry guy 08:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but its not original research. Maybe you could make case its an NPOV issue. Source 6: "I patiently waited for the men to learn that I worked the same way they did and that…at all times" (emphasis added) "As time progressed Justice Roberts became accepted as a member of the court" (emphasis added, and see prior comment on wording). So, those two back to back sentences tells me she was able to be accepted (again I used respected) by doing the same work as them, but since I only added it to appease the GA reviewer, I'll simply remove it, cause I really don't care, which is why this was removed from GAR. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Roberts herself, and the book reviewer, so it must be attributed. Anyway, I will close up the GAR per your request. Geometry guy 20:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Canon EOS 100

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

Result: Endorse fail. Suggestions for improvements can be found in the discussion below. Geometry guy 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Canon EOS 100

This article has a narrow technical scope. Due to this, most/all of the detail has very few references that can be used. Although there's plenty of information on the internet, most/all are circular references to the manufacturer's original publication, which the article lists. Although a narrow and technical article, I would argue it is still notable as the camera was a popular SLR film camera of the early 1990s.

This article was nominated for GA status. It was quickfailed because the reviewer wanted in-line citations and also thought the prose was not sufficiently flowing. For the second point, I would like a consensus to say whether the paragraphs were unnecessarily 'short and choppy'. For the first point, I'd draw attention to the guideline for general references.

If every piece of information has to be individually backed up, multiple in-line page number citations would have to be added to every sentence from both sources, i.e. two footnote references after every statement. I don't think this would add to the article's readability.

I know this isn't scientific (bots, repeat views, etc), but the article has had almost 7,000 views since the rewrite in November 2008. Nobody has requested in-line citations. But, again, I'll go along with the consensus if it's thought the guideline for general references doesn't apply.

On a last note, I'd also accept a consensus vote that, due to the article's inherent narrow and technical scope, it should never be given GA status, no matter how well written.--ML5 (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. It's stubby and under-referenced. More importantly, it isn't broad in scope - for example, it doesn't sufficiently mention how was the camera fared commercially or its reception among users. Additionally, there are issues with MoS compliance, starting with the under-developed lead. Majoreditor (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  The article is not currently listed as a GA. Geometry guy 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do not list. Even if allowance is made for the technical nature, i still find this article to have problems with layout (too many pictures bunched together), writing (far too many disjointed single line paragraphs) and possibly fails broadness per Majoreditor. If there is not enough to write beyond the technical specifications, i would consider merging into a longer product family type article - wikipedia should not have individual articles on products with only the product specs. The arguments against inline cites could apply to any article, so i don't see why this article should not have them, hence i support the original quickfail. I didn't see the original reviewer asking for multiple cites for each sentence, but certainly major claims should be cited, so a reader can find the info themselves.YobMod 16:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comments. This isn't good article standard at the moment, although a more detailed review than it got would have done no harm. In this respect I have several comments.
  1. The review refers to B-Class criteria. These are not, and have never been, requirements for good article status. The criteria are at WP:WIAGA, nothing more, nothing less.

     You read that wrong, I was giving advice, not stating requirements. Hekerui (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  2. Several statements require inline citation per the GA criteria. One example is "Canon claimed this made it the quietest camera in the EOS range." This is published opinion. Another is "The EOS 100 was among the first of Canon's cameras to have the facility to alter its operation via custom functions." Also: "As of 2008, EOS 100 bodies can be bought from on-line auction sites from as little as £10/$15. As with the T90, and other older Canon SLR film cameras, 'sticky shutter' can be a problem. This can affect the camera's resale value."
  3. I agree that most of the material in the article is uncontroversial technical information and does not require citation per the GA criteria. However, even though this is not a science article, it is a technical one, so you could take a leaf out of the scientific citation guidelines book which recommends providing citations to general sources for each section or paragraph.
  4. The paragraphs are much too stubby. I lost interest already in the second section, and I like these cameras!
  5. The fact that there are so few sentences needing citation indicates a lack of broadness, per Majoreditor's comment above. Opinion is a vital component of almost all encyclopedia articles and it makes them more interesting. Add it, quote it, cite it.
  6. Almost all articles are eligible for GA status. In particular, being technical is absolutely no obstruction.

Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Follo Line

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

Result: No action. The article can be renominated at any time. Suggestions for improvements can be found below. Geometry guy 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Follo Line has been up for review twice, and both times it has been quick-failed under questionable circumstances. Both reviewers have chosen to quick fail the article because they believe the article cannot pass because the line has yet to be built. Previously, several unbuilt rail project have been passed through the GA process.

• In the first review, it was clamed that the article did not pass criterion 5 (stability). The article has had very few edits, and nothing even remotely close to the level "significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". The reviewer claimed that he was entitled to fail an article on this criterion because of a short discussion on the GAN talk page in 2007, where it was agreed that a future Olympic game could not be passed.
• In the second review, the article was quick-failed for violating WP:CRYSTAL. The reviewer has clearly misunderstood the polity, that is related to unverifiable claims about future events. However, it clearly states that article with reliable and verifiable sources make the article notable. The reviewer concludes with claiming that an article with mostly Norwegian sources cannot be verified—which is the direct opposite of what WP:V states.

I believe the problem lays in the reviews misunderstanding the scope of the GA criteria. They observe that future sports events or elections, and unreleased films and games cannot pass the GA criteria, and try to transfer this understanding to other areas. The reason the mentioned articles cannot pass, it that until they are held/released, they violate criterion 3a (all major areas): future sport events and elections will lack a coverage of the results, while game/film articles will lack a section on reception. This is not the case with railways: Even for old railways, a large section of the history is the political and planning process, which for the most part is now concluded for the Follo Line. The route has been finalized, and there are accurate estimates of the impact. Even the usage of the railway can be fairly accurately estimated. Megaprojects, such as this one costing over a billion euros, involve massive and accurate planning, with detailed reports based on complicated models that produce accurate results. While details may change, the article is stable, and little content will be added ten next ten years (probably less than an railway in operation). The article clearly meets criterion 3a, 5, WP:N and WP:V. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the second reviewer and I failed the review as:

The line will apparently not start construction until 2013. Many things could change before then. Route, cost, the project may even be cancelled. In my opinion this fails WP:Crystal.

All but one sources (historical statistics , #1) are in Norwegian. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources says, quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. This has not been done. The only English language references to the Follo Line that I can find are mirrors of Wikipedia apart from the one external link which appears to be a little out of date, suggesting that a route decision will be made in 2008, and that construction may start in 2013, subject to funding being available. That is some time ahead and there may well be political or economic reasons for changes or cancellation of the project. Possibly English language sources in the specialist railway press could be found for such a major project. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Read again. It says to translate the material only "Where editors translate a direct quote". Punkmorten (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT#Cite_the_place_where_you_found_the_material suggests that the supporting statement needs to be quoted and translated. That is my rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the project proceeding doubt is cast here [1] Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned, because Jezhotwells seems repeatedly to be making up policy as he goes to support his claims. To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly." The rest of the section is only about direct quotes, of which none are used in the article. All the original material available on the project is in Norwegian—if anything could be found in English I would of course include it. As for WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, it says absolutely nothing about language at all. To quote WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." The article Follo Line is clearly within this scope, since a mutlitude of official reports and media attention have looked at the article. WP:CRYSTAL is constructed in such a way that even if the Follo Line were not to be built, which is possible, but highly unlikely, it would still remain notable enough for an article. The fact that the choice of use of tunnel boring machines or blasting is very trivial, and even when chosen would add a single sentence to the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to say, I have no objections to this article being reviewed for GA status -- just that I won't be doing that -- or for any other article with the majority of sources in a language for which I cannot establish verifiability or reliability. Cheers. I am happy to reinstate Follo Line to the top of the list if the nominator so wishes, and will post my reasons on the GA2 page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. Articles on future events and proposed projects frequently cause problems, and it is understandable that reviewers and nominators have difficulty navigating this territory. Let me make some general and specific comments.
  • It is perfectly possible to have GAs on future events and projects: they are not ruled out by the criteria, and there are/have been examples such as Cologne Mosque project, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and Three Gorges Dam. The so-called "quick-fail" criterion "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint" is largely a matter of pragmatism: it is difficult to review an article which is changing, and one which will change substantially in the near future will need to be reassessed; hence it is often a better use of resources to wait.
  • I'm glad to see reviewers wanting to check source material before passing an article. Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable where English-language equivalents are unavailable or inferior quality; translations only need to be provided for direct quotations. The GA criteria have nothing to say on this. Where the sources are online, automatic translation tools such as translate.google.com often provide good enough text to verify the material. I do not recommend this for writing articles or for providing translations of quotations, but it may be good enough for verification by reviewers.
  • Concerning the present article, I would not have failed it without a review: this is not a rapidly unfolding event, nor does it have a definite endpoint; "wait until 2013 or beyond" is not an acceptable response to a good faith nomination of an article on a topic which is clearly notable. However, I wouldn't pass the article in its present state either. For one thing, secondary (third party) source material is very thin on the ground here, and underused. Much of the article is sourced to the Norwegian National Rail Administration, or the report it commissioned from Det Norske Veritas. This is primary source material, and cannot be interpreted by Wikipedia: we need secondary sources to do that for us. We can only report factual information, using qualification (attribution) where necessary to convert a prediction or projection into a prediction or projection by the source. Additionally, it can be helpful to back-up primary sources by secondary ones, even if the latter are not the pinnacle of WP:RS: additional sources demonstrate notability and acceptance of the primary source material. The article fails 2(a) and 2(b) here.
  • There is closely related to a second concern: Follo Line is not a railway line; such a line does not exist. Hence the article should not be written as an article on a railway line. It should be written as an article on a project and proposal to create a railway line. That the line will eventually exist should not be presented as a fait accompli (that would fail criterion 4). One cannot discuss the "route" of a line which does not exist. Instead discuss in broad terms the proposals which have been made and how the decision-making has evolved. The article fails 3(b) here in my view.
  • There are also probably 3(a) failings. Has there been opposition to the proposals? What about the relation to this year's elections? Maybe the article should even be renamed to something like Follo Line project to focus more attention on the political dimension.
  • There isn't a lot that GAR can do for a failed nomination in these circumstances. I hope the above provides a good substitute for the review the article didn't receive. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Geometry guy. I could not find any online free translation tools that provided any meanigful translation of the sources, hence ny comments above. I have pointed out that the article can be re-nominated. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bayshore Freeway

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

Result: No action. No cogent case for delisting the article per the GA criteria has been made. A new reassessment can be started should such a case be found in the future. For now, it stays a GA. Geometry guy 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I-15 (talk · contribs) has been "cleaning" up the article by making minor edits to mostly tables and adding clean-up templates. Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) and NE2 (talk · contribs) have been reverting I-15, and I-15 reverts them back. This has led out to edit wars over the past couple of days. Furthermore, there is a dispute if Bayshore Freeway includes US 101 and I-80, or whether just US 101 is Bayshore Freeway and I-80 should go into James Lick Freeway. The Bayshore Freeway article is becoming unstable. I would normally re-classify this as B-quality, and I would even support a merge of this article to U.S. Route 101 in California. However, I need an outside review, so therefore I am asking for a good article reassessment to see if this article still qualifies for GA status. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 23:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist: I would consider the edit-warring and clumsy prose-style in parts as enough for delisting. I found and marked one broken link. Also the dates in the references need to be de-wikified Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist: Fails #5. Problems remain unresolved by involved parties. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. There have been no edits to the article for a week. In what sense is it unstable? Geometry guy 21:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 40 in Arizona

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent GAN review

Result: Keep. It may not be comprehensive, but there's no consensus that it fails to be broad. Suggestions for improvements can be found below. Geometry guy 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely there must be more to say in the route description for a ~350 mile route. Not many links are used. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just my $0.02: the GA criterion say an article has to be broad in its coverage, addressing "the main aspects of the topic". Seeing as the route description provides a basic overview of the highway, I personally think it is fine for GA's sake. I could see this being an issue later down the road (no pun indented) at FAC, however. Also, it appears that everything relevant is linked, so that doesn't seem like a big concern. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• To me, this article falls right on the border between B and GA class. Which is to say, if this were its first review, I'd probably put it on hold before promoting it to GA-class, but now that it's already there, it's probably not worth the trouble of demoting and renominating it at a later date. I agree that the route description is probably shorter than it should be, but this is made up for by an expansive and well-referenced history section. Speaking of which, to me, the major problem is the referencing, not the length of the route description. I haven't looked at the highway log, but my experience with similar documents in other states is that it's essentially just a table of mileposts. Sentences like "It heads east from Topock and begins to curve towards the north at Franconia and completes the curve to the north at Yucca," and "It continues to the northeast, passing through Chambers and enters the Navajo Indian Reservation," are probably not in the route log and should be referenced with a map instead. I would like to see more than one reference in that section, regardless of whether or not it's expanded. -- Kacie Jane (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the route description could be expanded, but I don't believe it fails criterion 3a. Not sure what "not many links are used." Does that mean that some things that aren't linked should be? Can you provide examples? --Holderca1 ^talk 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There just seems to be an unusually low number of links. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned above, everything relevant is linked. We really shouldn't be overlinking just for the sake of seeing the blue text. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • How was I able to go through and add 5-6 relevant links just now? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I suppose our opinions of what is "relevant" differ. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I thought you were just talking about links in the route description. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• The route description could be expanded by including more information on the forests, Native American reservations and topography that I-40 travels through, especially the Coconino National Forest, the Navajo Nation and the steep grades overcome as the road climbs the Mogollon Rim. The route description could also give more accurate descriptions; I-40 bypasses Williams to the north and does not travel through the built up parts of the town. Synchronism (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrés Nocioni

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

Result: Delist. Fails WP:LEAD and several other criteria. See comments below. Geometry guy 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article fails in coverage and scope. No personal info at all, some NBA seasons are completely missing coverage, the NBA career section is mostly one-sentence paragraphs, and the international and NBA careers being completely split even when they overlap makes for bad flow. Wizardman 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• As Wizardman noted on my userpage, when I passed this at a GAR in November, it was rather reluctantly and on the proviso that suggested improvements were made. They haven't been, and the article actually seems to have gone backwards since then. As it stands, I recommend delisting this if the improvements above and on the talk page aren't swiftly made.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think the editors who brought this article to GA status are around much anymore. Just delist it. I'd like to make some improvements eventually, but this is not a top priority for me, and I greatly prefer to write about players when their careers are over. Zagalejo^^^ 22:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Now hold on just a minute you have to at least give editors a few days to try to make improvements, even if those who brought this to GA are inactive others such as myself can still make improvements. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't have time to improve. But if anyone can make improvements, please do. It would be greatly appreciated.—Chris! _ct 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If you want to try to fix the article, go ahead. However, this article will need some significant prose expansion to retain GA status, and I'd prefer that people take their time adding that prose, rather than rushing to fix everything right now, which can just add more problems. I'm not saying we should delete the article, or anything like that. I'm just saying we should temporarily remove the GA status, since the article falls well short of where it could be, and has been that way for a while. When it's ready to become a GA, then we can call it a GA. Zagalejo^^^ 20:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Marcusmax, don't worry: community GARs typically remain open for at least a week to gather consensus, so there is time to make improvements. Geometry guy 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. The prose really does take a nose-dive into proseline near the end, and the gaps in the personal life & career would seem to fail broadness. Where are the personal info numbers in the infbox sourced from? If in the article, is ok, but i couldn't find weight/height etc. (ah found source, but i don't think an infobox should be instead of cited text, it should only be summarising immportant info that is also somewhere in the article).YobMod 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It isn't a good sign that the citations in the lead are not used in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarize the article (and in principle does not need citations, although there are many exceptions to this). Geometry guy 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Last Waltz

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No action. It is possible that this article is weak on inline citation, but no such case has been made per the GA criteria. If anyone wishes to make such a case a new reassessment can be opened. Geometry guy 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There are entire sections without a single citation. Definetley not a good, or even decent article.BillyJack193 (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the laziest nomination I've seen in a while. The second sentence wasn't even proof-read before hitting save. Note that synopses do not need inline citations for their descriptions, as the (primary) source is obvious. I agree that other sections may be short on citation, but you should at least make the effort to point to some claims in the article which require inline citation per the GA criteria.

Anyway, we will do our best at GAR to respond to your nomination. Did you notify any active editors who might be able to help? Geometry guy 20:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 155 (Illinois)

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

Result: No action. Improvements have been made to broaden the coverage of the article. Although further improvements are welcome, there's no longer a clear case for delisting. Geometry guy 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article mainly talks about the history of I-155. The problem is, that's just about all it talks about, failing the "broad coverage" criteria of GA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The prose needs some cleanup; a little more could be added. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The route description definitely needs to be expanded to include more detailed information about roads the Interstate interchanges with. It currently includes less detail than I would write for the description in the lead of a Good Article. Dough4872 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per above. I particularly second Dough's comments; the three sentences in the route description section are what I would expect to see in the lead summarizing that section. Three sentences does not broad coverage make. -- Kacie Jane (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's going to need a bit more before it moves any further up the assessment ladder (IMHO), but the newly expanded section is enough for me to support keeping it listed. Information like "Surrounded mostly by prime land used for farming soybeans and corn" is precisely the sort of thing that sets the upper echelon of road articles from the cruft at the bottom. -- Kacie Jane (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If only that statement was cited. :-) Actually, most Interstates that run through the northern 2/3rds of Illinois are surrounded mostly by prime farmland, so it'd be better to find a more unique property of the highway to play up. —Rob (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. It appears to be very narrow in scope, focusing on history and including little other information. Majoreditor (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The new material on the route description addresses my concerns on scope. I suggest closing this as no action taken. Majoreditor (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added two paragraphs to the Route Description section. —Rob (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• If no one wishes to make a case that the article is still not broad after the recent expansion of the route description, I will close this as no action. Geometry guy 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mountain of Madness

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No action. The article has been improved and there is no longer a strong case for delisting. However, it still has weaknesses and needs further improvement. Geometry guy 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article is "good" in my eyes. It needs more content, and one section is entirely uncited. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the unsourced cultural references section was slipped in there by some IP. It is rather low compared to the newer Simpson episode GAs, I'll see what I can do. (By the way, you could have just mentioned this on the talk page). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood. We'll try to handle it as best we can at GAR, and hopefully help you to improve the article. Geometry guy 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I also think expansion is needed to achieve GA here. A single secondary source and less than one line of reception does not reach "broadness of coverage" for an internationally syndicated programme. Hopefully it can be expanded during the GAR.YobMod 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have expanded the article a bit now with all the information I could find on Google and NewsBank. TheLeftorium 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• The article has improved. Does anyone want to press the case for delisting? Geometry guy 19:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll have some time to add more to the article tomorrow. I'll also listen to the commentary again (although if memory serves, it doesn't have much). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • And done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The article would benefit from better references. However, the current citations meet GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• I added a (rather bland) sentence on the reception to the lead. I encourage content experts to improve on my effort! Geometry guy 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Administrative close. Nominator blocked for disruption. Geometry guy 20:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

this article 1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot has recently had sections rewritten due to more than one users claims of irregularities ,unsourced claims ... Recently an edit war has been claimed between myself User_talk:Off2riorob and User_talk:Cirt and User_talk:Redheylin , changes have been made and multiple reverts have occurred.The article has been written by one user , cirt, and due to this individual point of view the NPOV is an issue and is disputed. so 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. is an ongoing issue and the article is unstable and therefore also contravenes ..5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I myself have suffered 3 editing bans due to my attempting to edit this article and have been referred 3 times by the articles editor , cirt,. I would say it deviates also from 3(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I would say it goes into overly detailed and unnecessary detail and attempts to encompass other details that already have articles .. for example the .. bio terror crimes ..(Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Suggest speedy close

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) literally just came off a 72 hour block - his third block for disruption on this topic (see latest ANI thread). The article is currently undergoing an RFC on its talk page, also due to complaints raised by Off2riorob (talk · contribs). I note that Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is already engaging in canvassing [2]. I think a GAR at this time is inappropriate, and this page should be speedy closed as keep. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to post a comment regarding this matter on a users talk page when I have specifically mentioned him here. User_talk:Redheylin . (Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Endorse speedy close as further evidence of disruptive behavior from editor who requested reassessment. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Please see also ongoing thread re: disruption from Off2riorob (talk · contribs), at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Further_disruption_from_User:Off2riorob_after_72_hour_block_expired. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my opening (in good faith) comment for which I have had no reply at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Update: Admin EyeSerene has blocked the Off2riorob (talk · contribs) account for 1 week [3]. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly endorse speedy close and strongly endorse block of Off2riorob. However, the specific charge of canvassing is off base. The notification of Redheylin was entirely appropriate; the problem here is simply one of a passionate editor who is invoking administrative actions that go far beyond his understanding. But he wasn't canvassing. -Pete (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Redacted the part about canvassing. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

British International School Vietnam

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator --Philcha (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This article was unfairly quick failed, saying "it is an advertisement with no independent verifiable sources". It is clearly not an advertisement, as it at no point makes any hint that the school is better then any other, and there are no independent sources available. --Sauronjim (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to look past the bluntness of the review to the material fact: the article is entirely sourced to http://www.bisvietnam.com. It is far from true that this is the only source that discusses the school, as a google search quickly reveals. Even adding a source such as http://www.english-schools.org/vietnam/british-international-school.htm (which may not be very independent) would improve the article. Look for references to the school in newspapers (are there no league tables in HCMC?). I found a reference by UNICEF to the school in connection with the tsunami. Other such nuggets of information are almost certainly available. Geometry guy 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree our policies require multiple reliable third party sources. This is required just to establish notability. Standards for Good articles are higher. Ruslik (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't know what league tables are, but I'm fairly confident that there aren't any in Saigon. And while I believe it should be a Wikipedia policy, I can find no reference to the sources needing to be independent on Wikipedia pages. --Sauronjim (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this being considered here - I thought this page was to reconsider existing GAs, not to sidestep the GAN process? Ruslik and Geometry Guy are correct, but the other reason for quick-fail was that the article is not neutral. It has a pov spam lead and the actual one-sentence "mission statement" is followed by a whole chunk of spam. The user is a pupil at the school with a clear COI and part of the article is a copyright infringement of the school's website. jimfbleak (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Jim, the other use of GAR is to re-examine situations where a GA might have gone wrong. --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I thouroughly checked the page on the GAR before posting it. This is a valid reason for a good article review. --Sauronjim (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

League tables means rankings of schools. I would be surprised if this was not the case in Vietnam anymore. It can't have changed that much in 30 years...YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Philcha

These are based on the Good Article criteria. For future reference you may find one or more of the guides linked to at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#GA_guides easier to use in the majority of cases.

Coverage

Lots of gaps, mostly obvious (I'm not in the education business, and these are off the top)

• Who's eligible? Are there entrance exams?
• How is tutition paid for? Does the school or any external organisation provide scholarships.
• How does it work compare with that of the state schools and of other independent scholls in the locations it covers?

At present the article falls a very long way short of meeting Good Article criteria #3. --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Can't really comment at present because so much needs to be added. --Philcha (talk)

Citations

• In section "History" only the last para has a citation. With a few very well-defined exceptions, every statement that's not obvious or well-known needs a citation, see WP:V.
• All the sources cited are published by the school. WP requires that anything other than important statements by the subject (like the Mission Statement) should be supported by sources independent of the subject. To give an extreme example of why this is necessary, media controlled by Saddam Hussein portrayed him as benevolent, just and wise - but there's overwhelming evidence that he was a monster. In a completely different field, Muhammad Ali said, "I am the greatest" thousands of times, but everyone understands that was just advertising (and he often made a joke of it), and serious assessments of his place in the boxing hall of fame are based on independent commentators. In more normal cases, would you be happy if an article about a commercial or government organisation was based entirely on statements by that organisation?

So this article falls far short of meeting Good Article criteria #2 - we can't tell whether it's accurate, because there is no independent verification. Geometry guy's comment (15:38, 17 May 2009) gives some hints on where to start looking. Beyond these, Google is your best friend, especially Google Scholar, which looks specifically for material from respected academic sources. --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the article is very far short of being a GA. Geometry guy's comment (15:38, 17 May 2009), the Good Article criteria, the guides mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#GA_guides and Google (Scholar) will probably help.

There's another possibility you should be prepared for - there may not be enough material available to form the basis of a GA. I've had that experience a few times in the last few months, e.g. I can't find material to cover the remaining gaps (quite large) in Amstrad PCW, and Next (novel) is frustratingly close but not quite there. I suspect Amstrad PCW is a lost cause, as there will probably be no new sources about this 1980s computer. But if you run short of sources for British International School Vietnam, you can wait a year and look again, as there's a reasonable chance that new material will appear. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to formally withdraw the request for a good article reassessment. The reason I posted it is because of the fact it didn't just fail, it was quick failed, and I still believe it should not have been failed in such a manor, and also because the article had met all the requirements set by the first good article nomination. As I don't actually know how to withdraw it, would it be possible for someone else to do it? --Sauronjim (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm closing it now as "Withdrawn by nominator". --Philcha (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Consensus (vote of 5 delist, 1 weak delist, 2 keep) after 21 days is for delist. Several editors have pointed out serious issues with the article that cause it to fall the criteria. Significant edits needed before article can be relisted as GA. Vicenarian (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that GAR is not a vote: I have commented on the talk page. Geometry guy 21:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the article has been tagged to be checked for POV and have the intro rewritten. GAs shouldn't have maintenance tags, should they? Also, I'm seeing {{dubious}} starting to sneak in. Some sentences that should be sourced aren't, such as the presence of Dunkin Donuts or Blimpie, and the section on Marketside. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I agree that the lead is too short. I get 40 Kb readable prose for the article, so the lead should be approaching the maximum allowed, - there is obviously a lot to cover, even in summary. The "unbalanced" tag seems to be there on the insistence of one user, who wants more praise included. Considering the number of people on the talk page complaining that there is too little criticism, i don't think it is worth delisting over until it has been there longer. Work to fix any balance issues seems to have died off though, and i see no improvments being made in the lead, so hopefully this GAR will prompt the editors to start working on it again, otherwise weak delist (if only because of sourcing problems: no-one is doing anything about the ugly dubious tag, which has a citation that contradicts the claim, so should be simply removed).YobMod 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  If you could please hang-on on this a bit, and give a chance to address these issues, I'd appreciate it. The tags on the article were placed there by one user (THF (talk · contribs)). There has been discussion on this, and many issues have been addressed, yet many remain. It's been difficult finding adequate citations for the rest, and several others citations that THF has suggested are, in fact, mostly opinion-based commentary and books written by authors with a particular point-of-view, which I don't think is appropriate for the page. Still, the article should be made to provide a good analysis of the positive and negative aspects of the company. If we could have a week or so to fix this up more, that would be great! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  No problem. GARs are typically open for two weeks to gather consensus. Geometry guy 20:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist until the problems in the lead can be sorted out. I didn't read any further. The lead is very poor. SilkTork *^YES! 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, I almost nominated myself a few weeks ago, and came back today to do it, but found someone else had beat me to it. The lead is too short, clean up tags, stubby paragraphs, timeline-like prose. Nikki♥311 00:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. A week has passed with no change, and this GAR has been open for two and is ready to be closed per consensus. Concerning the timeline-like prose mentioned by Nikki, I think the article would really benefit from making more use of secondary analysis. At the moment, it relies extensively on primary sources and newspaper articles. A quick search of Google books reveals books by several authors on the company, including Lichtenstein (which the article cites, but only once), Vance & Scott, Brunn, Fishman,... Using secondary sources to piece together some of the primary source material would not only make the article more interesting, but would help to maintain NPOV, by using sourced analysis to represent viewpoints. Geometry guy 12:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, if the lead is rewritten. I do not see any other serious problems. Ruslik (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist I agree that the article has several problems, including the lead and NPOV. I would advise delisting until these problems are completed. Vicenarian (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per Geometryguy. Ricardiana (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda (series)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist per consensus below that some of the images do not meet our fair use criteria, that there is material needing citation where it is not provided, and that the text needs work to ensure the article is broad but does not go into unnecessary detail. In addition to streamlining the body of the article, I would also recommend expanding the lead a bit to ensure it is stands alone as an adequate summary of the article. Articles can be renominated at WP:GAN at any time. Geometry guy 13:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple non-free images that do not meet our criteria (WP:NFCC). Sections nearly devoid of references. For such an important series, there's very little in the way of impact and broad-style coverage. In my opinion fails criterion 1, 2, 3, and 5 of WP:GA? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand a little on these issues, to provide some direction for improvement and clarify why you believe the criteria are not met? Geometry guy 13:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. File:Legend of Zelda NES.PNG, File:Zeldadx 1.jpg, File:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME 2.jpg, File:The Wind Waker Link waves goodbye.png, and File:TwilightPicture.jpg are all decorative in nature. Is it nice to have some visual evolution? Yeah, but I'm not sure how they meet WP:NFCC. There's no critical commentary on the aesthetic styles. Meanwhile, entire swaths of the section (from "The next game released in the series was Four Swords Adventures for the GameCube..." to "...Phantom Hourglass was released on June 23, 2007 in Japan, October 1, 2007 in North America and October 19, 2007 in Europe." are entirely unreferenced.

Likewise, all of the 'History' section save the last paragraph is unreferenced. There's a bunch of undeveloped sections with single-sentences attempts at paragraphs, such as 'Music' and 'Nature of the protagonist'. 'Other incarnations' is entirely unreferenced. Finally the reception section reads off as a hastily-assembled mishmash of facts (sentences for some games, a paragraph for Ocarina of Time) with very little in terms of unifying structure. Then there's the massive table to the right which looks like utter jargon to the layperson. In short, I would have simply delisted this article if it weren't the lead for a good topic. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The cel-shaded style and 3D nature of the TWW and OoT are touched on in the article, but we could easily fit in some reception info on those. The TP image is not needed, same with the LA image.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The game score table looks incredibly simple to me. I'm not sure how you would consider it jargon. "Other incarnations" has at least 10 references, but we could easily fit some more in. I can't see what's wrong with the Music and Nature sections, though the Nature section could stand to use some more sources and info (like how Miyamoto has Link be silent so that he can be a "Link" between the player and game). The History section could easily be sourced to the game scripts as well. I also don't see what's wrong with the reception section.

So, I think we should easily be able to address your critiques if we:

• Remove the LA and TP images, and add info on the design evolution to a "development" (director's reason for 3D, cel-shaded) and "reception" section.
• Add historical cites to the "Other incarnations" section - basically cites that assert that these things do indeed exist, or that they are uncanonical. Maybe a cite to Link and Zelda's page on the SSBB website, some reception info on the spin-offs, etc.
• Add the "Why is Link silent" Miyamoto quote to the nature section, add some cites (in-game quotes, etc.).
• Cite the history section to specific quotes from the games.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It's not the number of references that matters, it's the fact that entire swaths of the article are entirely unsupported by reliable citations as required. The table uses abbreviations that people will have no idea what they mean unless they click away from the article, and uses junk numbers (some of which do not even appear in the citations themselves anymore.) The reception section is an awful and random combination of facts with no flow. ...And while I'm thinking about it, File:Link Super Mario RPG.png should be axed as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't the number of inline citations that matters, but that where citation is needed it is provided. The GA criterion (2b) here is pretty explicit: "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". Geometry guy 19:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not understanding what you mean about the abbreviations. They're names, that's honestly the only thing you need to know about them. They don't mean anything.

I don't see any problem with the reception section. The first paragraph covers the accolades the series has gotten, the second covers the reception of its music, and the third records it has broken. At best, it could have the record section combined with the accolades, and create some sort of segue to the music section, but I honestly can't see how it's any different from any other similar featured article's reception section.

The Mario RPG image is specifically mentioned in the body, and serves as an example of Zelda cameos in other works. It's completely supported by the fair use guidelines.

Honestly, the only sections that are low on cites are those that cover absolutely inarguable information - in the "Other incarnations" section, the only "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" are the two marked with "citation needed" - every single other claim in that section is a self-evident fact, and could not be sourced beyond basically saying "Yes, this game does exist". Every single statistic is sourced, and every quote is as well (either with a ref or as part of the text). The only section that really needs more cites is the History section, which needs to be sourced to in-game, manual, or Hyrule Encyclopedia quotes. Instead of reiterating your claim that 2b is not being fulfilled, can you list specific lines that you feel are not appropriately sourced?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Delist It's kinda a mess as an article, and after cleanup would land up in a different form almost entirely it seems than it is currently, making a re-GAN more or less a necessity. It's Start-class at the moment, maybe C at most.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What specifically is wrong with it? I'm hearing that multiple sections aren't appropriately sourced - besides the "History" section, where and how is this occuring? There's no way for us to fix the article if you just say "It's terrible, let's punish it."Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DelistShould people add cite tags? I think it is pretty clear that many specific claims are not cited, so tagging them would only be useful if editors really don't see them (and is almost certain to cause complaints of "tag-bombing"). The number of tags already in the article seems enough to warrant delisting. Otherwise, i think the writing is quite poor quality in places - it really does look like the article was well-written at one point, but new additions have not been integrated properly. This is especially obvious with the many single sentence paragraphs haphazardly added onto the end of sections. It needs rewriting to make it a cohesive whole, and random factoids or repetition removed. I also agree with the world-wide view template: presumably huge amounts are written about this series worldwide and especially in Japan, as it is a Japan-originating game. YobMod 11:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, whoever comments next, give us something to work with. You guys are doing a whole lot of talking with no substance, and this mindless bureaucracy without any attempt to assist improvement is getting mind-addling. I've already tried to decode your comments, and you told me I was wrong - well, what do we need to DO?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, honestly, instead of piling on the same empty comments, you guys could be actually helping by at least starting some kind of list here of what specifically needs to be done. I honestly can't even figure out what Yobmod and Kung Fu Man are talking about, or how it would help us fix the article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty simple:

1) Find reliable sources to use for citations to replace every citation needed tag.

2) Find reliable sources for the release history section. Every claim of "xxx was released on yyyy" could reasonly be fact tagged, so most need sourcing. Generally, whenever an entire paragraph is uncourced, it rings alarm bells.

3) Find Japanese sources and ensure the article at least covers what they say up to the level of "broad" coverage.

4) Assess which images are being used for decoration rather than adding substantative understanding. Either remove them (eg Mario image), or find a reliable source that discusses the art style/graphics for each one, and add some text about it.

5) Rewrite the article to appropriately incorporate the single sentence paragraphs into larger paragraphs. Get a copyeditor to check the article to make sure it flows well, and remove any rednundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs)

• Delist - I agree with David Fuchs (talk · contribs), eight fair-use images does seem to be a bit much for this article. I second the concerns raised above by Yobmod (talk · contribs) about writing quality and sourcing issues. Directly above, Yobmod provided some really helpful pointers as to how the article can be improved upon, but at this point it's really lacking in cites and in its quality of writing, flow, short paragraphs. Sadly, Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) is correct, at this point the article is probably in a state of Start-class or C-class. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the following images need to go:

• File:The Legend of Zelda cartoon logo.png — The fair use rationale says it's being used in an informative way, but it doesn't inform me of anything.
• File:TwilightPicture.jpg — The FUR says it's being used to illustrate the game, but it is a poster and doesn't feature any game content
• File:Zeldadx 1.jpg — The FUR says it shows the game's graphical style, but isn't this from a cut scene?

The others seem informative. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Informative isn't a requirement of WP:NFCC, because really anything can inform--a nonfree image can inform readers of the appearance of a character, for example, but that doesn't really mean it can still fly the other clauses of NFCC. I would especially say any artwork/promo nonfree content should go, because it's not actually demonstrating gameplay or anything that was the subject of commentary. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of this comment, because I didn't mention anything about keeping the others. I said we should scrap the three images I listed. My interpretation of point 8 of NFCC is that the image must be informative: "significantly increase readers' understanding [...] and its omission would be detrimental". But your comment about artwork/promo seems to be in general agreement with removing the three images I listed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist per comments below that a lot of work is needed to bring this article up to GA standards. Geometry guy 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Without inline references this does not fullfil the GA criteria.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit & Weak Keep It is a very nice article cleanly written, multiple media points as well as a broad approach to the topic. But it needs more references, there is not nearly enough references for that much information. It needs many more references before it will become a substantial GA or even FA. Renaissancee (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Delist Although adding citations sounds simple, considering there are general references given, we are looking at adding possibly hundreds of citations, which is a huge amount of work. I do not think this can reasonably done in a short time frame (unless the original writers are going to make a dedicated attempt), so it should be delisted and resubmitted after the work is done.YobMod 12:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Delist Unfortunately I must agree here with the GAR nominator and with Yobmod (talk · contribs), there is simply too much work that would need to be done to address current issues to think that it could take place in a reasonable amount of time, particularly with regard to lack of cites throughout. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology

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

Result: no consensus; default to keep. Most reviewer concerns seem to have been addressed with the exception of the article's completeness. While some views have changed during the reassessment, this outstanding concern remains a sticking point for others. However, because it revolves around subjective interpretations of GA criterion 3(a), and because determining the notability of an article is outside GA's (and by extension GAR's) remit, I feel unable to assign enough weight to this point to close the reassessment as a delist. On the other hand, the counter-arguments have clearly failed to persuade everyone that 3(a) is a weak criterion, and the reviewer objections may be a better reflection of current GA practice than a reading of the criteria would imply. I would encourage further discussion of this and the related wider issues with the GA community so that project-wide consensus can be established, and of course the article should continue to be developed as new information becomes available. Thanks to all for your contributions to a highly involved GAR, and especially to those who have worked so hard to improve the article during its time here. EyeSerene^talk 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology is about a 1985 publication of some collected writings of the major literary figure William Burroughs. It includes a short story, first published in 1971, and other writings and newspaper articles written by Burroughs.

• The article is too wide ranging and does not remain focused. Almost one half of the article is the "Background" section, much of it relating to his views and experiences with Scientology, with references are to biographies of Burroughs. Suggest some of this be merged into the biography article William S. Burroughs, which does not mention this publication.

• The article gives repeated negative information regarding Scientology with no balance. The publication section, which summarizes the individual articles, seems to repeat much of the material in the first section. The article references an anti-Scientology writer, Paulette Cooper and, in general, portrays Scientology in a negative light beyond the need to do so. The article fails to mention that much of the material in the article conflates Scientology with psychiatry, that the articles are as much anti-psychiatry as they are anti-Scientology.

• There is no "Critical evaluation" or "Critical analysis" or "Critical response" section. Since this is a literary work by a major literary figure, this seems to me a critical omission. There is no explanation for publishing short opinion articles together with a short story that nothing to do with Scientology.

I believe these problems with the article can be remedied by treating Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology as a literary work by providing proper context and literary criticism. Also, the excessive repetition of information on Scientology (I do not know whether the information is correct) can be reduced, as the specifics of Scientology is not as important and the qualities of literary style and presentation. More emphasis is needed on a critical view of the work, as would be required for any GA article on a book, film, comic book, video game etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

<Discussion cut to talk>

To be clear (and as we already explained to Mattisse), we believe there are no more reliable sources to consult and that creating a "Reception" section will be impossible at this point in time. As I pointed out to Mattisse earlier today, the bibliography of Burroughs' works and criticism on Burroughs that I consulted for this article does not list any contemporary reviews of the book. We have therefore relied on literary criticism and Burroughs biographies (which are, of course, better anyway, since they are scholarly). Perhaps in the future scholars will do more work on this book. As of now, we have included the information we found in reliable sources. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

<Discussion cut to talk>

• Comment: I don't know if I am uninvolved enough. I gave a brief comment on the PR for the book, apparently opening this astonishingly quick-growing can of worms. Numerous debates were recently held on the FAC talk page regarding short articles. It seems to me that many of the editors who commented in those debates made the point that GA is for articles that cannot become FA because of their length, or a lack of sources that should cover FA-type depth. I have not checked my library for sources on this topic, but I will do that tomorrow. I think that if Awadewit cannot find such sources they probably do not exist, but I will look for myself as I said I would do on the PR. Awadewit's access to info and mine are very similar. If nothing comes from my search, however, it should be noted that GA criteria simply state that an article should be comprehensive; GA criteria does not focus on specifics for types of articles, such as books, nonfiction or otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Contributions to GAR discussions are welcome from all editors, be they "involved", "uninvolved" or something inbetween. Thanks for commenting, and I hope you will comment further. Geometry guy 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree that GA criteria should not be so strict that it prevents otherwise well written articles from being passed because it is not complete on an absolute scale. Rather for an GA promotion, using all available sources should be enough as long as the article reasonable covers the content. These articles need appropriate recognition as a GA if they are otherwise FA quality work. I'm not commenting on this particular article, but the principle.

• As well, if the issue was still be discussed on the article talk page, then perhaps this GAR is premature. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• not a GA Excuse me if I seem to ramble, but I had to think out what principles to apply, because it's hard to categorise the book as described in the article:
  • I'd be inclined to regard this as a book of essays rather than a literary work, since all but one of its parts is a non-fiction essay or article, and the short story is about the same theme as the essays. Does anyone know of any recent FAs of GAs on collections of essays? (promoted mid-2007 or later, because most articles promoted before barely reach B-class now).
  • Since precedents are hard to find, I'll boldy venture my own opinion. An article about any book needs some some 3rd-party commentary in order to get any "seal of approval". In the case of Burrough's opinons about Scientology, there's plenty of background, but nothing about how reasonable they were considered by other commentators, or whether they had any influence on academics', politicians' or the public's perceptions of Scientology. Whether you consider Burrough's essays to be in the realm of politics, philosophy, sociology or whatever, I'd expect coverage of these aspects.
  • The real problem is that the book seems to fall short on WP:NOTABILITY. Cirt, Awadewit and Fainites, who all support this article's GA status, admit the lack of 3rd-party commentary. I did my own searches and all I got from ordinary Google, apart from this article, was a collection of sales pages and library catalogues - I didn't even see a blog post. When I tried Google Scholar, in case there was some academic commentary that didn't have high enough page rank to appear fairly high in the ordinary Google results, I got exactly one hit - the work by Urban, cited in the article - but that's about Scientology, and mentions Burroughs' book only in passing.
  • If 3rd-party commentary can't be found, the article should fail for not meeting WP:WIAGA's requirement of "broad" coverage. --Philcha (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

<Discussion cut to talk>

• • • • Pilcha, there is third-party commentary - by William Burroughs scholars. See the article's bibliography. This article more than meets the notability requirements. There is peer-reviewed scholarship on it. Awadewit (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
        • (ec)I can't comment on whether there is peer-reviewed scholarship for it, as I'll admit Google is not omniscient, especially for subjects before the rise of the WWW. However the article shows little sign of such peer-reviewed scholarship, except perhaps about the background, e.g. the roots of B's opinions about Scientology. But that's not enough to answer the most important question of all, "Why should anyone care?" Apparently no-one thought the book important enough to agree or even disagree with the opinions it expresses, and it apears to have had no influence - which is a pretty poor showing for a book of what seem to be rather polemical essays. You'll have noticed that my perspective is quite different from that of Mattisse, who treats the book as literature. However I agree with her statement "Not all articles can be a GA". This probably happens to many editors. It's happened twice to me recently. IMO in terms of coverage Next (novel) (I enjoyed it the most of the Crichton books I've read) is better than Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, but it's far form a GA. Amstrad PCW is about a range of personal computers whose early models were briliant for their time and changed the PC market for ever, but the late models have dropped right off the radar (probably deservedly). I suggest you apply your obvious love of literature to a more worthy subject. --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I consider all works by an author like William S. Burroughs to be worth writing about. Of the 11 sources, 9 are peer-reviewed. Considering the essays in the book prompted Scientology to reply, the book obviously did make an impact. Moreover, I was unaware that GA had higher standards than FA. FA requires that a comprehensive search of published material be made. That is what we have done. If GA requires more, that surprises me. Awadewit (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Your comment raises some interesting issues. Re "all works by an author like William S. Burroughs to be worth writing about", I seem to remeber something about notability not being inherited, and I think that applies here - Burroughs is notable, but this particular book apparently isn't.
            • WP:WIAFA requires "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". IMO this article fails to place the subject in context, apparently because the real world unkindly provided no context. So it should fail FAC quite thoroughly. GA's trickier, we have the occasional "how broad is broad" discussion at WT:GAN - and then remember why the previous one got nowhere. Mattisse has reviwed tons of articles for GA, and has often been complimented both for her industry and thoroughness (including by other reviewers) and for her helpfulness (by nominators). I've done a few GA reviews, with which people seem to have been pleased, even when I failed articles. If you don't trust our judgement on the issue of coverage, you could ask for further comments at WT:GAN or WT:GAR --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
              • • Actually the more relevant FA criterion is 1c "(c) well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". There has been frequently discussion about the meaning of this at FA. I would like it to mean that an article has to be comprehensive in the way you say, but it does not mean that. FA requires only that an article consult the published literature, not what we wished were published. If FA required what you are saying, most popular culture topics would not be able to be featured, for example. I myself have reviewed numerous GAs and successfully shepherded around 30 articles through GA. I am familiar with its standards. Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • Per notability, are you saying that a book written by William S. Burroughs, one of the most famous writers of the 20th century, and referred to in several books of peer-reviewed literary criticism is not notable? By what part of the policy? Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Awadewit, I suspect we could go on forever like this, and possibly drive everyone else into some other activity like trying to reform vandals. If you want to continue, I suggest you open a sub-page somewhere and then drop me a messge. --Philcha (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<Discussion cut to talk>

Neutral on article for now (need to read it more thoroughly). But i agree with Matisse that some critical reception & impact is essential for all GAs of artistic works. Otherwise there is nothing to stop every minor work that has only production info and plot summary from being GA, because no-one has ever reviewed it. In this case, it seems extremely unlikely that newspapers or lit reviews don't exist, as he is so influential and famous, but if they do not, how is this notable? And even if others disagree, it is a legitimate grounds for a community GAR - it is not as though this were a unilateral delisting.YobMod 08:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no contemporary reviews. As I explained above and to Mattisse before she listed this for GAR, I consulted a bibliography of Burroughs' works and criticism on Burroughs. It lists reviews for the works that have them, but lists none for this one. I would like to point out that books are not only notable because they were reviewed at the time they were published. Note that this reception section, in a featured article by Mary Wollstonecraft was written without any reviews. Also, Jane Austen's novel Mansfield Park initially received no reviews (see Reception history of Jane Austen). Are these books not notable? The reason there is more scholarship on them is because these authors have been dead longer. Burroughs scholars have started writing about him and his works, and we have included their views in the Ali's Smile article. I can only imagine that they will publish more over the course of time and the article can be improved once that has happened. Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<See the talk page for further discussion concerning which articles can be GAs>.

• If no info on reception exists, then I think the article can be a GA without it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural comments. <See the talk page for general discussion of the GAR process>. Some practicalities.

• This reassessment is getting long. In the past, it has been helpful to move to the reassessment talk page any discussion which is not directly related to whether the article meets the GA criteria or not. This requires some sensitivity, but it is quite likely that this is needed here. I'm likely to do this, so please let me know if you disagree with my choices.
• Any discussion about the motivation, good faith etc. of this reassessment should take place elsewhere, not here. Geometry guy 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think moving the whole discussion so far to the talk page would be a good idea, inviting contributors to comment on whether this particular article passes or fails the criteria. If it is kept, then maybe a discussion is needed to clarify the criteria. Slipknot demo failed twice for not being sufficiently broad, even though it contained every known piece of info, and its inability to ever become GA was endorsed by some during its Topic nomination (which happens quite often), but opposed by others. If consensus says GAs cannot be failed in such situations, then the criteria need to say so, and all such articles need to be looked at again.YobMod 07:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now made some cuts to talk. I think cutting the whole discussion would throw out the baby too, so I've trimmed, leaving links. If anyone has any problems with this, please start a new section on the talk page. Geometry guy 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite so absolute is it? As in can never be failed, must always be failed. If there is very little sourced information at all then an article may never become a GA. However, if there is good sourced information on many aspects, should it automatically fail because there is no information on one particular aspect where, if there was information it would be included? On the latter, from my reading of GG's contribution, the answer is no. There must be a borderline somewhere but no doubt the edges are fuzzy.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As Fainites says, the edges are fuzzy. AFAIK the most recent relevant discussions at WT:GAN have been about a California law that is being challenged in the courts, Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and a book to be released Nov 2009. In these cases there are issues about both stability and gaps in coverage, but they all have fairly easily identifiable future end-points. The future is less predictable for Burrough's book, but Awadewit anticipates that commentary will gradually emerge (above, at 16:49, 6 May 2009). I'm less confident of that as: this collection of B's articles was published 1973; I'm a lot more familiar with with evolution-related topics than with literay or Scientology related topics (understatement!), but I notice that in evolution The Panda's Thumb (book), a collection of previously-published essays by Stephen Jay Gould, got some commentary pretty quickly and I bet I could find more, especially if I searched on the individual essays. How's that for a hint! -Philcha (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

Well, I am familiar with literary topics (as I am a graduate student in English literature) and it is extremely common for scholarship to emerge on an author decades or even centuries after their death. For example, thirty years after the publication of Jane Austen's novels, there was virtually no scholarship on her works, but now there are thousands of books and every single one of her works, down to the stories she wrote as a child, has been analyzed. The same is true for Mary Wollstonecraft - it wasn't until over 100 years after the publication of her works that scholarship began to be done on them (now, even her hack work, like Thoughts on the Education of Daughters has been studied). Ditto for Mary Shelley. The list is rather long. In fact, almost all of the writers I've written biographies for on Wikipedia were not seriously studied until many decades after their death - most were not seriously studied for 150 years. That we already have serious literary criticism on Burroughs is a sure sign that more is to come. Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be further lit crit of Burroughs' work. However I'm not sure Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology will be regarded as literature, since most of it is non-fiction essays on Scientology, published at various times in various periodicals. As I said earlier, the only Google Scholar hit I got for Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology was Urban's work, which is about Scientology and only mentions Ali's Smile: Naked Scientologyas an aside. You might do better to look for commentarty on the individual essays in the collection. --Philcha (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We have already done that kind of research. On your other points, non-fiction essays are considered literature. For example, there is even scholarship on Mary Wollstonecraft's book reviews for the Analytical Review. The same is true for lots of authors. Literature is not just fiction. Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per criteria 3a and 3b. The article tells of the existence of the book, but does not put it into context of Burrough's oeuvre or give us sufficient critical response to make an informed judgement - the general reader would be left feeling somewhat unsatisfied, as such it not does not address one of the main aspects of the topic. The background section is rather long and detailed, and I don't see the direct relation between the first paragraph of that section and the topic of the article. There is a feel of WP:SYNTHESIS about the section, as material is being discussed to advance a position about the background to the book, and we are not given a reliable source which sums up the overview being created. So it is likely that the article doesn't meet criteria 2c. I feel that overall it's a decent article tackling a difficult topic, and it is the nature of the topic that is causing a problem rather than any failing in the editors. SilkTork *^YES! 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• The first and second paragraphs place the work within Burroughs' oeuvre, specifically listing his other works. They describe his basic style and how he drew his most famous style, the cut-up, from the theories of Dianetics. I'm not sure how much more could be done here without going off topic. Awadewit (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• "we are not given a reliable source which sums up the overview being created" - If you wish for an overview of Burroughs as a writer, see the Dictionary of Literary Biography entry we cite and if you wish for an overview of Burroughs as a person and a writer, see the two biographies we also cite: Morgan and Miles. Awadewit (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question. Awadewit commented above that "Considering the essays in the book prompted Scientology to reply, the book obviously did make an impact". Is she referring to the letter from Sorrell (which appears in the compilation) or to some other response? If the latter, what other responses have there been from Scientology? Thanks, Geometry guy 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that is what I was referring to. I have also wondered why precisely Burroughs was "expelled" by Scientology and labeled as being in a "Condition of Treason" (I thought there might be a connection to his publication of these articles), but I don't know of any reliable sources that substantiate that connection. Awadewit (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  Yes it would be good to know that. Anyway, the problem remains that this only shows that the book review of "Inside Scientology" made an impact. It says nothing about the original "Ali's Smile" short story nor the rest of the compilation. Might the article better be renamed, given that some of the components appear to be more notable than the compilation of them? Geometry guy 22:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  The sources I found generally refer to the compilation, though. Even the Dictionary of Literary Biography entry, which doesn't list all of Burroughs' works, lists this book. Awadewit (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is well-written and comprehensive, and incorporates all available WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources on the subject. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I allowed to register a view as the reviewer do you think?Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be helpful to know your view on the current state of the article's quality and whether it should be kept as a WP:GA. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are allowed, Fainites. Note that step 3 of the GAR process is "It is also courteous to notify the most recent GA reviewer" - to me, that is inviting participation by the reviewer. Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your comments would be most welcome, Fainites. Pretty much any editor can contribute to a GAR, as it is not a vote. Geometry guy 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep A/ There are no prescriptive lists for sections for a GA. It does not follow that because there were no critical reviews and hence no critical review section, it must fail. B/ Burroughs is highly notable. An article on a book by him shedding light on his long term involvement with and partial disillusionment with scientology can hardly fail to be notable. The reviews of this book at the time were literary and scholarly rather than critical. How can this possibly make it not notable? C/ I do not agree with suggestions that it does not place the book within Burroughs oeuvre. D/ I do not agree that the parts about his time with scientology are off topic. They are essential to an understanding of the book. E/ Articles should not be delisted because the impossible is being asked for. The fact that the impossible is not obtainable does not make GA unobtainable. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The book is very short and can be read in less than an hour online; I suggest editors do so before commenting. I agree with Mattisse that the background section goes on for too long relative to the part that is actually about the book. Parts of the background, like the paragraph about cut-ups (a concept which many readers may not be familiar with), seem extraneous to a discussion of the book, which does not mention cut-ups.
• Coming to the summary of the book proper, in the first essay, Burroughs quotes Scientology's criticism of psychiatry at length. Around a third of this essay is a long quote on psychiatrists and their views lifted from a Scientology magazine. Burroughs then proceeds to supply a critique of this criticism, which he feels has fascist overtones, and criticises Hubbard for holding Scientology teachings "under wraps" for financial gain, rather than making them openly accessible to the world, to be investigated and evaluated by other "astronauts of inner space". Our summary of that essay says nothing about all of that, quoting instead a soundbite from an anti-Scientology source which this article could as well do without.
• Our summary of the second essay, while quoting from a press article reproduced in the book, makes me slightly uneasy. If the phrase "started a controversy going by publishing an attack on the psychiatry profession and related fields such as Scientology" refers to the first essay, as I believe it surely does (Burroughs refers explicitly to the Scientology journal he quoted at length in the March essay), then it should be noted that in the first essay Burroughs did not so much "publish an attack on the psychiatry profession" as quote such an attack, in order to then counter and critique it. Not necessarily because he likes psychiatrists and would like to defend them against the attack – he said in that first essay that he sees good and bad in psychiatrists – but because he queries the moral credentials of the attackers (the Scientologists). The "April 1970" reference would seem to be OR, and wrong – it seems to be based on back-calculating the "three months" from the July publication date of the second essay, but as we know, the first essay was published in March 1970, not in April. In the second essay Burroughs describes Scientologists as essentially bourgeois, supporting big business rather than the revolutionary left. I guess that comes across vaguely in our summary.
• In the third essay, Burroughs describes various personal experiences of being audited, some hilarious, others poignant, some triggering in him vivid recollections of events -- he hesitates to ascribe them to past lives -- which he says provided useful source material for his writing. While we have room for his praise of Mr Kaufmann's decision to publish the exposé, we have not made room for what the essay is actually about. I think this reflects Mattisse's concerns that we seem to be describing the book in the context of the "war against Scientology", rather than describing the book as a book.
• In the fourth essay, Burroughs responds to various points by a Church of Scientology official. While this sort of material is difficult to summarise, I think we could do better than just providing links to our articles on the topics these points were about, without saying anything about what was disputed between Sorrell and Burroughs. At any rate, we devote more lines to Sorrell's cover letter, which is half a page, than to Burroughs response to Sorrell's points, which runs to nearly 6 pages.
• The short story that concludes the book is quite entertaining; our summary of it is a little lacklustre. The sound file with Burroughs' voice is a nice thing to have, but the way it has been cut, neatly ending with "why, I paid for his Scientology courses", strikes me as manipulative and makes the story appear like something which it isn't. The story is not a morality tale about the high prices Scientology charges. As our summary indicates, it is a supernatural and surreal story about Malayan magic that makes people run amok. (Note that it is a Malayan dagger, not a Mayan dagger.)
• Grammar issues: "cut-ups and Scientology allowed both he and his readers to redefine words" should be "cut-ups and Scientology allowed both him and his readers to redefine words"; "Scientology, along with cut-ups, silence, and apomorphine, allow the characters to resist social control" should be "Scientology, along with cut-ups, silence, and apomorphine, allows the characters to resist social control".
• Spelling issues: article uses mixture of UK and US spelling: organisation/organization etc. Jayen466 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears Jayen466 (talk · contribs) would ask the Wikipedian to perform original research violations in order to interpret and analyze the material of the book, in the Wikipedia article about it, while neglecting secondary sources. Also, in Jayen466 (talk · contribs)'s comments, above, he neglected to acknowledge that what he calls "spelling issues" are in fact spelling within quoted text, and what he calls "grammar issues" are actually proper tense uniformity within the subsection. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The present article contains a number of content summaries cited to the book itself, so it is not as though the article had eschewed primary source summaries. As for variant spellings in quoted text, I am not sure how we handle this usually; thanks for pointing it out. The grammar issues I mentioned have nothing to do with tense; one is about case, the other about numerus; both are minor issues. Lastly, if a secondary source is clearly wrong -- e.g. Mayan/Malayan -- I think the article is better if we correct rather than perpetuate the mistake. Jayen466 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we very careful to avoid content summaries. We quote two opening sentences, list the topics covered in Burroughs' response to Sorrell, describe Sorrell's letter in a single sentence and quote from it once. That is the extent of the "content summaries" quoted to the book itself. Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Responses to Jayen

• Parts of the background, like the paragraph about cut-ups (a concept which many readers may not be familiar with), seem extraneous to a discussion of the book, which does not mention cut-ups. - Removing this information will create a POV article, as it will eliminate much of what Burroughs thought was positive about Scientology. Moreover, it is unlikely that Burroughs would mention cut-ups in his writing, as it is style. Writers do not usually announce "I am writing in this style." Awadewit (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• The sound file with Burroughs' voice is a nice thing to have, but the way it has been cut, neatly ending with "why, I paid for his Scientology courses", strikes me as manipulative and makes the story appear like something which it isn't. - The file is as short as it is to comply with fair use restrictions. It must be less than 10% of the entire length of the original file. I thought it would be best to start from the beginning of the story than to throw readers into the midst of the story. Awadewit (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jayen seems to want us to summarize the work ourselves. I am very reluctant to do this. Many of the pieces written by Burroughs are extremely disjointed and therefore very difficult to summarize. Any summary would, in my opinion, reflect the interests of the reader. I therefore thought it best to rely on secondary sources. Awadewit (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Responding to your points, the book consists mostly of essays that were printed in news media. They are not written in cut-up style. Perhaps Mattisse is right and this part of the background had better be used in the Burroughs biography.
• I take your point about the sound file, but perhaps another sentence or two wouldn't go amiss, so we have a mention of the kris and Ali, arguably the main elements of the story.
• The essays are not particularly disjointed, being news media articles published for general consumption. I am not usually in favour of primary source summaries either, but if you look at the refs currently cited, the summaries of the essays are already a Wikipedian's summary of the primary source.
• The summary for the short story contains a clear error (Mayan/Malayan) and is a bit lacklustre. There is a slightly longer discussion of the story in William Burroughs and the secret of fascination, by Oliver C. G. Harris (pp. 29–30), focusing on the smile of the title:

  Is fascination infectious, and are those who study it unable to escape its hex? It is surely no coincidence that there is only one case of the smile in Burroughs' fiction prominent enough to have attracted critical attention, which is the dreamy and deadly smile that reproduces itself like a disease in The Wild Boys (1971). As Jennie Skerl observes, “the image of a smiling boy becomes a popular icon that subverts the social order by recruiting more wild boys” (83). While this entire text is, in fact, structured from first to last by images of the enigmatic smile, the defining instance occurs in a short story, written at the same time as The Wild Boys, entitled “Ali's Smile.” Here, the smile is firmly tied to homosexual desire and compulsory mimesis, so that fascination names a perverse pleasure or pleasurable perversity: Ali loses control of his own body by becoming, for a crowd of mocking women, “a Latah, that is a condition where the victim must imitate every movement”; then he exacts revenge by running Amok, a state of lethal possession; finally, Ali is transformed into the haunting image that ends the story with an enigmatic ellipsis: “Against the icy blackness of space, the ghost face of Ali ... smiles” (Exterminator! 75, 84). Murphy's comment in relation to the murderous wild boys, that “they smile in invitation to the reader” (Wising Up 167), captures nicely the threat they pose within and beyond their Book of the Dead: mimetic smiles, fatally so. 8

• Harris' summary does not mention the Scientological subplot at all. Jayen466 19:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• What would you suggest we include from this? Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here a draft proposal:

"Ali's Smile" by William Burroughs is a short story originally published by Unicorn in 1971 and later republished in Burroughs's collection of short stories, Exterminator! (1973). Ali, the Malayan houseboy of a colonial official, is put under a spell by a group of malicious women, becoming "a Latah, that is a condition where the victim must imitate every movement". Once free from the spell, Ali runs amok with a kris, which his master keeps. Years later, after his return to an English suburb, his master is compelled to run amok with the kris. The story ends in carnage: "hippies, locals, and scientologists fight and an intelligence official who is investigating scientology is killed. A mudslide buries everyone." Ali is transfigured into a disembodied smile: "Against the icy blackness of space, the ghost face of Ali ... smiles." Burroughs' use of the "enigmatic smile" here parallels his use of the same motif in The Wild Boys (1971).

Any good? Also gets rid of the "Mayan". Jayen466 12:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I leave it to the article experts to respond, but I believe that the last sentence should be attributed/qualified because it is analysis by a single source. Geometry guy 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll let Cirt address the summary of the story and I'll address the lit crit (I'm still waiting for this book from my library, btw - I would like to see the passage in context). How about:

In a motif which Burroughs repeats in The Wild Boys, he ties the smile to "homosexual desire and compulsory mimesis", according to Burroughs scholar Oliver C. G. Harris. At the end of the story, for example, Ali is transfigured into a disembodied smile—"Against the icy blackness of space, the ghost face of Ali ... smiles"—which invites the reader [to enjoy him? I'm speculating here - I need to read more of the surrounding text]. However, it is an ambiguous invitation."

Let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that goes a bit too far for my liking, what with the ambiguous invitation and all that. :) It's not in the source. I've posted a bit more of the surrounding context on the talk page for your reference. Jayen466 02:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I see from the context that you provided that this is actually psychoanalytic criticism. I'm going to have to obtain Harris' book myself. Explaining this is going to be even more difficult than I thought. I usually don't include psychoanalytic criticism in articles unless it is a very important part of the scholarly reception of a particular book specifically because it is so difficult to explain. (It is rarely taught in undergraduate literature classrooms for just this reason.) Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any objection to inserting the summary I posted above, excluding the final sentence on the "enigmatic smile?" Jayen466 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Would like to hear Awadewit (talk · contribs)'s take on this. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my frankness, but I don't think it does a very good job of summarizing the argument. Note that we don't learn any of the surrounding context of the argument, which totally changes one's perception of it, nor do we learn the main thrust of the the paragraph, the bit about "homosexual desire and compulsory mimesis". (The larger meaning of the connections between "fascination" and "desire" are all made much clearer when one learns that this is psychoanalytic criticism from the surrounding material. I hope to get this book soon. Awadewit (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that is alright. But note that the above was not meant to summarise Harris' argument. It was just supposed to summarise the content of the story. I was going to leave the summarising of the psychoanalytic/literary criticism to you! :) Do you think it would do as a summary of the story's content? It just says a little more about what happens, and it corrects the Mayan mistake. Cheers, Jayen466 10:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I misunderstood. Like the summary we had previously, this leaves out a great deal of this very confusing story. In your opinion, what happens to Ali in the middle of the story? Should we mention the names of the other characters? Ali is not actually the main character, so perhaps we should mention other characters' names - what do you think? One reason I quoted the summary written by a scholar was because he determined the essence of the story was in the events rather than the characters, but now we are making our own determinations on that front. Summarizing this story will be extremely difficult, as it is so disjointed. Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I suppose Ali's ghost with its associated violent impulse and mimetic spell hung around in a latent form in the intervening decades, attached to the kris. I don't mind if you want to mention the other characters, but am equally happy to just combine the two scholarly content descriptions we have, in the way I did above. While Ali does not get the most words on the page, by a long shot, his smile is what the story leads up to and what has given it its name. Ali, who survives his master in disembodied form, is the thread that ties all the time periods covered in the story together. Jayen466 09:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Precis of content is not original research, as any reader can verify what we say from the primary source. That doesn't mean it is easy to provide a balanced precis. However, it being difficult is no excuse for omission. The concern that a precis may be one reader's interpretation is easily countered by the fact that this is a wiki. The wiki process can be used to reach a consensus on a balanced summary. I strongly encourage Awadewit, Cirt and Jayen466 (who are all excellent editors) and others, to work together to achieve such consensus. Geometry guy 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Summaries are OR. I do this little exercise with my introduction to fiction class to demonstrate to them that each person reads a text differently, each person focuses on different details. We all read a particular short story and then summarize it. Students are always shocked when the read the summaries of their fellow classmates because, as they say, "the story wasn't about that!". In a contentious article like this one, I think it is best to let secondary sources describe the work as much as possible. I have no particular interest in attempting to write a summary, when we will simply end up with other editors saying "that isn't the focus of the piece!". There is no real way to resolve any such dispute, because what one editor views as the main idea of a particular piece is often up to interpretation. There is no way to "verify" individual Wikipedians' interpretation of the text and, in my opinion, such descriptions would be OR. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  This is essentially a vacuous observation, Awadewit. Clearly two different students would write different summaries, just as two different editors would write different articles. Indeed this GAR is taking place largely because editors disagree on the focus and emphasis of the article. If it is OR to distill content, then the entire encyclopedia is OR. You, Cirt and others have exercised editorial judgement in how you deploy the secondary source material, which quotes you use etc. Clearly Jayen would have written quite a different article, using the same primary and secondary source material. Editorial judgement on what material to include and what not to include is not verifiable, but that doesn't make it original research per se. In some respects, unqualified secondary source material needs to be chosen with more care than primary source material because of its air of authority.

  I agree with you that interpretation should be left to secondary sources, but summarizing content is not interpretation, unless you wish to paralyse the entire encyclopedia by analysis, because distilling knowledge is exactly what encyclopedia's do. A reader may well come to this article wondering "Do I want/need to read this book?" A good summary of the content may save them the trouble. If they are dissatisfied with the summary then they can read the book. In doing so, they verify the summary, even if they disagree with the editorial choices made. If they feel the article does a really bad job, then they can edit it themselves. Geometry guy 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note that already Jayen has implied above that it is possible to summarize "Ali's Smile" without mentioning Scientology. Awadewit (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  The passage he quotes is not a plot summary, but contains a nugget or two of literary criticism, contrary to claims that there isn't any. This is an RSS, so why not use it? I cannot read Jayen's mind, but he seems to be pointing out that there is more to Ali's Smile than its Scientological connection. Covering it as part of this compilation makes it harder to bring this out: short stories and political commentaries are received and discussed in quite different ways. Geometry guy 09:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm well aware of the differences between various forms of literature and their reception. I've already asked Jayen what he would like us to include from this material. I'm awaiting a reply. Since the material is from a discussion of Burroughs' fiction in general, framing its inclusion will be tricky. This is not an analysis of Ali's Smile - this is an analysis of a trope in Burroughs' fiction, that is, a motif of sorts that Burroughs uses throughout his works. As the above excerpt makes clear, the material from Ali's Smile is being used as a representative example from Burroughs' oeuvre. The author of the above passage is not analyzing the story and explaining its main ideas. Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  I know you are, but this is not a user talk page, so the article is the issue at hand. I agree (it is clear) that this passage is discussing a motif, but the motif not only appears in the short story, it inspires the title. The article already discusses e.g. cut-ups in connection with his other works and including such comparisons is standard, isn't it? Geometry guy 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I read the online version, and the article fails to cover the book adequately. I believe the conflict which led to this GAR was initiated by a misunderstanding: in the first article of the book, there is an extensive critique of psychiatrists. However, this critique is a quotation of Scientology material, not Burrough's own words, and Mattisse is clearly not the first person to be confused by this. The article promotes this misunderstanding by quoting the introduction to the second article: "an attack on the psychiatry profession and related fields such as Scientology". Burrough is not supportive of psychiatry, but he isn't vehemently against it either. At the moment the article leads all readers into the same misunderstanding. As such it should not be a GA. Geometry guy 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed this particular bit [4], however it should be noted this was itself confusing due to the wording in the source, The East Village Other. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this the only problem you see, GG? That is relatively minor, in my opinion and can easily be fixed. Cirt has begun. If, however, you feel that the article needs a reception section, a section explaining Burroughs' journalistic style, a section explaining why Burroughs chose to publish where he did, etc., we might as well stop now, as none of those questions can be answered. In that sense, this article is like Mounseer Nongtongpaw - it contains a summary of everything written on the published work, but is not a comprehensive exploration of the work of literature. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Cirt has sorted that out. My aim here is not to see problems, but to try to find consensus. Concerning a "reception" section, I have already noted that formulaic article structures are not GA requirements. Indeed, I think it is a mistake to write an article on a book which has received essentially no critical response as a literary article. Since the main reaction has been from Scientology, the topic is primarily a political one. If I were writing the article, I would give it a broader title such as "William Burroughs and Scientology" to make it easier to use the source material: the book itself is only really notable as a compilation of his writings relating to Scientology. However, I am not writing the article; those who are must do as they think best. Geometry guy 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea of renaming the article "William Burroughs and Scientology" makes good sense, given that there is very little in terms of literary reception of the book. Jayen466 11:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought thats a whole different article - probably much larger in scope. This is article about a particular book. Why don't you write an article called William Burroughs and Scientology Jayen. I'd be very interested to read it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be? What other writings are there by Burroughs on Scientology? My title is only a suggestion; others are surely possible. The aim would be to find one that covers the primary sources, while maximizing the available secondary source material. Geometry guy 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

But he was a scientologist. Presumably an article on WB and SC. would cover that in depth.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an article on WB and Scientology would have a much broader scope. There are many details about Burroughs' personal life that would have to be included there as well as an in-depth analysis of Burroughs' novels from the 1960s. Note that we briefly describe in this article how Burroughs used these novels to suggest that techniques of Scientology could be used to resist social control. A true "William Burroughs and Scientology" article would necessitate research into all of these works. It would also necessitate research into Burroughs' understanding of Dianetics and how that influenced his writing. Again, we only very briefly allude to that here. The title of the article is appropriate since we discuss the background that led to the work and the work itself. It is worth reiterating that the Dictionary of Literary Biography mentions this work of Burroughs, although it does not list all of his works. In my opinion, since this book is written by Burroughs, mentioned in Burroughs scholarship, and included in such an illustrious list, it should have its own article. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"William Burroughs on Scientology" would limit the scope a little, while being broader than the current article. I'm just trying to make suggestions that would make the article easier to write. If editors relish the challenge of writing an article on a compilation with no contemporary reviews and essentially no critical reaction, on a controversial topic and mixing a short story with political commentary, good luck! Geometry guy 09:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in writing about "WB and Scientology", which is a completely different topic than this article. I worked on this article because I was interested in writing about literature and in learning about Burroughs as a writer - I have little interest in researching Scientology. I actually enjoyed the challenge of writing this article right up until the point I was accused of shoddy research. Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Update: I have removed The Scandal of Scientology by Paulette Cooper as a source from the article [5]. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is neither Delist nor Keep; it's Modify then Keep. I don't support GA status for this aricle in its current state. As per the "without going into unnecessary detail " wording of WP:WIAGA, the Background section is clearly too long. It should be split off — either to a "Response to Scientology" section of the Burroughs article, or else a separate "William Burroughs and Scientology" article. After that move, I would Support GA, since no further info exists on the book. Crap, we get minuscule and/or trivial (topics deleted in the name of world peace) articles that pass FA; this is nothing new. Not sure this article could be taken to FA without critical review, but GA should be fine. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The background section actually could be larger, the size places Burroughs and his works within the context of his experiences in Scientology and is appropriate for the article. More information could be given at the main article, William Burroughs, or a separate new article "William Burroughs and Scientology", but the book itself certainly is notable and the background information is appropriate here. Cirt (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cirt that the "Background" could be larger - it is not an entire article in and of itself. As I explained above, there are many more topics that would have to be covered in much greater depth in such an article. Could you explain what you would remove? I think that what is there is necessary for the reader to understand the context of Burroughs writing the pieces and publishing them. Awadewit (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Modify then Keep. I believe this is an obvious Ga candidate with very few flaws that should be easily mended. I don't agree that the background section is too long since this is supposedly what explains the reason the book is notable and interesting. However I do agree that it needs a section on reception. It must be possible to track down some responses either reviews or commentaries about the book which would both serve to assert notability more clearly and to provide any critical views for the sake of neutrality. I think that even if the reception section were to just read "since the book was only circulated in 10 copies its impact has been very small, and no scientology sources have made public comments about it" that would be an improvement. I think it i simply important to know what, if any, the impact has been or at least give an evaluation of the writings in terms of burroughs authorship.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The background section is half the length of the section on the book itself, and the latter is obviously pretty short. But I'm not saying the background should be deleted entirely; just trimmed down more than a little, and the trimmings moved elsewhere. And for that matter, I wouldn't even be all that upset if the background section stayed as it is... too big, but not overwhelmingly so... but expanding it would be walking resolutely into WP:COATRACK territory, or at least creating opportunities for such accusations... if the article is gonna be about Burroughs and Scientology, let's call it an article about Burroughs and Scientology.Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to expanding the bacground section either, it seems quite comprehensive. The "it" in my phrase "it needs a section on reception" was meant as an anaphora referring back to "the article" (which is the unexpressed topic of the previous phrase "I believe this ..."), not to "the bacground section" although I can easily understand why you didn't interpret it that way. What I mean is that after the content section there should be added a new section describing all and any events subsequent to the books publication. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We have added a reception section that states there were no contemporary reviews. Awadewit (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an improvement in my opinion although it would very much be preferable if more material could be added. Do none of the recent scholarly works that you have used mention anything about it, analysis, its relation to burroughs general authorship? Has the work left no legacy at all?·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the works that I read analyze the book in any detail (that's why this article is so thin) - what they do say, we used in the article itself. We await such a definitive publication with bated breath. See Talk:Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/Archive 1#Potentionally useful notes for an example of the relevant material in the Miles biography. Awadewit (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated my opinion to 'keep I think that the article is unlikely to become much better than it is untill new scholarly works about it are published, and I also think it lives up to the GA criteria.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Update: Reception subsection added [6]. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Does the cited biblio cover only literary aspects, or would it also include quasi-political aspects of B's writings? --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify your question? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Is there any possibilitythat it might have omitted commentaries that treated the book as somethin other than literature, e.g. quasi-political essays, satire,...? --Philcha (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I can't be sure on that front. Awadewit (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Then there's an area you need to research. --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
            • I've already checked all of the databases, books, etc. that I know for sources - JSTOR, MLA, Google Scholar, reference works on Burroughs, card catalogs, etc. I've also consulted the reference librarians at my university. Please let me know what else I should do. As a graduate student, I am familiar with research techniques and am a thorough researcher. Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
              • OK, so your "I can't be sure" was just about the impossibility of proving a negative. Fair enough. --Philcha (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Sorry I didn't make that clearer the first time. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
                • @Philcha (talk · contribs), yes we have also checked additional databases Newsbank, LexisNexis, Infotrac, etc. etc. etc. etc., and, um, probably a bunch more etc. in there as well. :P Cirt (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion: I think we ought to mention that much of the first essay is about Scientology's criticism of psychiatry, and Burroughs' critique of that criticism. Jayen466 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Could you work up a sentence? We can tweak it together. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Am posting a draft to the talk page. Jayen466 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I noticed only one problem: the first paragraph contains information, which is not directly related to the subject of the article. I think the paragraph should be shortened. For instance, quotes like ""Burroughs believed that language is a virus and that words and images are instruments of control that allow evil forces to impose their will over people." can be removed as they are not particularly relevant. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed this down a bit [7]. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Update: Please see the new information on primary sources and a factual error I discovered at the peer review. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question As I see it, the three remaining issues that are ongoing are the two summary statements that Jayen and I are working on and the publishing date at the peer review. Is that correct? (This page is becoming unwieldly.) Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I thought the other summaries could do with expanding as well, in the manner we're contemplating here for the Ali's Smile story and the first essay. If we put our minds to it, I don't think it should take too long. Shall we share the reamining essays between us, and each of us put up a draft for the others to comment on and improve?
  • Having slightly more substantial summaries may also help to address the perceived shortcoming that the background section has too much weight compared to the description of the book itself. Jayen466 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm really very concerned that we are straying into OR here. I already have several variations of the Ali's Smile summary that look very different. However, let's wait on deciding this, until the larger issue about whether or not this can even be a GA is resolved. Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd say the improvements are worth doing whether this remains a GA or not. I'd like to drop the revised summary of Ali's Smile in, not least so we finally correct the secondary source's error in describing a Malayan kris as a "Mayan" kris. If editors have objections, please state them here. Thanks. JN466 08:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I echo Awadewit (talk · contribs)'s concerns about straying into WP:OR territory. Also, this page is about assessing whether the article remains a GA or not, and its primary purpose is not to become a drawn out discussion page for the article and improving it. Cirt (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Note that the above draft is cited to secondary sources – the one we are presently citing, and to Harris. Do you object to my inserting the above draft, and if so, would you mind saying why? We can continue the conversation on the article talk page. Thanks. JN466 09:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, I do object to this, due to concerns raised already by Awadewit (talk · contribs), above. And yes, I do think that the bulk of this page and an extreme amount of text on this page has been spent on back and forth and back and forth and back and forth discussions that do not relate directly to the purpose of the GAR itself. Cirt (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
              • Just to clarify, could you say which specific concerns these are so I can address them? Thanks. JN466 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Again, taking up way too much space on this page on unrelated discussion. Cirt (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • [8] JN466 11:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

• Comment. This may be a good moment to ask SilkTork, Yob.Mod, Ling.Nut, Maunus and Philcha (those who've expressed concerns) to update their view on the article below. The article has been improved and appears to be on a positive trajectory, with a good collaboration ongoing to handle NPOV concerns. Arguments for a shift of emphasis in the article have been rejected, and such decisions should be left with the content experts. Also the problems with sourcing further analysis have been elaborated. As an optimist, I hope (without prejudice) that this reassessment will end by retaining the article. Is it heading there, or do the problems editors have raised above remain? Geometry guy 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's still not a GA

I still interpret WP:WIAGA's "broad coverage" criterion to mean that, for books, a summary of independent commentary is required. I agree that "broad coverage" is a subject of recurring debate, but I think examination of GAs promoted from mid-2007 onwards supports my interpretation. In Wikipedia:Ga#Language_and_literature (Works) there are so many that I only had time to sample the "A..."s; and all recent GAs beginning "A..." except this one include indepedent commentary: The 100-Mile Diet; After This; Agrippa (a book of the dead); Al Aaraaf; And the Band Played On; Apex Hides the Hurt; and Artemis Fowl (novel). In Wikipedia:Ga#Philosophy_and_religion the only recent GA on a relatively recent book is Power: A New Social Analysis, and that includes indepedent commentary. Wikipedia:Ga#Social_sciences_and_society contains only a few Web-based "works" which may be in the wrong categories.

I'm sorry, but I have to dispute your assessment. These works do not support your statement. For example, After This has no "Themes" or "Genre"/"Style" sections. Apex Hides the Hurt has no "Genre" and/or "Style" section. Artemis Fowl also has no "Genre" and/or "Style" section. If these articles were truly "broad" in the way you are suggesting, they would need to have these sections, but they do not. Therefore, it is clear that GA does not really require broad coverage in the way that you suggest. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that I can't lose here - if the consensus is that this article is a GA, I have 3 that have some but not complete independent commmentary waiting in the wings :-) Philcha (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation - we cannot ask a coverage that is broader than the existant material allows. However I am sorry that this minor article makes it to GA while really important works in the same alley like Naked lunch and On the Road remain in a sorry state. But that's a different story.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you Maunus (talk · contribs), for reevaluating your Keep stance on the article's quality status and stating I also think it lives up to the GA criteria. Your willingness to take a second look at this is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Question I see some "draft" stuff on the talk page of this GAR. What's the status of all that? Is everybody comfortable that the current version of the article is essentially the one we're going with? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, I am not. I think some of the summaries of the book itself are very threadbare; hence the proposals being discussed on the talk page. The book is available online and can be read in about an hour; it's easy to compare our present summaries against the book's actual content. JN466 23:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment2. I think the page has definitely improved since the GAR was brought. I am now satisfied about the sources for a critical reception simply not existing, both from trusting Awadewit's research skills and my own search for German-language sources (i couldn't even find sources on the quality of translation, or why this book was important enough to merit translation). I'm still leaning towards the view that creative works need some kind of critical reception coverage, but this is an unusual case as each of the essays have sources about them, but not critical commentary. So i would be fine if it is kept GA, but don't think it should set a precedent for other articles. The "broadness" criterion still means including critical commentary imo, except in very few specialised cases. Note: this article does have a reception section now, which i do think is useful, in spite of having to be slightly tortured in style to get it in thereYobMod 14:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see much difference. The addition is a section which says that a 1990 book doesn't list any "contemporary reviews" of Ali's Smile. As there are, apparantly, no critic overviews of this work the authority behind the background section must be culled together from different sources writing about other aspects of Burrough's work - not directly this one. Taking comments out of context to advance a view on something is WP:SYNTHESIS. I have problems with this article because of that, and it may well be that given the topic and the lack of published material on the topic that it will never be a viable Good Article. This sometimes happens. For a Good Article on a published work I would expect to have some critical commentary or response. A statement saying there isn't any critical commentary is useful and informative, but doesn't then make the article any broader in coverage. The synthesised Backgound is problematic as collecting together information about other aspects of a person's life and then making conclusions from that about a different aspect is not what we do here on Wikipedia, and is discouraged as it makes us unreliable. We are not the experts writing a critical commentary and putting a book into context - we are the editors who research and find that critical commentary and bring it here in a neutral and balanced manner for readers to discover what has been said about the book. As I said earlier - it is the nature of the topic that is problematic, and editors have worked on this in good faith, however, unless the Background section can be cut back to neutral facts directly related to the book, and a reliable source found to put this book into context of Burrough's work and give a critical overview, then I don't see it as a Good Article. My view is still Delist. SilkTork *^YES! 18:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • But we're not synthesizing anything - we're saying "here is background information about Burroughs' other works and his life story which is relevant" (this is done on lots of featured articles, for example). We're not presenting that information and then applying it to this work - that would be synthesis. I would also like to point out that there is critical commentary on this book - we use it in the article. There is just no contemporary (meaning 1970s) response. To be absolutely clear, there is nothing approaching original research in this article. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you to Yobmod (talk · contribs), for reevaluating and changing from your earlier stance of Neutral to now Keep. Your help in searching for sources and also your kind words about Awadewit's research skills are most appreciated. Thank you for acknowledging that the new Reception subsection in the article is useful and a positive improvement. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how appropriate it is to repeat emboldened Keep and Delist !votes of other users in our own postings. Couldn't someone totting up the !votes mistakenly end up counting the same vote several times – once when it was made, and once when another editor thanked the respective editor for voting Keep or Delist? To guard against that, it would probably be best if we all disembolden repeats of other editors' votes in our own posts. JN466 23:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply pointing out others that have recently changed their positions in favor of Keep. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR is not a vote. Geometry guy 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that multiple editors are in favor of keeping the article's GA quality status rating, and that multiple editors have recently switched from a prior position, reevaluated the article and affirmed that it should be kept as a WP:GA. Cirt (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But it is the reasoning they have provided which really matters, not the bold font. Geometry guy 06:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the reasoning, and also the overall change in consensus by these editors that have asserted the article's quality status should be kept as GA. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I have listened carefully to the arguments presented here. I am unconvinced that this article should be delisted. Without a doubt I think that all articles, including this one, can be improved. However, I do not think that this GAR should continue indefinitely. I believe that the article is:

1) "well-written", meaning it is "clear" and "grammatically correct"; it also follows the basics of the MOS;

2) With the exception of the one publication date outlined at the peer review, it is factually accurate and verifiable (note that no one has opposed on the grounds that we still haven't resolved this factual inaccuracy - I am still working on resolving that issue and hope to have it done soon); it has inline citations from reliable sources and contains no original research

3) It is as broad as it can be. Note that the footnote to that criterion says "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." - Even the comprehensiveness criterion for FA does not require articles to cover what is not covered in published material.

4) The article is NPOV

5) The article is stable -These are all of the edits made since the GA review in April.

6) The media are appropriately licensed.

I see no reason to delist this article at this time. Awadewit (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing your analysis of the article, Awadewit; that is much appreciated. I'm sorry that this GAR is taking longer than the nominal 2 weeks, but many reassessments do, and this one is particularly unusual. Let me reassure you that it won't continue indefinitely. I wouldn't like to see it continue for more than another week and I would not like to close it as delist since there isn't consensus for that and it would not be the best outcome for the encyclopedia. However, I am also reluctant to close as keep while I am unsure that the summaries are broad; it is possible that other reviewers (e.g. Yobmod) can articulate a consensus to keep sooner than I can. In the worst case, we can close this as "no consensus", but I think that would be a great pity. Geometry guy 19:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Delist the article if it remains as it is or Improve with a view to keep.

• The background section is overlong compared to the section describing the book itself. It also appears to be synthesised from sources that do not present this material in direct connection with the topic of the article. For example, the comments about the "insectlike" presence of Burroughs' writing appear to have little relevance to this book, which consists mostly of essays that appeared in the popular press. These essays do not feature Burroughs' customary literary style. These comments on Burroughs' writing style would be better housed in the Burroughs biography. I would be in favour of losing the entire first paragraph of the background section from this article. Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) has presented a re-write on the talk page which alleviates my concerns in this regard. --JN466 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• The quote in the quote box ("Scientology was useful to me until it became a religion and I have no use for religion. It's just another one of those control-addict trips and we can all do without those.") does not appear to be from the book this article is about. This is a pity, since the reader will quite possibly assume that it is. Related quotes would have been available from the book itself.
• Having read the book, I find the summaries of the book's content lacking. I appreciate that editors were trying to refrain as much as possible from summarising the primary source directly, however the result does not adequately represent the book.
• One more thing: checking the refs I noticed the citation to Murphy for Burroughs' "condition of treason" may give the wrong page number. In the hardcover version, at any rate, it is pp. 115–116 rather than pp. 117–118. It's of course possible the paperback has a couple of pages less. JN466 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please present the precise material that you feel is a synthesis. This is a heavy charge. As a scholar on Wikipedia, I take care to avoiding presenting OR on Wikipedia because I view the NOR and SYN rules as some of the best rules on Wikipedia. However, that does not mean we cannot present relevant background material. For readers coming to this article who have never heard of Burroughs, for example, explaining who he is and what kind of a writer he was is relevant in my opinion. In my opinion, this article would fail GA if did not have that first paragraph. Burroughs' major themes, also addressed in that first paragraph, are indeed relevant to this article. For example: In the Dictionary of Literary Biography, Matt Theado, a scholar of the Beats, writes that "to the end of his life Burroughs cleaved to the image of a tormented but supremely curious person who explored the dark side of the human consciousness.", etc. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• We can change the quote in the quote box - that is not a serious concern. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• As you can see from the discussion on the project talk page, summarizing this book is not an easy task and coming to an agreement really does run the risk or OR. However, the article does summarize each section of the book. We also need to remember this is GA, not FA. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• I don't remember if I used the paperback or the hardback. Try using the ISBN to figure it out. I am generally careful about page numbers, but I could have made a mistake. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Quote in quote box replaced, per above: [9]. Cirt (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest a swap (without prejudice and this has nothing to do with the good article criteria)? The "Newtonian physics" quote is really lovely and I can understand the desire to quote it, because it would grab any reader's attention. It is currently used instead as part of the summary of the first article in the book. On the talk page I've suggested that a summary could instead quote the first four sentences of the article. If this were done, the Newtonian physics material would be perfect for a quote box. Geometry guy 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand, the first sentences of the book are already included in that part of the summary. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but if the Newtonian physics material were in the block-quote, the summary could concentrate on the first four sentences, saving space for summary of the rest of the article. Please see the talk page. Geometry guy 22:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. [10] - as per suggestion by Geometry guy (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it, but consensus of two is not consensus, so further responses are needed. For instance, Jayen may consider that this quote places undue emphasis on the negative side of Scientology, while Awadewit may consider that quote to be a key part of the summary. I simply think it is a striking quote that any reader would notice, and hence is worth highlighting in one way or another. Also the placement of the quotebox needs to be considered carefully according to the content of the quote. Geometry guy 22:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, okay, I was just responding to your suggestion, and noting here that I have done so. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am myself a little concerned about misrepresenting this quote's context, as this is one half of an "on the other hand" construction. So, I did some thinking. However, only one sentence is given to Scientology's benefits in this paragraph and the bulk of this essay is given to explaining the problems of Scientology, so I do not think we are misrepresenting Burroughs' point of view on the matter. We are not quote mining, for example. I am comfortable with using this quote in the box. We should also, of course, say in the box that it is from "Burroughs on Scientology". I would also suggest switching the box with the picture, so that the box is in section of the the article that describes the book itself. Awadewit (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that quote works well. It is quite a thoughtful comment and, it seems to me, represents Burroughs' position well. JN466 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Great - and Awadewit's idea to switch the quote and photo makes sense to me. This also fits well with Awadewit's rewrite of the "Burroughs on Scientology" summary on the talk page. Thanks, Cirt, for making the change: I only commented to make clear that I do not belong to the "do as I say" school of reviewing :-) Geometry guy 19:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture and box swapped, source essay indicated in quote box [11] JN466 21:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) This is a very minor issue (not related to GA criteria), but I think the quote works better at the beginning of the section rather than right next to the "Burroughs on Scientology" subsection, because the former detaches it as an interesting quote, while the latter attaches it as a prominant theme in the essay. What do others think? Geometry guy 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree; I like the picture better moved down, but the quote I felt was better at the beginning of the section. JN466 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the quote next to the material it is most relevant to. I also agree with Geometry guy (talk · contribs) that this is something trivial that should not hold up the article's GA status or really be discussed at this GAR page, which seems to be a catch-all page for anything and everything related to the article itself that is not necessarily related to a discussion of its GA status. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note about the title The original title, Ali's Smile/Naked Scientology, was much more clear. I believe the colon may appear in some sources because of the familiarity of the convention whereby title is separated from subtitle in this wise. In this case, "Naked Scientology" isn't a subtitle, so it would be very good to avoid the implication that it is. Suggest moving back to original title, which is following Theado etc. 86.44.44.214 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Most recent publications have used the colon. Again, not really a major issue to hold up this GAR. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what holds up GARs or who decides that, just following the "Please add comments" invitation. But the article is rather predicated on the assumption that it is a subtitle, is it not? A change of nomenclature would correct that. Good to look at it, at any rate,while there are editors around and stuff is being sorted out. "Most recent publications" isn't a useful rubric, better would be "most sources used", but if that was not a huge majority, the other title would still be preferable as it is clearer, surely. Not sure about recent publications in any case - Theado in his The Beats (2003) follows his usage in "William Seward Burroughs" cited in the article, Miles in Beat Collection (2005) follows his El Hombre Invisible (cited in the article) in listing as "Naked Scientology (with Ali's Smile)", Hibbard in 2000 (Conversations with William S. Burroughs) has Ali's Smile as "Reprinted with Naked Scientology". Perhaps for other editors you could break down the usage in the sources used, since I claim one title format is preferable all other things being near equal? Thanks for your note. 86.44.19.115 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, a topic of conversation not necessary to be had on this GAR page. Could be something to discuss at the article's talk page, however. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR closure

This reassessment appears to be running out steam and is well past the end-point of the period normally allotted for these things, so I'm intending to close the GAR over the next day or so. My current reading of the discussion is no consensus, default to keep (however, see my response to Ling.nut below). I'm aware that in many ways this is the least satisfactory of outcomes, as it neither endorses the article's GA status or answers the remaining concerns of those who believe the article should be delisted, but—disregarding some minor issues that seem to have been satisfactorily addressed—as the debate largely revolves around interpretations of criterion 3 (Broadness), it seems unlikely that at this late stage a clear consensus will emerge. I have evaluated two on-going strands of debate in reaching this conclusion:

• Some very experienced and well-respected reviewers have made the compelling argument that a Good Article about a literary work should include, at a minimum, a section that describes the work's critical reception. An equally compelling counter-argument has been made that this section can't be included where the sources don't exist to write it, and that the caveat to criterion 3 substantially modifies the criterion by explicitly allowing for "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail". During the course of this rigorous GAR and given the expertise of both article authors and reviewers, it's highly likely that if such sources existed they would have been uncovered. The debate then moves towards a general one about what content should be compulsory for GA status, and whether articles that lack such content can ever become Good Articles. GAR is not really the appropriate venue for answering these questions.

• The adequacy of the article's summary of the book has been questioned, and there has been some discussion of what is or isn't OR, and to what degree criterion 3 applies to this area. As with the previous strand this is to some extent subjective, but again is a genuine criteria-based concern and while it remains is enough to prevent closure as an outright 'keep'. It is unclear at this stage if further editing will take place to address this.

A good-faith effort has clearly been made to address the reasons for the GAR, and the article has improved as a result. I congratulate all those involved on their hard work, and emphasise that this closure verdict is pending and based on current status, and subject to change if there are any major developments in the next day or so. EyeSerene^talk 11:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I put more than a couple hours in on the rewrite of the background section. It's there if y'all want it. Good luck with the article etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should have mentioned this explicitly. I noticed Jayen has struck one comment as a result of your work, although the rewrite doesn't appear to have been incorporated into the article itself as yet. I'm assuming this will happen, so didn't take account of it when coming to a tentative conclusion. If it doesn't and Jayen reinstates their objection, we'll have three outstanding issues which I think would be enough to push this over the line to delist. EyeSerene^talk 13:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A second issue is the lack of critical response... which we can do nothing about. What's the third unresolved issue? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I mention two in my summary above: (1) the lack of critical response (which I've largely discounted because, as you say, we can't do much about it, although it raises wider issues that aren't appropriate for this forum); and (2) the concern over adequate summary of the book, which for the same reasons as the first is somewhat subjective given the "broad not comprehensive" criterion 3 (but is there nonetheless). The Background section rewrite is the third and perhaps more substantive issue, which even though Jayen has struck their comment, remains to be fully addressed in the article. I hope this clarifies my thoughts. EyeSerene^talk 14:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) WIAGA criterion 3 is actually exceedingly weak. The footnote says that even some unspecified number or proportion of major aspects can be omitted. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't quite say that; what it says is that it isn't necessary to cover "every major fact or detail". I don't interpret that as carte blanche to miss out an entire area, like critical reception, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

...which is proff again that we see things not as they are, but as we are. :-) WIAGA says "...it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." It doesn't really provide a roadmap for what can or cannot be left out. And "Thank God Hallelujah Amen!", I say. GA is creeping too close to FA even now. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice of impending closure

From the recent editing that's taken place and the comments on the talk-page, I hope I'm justified in regarding Jayen's objection regarding the background section as fully addressed? This leaves outstanding concerns from Philcha (critical reception) and Jayen (book summary), so unless Philcha or Jayen have anything further to add I believe this GAR can be closed shortly as 'no consensus'. To allow for time-zone differences, I think it would be fair to give 24 hours for further responses and then wrap this up. EyeSerene^talk 10:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut and Awadewit's new version of the background section has resolved my concerns with it. We also now have a more complete summary of "Ali's Smile." I would still like to see the summaries of the first three essays expanded a little further. But even based on the article's present status I am now happy to support Keep. JN466 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  I know you are, but what am I? +Keep Ling.Nut (talk)

• Weak keep, without prejudice. (As Eyeserene has expertly and kindly offered to draw this discussion to a close, I will take the opportunity to venture a !vote :) Articles on creative works typically include critical reception and response; it is common and standard to gather that material in a specific section, but this is not a GA requirement. If there is very little (or no) reception or response, it may be better to place what response there is elsewhere within the article, rather than have a separate section. In my view the current negative reception section is unnecessary, but it is also harmless. However, I say this "without prejudice", because in cases where there are departures from common and standard norms, I think it is appropriate and desirable to seek the scrutiny (and hopefully approval) of multiple reviewers. I share Jayen's view that the summaries of the essays need expansion, but given the improvements to most of the article, I don't consider these issues cause to delist at present. Geometry guy 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some topics are excellent material for Good Articles - such as articles on Formula One races which are clearly defined in terms of time and place, and already have a workable article structure. While others are larger and more blobby with no clear boundaries. And some are tricky because of the GA criteria. What we have here is a topic that does cause concern for GA reviewers because of the GA criteria: the topic that has few sources, especialy in key areas. The nature of the GA criteria does mean that such topics will have difficulty in achieving GA status because the question of "Broad coverage" is brought up. This issue of broad coverage in relation to lack of resources has been raised before and will be raised again. Nominators and editors feel that if they have done a google search and nothing has turned up then the article is as broad as resources will allow. A number of experienced GA reviewers feel that Broad coverage means that if not all of the main aspects of the topic are addressed then a reader would be left unsatisfied because the article is incomplete. That there is little information "out there" doesn't alter the outcome. If there is not enough information to write a complete article, then we have an incomplete article, and it would be inappropriate to grant GA status to an incomplete article that is not going to satisfy the average reader. My judgement is that Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology is an incomplete article, and that the editors have worked hard to make it a complete article by filling in the blanks from elsewhere. I find that inappropriate. It appears to me that this is a minor topic, which is being worked up by the editors into something a bit larger, and I question the value of what is being said, and who is saying it. Indeed, the evidence for notability is so weak that if this book were not by a very notable writer then it might not pass an AfD. It passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) only on Point 5. Given that there is very little resourced material directly addressing the book, the editors have culled together material which discusses other aspects of the author and used that to fill out the article. Can we see what there is said about the book itself by reliable sources? I see no direct comments on the book in the background section. I see some sources supporting publication dates in the Publication and contents section, and then this "In 1970 Burroughs had published a "considered statement" on Scientology's methods because he felt that they were significant enough to warrant commentary.[1] This statement articulates what he calls the group's "precise and efficient" therapeutic methods, however he also criticizes the authoritarian nature of the institution, describing Hubbard's statements as fascistic[1] and comparing their internal surveillance methods to that of the FBI and CIA.[22] He also condemns the "unquestioning acceptance" demanded of Scientologists as well as the institution's secrecy.[1] These pieces were later gathered together into Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, which religious studies scholar Hugh Urban describes as a "nonscholarly popular exposé of Scientology".[23]" which is good stuff. The rest of that section is the editors' summaries of the stories, and statements such as "He is critical of the Church of Scientology's organizational policy and organizations in general, and Scientology's attempts to keep many of its counseling methods secret" are the editors' rather than from a reliable source. The final section gives us an interpretation from a source that there were no contemporary reviews. We have no reliable source to support the interpretation. We are advised not to interpret primary sources without a secondary source - "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". I feel there is so little actual material here that I could not support a keep. However I would not object to close of no consensus - though I would prefer a delist. SilkTork *^YES! 11:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Like SilkTork, I would delist, for the same reason: "If there is not enough information to write a complete article, ... it would be inappropriate to grant GA status to an incomplete article." As far as I can see, Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology fails to establish the collection's notability, nor even that of any of the works it contains. Note that notability is not inherited, and thefore it is quite possible for some of Burroughs' works to be non-notable. Since Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, not a policy, it is subject to WP:IAR and that might well save it at WP:AfD. Although the coverage criterion for GA is subject to interpretation, I do not see how WP can retain as a GA an article that fails to establish notability. As Awadewit pointed out earlier (16:49, 6 May 2009), Burroughs scholars may publish more and the article can be improved once that has happened. --Philcha (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but considering that Ali's Smile is mentioned and commented on in several books of Burroughs scholarship and is listed as part of Burroughs' oeuvre a selected list of works in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, I think that this would past notability in spades. Awadewit (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I said that the article fails to demonstrate notability. If it was specifically commented on in several books of Burroughs scholarship, why does the article not summarise these comments, instead of / as well as explaining B's style in general and the basis of his views on Scientology in general? --Philcha (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The lights are off and the janitor's locked up ;) Perhaps the article talk-page or even WT:WIAGA would be a useful place for further discussion? If you disagree with my closure decision, please also feel free to visit my talk page with flaming torches and farming implements (I'll even get Igor to warm up the moat). Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, EyeSerene (talk · contribs), for the closure of this GAR. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Earwax

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delisted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This article does not satisfy GA

• does not meet WP:LEAD
• symptoms section missing
• causes need discussion

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• It also only covers humans (except on sentence about whales). AFAIK, many other animals produce earwax, so this either needs renaming, like some body part articles, or it fails broadness. There is also nothing on the chemical composition, which i'm sure i once read a paper about.Along with many single paragraph sections and the inadequate lead, i agree that it should be delisted. Using Scpous i found 92 papers on human earwax, three about the composition: i think none are cited in the article.YobMod 07:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The "Further reading" section which recommends two sources is odd. If the two articles are as good or comprehensive as is suggested, it seems sensible to just use them as cited sources to further develop the article. The "History" section is somewhat weak, listing just a couple of trivia items. It does fail to meet WP:LEAD, in failing to concisely cover key points from the entire article in the lead. I agree the article should be delisted so it can be worked on and, perhaps, renominated after substantial improvement. –Whitehorse1 03:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the above delist comments, all the points raised by the GAR nominator are valid. Also, there are referencing problems throughout the article that are unaddressed, including {{fact}} tags, as well as other unsourced bits. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)