Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 50

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 51)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 49) →

Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China

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

Result: Delist. This article has suffered from a lack of clarity about its scope, title and content, and now differs substantially from the (flawed) reviewed version. Positive changes have been made which may have put the article back on track, but work is now needed to ensure the revised article meets the GA criteria. As noted below it (arguably) does not at present due structural issues left over from the overhaul (affecting e.g. 3a, 3b and WP:LEAD), as well as poor prose. The correct thing to do therefore is to delist the article so that it can be renominated by editors determined to make it shine. Geometry guy 00:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The text of this article does not correspond with the article's title. I have informed the main editors of my concern and conducted an individual reassessment, but we have not agreed on the matter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest changing "transplantation" to "harvesting" and be done with it. Since they did not even have a donor program until recently, and even now it's not really doing anything, all the "transplants" here can be termed "harvests" without difficulty, since they are harvested from prisoners. That appears to be the only major source of organs. Of course, which prisoners depends on who you ask.... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree with the foregoing change from "transplantation" to "harvesting". We are dutybound to uphold WP:NPOV, and such a change would appear to violate it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• There are two areas of the GA criteria that Axl might be challenging. 3(a) "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" or 3(b) "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I feel the article meets 3(a) as it does address the main aspects, and there is extended coverage of the most notable aspects of the topic, which is the global concern over the use of prisoner's organs and the international trading in these organs. The extended coverage is justified as the global concern led to changes in international guidelines regarding organ transplantation and to changes in China's procedures. Where I share Axl's concern is in relation to 3(b) and the section regarding the Falun Gong allegations. The allegations attracted some attention, though not quite as much as the concerns regarding international organ trading or use of prisoners as donors, and nor have these allegations had any impact on global guidelines or China's legislation. The claims are disputed and dubious. By giving so much attention to the Falun Gong allegations this accords them an importance in the article which is inappropriate. Ohconfucius has made admirable reductions to that section; however, it still remains disproportionate. The simple solution of splitting out into a standalone article is in this case made tricky because a standalone article has existed several times, and each time has been merged back into this one. There are ArbCom sanctions related to this situation - [1], and a slow moving discussion moderated by myself between Jayen466 and Dilip rajeev at Talk:Falun Gong/Moderated discussion. An article is being created here - Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report, which when cleaned up can be moved out into mainspace, and then linked to from the Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China article leaving behind a brief summary of the main points. One of the problems with leaving the Falun Gong allegation section as it stands is that it makes it appear that the main aspect and concerns regarding China's organ transplantation programme were to do with live harvesting. This is an inappropriate reading of the situation. There is no evidence of live harvesting. However, it is considered likely that there is still inappropriate use of executed prisoners as an organ source, and attention directed to the Falun Gong allegations diverts attention from genuine concerns.

Here is the redirect list which shows the standalone articles: [2] - some sample histories:

• • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]

This situation is a little more tricky than first appears. SilkTork *^YES! 11:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Because it is really much more complicated than appears on the surface, I was waiting until I had more time to respond. ST's explanation encapsulates it better than I could. I think there is scope for the article to grow in a 'healthy' direction, just needs China to be less secretive about this whole transplantation business (or perhaps we just don't know where to go for the info right now). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We would benefit from some more uninvolved opinions. Does anyone object if I invite WikiProject Medicine editors to comment? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fine with that suggestion. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

I'm commenting here because of the request at WikiProject Medicine. Having read the article for the first time, I'd have to agree with Axl that it focusses more on a single aspect (the controversies ) than I would expect for a Good Article. I looked at the following articles for comparison:

• Organ transplantation in Israel (start-class ?)
• Organ transplantation in Japan (C-class ??)
• Organ transplantation (B-class)

Although I appreciate the problem in finding reliable sources other than for the controversies, I still feel the article falls short of 3a "broad coverage". The lead of the article Organ transplantation contains this paragraph:

• "Organs that can be transplanted are the heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, pancreas, intestine, and thymus. Tissues include bones, tendons (both referred to as musculoskeletal grafts), cornea, skin, heart valves, and veins. Worldwide, the kidneys are the most commonly transplanted organs, while musculoskeleletal transplants outnumber them by more than tenfold."

Compared to the general article, this article concentrates on transplantation of liver and kidneys, and mentions face transplantation. At present it covers "Controversies concerning liver and kidney transplantation in the People's Republic of China" well, but I don't believe that it is in line with my expectations for either 3a and 3b in the GACR under the topic stated in the given title.

To meet this concern, I'd recommend looking carefully at Organ transplantation and seeking to cover more of the topics outlined there.

Two small points: the lead image seems to contradict the phrase "Though the number of transplants fell to under 11,000 annually by 2005" in Background. It is also too small for me to read directly (see MOS:IMAGES and WP:IMGSIZE for justification of a larger chart).

Beyond GA concerns, the lead image contains information only conveyed by visual means (contrary to WP:Accessibility#Images no.3) and needs a text summary. --RexxS (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Just a quickie about the image: there is a very valid point that the image is too small, and is not supported by text. The article the graph was sourced from surprisingly did not contain it, thus I was unable to create a bigger and better graphic to support the article. I will look for some corresponding raw data. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've added (lengthy) alt text as a possibility for screen readers, and resized the lead image to 500px. It's readable to me (just) at that size, and is not too imbalanced in a 1280x1024 window, although at 1024x768 it's a bit cramped. Feel free to revert either or both if you don't think they improve the article. Would you like me to redo the chart to maximise the readability for around 400px wide? Or should I wait to see if you can get the raw data? --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well... if you assume that the topic of the article is the article title—that is, that it intends to cover all aspects of organ transplantation, not merely the political ones—then I'd say that it's incomplete. For example, the first-ever successful penis transplantation happened in China, but you wouldn't find that out from reading this article. Technical innovations in that country seem to be given about two and a half sentences, which seems unreasonably small, given that just the incredible Sujiatun allegations (that 6,000 people were secretly housed in a hospital basement, killed by extracting organs, and then cremated) has been given four paragraphs. Normal procedures seem to get short shrift, too.
  Additionally, I personally think that the article would be better organized by subject (e.g., history, cultural issues, rates, technical capabilities and innovations, politics) than by timeline (before 2006, after 2006).
  However, if the article's subject is actually the political issues, then perhaps it should just be given a new title. There's no reason why we can't have a full article on "Organ transplantation in China" alongside a detailed one titled something like "Falun Gong allegations about Chinese organ transplantation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we are all perceiving the same problem, though articulating it in different ways. The article is reasonably broad - broad enough for GA requirements; it could certainly be built upon, though Good Articles aren't meant to be complete or comprehensive - that is a demand more for Featured Articles - rather, they should give an appropriately wide overview of the topic and include the main points. That there are some aspects which are not covered is not a reason for a fail unless those aspects are major. The main focus of attention for organ transplants in China has been the use of prisoners, and the sale of organs on the international market, so it is appropriate that those aspects are given reasonable coverage. The problem with the article is the intense coverage of the Falan Gong allegations which dominate the article and give the impression that is the main aspect; and that is where people's disquiet arises (please note that the Falun Gong allegations are not the same as the international concern over use of prisoners and the international trade - the FG allegations are a different thing, and need to be treated differently). My proposal is that the bulk of the falun Gong material is moved into a stand-alone sub-article, leaving a sentence or two about the allegations, and a link to the sub-article. This would then leave an article which gives an overview of transplanation in China, details on the very notable international concerns regading use of prisoners, etc, current legislation and donor inititives, and some indications of significant transplants such as the face and adding the penis. Changing the title of this article because of the Falun Gong section would only focus more undue attention on those allegations. The allegations are significant in and of themselves, and are deserving of an article because of the attention they have gained, but the allegations are part of a much wider complex, including the political as noted above, and they do sit uncomfortably in this article. SilkTork *^YES! 09:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• @WhatamIdoing: No idea of the real history here, but I think the article on "Falun Gong allegations about Chinese organ transplantation" got shut down because it was being used as a base for political propaganda against the PRC govt, with a bunch of primary sources being used, and FLG people coming to edit heavily etc. Ohconfucius or someone would be able to clarify that a bit better. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist I believe the article does satisfy 3a. It is not comprehensive, but it is reasonably broad. The GA criteria does not require the same rigorous depth in coverage as the FA criteria. I do not believe this article satisfies 3b, the Falun Gong allegations are not credible, well-supported, or widely believed. It is a small minority opinion which is given far more detail than would be appropriate for the subject. If it is not possible at this time to split that content off into a sub-article, then the article should be delisted. Aaron north (T/C) 00:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep My concerns are now satisfied. Aaron north (T/C) 06:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have moved the draft of the Kilgour-Matas report from my userspace to: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kilgour-Matas report. After about a week there, I will ask an admin to look it over before moving it into mainspace. Because of the article's troubled history, I will put it up at AfD to get a wider response to the notability of the material. If the community consensus is that the material is notable enough for a standalone article, the Falun Gong material in Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China will be reduced to a sentence and readers directed to the Kilgour-Matas article. I feel that reducing the Falun Gong material will address most people's concerns. SilkTork *^YES! 11:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable to me. If there is a reasonable expectation that this could be resolved with just another couple weeks, then there's no rush to delist. Aaron north (T/C) 18:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Today, I pruned another 20%+ from the wordcount of the FLG and K&M sections without damaging the article or shifting the balance within that section. I think this is all that is required without needing to create a K&M article; I would still strongly oppose the article in the incubator as being hopelessly problematic. I feel that the report is only notable in the context of this subject, anyway. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
    • The Kilgour-Matas report covers both organ transplantation and Falun Gong persecution, so sits uncomfortably in an article on one or other. It has gained some attention from reliable sources and so meets our WP:GNG. The material should sit somewhere on Wikipedia, and a stand alone article seems the more appropriate. As we see here, having it in this article causes problems. Let's test it against the consensus of the Wikipedia community and see what they say. The article would only be POV if it were presented as an argument trying to convince readers that the allegations are true. A neutral and factual article which relays the circumstances and puts them in context would be what Wikipedia aims to do, and what I hope we can achieve. SilkTork *^YES! 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I will only add that it is obvious that an article on the allegations of organ harvesting from Falungong would in no way run afoul of any relevant Wikipedia policy. Further, it is inaccurate to characterise them as "Falungong allegations." The most prominent proponents of the allegations are not Falungong practitioners. Where is the evidence that these are a minority view, that they are not well-supported (I leave the claim that they are not "widely believed", that is clearly nebulous enough to mean anything)? An article on the topic has occupied the front page of the Weekly Standard in the United States. The U.N. rapporteurs have requested the communist Party to provide them with information, and admonished them for not doing so. —Zujine|talk 06:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is not a "wikipedia policy" which forbids the inclusion of all of that detail, but the inclusion of that entire section would likely prevent it from retaining its status as a good article. The article is about "Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China". The main concern/criticism is related to the use of organs from executed prisoners who have "consented". There is comparitively very little discussion about or credence given to the harvesting of organs from unwilling live victims. There is nothing preventing the editors from disregarding the GA criteria and including a large article on that topic within this subject, but it will likely cause the subject to fail on criteria 3b. Aaron north (T/C) 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That does sum up my understanding of the situation. SilkTork *^YES! 07:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I would need a major breakthrough to be able to further cut this down to satisfy the demands above. Would anyone care to do the honours and further prune the FLG sections? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I made some significant deletions then. The section now appears to be one among many; when the other article is done (if it gets done), it could link out to the FLG claims. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have moved Kilgour-Matas report into mainspace and listed it at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilgour-Matas report. The result of that discussion will decide what happens to the contentious material in this article. SilkTork *^YES! 00:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If that article is allowed to be kept, we can easily reduce the problematic section to just a very brief mention and link to that article to end this GAR as a keep. Aaron north (T/C) 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

One thought: the allegations in the FLG-related claims indicate that the bulk of organ transplantation (donation, movement, whatever: voluntary or involuntary) would be from FLG practitioners. It may be indicated in this article that it treats strictly legitimate organ transplantation practices, and also indicate what reliable sources say about the prevalence of legitimate versus illegitimate practices, in terms of quantity of transplants, and so forth. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Close?

The disputed material has been reduced to one paragraph, and the article is now more balanced. Are concerns now addressed? SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• There has been excellent work on the controversial aspects of this article, and the creation of Kilgour-Matas report. It remains to ask whether the article meets the GA criteria. I would like to close this reassessment as keep, but cannot do so at the moment, as there are problems with the sourcing (for example the first two sentences of the background sectionremoved) and the prose (e.g., tenses, grammar, words to watch), and the lead does not seem to be a summary of the article. Examples include:
  • "China herself began organ transplantation in the 1960s, which grew to an annual peak of over 13,000 transplants in 2004."

    Why is China feminine, and capable of carrying out organ transplants? The antecedent of "which" is unclear enough to be confusing.

  • "China still has one of the largest transplant programmes in the world,[4][2] and explores innovative surgery, such as Professor Guo Shuzhong performing the world’s first face transplant that included bone."

    Now split into two sentences, the second being "China explores innovative surgery, such as the world’s first flesh and bone face transplant, performed by Professor Guo Shuzhong." This still personifies "China" and the verb "explores" needs to be fixed.

  • "Although other sources, e.g. brain death, had been tried, the lack of legal framework hampered efforts."

    The prose has been fixed, but whose view is it that "the lack of legal framework hampered efforts"?

  • "On the eve of a state visit to the United States by President Hu Jintao, the 800-member British Transplantation Society also criticised China's use of death-row prisoners' organs in transplants, on the grounds that as it is impossible to verify that organs are indeed from prisoners who have given consent;"

    "as" is not needed here, but the sentence makes an assertion that it is impossible to verify that organs are from prisoners who have given consent, which may in fact be a point of view.

  • "Doctors involved in commercial trade of organs will face fines and suspensions, and only a few certified hospitals will be allowed to perform organ transplants in order to curb illegal transplants."

    Now reads "To curb illegal transplants, doctors involved in commercial trade of organs will face fines and suspensions; only a few hospitals will be certified to perform organ transplants." The future tense is almost always unencyclopedic, and often suggests other problems with coverage and neutral point of view. I haven't read the source yet, but sentences like this raise alarm bells.

  • "If successful, Chinese authorities say they hope this will reduce the need for organs taken from death row prisoners and will stem the tide of black market organs."

    The aspirations are now attributed to Chinese authorities and the sentence is easier to read.

• I'm willing to help with the copyediting, but there is a lot of jumbled and unencyclopedic prose here. Geometry guy 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guy, thanks for looking into this. Could you clarify your concerns regarding the examples. I have checked the first example and the source is OK, it matches the lead, and it's grammatically acceptable. I have run the background section, which includes that sentence, through the Word grammar check and the paperrater.com grammar check with just one comma concern and one spelling concern which I will now look at, but that is all. I am aware that the article has had a number of people involved who may not have English as their first language - that is the nature of articles where the topic concerns a non-English language country, and this may lead to some awkward phrasing - but is the occasional awkward phrasing serious enough to prevent understanding, or to look sloppy? If the grammar concerns are such that people can debate them, or they are overlooked by the average intelligent reader and software grammar checks, then are they really serious enough to delist an article? I have picked up on comments that you have previously made that GA is best as a "light" examination, and that reviewers shouldn't get too bogged down in fine detail, which is more for FA. It may be worth talking about the GA criteria wording which says that grammar should be "correct". The prescriptive teaching of grammar is generally only done in primary schools - once people are adult, grammar teaching becomes descriptive, and people are made aware of its organic, consensual, varied and evolving nature. The use of the word "correct" when talking about grammar among adults is perhaps both inappropriate and "wrong"! SilkTork *^YES! 11:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added annotations. Some are now fixed (thanks!), but these are not the only examples. I hope that the concerns are not enough to delist, but the article is hard to follow for a new reader because of so much chopping and changing. Sometimes this has resulted in grammatical problems, sometimes not. Clear writing is an indicator of clear thinking, and a lack of organization on the sentence level may reflect a lack of organization on the article level, just as words to watch may indicate neutral point of view concerns. Geometry guy 23:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer SilkTork's question: it seems to me that there are essentially two groups of comments here. I raised this review mainly because of my concern about the 3a and 3b criteria. Complance with the 3b criterion has been partially improved. However I still do not believe that the article meets the 3a criterion. I believe that RexxS and WhatamIdoing share my concerns about the 3a criterion.

The second group of editors have little/no concern about the 3a criterion. They have described the problems with 3b compliance and several editors have improved the article with respect to this.

This review should be closed as "no consensus". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand Axl's concerns about "broad coverage". It is one of the criteria I have difficulty in assessing when doing a GA review, and the one that can generate the most debate. If I do some general research myself on the topic and find quite easily some major aspects that are not discussed then I feel an article fails "broad coverage", though if I have to dig deep in order to uncover aspects not discussed, then I feel that would fall under "comprehensive", which is FA territory. I also consider if the general reader would ask obvious questions which are not answered by the text - such as "When did organ transpants start". Broad coverage is going to be a judgement call, and will differ from reviewer to reviewer, though generally the assessment can be done by looking at a few significant reliable sources on the topic - this one is pretty good, and if there is material in that source which is not covered in the article, then it would be worth pointing it out so it can be incorporated. SilkTork *^YES! 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have the same concern as voiced by "Axl". An articles content need to match its title. I am having trouble finding the structure in this piece. For example: 1) I see a great graph in the lead outlining how common organ donation is over time. It is dealt with a section called "background". What about a section that dealt with prevalence? Than we have a section on "Developments since 2006" but no section on regulations. We have a section on "international concerns" but I am sure many within China would be concerned aswell. At this point I would support delisting until these issues can be addressed. If this is meant to be an article about the controversy of organ harvesting in China that have the title make this clear. If it is about transplantation in general than it need to be broader in scope to be a GA. BTW what number of organs harvested are transplanted into local or Chinese citizens?

Another issue is that references are not properly formatted. I have listed a number of further review here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources you list, and have left a comment on the article talkpage. I note that the sources cover pretty much the same material as the article, though this article for example seems to only obliquely refer to the substantial global concerns regarding use of executed prisoners as donors. I would argue that the Wikipedia article is more informative and neutral. I would also argue that this article does cover in broad scrope the details of organ transplantation in China, rather than simply the international concerns regarding the use of prisoners. While the international concerns do take up a substantial proportion of the article, that is appropriate as it is the most notable aspect of the topic, and is the one that the general reader would wish to recieve neutral information on. Please do a google for the article title and see what turns up. Wikipedia articles are a summary of existing scholarly knowledge - we do not pick or choose, or alter the information to fit any personal beliefs. The article has been problematic because of political debates among contributors - and the various titles have been part of the POV. The current title is both neutral and reflective of what the article is about. The article is about organ transplantation in China, and the most significant and notable aspect of that is the use of prisoners as donors. That the article can be further developed is accepted as part of the GA process. When doing a GA review we do not look for comprehensive cover, and indicate points for future development. Your comments asking for a section on local concerns might be considered as a potential point for future development, though would be problematic as sources on local concerns are not readily available. SilkTork *^YES! 10:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that I have taken this discussion off my watchlist, and am unlikely to come back here to make any more comments. I'm here because I'm closing down the moderated discussion which lead to this article being nominated for GA, and I thought I would link to the article and noticed that it is still being assessed, so was curious as to how far the discussion had got. SilkTork *^YES! 10:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delist In its current format I would support delisting this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

" The current title is both neutral and reflective of what the article is about. The article is about organ transplantation in China. "

— SilkTork

I strongly disagree with this. The article's content is about illegal/unethical organ harvesting in PRC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree and if that where the title I would have little problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

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

Result: Delist per consensus below that there is much to fix to meet the criteria. Geometry guy 17:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article fails GA condition 4. Neutrality, there has been an NPOV template on the whole article for over eighteen months with editors on the talkpage asserting large parts need rewriting and that the article is not neutral, as this situation has continued for such a long time and appears there are no attempts in all this time to rewrite a balanced article acceptable to the users claiming not neutral IMO the article should be delisted until the long term dispute is resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delist - Comments by RacePacket (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "At the 1950 and 1951 elections, she fought the safe Labour seat of Dartford" -> "In the 1950 and 1951 elections, she campaigned for the safe Labour seat of Dartford"

   There are spacing issues, e.g., "January 1978,on"

   "when Britain reclaimed the Falkland Islands" -> "in which Britain reclaimed the Falkland Islands"

   Unclear meaning: "The Labour leader Michael Foot was traditional Labour"

   "the West doesn’t want German" - remove all curly quotes and apostrophes.

   "returning to the backbenches after leaving the premiership." - most readers will not understand that this means the prime minster position.

   "From 1993 to 2000, Lady Thatcher served as Chancellor of the College of William and Mary in Virginia, which was established by Royal Charter in 1693. She was also Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, the UK's only private university." - This requires some explanation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   citation needed: "Thatcher appointed many of Heath's supporters to the Shadow Cabinet, for she had won the leadership as an outsider and then had little power base of her own within the party."

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "With a mother climbing the political ladder, the children were left to a nanny. "My mother was prone to calling me by her secretaries' names and working through each of them until she got to Carol", recalled her daughter.[26]" - would similar details be included if Thatcher was a man? Is this an unfocused digression?

   What was the role of Thatcher vis a vis the U.S. in brokering the Northern Ireland solution?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   POV: "(The IEA, a think tank founded by the poultry magnate Antony Fisher, the man who brought battery farming to Britain and a disciple of Friedrich von Hayek, had become the ideas factory of a new British Conservatism. Thatcher began visiting the IEA and reading its publications during the early sixties.) Thatcher would now become the face of the ideological movement that felt the opposite of reverence for the welfare state Keynesian economics they believed was terminally weakening Britain."

   "the Conservatives won a landslide victory with a massive majority." - better to specify the fact of its size than to characterize it.

   "Overall, there was no clear pattern between the degree of competition, regulation and performance among the privatised industries." - scholars could disagree about this.

   "Reagan, one of her closest friends," - given all of Thatcher's family and associates in Great Britain, it is difficult to believe that Reagan would be one of her closest friends. Perhaps as compared with other heads of state, they were close.

   There are POV problems in the article

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Quite a bit of back and forth on details of article.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Racepacket (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments. I read the article today with great interest: despite its flaws, there is a lot of good, well-sourced, and readable content. It is unfortunate that an article on such a significant 20th century politician has become so bogged down. Wikipedia should have a great article on Thatcher, not one stalled because of an impasse/stalemate or disenchantment over neutrality issues. Hopefully the GAR principle to consider the GA criteria as a whole, not just the raised NPOV issue, will encourage renewed efforts aimed at article improvement.

So let me headline with two other GA issues.

1. The article is too long, and goes into unnecessary detail (3b). This is a biography of Margaret Thatcher. It is not a history of the last 30 years of the 20th century in British politics, nor is it an evaluation as to whether Margaret Thatcher was a "Good Thing" or not (that is for the reader to decide).
2. There are many poorly chosen sources: some are unreliable or inappropriately partisan or primary, while others are off-topic or tertiary, where better sources are available. This can be seen in the choice of references, the use of inline citation, and missing citations where they are needed (2a-c).

Trivia infects the article from the beginning of her career (while their father watched a Test match at the Oval) to the end (In 1999 Thatcher was among 18 included in Gallup's List of Widely Admired People of the 20th century, from a poll conducted of Americans. In a 2006 list compiled by New Statesman, she was voted 5th in the list of "Heroes of our time"), while the latter part of the article digresses considerably on the effect of her resignation, and her recent health.

Questionably used sources include www.globalsecurity.org, conservativehome.blogs.com, "When the Lights Went Out" (Andy Beckett), The Margeret Thatcher Foundation, Thatcher's autobiographies, Britannica and MSN Encarta, partisan newspapers such as the Observer and the Daily Telegraph.

There is a lack of NPOV in both directions. It is entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia article to present multiple (often opposing) views about a person or issue, but the article itself should not take sides, and the editorial voice should be encyclopedic and balanced. The early part of the article suggest editorial sniping and point-scoring, often unsourced. Examples from the first two sections:

• Her school reports show hard work and commitment, but not brilliance.
• [She] was only successful when the winning candidate dropped out.
• she achieved a Master of Arts degree
• She was also a member of the Association of Scientific Workers.
• With a mother climbing the political ladder, the children were left to a nanny.
• she advocated the Conservative policy of allowing tenants to buy their council houses. The policy would prove to be popular.
• Thatcher established herself as a potent conference speaker at the Conservative Party Conference of 1966, with a strong attack on the high-tax policies of the Labour Government

It is completely inappropriate to use Thatcher's biographies or Thatcherite websites to support unattributed narrative. A grievous example is using The Thatcher Foundation as a source for problems with the Heath government! On the other hand, her autobiographies should be cited to support quotations from them, and her own view of events (rather than e.g., Earl Aaron Reitan). There is a place for primary source material.

There isn't really a place for tertiary sources, though, in an article on such a famous person, except perhaps for the well-known and widely accepted statistics which tertiary sources summarize most conveniently.

Fixing the sources would do a lot to heal this article. Here are two suggestions.

• Cut all material and all cites to The Margeret Thatcher Foundation, "When the Lights Went Out" and any blogs or sources without clear independent credentials. Ensure autobiographical citations are used only to support autobiographical material.
• Use more than one biography to source the majority of the narrative (the article mostly uses Clare Beckett, but there are other biographies cited and uncited, e.g. John Blundell), to reduce or eliminate the dependence on Britannica and Encarta.

As one final suggestion: do not intertwine Thatcher's legacy with what she did. There is currently a huge section on her resignation, which is mostly legacy material: cut and/or move it. Her post-commons years, and later activities should likewise be cut drastically, so that they are in balance with what she did during the more significant years of her career. This change should also make it much easier to sort out what are the most important points to refer to in her legacy.

I could make finer points e.g., about the structure of the main sections 4-5 (including GA issues, unsourced material etc.) but these may well resolve themselves if the overall problems are fixed. Geometry guy 01:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Saint Croix Macaw

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

Result: List as GA. Concerns raised about the article have been fixed by the careful and collaborative work of editors contributing to this reassessment. Thanks to these efforts I believe the article can now be listed as a GA. Geometry guy 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This article (version of article) was nominated for GA Dec 30th, and failed Jan 1st. The primary reason the article was failed was the assertion that the article could not be comprehensive because a lot of things are not known yet, which would be impossible as this is an extinct bird. In other words, information that is not yet available in reliable sources or even unreliable sources for that matter. The article was failed before I could even respond to the incorrect assessment of the rules by this third party.

Today, I have updated the article according to the comments of the reviewer, bascially made it more comprehensive, and organized the information in subheaders. I also added a few relevant tidbits. The total length of the article has doubled, although some of that is side effect of adding subheaders. The current article size is approaching the size of the smallest FAs, but more importantly, is complete comprehensive based on what is available.

The key aspect to be discussed here is the interpretation of of rule 3a: it addresses the main aspects of the topic. When I read Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not#Broad_in_its_coverage, it states:

Taken together, these criteria mean that no obviously important information should be entirely absent from the article, and the level of detail should be appropriate to the significance of the information.

This is in stark contrast with the assertion from User:Snowman who stated that [7]:

This article will never be "Broad in its coverage"; see 3a Wikipedia:Good article criteria. From only a few bones that have been found and with extremely unlikely future significant advances, this article will almost certainly never be able to provide much information about this parrot - it will probably never be known what colour its feathers were, size of parrot, range, nesting, diet, social behaviour, taxonomy, ancestry, and so on.

Crucially, the difference is between comprehensive of what is known versus comprehensive of what could be known. As far as I can tell from discussion especially on the FA talk pages, the criterion is that an article should be comprehensive with regard of what is known, aka, what is reported in the literature.

The second aspect by user User:Snowman is the usage of primary sources. Of the sources used, one is a primary source (Wetmore 1937), one mixed article with primary data and secondary review of existing literature (Olsen 2008), while the remaining are secondary or even tertiary sources. Some FAs are based entirely on one or two primary sources because sometimes, that is all there is available. The point is that the primary sources should be used with caution, not excluded.

Based on these reasons, I have not renominated the article because the issue of length might come up again. I therefore ask that the article is reassessed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: You mention an undescribed Ara from Haiti, but Olson and Máiz López (2008) state that "Contrary to previous belief, there is no historical evidence for a macaw from Hispaniola." Olson and Máiz López (2008) also provide a more detailed description of the animal's morphology, which should be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. They also mention the possible identity with A. autocthones of an Ara fossil from Montserrat. Ucucha 11:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comment. You are correct, I had missed that Olson had already demolished the claim of macaws from Hispaniola. I have updated the article accordingly. I have added the possible third specimen from Montserrat. I will also include more details about the morphology. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  Done, it might a copy edit (English is not my native tongue and I am dyslexic), but all info should be there.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia articles describe what is known and verifiable based on reliable sources. Breadth of coverage should be interpreted in that light. Information which is not known cannot be missing - indeed it is not "information" at all. Geometry guy 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Coverage aside, one key GA criterion is that the lead should stand alone as a summary of the article. It needs some expansion to do so now. Geometry guy 23:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you, I expanded it with what I think is the main points. And thank you for the copy edit. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  You are welcome. I've done the same with the lead. If I have introduced any errors or unverifiable material in any of my edits, please fix them. Geometry guy 01:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  All fine, I liked the way you solved the third side issue. So, thank you again for your help. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: At the time of nomination GA1 the article was a Start class article (see archive file) and had the appearance of a Start class article (or even a Stub because it did not have any headings or visual aids). Focus (talk · contribs), the reviewer, who failed the GA1 did not say a lot about why it failed except that there was a lot of research that was not in the article and he appeared to agree with me that the subject matter has a lot of known unknowns. During the course of this GAR, I think that User Focus's decision to fail GA1 should be supported, partly because he was reviewing a Start class article and the spirit of assessment for GA is that the nominated article should be nearly at GA (say B or good C), and I think that this alone justifies an early rejection of GA at that time. I think that there are profound issues about the use of un-reviewed research papers, however good they may be, on the wiki and especially to establish an article on an extinct Ara species on the wiki, bearing in mind the number of hypothetical extinct species that have been contrived throughout history. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  You are misrepresenting the facts. Focus first wrote: I just read through it, and I can't find anything else wrong, apart from (possibly) comprehensiveness. The else was usage of headers. I agreed with that and his suggestion to use headers. At that time, it was not failed. It was failed after you suggested that the criterion should what comprehensive with regard what COULD be known, not with regard to what IS known. FA and GA articles are not judged with regard to known unknowns, but should be comprehensive with regard to what is represented in reliable sources. See for example this recent FA discussion Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#Minimum_size_for_FAs.3F. This article is now within the length of the shortest FA's and IMHO far more comprehensive than needed for a GA that requires all major points to be raised, not to be all inclusive of everything we know. But heck, that will make the FA nomination only easier.

  What is even more troubling is the WP:OR that you are displaying here. You make it sound that the article is solely based on 'un-reviewed' peer-reviewed research articles, which is incorrect. If you check the reference list, you see more secondary and tertiary sources than peer-reviewed primary sources, all accepting this species as a valid species. You call that "un-reviewed"?And yes, primary sources can be used in articles. You suggestion that this article might not be valid (which you have expressed before) based on the absence of DNA (Surely, unless DNA evidence shows otherwise, this species must be considered a hypothetical species.) or the suggestion above that there are "profound issues about the use of un-reviewed research papers, however good they may be, on the wiki and especially to establish an article on an extinct Ara species on the wiki, bearing in mind the number of hypothetical extinct species that have been contrived throughout history.". Trying to rewrite the science literature by suggesting that the bones are not of a valid species accepted by all authorities is nothing short of original research. Whole fields of science are based on bones alone.

  The ironic part is that the article as I nominated it was LESS reliant on the "un-reviewed" peer-reviewed primary source articles than the current version. That article as was was more in line with your prefference of not using "un-reviewed" peer-reviewed primary sources than the current expanded article based on the suggestions of the reviewers to include more of those "un-reviewed" peer-reviewed primary sources.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  Some comments:

  1. Please keep discussion unrelated to the content and GA criteria to a minimum: the purpose of GAR is determine whether the article meets the GA criteria (see the reassessment talk page).
  2. WikiProject assessments are not part of the GA criteria (rather the GA criteria are part of WikiProject assessments). While WikiProject assessments can be helpful, they may also be misleading, and the tail does not wag the dog. For example, an article which is "only" start class for a WikiProject might be quite close to or quite far from meeting the GA criteria depending on the nature of the article.
  3. It is more important that an article is verifiable, neutral and free of original research than it is comprehensive, and the GA criteria reflect this. Primary sources may be used, as long as the article does not engage in original research (e.g. by synthesis of primary source material).

  For example, the statement "The presence of a macaw on Hispaniola as claimed by Wetmore was later refuted." may be a disagreement among primary sources, or it may be the current consensus: which it is should be made clear, and if secondary sources are not available, Wikipedia should not take sides, or synthesise the arguments. If in doubt about the status of primary source material or whether its inclusion constitutes synthesis, cut it. Kim van der Linde's comments suggest to me that while the process of expansion may have led to some improvements, it may also have driven the inclusion of some material that needs to be trimmed. Geometry guy 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  I agree, I have commented out the sentence in question because it is not about this species. I could write a whole paragraph about that one aspect, as there is substantial written about it, with the consensus that there is no such species at Hispanola. As for primary sources, I saw that Pennatomys was just promoted, an article effectively based on one single primary source. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  By the very nature of the GA process (mostly one nominator/reviewer at a time), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are particularly inappropriate, either pro or against listing. And I say that without prejudice as to whether that article meets the GA criteria (any editor who believes it does not can open a reassessment at any time). Geometry guy 16:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  You are right, point taken! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Questions: I am not exactly certain of the purpose of this GAR. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  <General process questions moved to the talk page of this reassessment>

• Re: File:Macaw-bone-sizes.svg. It is a excellent chart, but it is a simple extraction of primary source information, which I think should be dealt with more cautiously. It has been added to the article after GA1. It makes a visual comparison that is not present in the research papers, and it may over-simplify complex discussion. Information from primary sources are added to articles with caution on the wiki. I would not know what to say about the bone sizes on the wiki in the absence of a published review; nevertheless, I think that it may be best to be very cautious with this primary-source information and not mention the bone sizes. A genuine publicised review may well consider the sizes in a highly analytical way and may consider many confounding influences; for example: the Yellow-and-blue Macaw lives in a vast range and it may be genetically slightly different in various parts of its range and have different sizes; I understand that a number of measurements were of captive macaws and they may grow differently on different diets in captivity; some of the fossil bones are said to be from a juvenile bird; many of the species in the chart are polymorphic (with subspecies) and so size differences between subspecies do not show up when each species are treated as a single group. I think that there are many aspects of these sizes which could be discussed in a published review by an author, preferably at some distance from the published research projects, to give expert opinions on the sizes of the bones. Of course, it is not the role of the wiki to constructively criticise a published paper in a wiki article. I think that this chart of extracted primary-source un-reviewed information should not be on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  The data is reported as is, with only conclusions as in the published articles. There is no original research. Notice, I even plotted the data of Wetmore separate from the data of Olson, to avoid averaging data from two primary sources, so that it would not contain any synthesis based on primary material. Again, what you ask me to do here is to apply original research on the article by eliminating straight facts based on assumptions and interpretations that are not supported by reliable sources. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• It may be that it is the text rather than the image where more caution would be helpful. For example, greater use could be made of in text attribution, particularly for the primary results of Olsen and Maiz-Lopez. Verifiability (in the form of inline citation) only provides the reader with an off-wiki source for material in the article, it does not attribute the material to the source. Adding in-text attribution such as "According to Olsen and Maiz-Lopez" or "Olsen and Maiz-Lopez conclude that", immediately locates an idea with a particular source, alerting the reader to intellectual property and opinion alike. Wetmore and Olsen/Maiz-Lopez should probably be attributed even in the lead.

Also note that Olsen and Maiz-Lopez can be used as secondary sources for Wetmore's findings, as can the short paragraph in Williams and Steadman. The latter paragraph also refers to Olsen 1978 and Wing 1989, which might be useful secondary sources, even if the primary material in these articles is uninteresting or insubstantial.

And (I know this is obvious), the techniques can be combined, in that one can attribute to Wetmore and cite e.g. Olsen. The aim is to indicate to readers where the article relies upon primary sources, and where there is wider acceptance of primary source material. Geometry guy 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose technically these are part primary sources and part secondary sources. Presumably, all these authors who have discovered parrot fossil bones have high hopes for there work. I wonder if they are all speaking from the same side of the argument. Would you expect them to be sceptical? I am sure that these research papers are very good; however, I think that there are potential pitfalls when there is not a published review from a reviewer significantly distant from the discovery of the fossils. I am concerned about sources for use on the wiki, and this is not criticising the authors or the papers, which I am sure are of a high standard. There does not appear to be a holistic (ie a paper reviewing all the information available of these fossils) secondary source on the topic of these papers. My main point is that I think caution is needed in the use of primary sources on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that caution is needed where primary sources are concerned, but your speculations about the motivations of authors in this field would have to be sourced before they can be given any credence. Indeed, I noted above an example of refutation in the field, and see no evidence here of the scientific process being compromised. Geometry guy 23:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In retrospect, I think that my unfounded speculation was not needed. This is because the wiki deals with possible uncertainty within primary sources by its general caution with primary sources. Unfounded speculation has strike out line. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added the Wing and Olson 1978 papers. They are both secondary papers and confirm what the rest was saying. In general, the sources are in full agreement with each other. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I worked in the attribution for statements based on a single primary source. I personally do not like it in the lead, but I can live with that.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

• I think that the phrase "undescribed hypothetical species" is incomprehensible jargon. Snowman (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence was actually a relict from the Hispanola Macaw stuff, and I therefore deleted the whole sentence section. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Probably should say what is known about when the taxa went extinct. Could also say when the parrots that were the origin of the sub-fossils were estimated to have been alive. Snowman (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Well, there is no speculation in the literature about when the specie went extinct. Wetmore is silent on the age, but Olson and Máiz López have dated it and provide details about the dig and environment. I have added the latter in a separate section at the end, although I feel like it would be better positioned at the beginning of the article. But that is up for discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Idea: one thing I have been thinking off is to modify the cockatoo skeleton image at commons and color the bones that have been found so that people get a visual idea about where the bones are located. Good or bad? I have tried to find a drawing of a macaw skeleton, but not find one. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  My knowledge of comparative osteology of birds in not very good. I am not sure how similar macaw bones are to cockatoo bones or other birds' bones. I would probably only show macaw bones on this article. The linked articles on "tibiotarsus" and "tarsometatarsus" could be expanded. Presumably bird muscles are attached to bird bones in a similar way in different bird species. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Skeleton drawing of a unknown species of parrot by Richard Lydekker with in red the bones available for the Saint Croix Macaw.

The main bones are the same. In birds, one of the major differences is the number of vertebrae in the neck, but I don;t know how different that is among parrots. In that way, there is not a major issue, the main difference is the look of the beak. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is probably not worth the effort of specially making images of the bones for this article. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I will see how time it costs. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. read it wrong, the separate head was a cockatoo, so that problem is solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My first impression is that the new image is good (without checking the accuracy of red zones). Snowman (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question. It is great to see such refined improvements taking place to the article. However, if editors concur that the article meets the GA criteria, then I am willing to close this reassessment (with thanks to all for their efforts), and list the article as a GA. Geometry guy 23:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  I think there is not much more than can be done about this article, but I am the nominator, so I have no say in the closing and promotion. Next step, FA. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken-Hearted Girl

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

Result: Kept. Thanks to the efforts of several editors, the article has been improved since the GAR nomination, and no subsequent GA concerns have been raised. Geometry guy 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

At first, I thought this was well reviewed, and was good enough to be a GA article, but now after seeing how her other GA articles don't compare, I'm positive I made the wrong decision in promoting this to GA. ℥^nding·start 07:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In which respect(s) do you believe the article does not currently meet the GA criteria? Geometry guy 13:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Note I am one of the two editors who notified Endingstart about how this article doesn't match the prose quality, MOS standards and referencing expectations that other recent GAs or even other Beyoncé articles like Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) have. I made a series of comments/recommendations at Wikiproject: Beyoncé so rather than copy them here I'll link to them instead. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, and your efforts to improve article quality. I have commented there and invited comments here based on whether the article meets the GA criteria, rather than comparisons with other GAs. Note for example that only a small portion of the MOS is part of the GA criteria. The criteria are also silent when it comes to infoboxes, except that WP:EMBED is a criterion, which favours presenting material to readers in prose where possible, and that is a consideration even if the material appears in an infobox.

Suggestions for improving the article that go beyond the GA criteria are best made on the article talk page, rather than here. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Apart from minor tweaks to prose and lead (which are easy to fix), identifying deviations from the GA criteria here is pretty hard. If pressed, I would say that possible issues are the incongruent prose in the "Composition and release" section, and the list-like material in the "Credits and personnel" and "Release history" sections. Both lists could be incorporated as prose in a "Production and release" section, leaving a "Composition" section free to talk coherently about the composition, avoiding the jumps between composition and production. Geometry guy 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree.... even FA's have release history and personnel/credit sections. The major issues were with prose qualities e.g. poor sentence structure, repeating the same sentence starters and a lead section which did not conform to WP:LEAD. My main objection was that the article was not wide-reaching until I showed Adabow a list of reliable sources he/she could use to expand the article. It has since been greatly expanded and improved however there are still concerns that the lead does not cover all aspects of the article. Small tweaks will fix this. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not FA, and comparison with other articles does not apply. Repeating sentence structures is not a problem at GA level, as long as the prose is clear and concise with correct grammar (1a). While release history and personnel/credit sections are acceptable, it is a pity to miss the opportunity to integrate the production into prose, and formulaic ideas about article structure should not obstruct such improvements.

That being an aside, if small tweaks to the lead are all that are now required, then we should be able to keep this article as a GA. Geometry guy 01:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said I've encountered a number of GA/FA articles and participated in a number of reviews as the reviewer or nominator and its never been an issue before. While I appreciated your comments and you've done a good job of actively getting involved in helping improve the article there is something about your comments worries me. You seem to have no issue with putting a limit or ceiling on the improvements that should be made to an article for GA purposes. Now of course I accept that article quality is a scale and GA sits below FA but that doesn't mean that we should let articles reach GA with a poor standard of prose. Prose should be of good quality, varied in structure and style as well as reliably sourced and easily readable. I don't agree with the view that "its on GA so its good enough". Achieving GA status is no small thing and it shouldn't be treated lightly. When any such review is done editors shouldn't automatically stop because they've reached a fictional ceiling on the quality standards. This GAR reassessment is a chance for the community as whole to get involved and recommend changes for the improvement of the article. Although according to the rules each article is assess individually that doesn't mean that other GAs shouldn't act as a guide. I proved that with a bit of hard work this article could be as good as other Beyoncé GAs but it required more work than some of the editors who first worked on the article were willing to put in. My whole purpose to highlighting the issues with this article were the need to slow reviews down and look more closely at the intricate details such as prose quality. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You worry easily. And have no clue about what I believe. If you wish to discuss either matter please do so on my user talk page. Meanwhile, this GAR has not received a single substantial comment from "the community as a whole", nor has any significant case for delisting the article been made. GAR does not exist to further the agendas of individual editors, however noble they may be. If you want further help with your prose, I recommend WP:peer review. Geometry guy 10:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Saxophone

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

Result: Delisted per comments below. Uncited sentences needing citation per 1b can be found e.g., in the "history", "description" and "similar instruments" sections, and some sources may not be reliable. Geometry guy 22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Only one source for the entire first three paragraphs of "history". That's not nearly enough IMO.
• First paragraph of "description" is also unsourced, as is "Most commonly, however, the alto and tenor saxophones incorporate a curved 'crook' above the highest tone hole but below the top speaker hole, tilting the mouthpiece through 90 degrees; the baritone, bass and contrabass extend the length of the bore by triple-folding this section."
• Redlink to P. Mauriat. It should be determined if this is a necessary link.
• Third-party links in the text (Bauhaus Walstein under "Materials").
• [citation needed] tag under Ensembles. This section also begins with a one-sentence paragraph.
• Second and third paragraphs of "similar instruments" are unsourced.
• "Composition" section is entirely unsourced.
• A large number of references are bare URLs.
• "The Raschèr,[24] Amherst,[25] Aurelia,[26] Amstel, Rova, Prism, and H2 Saxophone Quartets are among the best known groups." — this is sourced entirely to primary sources. Could a secondary source be found?
• Dubious sources: What makes the following reliable? I see no evidence that these are sites by reliable authors with a history of fact-checking or accuracy:
  • BassSax.com
  • The-saxophone.com
  • Jay Easton.com
  • Shwoodwind.co.uk
  • Taming the Saxophone
  • Un mundo de bambú
• At least three citations are simply individual pictures on slides, with no text accompanying. These citations are inherently WP:OR.

Overall, the article is quite terribly sourced in my opinion. There is a list of print references at the bottom, but none of them seem to be used within the article itself. How this ever got to GA, even by 2008 standards, is beyond me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is so far from meeting the GA criteria, why do you not delist it yourself, using an individual reassessment? Geometry guy 23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Delist per above. Prose is al right, but there are big sourcing and comprehensiveness problems etc. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

David Yates

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

Result: Delist. The article has been expanded considerably and several of the comments below have been addressed, but there remain problems with the sourcing (2a,b) and lead (1b). Given the expansion a fresh GAN review is needed: articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see this pass a GA review. Just from a surface read, there are a lot of problems with the article:

• The infobox image is non-free and needs to be deleted. There's a free image already in the article.
• Lead needs expansion
• Most of the pre-Harry Potter career is unsourced.
• Yates had a sizable career before Harry Potter, yet reading this article you would think HP is the only thing he did; it's way longer than the rest of the article.
• The references need publishers, dates, and the like; right now it's just URLs and titles.
• The reviewer seems to have make a lot of edits to the article. I believe the review was in good faith, but there may have been a conflict of interest there.

That's just from a skim. I would ask either it be put back at GAN or just delisted entirely. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. Once somebody fixes the problems noted here, it can be re-nominated. The article currently does not meet Criteria 1b with regard to WP:LEAD. The pre-Harry Potter Career is insufficiently broad—it only lists his works and is lop-sided compared to the level of commentary in the Harry Potter portion—and there needs to be additional references provided for this portion (for example, cites should be provided for "State of Play was Yates' next directorial achievement. The critically acclaimed TV serial..."). A citation should also be provided for the Los Angeles Times quote. Wizardman, please specify which image is not free. This is the image currently used in the infobox File:DavidYates HallowsPrem.jpg but it seems fine to me (WPCommons-hosted, tagged as public domain). maclean (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  The image issue got resolved, nevermind on that one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist; I raised the issue with the the closer, where I outlined my concerns before I was aware of this discussion. The reviewer is someone involved in Harry Potter articles, and so I would suspect they were most concerned with the Harry Potter aspects, and not the career as a whole, though I agree that the review was done in good faith. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Starlight (Muse song)

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

Result: Delist per comments below - although the criteria have not changed substantially since 2007, the article needs some work. Geometry guy 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This article was promoted a while back when the criteria was different. My criticisms:

• Paragraphs are too short in most places and sentences seem too choppy.
• Lead does not really seem up to scratch.
• Critical reception could be expanded and tidied more to look like Give Me Your Eyes or Break Your Heart for example.

- Spiderone 12:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

• Checklinks Most links seem to be okay apart from the last one.
• MuseWiki (#6) seems to be unreliable. Also, MuseLive (#8) is a forum. Spiderone 16:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Still no work done to address issues Spiderone 09:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria

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

Result: List as GA per consensus below that - after significant improvements and a re-review - the article meets the GA criteria. Geometry guy 20:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

... Is there any explanation on why this is at GAR? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, and they said I should nominate it for a community reassessment. CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. In future when creating a reassessment page, the idea is that the nominating user provides a short brief description of why he/she feels that the incorrect decision was made and why he/she feels the community needs to reassess the article. That then helps other reviews, who come along to participate in the reassessment, to tailor their comments specifically to your concerns. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Comments from Unique1 Per WP:Record charts the only reliable source for charts is the official chart provider themselves. Done CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Equally we only accept certificates sourced from the certificate provider. Done CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Furthermore the majority of this article is sourced from blabbermouth.net. I'm not sure how reliable the site is but either way I don't think good articles should heavily rely on one source are not good examples of referencing. It is never good if an article uses a particular website a lot. Blabbermouth.net is an established, third-party website in it's respectful field, and is parented by Roadrunner Records. I don't see how using a particular source in an article makes the article less reliable… CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC) That was what I was not sure about. But I feel more assured now. However I still urge you to try and find some other alternative sources as the article is heavily reliant on Blabbermouth.net. Yet I will not see this as an issue in my saying: I don't object to the article now being promoted. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Infoboxes should only have one release date. Done CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC) The background and release section reads like a diary... "on this date..." and "on this date..." Rewritten CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC) The contents section are not sourced and the use of four columns is discouraged as it will not appear properly on people who use a computer with a smaller screen resolution. Done CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC) The RIAA and Allmusic references are improperly formatted, they're missing publishers etc. RIAA could also be linked. The Stylus Magazine reference is missing an accessdate. Reference 19 (chartifacts) has an inconsistent date format with the rest of the article. -- Lil_℧n iquℇ №1 [talk] 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC) I fixed the refs you mentioned except for the Stylus reference, per WP:CITEHOW stating that if the article's publish date is given, access date is not required. CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Billboard Music DVD Chart → specify the country. e.g. U.S. Billboard Music DVD Chart Done CrowzRSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Why have you listed Hitparade as a chart? Hit parade/Steffun Hung together run the Swiss Album Chart source. FixedCrowzRSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Additionally you need to link the specific chart page e.g. this not this. Done CrowzRSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Also in most cases you've added Music DVD chart at your own discretion but the sources provided simply say the album charted on the country's album chart but doesn't specify any further. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Fixed CrowzRSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Comment - Just a little comment, there's a dab link in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Fixed CrowzRSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Final things Ref 24 and 29 are incorrectly formatted. Scroll down and you'll see what I mean. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC) …Sorry, do you mean that uh,,, I'm bad at this… Sorry CrowzRSA 02:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I'm itching to give my approval... just a few minor things: reference [9] is missing a publisher → Roadrunnerrecords.com (Roadrunner Records) Done. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC) ref [17] is missing a link... link About.com. Done. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC) In ref number [27].. there is missing a publisher: Prometheus Global Media. Fixed. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reference [29] is formatted incorrectly. For some reason the url is showing up bare, instead of a title. Also the publisher should match the publishers listed in other Aria.com sources. None match presently. The title actually is the four URLs (see [8]). I don't know if I should change it since it is the actual title… As for the aria thing, I think it's fixed. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Ahh i've seen this before with ARIA... yeah I'd change to "ARIA Charts - Accreditations - 2010 DVDs" as this is more inline with the title's ARIA publishes for singles. I guess its an error? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Sounds about right,,, fixed. CrowzRSA 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reference [33] link unitalicise Allmusic. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Done. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Its still showing up in italics.... ? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] Sorry, now it's done CrowzRSA 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support promotion to GA, after a little bit of feedback (essentially a mini re-review) and several days of editing this article is now of the correct standard. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your comments and support, CrowzRSA 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment - the UK Albums Chart peak is unreferenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure how I missed that, but it's Fixed. CrowzRSA 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I stand by my previous quick-fail of the article before, but now since a re-review basically occured, I'll be happy to Support.=D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! CrowzRSA 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks like editors are ready to list this article now, so this reassessment can be closed. One question first: why is the blogcritics review not given a sentence or two in the Reception? (It is mentioned in the lead.) Geometry guy 23:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I added some info in the Reception section. CrowzRSA 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarama

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

Result: No action. Further comments have been provided on improving the article. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sarama/GA2 passes the article in all other criteria, except 1: "Prose is poor; cf Talk:Sarama/GA1". The GA2 does not point out specific instances of poor prose. The review does not take into account that a WP:GOCE copyedit was conducted after the GA1 fail when the flaws pointed in GA1 were acted upon. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(Comment by initial reviewer) My furher explanation of the review is here. I am happy for my decision to be challenged, but I do maintain that the article as it stands does not flow well enough to be awarded considered a Good Article. AGK [•] 16:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured: "A good article must be reasonably well written; a featured article must have a professional standard of writing that is engaging, even brilliant." The prose does have to have a great professional flow, it just has to be clear and concise. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is that there is such little flow that the writing is difficult to follow, and therefore does not in my view satisfy the requirement that it be "clear". AGK [•] 13:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please point out some examples so they can be amended. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Unfortunately, getting an article copyedited does not guarantee that the prose will be fixed, as there are limits to what a copyeditor can achieve.

I concur that the prose is still not clear and concise. Indeed, I would further suggest that this is not just a (1a) problem, but that criterion (3b) may be an issue. The article appears to go into intricate detail regarding all possible variations of myths about Sarama appearing in multiple scriptures. The result is confusing and repetitive prose. I suggest concentrating on the basic stories, then briefly indicating significant variations between texts. As for the prose itself, one problem is overuse of the passive tense, in the form "is/are described [as/by]", "is interpreted [as/by]", "is regarded [as]", "is said to". Every sentence should have a subject, and finding a good subject is one of the challenges of encyclopedic writing. In the worst case, the passive voice may amount to weasel words (1b) in which an opinion is unattributed.

The review was uninformative in this respect, but the outcome looks sound to me. Hopefully comments made here will suggest improvements to the article so that it can be renominated at GAN with a more successful outcome. In rewriting the article, make sure you stick to the narrative present when describing mythological stories: I fixed some deviations while partially copyediting the article before this review. Geometry guy 01:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, which not only tell the problem but also tell a solution. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of N'Djamena (2008)

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

Result: Delist per comments below, recommending a careful check of all references for deadlinks, accuracy and close paraphrasing before renomination. Geometry guy 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed 10% of the article's content due to copyright violations by User:De Administrando Imperio. To continue as a GA, I would expect the article would need to have the substance of that content restored without the plagiarism and copyvios. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Assuming [9] is an ok source (I saw it mentioned as such in a wp:rs talk archive), I'll clear up some of the confusion from Feb 2008 sources, regarding where JEM was, Deby's tanks, and Massaguet. I've already reformulated the copy/pasted material. Narayanese (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Cheers, take your time and if you let me know when you're done I'll come back and give it a look as soon as I can.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Question. Several fixes have now been made. Are there outstanding issues with respect to the GA criteria (in particular, broadness 3a), or can this reassessment now be closed? Geometry guy 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. In the absence of responses, I have read through the article myself, and find that it does not meet the GA criteria, failing 1b (lead) and 4 (NPOV). In my cursory reading, I also spotted uncited material and possible copyvios which may be indicative of a broader problem. In the absence of further response, I will delist the article in 3 days. Geometry guy 00:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You could be more detailed in your criticism, otherwise I don't know what to fix. Is it France again? Or the lack of focus on Sudan? Something else? The copyvios are only indicate of the style of one of the article's several major editors. And don't expect too much on weekdays. Narayanese (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not providing more details, and good luck improving the article. The lead is already much better. My NPOV concerns were not specific, but there were two issues. First, in an NPOV article, it should not be possible to detect the point of view of the editors, whereas I felt a slightly pro-government view on reading the text (as an ignoramus with no opinion about the conflict). Secondly, all contentious viewpoints should be attributed so that the editorial voice does not support any particular view. For example, you fixed "there are suspicions that the actual number is higher" with "The Human Rights Watch suspects that the actual number is higher". If you can check such issues throughout the article, then there is a good chance that this reassessment can be closed as "keep". Geometry guy 00:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'm not seeing the pro-government bias, I thought its desperate stance would shine through. Its defeat at Massaguet could be made clearer though, and the article is rather uncritical of the UN. It was suggested I add something pro-rebel to the reaction section, but the most I've seen is Sudan saying it's too afraid of France to help out. Regarding attribution: the two sources with the most daring statements ([10][11]) are the ones that (at the surface at the very least) appear the most scholarly, so I'm hesitant to put some 'according to' at them. Narayanese (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How is it now? Narayanese (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You have done a lot of good work. I will read the article more carefully in the next few days. Geometry guy 02:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that it took longer to get back to the article than I expected. I had hoped to go through the article making small copyedits and fixes before closing this reassessment, but instead I found more cases of close paraphrasing and other issues. I fixed the first two examples:
  • Source: "Rebels in Chad say they have seized a strategically important town in the central region of Batha, about 400km (248 miles) from the capital, Ndjamena"
  • Article: "On January 30, 2008 rebels seized Oum Hadjer, a strategically important town in the central region of Batha, about 400 km (250 mi) from the N'Djamena."
  • Source: "Army patrols have reportedly been increased in N'Djamena in case the rebels try to move on the capital."
  • Article: "Army patrols were subsequently increased in N'Djamena in case the rebels tried to move on the capital"
• The very next paragraph has:
  • Source: "Amid the increasing tensions, France has sent a combat unit of 126 extra troops into Chad, joining 1,100 already situated there."
  • Article: "Amid increasing tensions, France sent a combat unit of 126 extra troops into Chad, joining 1,100 already stationed there."

At this point, it became clear that the article still needs to be thoroughly checked. However, my attempts to do so were thwarted by deadlinks, such as 2,6,8,20,24,26,27,28,29,57,64 and 65. It is not the job of review processes to correct or point out every single problem: instead articles should be presented for review in good shape. Plenty of time has been given here to check these issues. I am therefore delisting the article, and recommend that every reference be checked for deadlinks, accuracy and close paraphrasing before it is renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mekia Cox

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

Result: Endorse fail (no action). Irrespective of copyright issues, close paraphrasing of sources whose reliability is marginal is not appropriate for GAs, and raises concerns about criteria 1 and 2. Geometry guy 22:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This article was failed as a WP:COPYVIO. At Talk:Mekia Cox/GA1,

Original source: "When she was a child, Mekia Cox spent 5 years training with dance teacher Linda Reiger in the U.S. Virgin Islands. At the age of seven, Mekia Cox and her family moved up to Orlando, Florida. In 1989 Mekia Cox was asked to be a part of the Christmas Spectacular show at Disney's Magic Kingdom. Living close to Universal Studios, Mekia Cox also began to appear in numerous Nickelodeon shows like, "My Brother and Me," "Keenan and Kel," and "All That.""

Original GAC text: "As a child, Cox spent 5 years training studying dance in the U.S. Virgin Islands before moving with her family to Orlando, Florida at age seven. In 1989 Mekia Cox was invited to participate in the Christmas Spectacular show at Disney's Magic Kingdom. Due to her proximity to Universal Studios, Cox also began to appear as a child actor in numerous Nickelodeon shows such as My Brother and Me, Keenan and Kel, and All That."

After I attempted to revise, the article was closed with the following statement.

Attempted revision: Cox, a St. Croix native, moved with her family to Orlando, Florida at age seven after spending five years of her youth studying dance in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 1989, Cox was invited to participate in the Disney's Magic Kingdom Christmas Spectacular show. Due to her proximity to Universal Studios, Cox was able to earn roles as a child actor in various Nickelodeon shows such as My Brother and Me, Keenan and Kel, and All That.

• • I removed the copyvio material from the article. This information is important but should be substantially rewritten before being re-added. Additional I'm concerned that there may be close paraphrasing from other sources; the original contributor should conduct a thorough review to find and fix any other problems with close paraphrasing before re-submitting this article for GA. Dcoetzee 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I find my attempted revision far from being a copyvio of the original source and feel the article was failed inappropriately.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my original statement - I left the article open for 7 days for revision, but the text remained superficially altered, presenting the same facts in the same order. I provided advice on how to rewrite the section but it was not followed. I'm happy to review it as many times as it takes to eliminate the copyvio. Dcoetzee 03:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The facts are presented in a logical chronological fashion. When a source uses chronological order, we are not required to put things out of chronological order to paraphrase them without a copy vio.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am re-adding the debated text for reconsideration here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question. Why is a bulletin board being used as a substantial source in the first place? Geometry guy 21:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I guess I assumed that the admin at the NBC bulletin board may be a WP:RS at first glance. Not so sure. I guess it is possible that the sources may be viewed as marginal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Smoking

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

Result: Delist. Issues raised below remain unfixed, and the article fails 1a, 1b (lead, words to watch), 2a-c, as well as issues of coverage and neutrality (3,4). Finally there are two non-free images without fair use rationales (6a). Geometry guy 23:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This article about smoking omits all reference to health effects. That's beyond one-sided. By the glaring omission, it advertises smoking.

Overall, it reads like carefully-crafted ad copy.

If a balanced presentation has anything to do with whether an article is good, this article is not good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdncntx (talk • contribs)

• Comment Have you seen this section Smoking#Health_effects? There are however some fairly large unreferenced sections of text. And a bunch of the refs need proper formatting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

From the lead: "It has been suggested that smoking-related disease kills one half of all long term smokers but these diseases may also be contracted by non-smokers. A 2007 report states that about 4.9 million people worldwide each year die as a result of smoking ... medical studies have proven that smoking tobacco is among the leading causes of many diseases such as lung cancer, heart attacks, COPD, erectile dysfunction and can also lead to birth defects. The inherent health hazards of smoking ...". Not the best wording, but it's not exactly a glaring omission.

Health effects are also discussed in the history section, which briefly discusses the lung cancer studies and the industry's response - though it does give undue weight to the German tobacco policies - then there's a complete section on health effects, explicit discussion of the medical issues in the physiological effects section, some notes on addictive behaviour under psychology, and some brief notes referring to it in the culture & economics section. (The economics section, incidentally, is terrible - it's all knock-on effects and no discussion of, eg, the tobacco industry!)

That's not to say the article presents the most absolutely balanced viewpoint - I'd need to read it in more detail to be confident of that - but it certainly doesn't "omit all references" or "read like carefully-crafted ad-copy". Shimgray | talk | 11:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Daytona International Speedway

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

Result: Delist as the article does not meet criterion 2 (in particular it has uncited statistics and opinion, and relies too much on primary sources). There are also problems with the prose (1a) and breadth of coverage (3a); see review comments by Royalbroil and Airplaneman below. I have also commented on the reassessment talk page. Geometry guy 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting this GAR as the article is a good article but doesn't meet requirements.

For one thing, I saw un-referenced material in the article, with a citation needed and an Un-referenced section template in the "Events" section (though I added it before the GAR).

I also feel like this article fails 1a, with, for example, the "Fatalities" section being only a one sentence paragraph.

• While I personally think the article fails GA criteria, I hope other editors state their opinons as well.

GamerPro64 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• KEEP I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't fail an article just because it fails one of the criteria.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it fails two parts of the criteria, as I mentioned reference problems. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Still doesn't fail in my opinion until it fails 4 of them.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. I reviewed Featured Articles that failed one thing and they still got delisted. Example. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured Articles are much different. I'm just talking about how it's ridiculous that your supposed to fail an article if they fail one of the criteria but I do a little more flexibility.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If they fail one of the quick fails, it fails. If the article is not properly referenced it fails, too, unless the user fixed it. Which I believe this is you first GAN, so if it gets delisted its not that big of a deal. The article always has room for improvement. All this is coming from a person who currently has ten good articles, and four delisted articles. If this fails its still atleast a B. If its not sourced propery then Remove. Every article for GA or FA, has to have a source for everything. Also, if it has a {{Citation needed}} template. It should be removed immediately. Just saying. --Nascar1996 02:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What you are mentioning no longer follows. The events section is sourced, and the fatalities section since it is on another article, can be only one sentence. So Keep. Nascar1996 03:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Obiously. You just did all of that with this edit. But still, I would more opinions on if the article should be A Good Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I know where I can find references. Find other places that need work and we will see. If you find a lot of work that still needs to be done, put it on here. I haven't thoroughly read the article good, but I don't see anything. I fyou do find a lot of work. I'm not going to do it. So it probably will not be kept. I am too busy with real life and the 2011 Daytona 500. Nascar1996 03:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

To get very good comments ask User:Royalbroil and User:Airplaneman. Nascar1996 03:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Royalbroil

The article needs major work to be at Good Article standards, so I would support delisting except if significant work were done immediately. I would have concidered speedy failed this article had I been the reviewer since there are so many unreferenced statements.

First, I am very discouraged to see a WikiProject NASCAR member reviewing a NASCAR article. This never should have happened. I would never do a Good Article level review when I am so vested in a topic. To a non-involved party, it appears to be a rubber stamp job. Especially seeing the article declared to be at Good Article level without any comments.

Sourcing from reliable sources: There are far too many unsourced statements with statistics in every section. If the source applies to the entire paragraph then it should at least be duplicated at each of these statistics sentences. It's concerning to see that a single source was used to create that much text in the construction section. A bunch of wikilinks should be added to the construction section, so I added asphalt and base course. The citation from reliable sources is far from Good level which is why I would have speedy failed it.

Images: There's a great satellite image of the track that would be very helpful at the top of the article. I would spread out some of the images into the text since there's too much white space. The licensing looks good for each image.

Broad Coverage: The article is too broad in its coverage. It should get into more detail, especially with the non-existent text in the Events section. Cover some details about the major events at the track: the Daytona 500 and 24 hours of Daytona are two of the most important race events in the U.S., critical to their respective series, but there's no way for the reader to know this from a listing.

Article not up to date: "Because of good weather, the project will be officially complete ahead of the targeted January 1, 2011 completion date." - this needs to be updated. The date has passed and I watched off-season testing at the track on television. It brought back memories of watching the practice there in 2001. Maybe the article would benefit if I scanned in some of my old photographs from Victory Lane. The article talks about an upcoming tire practice in December 2010. Ouch.

And GamerPro64 is right, one major problem is enough to fail the article. I could keep on going but this is enough for now. Royalbroil 04:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because my name is on Look I'm not really involved with wikiproject NASCAR I'm more involved with wikiproject Pro Wrestling.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 04:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

He was talking about me. I don't help with these articles though. I just do the races, and some copy-editing or cleaning up on other articles. I have never figured out how to improve venues. Nascar1996 11:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No hes not, the member who passed it. Was confused there. Nascar1996 11:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Which of the GA criteria requires that an article be "up to date?" Even linkrot is allowed. Racepacket (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If any article is out of date, then it needs cleanup and an appropriate tag should be applies (like {{Missing information non-contentious}}, {{Update}}, or {{Out of date}}). Articles having cleanup tags are the first thing to look for. Royalbroil 05:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles which are out of date may be deficient with respect to clarity of prose (1a), factual accuracy (2) and/or breadth of coverage (3a). Articles with linkrot may fail verifiability (2) as the reader cannot verify a claim if a link is broken. Geometry guy 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC) PS. My compliments to Royalbroil for the thorough review comments.

Comments by Airplaneman

Quick look-through

• I don't think this article is up to GA standards at the moment. However, with some work, it can make it there. I don't have time for a comprehensive review, but here are some things I noticed:
  • Disperse the photo gallery (more info at WP:IG). Put relevant pictures in relevant sections. Extra ones should not be in the article; they add unnecessary bulk to the article, increasing clutter and loading times, especially for people with slower connections.
  • The Events section is poor at best. In my opinion, it should be fleshed out like the Track history section, giving an overview of what (notable) events are held at the track.
  • Overall, referencing is a bit sparse. Try finding a few more reliable, third-party sources to compliment what's already there and for the info that should be added.
  • The Fatalities section is alright considering it links to a main article. I am particularly concerned, however, with the unsourced claim that Dale Earnhardt is supposedly one of NASCAR's most notable drivers. The section itself is wholly unsourced.
  • The Fan amenities section could use more references.
• Airplaneman ✈ 05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't even need a source to know Dale Earnhardt is a legend to the sport of NASCAR. He's not "supposedly", he is in a class by himself. Any fan will say the EXACT same thing.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Really you do. Other people who don't know the sport of NASCAR will not know who he is. That is the main reason why all of it should be sourced. Nascar1996 23:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nascarking, please take a look at WP:OR. What you just said is entirely your opinion, generated from your brain. Finding (reliable) sources back up the claims made and remove doubts about the verifiability of the facts given (unless the sources aren't reliable...) Does that make sense? Airplaneman ✈ 01:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's not my opinion I'd probably piss someone off if I did claim I said it was my opinion. See any NASCAR broadcast before 2001 and you'll hear that he's that.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He is, but other people don't know that. Nascar1996 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Secret Truths

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: kept. All concerns have been addressed regarding original review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the review at Talk:Secret Truths/GA1 was, to say the least, cursory and am asking for community reassessment of this article's status. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Points:

• One dead link.[12] I think SaveSpashley.com is probably not RS
• ref #9: "Tom Lynch Interview 11/2/09". South of Nowhere Online. November 2, 2009. Would expect a web link for an online publication.
• After the casting process was complete, the episode was filmed in October 2004, but when the show was picked up for a full season, Lynch decided to recast almost every one of the characters and the pilot was shot again in July 2005 with the different cast. Clumsy phrasing, perhaps "with the new cast"
• The premiere of the episode was promoted with branded MetroCards handed out to teenagers in Manhattan. Again clusmsy phrasing.
• Critics' reviews of the pilot were mostly positive, particularly regarding its treatment of current social issues, but other critics found the show's introduction of these issues to be forced and inauthentic. Again clumsy phrasing
• After striking up a conversation with a girl named Chelsea Lewis (Aasha Davis), he is beaten up by her ex-boyfriend Dallas (Marcus Brown) when he tries to defend her. Unclear- who is defending who?
• He "sat with the idea for a few days" before spending a few weeks to develop the show's characters and write an outline of the pilot. Poor grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the more thorough review. You're right about those instances of bad grammar/wording - I've (hopefully) made all of them a bit easier to read. The ref to South of Nowhere Online isn't linked because the site is blacklisted on Wikipedia (I assume somebody did some serious spamming with it at some point). I removed the ref with the dead link completely. 97198 (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that my concerns have been addressed and this article is worthy of GA status. There may be others who will chip in as this is a community re-assessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jack Duckworth

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

Result: Delist. There has been a genuine attempt to resolve the issues regarding the article not meeting GA criteria; however, issues regarding prose quality have not been resolved; issues regarding broad coverage have not been resolved; issues regarding the lead not being an adequate summary of the topic have not been resolved. Article does not meet GA criteria 1(a) & (b); 3(a) & (b). Other criteria have not been examined. Recommendation is that the article is further worked on, especially regarding copyediting, and submitted for GA review again when issues have been dealt with. SilkTork *^YES! 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the recent GA review of this article was to say the least cursory and have therefore nominated for community reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Points:

• One dead link: [13] Done
• Prose: In the January 1985 issue of current affairs magazine Third Way Magazine, the slated Coronation Street for their attitude of unemployment, stating it seemed not to be a problem because Jack was an "acknowledged rogue". Not done

1. • Replaced with In the January 1985 issue of current affairs magazine Third Way Magazine, the author slated Coronation Street for their attitude of unemployment, stating it seemed not to be a problem because Jack was an "acknowledged rogue". This is extremely badly written.

• John Harold "Jack" Duckworth is a long-standing fictional character from the British ITV soap opera Coronation Street, a long-running serial drama about working class life in the fictional town of Weatherfield. He is played by actor William Tarmey. The character debuted onscreen during the episode airing on 28 November 1979. Surely this should be "was" as the character is now dead?
• Casting section is entirely about the actor leaving or thinking about leaving the show. Nothing about how the part was created.
• Character development: This ection seems a little thin and one-dimensional. Done
• Dorothy Hobson in her book Soap opera stated that marriages never seem to last in the genre, Surely the book is called Soap Oera, i.e. capitalised. Done
• Channel Five's soap opera reporting website Holy Soap brand Jack's most memorable moments as...' Surely "brands"? Done
• Lead does not fully sunmmarise the article. Done
• Lots of stray sentences, which should be consolidated into paragraphs. DoneJezhotwells (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the above points merging sentances, used the archive link for the dead link, corrected grammar points, Character development has been merged with characterisation, the section which should have been in the development section anyway going by the MoS for fictional characters. One problem however is that the suggestion about the opening line in the lead, if it is changed to was because he is dead, then that suggests he's was a living person, also we use is because it's a work of fiction, so referring to him in the out world context, which is used when approaching the writing of ficional works, he will always be a fictional character. As the character was created before internet documentation, there is nothing for his creation, which is why I thought it be better for the section to hold the casting header alone.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the character of Jack Duckworth was created "before internet documentation" is irrelevant to providing sources. There have been countless books written about Corrie, that is real books, printed on paper. As it stands the casting section is inaccurately named and is in fact about the demise of the cahracter.

As to the tense in the lead (which is still rather short and does not fully summarise the article), we still have a confusion of tense, however you justify it. the first two sentences are present tense, then we have past tense, before returning to present tense, a deviation to past perfect simple and then past. Most confusing.

Character developnmment is still very thin, mostly actually describing how ITV publicity and the press describe him. If this section is to deserve the name it should show the development of the character from 1979 to 2010. Presently this article needs a lot of work. Check out articles like Pauline Fowler to see the standard to which you should be aiming. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how long do I have to include all of that then? I know the standard btw, having written half of them. :p (Thanks for this proper review though.) RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 13:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well this is a community reassesemnt so others might chip in. How long is a piece of string? I think Geometry Guy would close this reassessment if there was no progress in a few weeks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm keen to get going. I've added casting info from one of the books I have. I'm not sure why I didn't think of that. One of my flaws however is correcting the grammar, for the "Third Way Magazine" quote you've flagged, how would you make it read?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 13:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a go at editing the Third Way sentence. - JuneGloom Talk 15:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And again, lol. Also filled out the ref a bit more. - JuneGloom Talk 15:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Darlin! :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. As Jezhotwells mentioned me above, I will add a brief comment. Community reassessments nominally remain open for about two weeks, and any uninvolved editor can close the discussion. However, community reassessment, like all GA processes, is intended to be article friendly (which should also mean "editor friendly"!) in that as long as the reassessment is leading to article improvement, it is probably good to keep going. When more time than a few weeks is needed (e.g. to find new sources), it may be better to close and renominate at GAN once the article is ready. Geometry guy 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, no need to close it. I can do this, found more development info for his relationships too, the development section is thin so I'll expand it over the next few days.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

British Pakistanis

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

Result: Delist. The consensus is for delisting. Though there has been some work done on improving the article since the GAR started, there are still issues regarding prose quality and other GA criteria. The lead does not fully summarise the article per WP:Lead; and there are challengable statements that are not sourced, such as "These immigrants were often the first Asians to be seen in British port cities and were treated as subjects of curiosity." I recommend a period spent copy-editing and tightening the article following the criteria in Wikipedia:Good article criteria (and the links on that page) and the advice in Wikipedia:Basic copyediting, and then resubmit for review. SilkTork *^YES! 13:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

This article was recently promoted to GA status. As has been noted, this was done without a review page being created. After I raised this issue, a review page was created stating that all of the criteria had been met. Following this, I raised some concerns on the talk page of the article about some problems with the article and I've now had a more thorough look through it and have to question whether it meets the GA criteria, particularly those relating to the quality of the writing and sourcing. For example, here are some quotes from the article:

• "They were forced to leave East Africa due to the creation of policies by leaders such as Idi Amin" (rather clumsy wording)  Done
• "The midlands and north of England were areas which were heavily reliant on manufacturing industries and the effects of deindustrialisation continued to be felt in these areas and its communities until the 2000s" (bad grammar)  Done
• "Mumtaz is the most famous Pakistani restaurant in the UK" (no source)  Done
• "Sajid Mahmood, Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad currently play cricket for England. There are several other British Pakistanis who play cricket for smaller county teams" (this implies that England is a big county team, whereas counties play at a different level to countries such as England)  Done
• "Hockey and polo are commonly played in Pakistan but these sports are not so popular with British Pakistanis, lack of popularity for the latter sports are possibly due to the urban lifestyles which the majority of British Pakistanis lead" (no source)  Done
• "Famous British Pakistani sports people outside of cricket include: Adam Khan who is Racing driver from Bridlington, Yorkshire" (badly worded and capitalised)  Done
• "Ikram Butt who was the first South Asian to play code of international rugby for England in 1995" (bad grammar; no source)  Done
• "The existence of a North-South divide leaves Pakistanis in the north of England economically depressed, although there is a small concentration of wealthy northerners of Pakistani origin living in the suburbs of Greater Manchester, as certain individuals have taken advantage of the opportunities that arise from living in the UK's second city" (Birmingham claims to be the UK's second city)  Done
• "Location in Britain has had a great impact on the success of British Pakistanis. British Pakistanis based in large cities such as London and Manchester have found making the transition into the professional middle class easier than those based in the peripheral towns. This is due to the fact that cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow & Oxford have provided a more economically encouraging environment for Pakistani entrepreneurs. Other small towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire have provided far fewer opportunities" (no source; use of "&")  Done
• "They have Purchased houses next to their villages and sometimes even purchased property in more expensive cities, such as Islamabad and Lahore" (strange capitalisation)  Done

This is not an exhaustive list, but hopefully it gives an idea of the problems with the article that make me question its GA status. I realise that it's very soon after the promotion to be reassessing the article, but I think that it needs to be done to ensure that it meets the required standard. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment from initial reviewer

I was the one who initially promoted the article. At that point I had not reviewed a GAN for some years, having been active at the process long ago and then stopping activity there. My first few GA reviews were rusty, this one included, and I would agree that it should be delisted. I hope it is understood that I simply stumbled a little at the start of the learning curve for GAN, and that my wider judgment with regards to the process is not, I think, at fault. AGK [•] 00:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Larry, as we both concur, can we not delist this now? AGK [•] 10:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how the process works. Are we supposed to leave time for the article to be improved in light of the comments here, or should it be delisted now? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actions

Did anyone inform the last nominator at WP:GAN that the article was being reassessed? If that happened and no corrective action has occurred, then I see no harm in de-listing. On the other hand, if the nominator was not informed, the next stage might be to consider the effort needed to bring the article up to standard. If it's a big job then delisting and suggesting that the last nominator considers a renomination at WP:GAN after undertaking the necessary corrective action is probably the way to go; if it is not a big job, you could inform the last nominator, go for a "hold", and then reassess after a week or so. However, this is re-assessment, so a decision is needed, sooner or later. Pyrotec (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but I'll do that now. I imagine that they (Sansonic) have the article on their watchlist though, so they should have seen this if they've been logged in. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is best to wait for the result of the reassessment before delisting it. If the reassessment shows that the article does not meet the GA criteria then I agree with Pyrotec's suggestion above.--Sansonic (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is the reassessment and I think there's a consensus that the article doesn't currently meet the requirements. The options now seem to be to delist or to give it a week or so for the article to be improved before making the decision then. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the above examples that you have given, is there any other parts of the article which you feel could be improved?--Sansonic (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Woops, I should have looked at the article's history. The main requirements are given in WP:WIAGA, but the article mentions by name several living people by name, so WP:BLP should also be considered. I've not reviewed the article, so I can't be more specific than this. Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sansonic, there are other problems with the prose here and there, which a thorough proof-reading would sort out. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Before we reach consensus I would welcome comments from any other editors, particularly those who have not made any contributions to the article.--Sansonic (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Some improvements have been made to the article so it would be good to get a view on the present state of things. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lolicon

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

Result: No action, article remains unlisted: both the individual reassessment and the review comments by SilkTork below indicate failings with respect to criteria 1 and 3, and suggest that time is needed to resolve these issues and renominate a neutral stable version. Placing reviews on hold is a matter for reviewer discretion: if a reviewer does not believe that the article can be brought up to standard in a reasonable timescale, then the review can be closed and the article not listed. In particular, disagreement among editors about a particular issue may distract them from the wider picture: a Good article is required to meet all the criteria. For this same reason, however, reviewers are encouraged to provide as much information in reviews as they can, including indicative examples of problems and proposed solutions where appropriate. It seems to me that Jezhotwells has taken criticism here on board, and that this reassessment has elicited more detailed comments from SilkTork. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 20:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was delisted due to "serious disagreement" during the individual reassessment. While there were some problems expressed by User:Timothy Perper, they were not major and involved 2 users with a bad history. Timothy has since withdrawn gracefully from the scene. Furthermore, there is disagreement from others at WikiProject Anime that the reviewer improperly delisted it as the article was drastically improved and there is a belief that while it did not meet the GA crtieria when it was listed for reassasement, it now does.陣内_Jinnai 02:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article certainly has been improved, thanks to the work of a number of editors, including Jinnai. Many of the issues I raised have been settled, though some remain. Even so, a GA does not have to be perfect, so I will leave it up to others to decide if the marked improvements warrant listing the article as GA. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. As it happens, I have been watching the individual reassessment since it began, and consider the review to have been conducted in an exemplary fashion in accordance with process, and the delisting in no way "improper", so there is no case to overturn it on procedural grounds. However, interpretation of the GA criteria can be subjective, and the article certainly has improved significantly, so asking for a wider opinion as to whether the article now meets the GA criteria is perfectly reasonable. I hope community GAR will be able to do that; if not, the article can of course be renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 21:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify as to why I feel the review was improper - I felt the closing comment, solely focussed on the disagreements that arose during the review, isn't helpful in the further improvement of the article, or in guiding editors in how to regain GA quality/status for this controversial article. I asked the reviewer for clarification as to where the article still failed/fails the GA criteria, but none has been forthcoming. I've had similar issues of depth of review with this reviewer before over their quickfail of Cyborg Kuro-chan. --Malkinann (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your point that more information could have been given after the improvements to the article, and have rephrased my comment. However, at the start of an individual review of an article (for nomination or reassessment) the reviewer raises problems with the article which need to be fixed on a limited timescale. It is common for closing statements to be brief because the reviewer believes that all the issues cannot be fixed within such a limited timescale. I hope you will receive further guidance on improving the article here, and indeed that the reviewer will comment further. Geometry guy 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing is though, most, if not all, of those problems listed were addressed and fixed as far as we could tell (no real feedback was given during the GAR). The failing on #5 I don't see. If you look at the articles history the only unstable time recently was when we were trying to update to comply with the GAR in which case major edits should be expected. #5 specifically refers only to changes in the article itself, not the talk page.陣内_Jinnai 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that the majority of improvements to the article were made after I concluded the reassessment. At that time the section on the new Tokyp law had not been updated, the lead included material which was not in the article proper. When disagreements about this appeared in the review, nine days after the review had started, I concluded that it was best to delist. Further improvements have been made since,[14] and so it should perhaps be re-nominated at WP:GAN. I will exclude myself from any further review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

An extensive amount had already been done without any additional feedback before the article was delisted. Again the reason given was inappropriate; talk page disagreements are not a factor for criteria #5. Only the article itself is suppose to be looked at for criteria #5. Furthermore, the short period of instability which came from the individual GAR has historically been seen as appropriate exception to that rule if its done to bring the article up to standards. Finally, that the article continued to be massive improved in a short period of time after the delisting goes to further show the nominator improperly delisted the article early inspite their being shown an active interest in improving the article. All of this while no additional feedback was given by the reviewr as to the progress. They simply appeared one day listing the problems then appeared a week later and delisted improperly citing #5.陣内_Jinnai 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:GAR is for assessing if an article meets the god article criteria, not for critiquing the review. At the time of delisting], the Youth Bill section was incomplete and rather out of date. The lead contained material not in the article proper (about the Tokyo Bill); Nabokov's Lolita and "Laws have been enacted in various countries". Thus, in my opinion, it was properly delisted after 9 days on reassessment and, if it has been improved since, then the proper course would be to renominate at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved.

There are a number of members who disagree with your individual review and how you handled it (or rather the lack thereof). That is exactly what a community review is for. Specifically #4.

I know you didn't notify all relevant parties, specifically the associated wikiprojects (fortunatly this page is on a number of watch pages), however the main point is that you closed it when there it was clear there was improvement ongoing and responses from contributors ongoing. The unabaited improvement (except to discuss and post this community GAR) over the following few days shows your delisting was indeed premature and delisted on faulty basis because you used the failing criteria #5, not on the page itself (which you shouldn't anyway per reasons I stated prior), but on the talk page. In addition, you did not follow the delisting guidelines and give even one single solution - just listed problems - nor did you update your assessment with what info passed so we, the editors of the article, could know what still needed fixing.陣内_Jinnai 03:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I refer you back to the comment by Geometry guy: "As it happens, I have been watching the individual reassessment since it began, and consider the review to have been conducted in an exemplary fashion in accordance with process, and the delisting in no way "improper", so there is no case to overturn it on procedural grounds. However, interpretation of the GA criteria can be subjective, and the article certainly has improved significantly, so asking for a wider opinion as to whether the article now meets the GA criteria is perfectly reasonable. I hope community GAR will be able to do that; if not, the article can of course be renominated at GAN." If you consider the article is ready for GAN then please renominate it there. There is a backlog drive going on so you will probably only have to wait a week or so at most. If you are looking to slap me with a wet fish, consider it done! I have nothing further to say. Good luck! Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I speak for a number here that we care more about making certain the process was done right, since that is the issue we have contention with rather than gettinga GA back on their a few weeks quicker. Why even have a community GAR then by your logic since an invidisual reviewer could delist something out of malice and then we'd have to go through a normal GAN. And hope the next reviewer, against 1 person, was more open. NOTE: I'm not saying that you were vendictive here, but rather that there are legitimate concerns brought up by myself and others about your method of reviewing and its impact that we believe the review process - your review process - while meaning good, was fundamentally flawed.陣内_Jinnai 22:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• As someone who is not familiar with Lolicon I didn't find the lead helpful. It reads like a dictionary definition - or, at least, like an attempt at defining the term, though it keeps slipping away. I then starting reading the article hoping I might pick it up along the way, but the article is not clear, and I think it is attempting too many things. There is the sense of Lolicon being a popular form of cartoon depicting young women, but the article is also attempting to describe pedophilia in general, in literature, and in Japanese culture. Plus Lolicon is also "a subject of criticism in the Superflat art movement." What has the "Youth Bill" specifically to do with Lolicon? As well as the approach and organisation, the prose is also not helpful - I think there is the tendency sometimes to compress too much information into short sentences. For people who are not familiar with this topic, there are a lot of unfamiliar words and concepts present which make absorption of information difficult. There are words such as "shōjo", "shonen", "otaku", "hentai", which appear to be conveying concepts for which there are no direct translations. I feel there are difficulties in explaining Japanese culture to a Western audience, especially in a short format such an an encyclopedia entry. I think that in order to do it well, there needs to be some clear decisions made on the approach. Make it simpler and more direct. Decide on the topic - and if it is felt that there are several notable and interesting topics, then perhaps make Lolicon a disamb page pointing to Lolicon (comics), Lolicon (pornography), Lolicon (Japanese paedophile) and Lolicon (Lolita complex). Trying to squeeze all those into one article, while using phrases unfamiliar to the general Western reader, is going to result in confusion. At the moment this does not meet criteria 1. I don't know about the other criteria, but I suspect that it would probably not meet criteria 3. This is a high profile article which generates a lot of traffic. I think we should aim to get it right. The more complex and important a topic, the harder it is to get it right; and the higher the traffic and the profile, the more careful we should be. My view is that the article needs a serious re-think which is beyond the scope of this GAR; as such, the GAR should be closed, and editors should work on improving the article to ready it for another nomination. SilkTork *^YES! 00:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

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

Result: Not listed, article has been re-nominated Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has been greatly improved since I last edited it. The Production section of the article that I created has been expanded, and also the Reception section. Additional sections have been created, the plot has been shortened to meet WikiProject South Park criteria, and the lead section has also been improved. Therefore, I've opened up a new reassessment. Please take your time to discuss. Thank you. Railer-man (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the better avenue would be to renominate it for GA (if you think it is ready) rather than bring it here. — Hunter Kahn 04:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, renomination would the best course as the quickfail was in November last year. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• It appears Railer-man has gone ahead and renominated, so I think we can close our this GAR. — Hunter Kahn 17:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

White Horse (song)

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

Result: Kept Consensus favours keeping the article listed as a GA due to further editing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC).

This article is not at all worthy of GA status. I personally edit the artist's articles and think this article is of start material. It's awful. The prose is minimal because there is certainly more about the song out there, it uses unreliable sources like blogs (Allheadlinesnews.com and the1935.com), and uses video countdowns as charts (not accepted by WP:CHARTS). It should be taken down immediately. I will later revamp the article myself, but right now it's not anywhere near GA. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article is not in a pretty state. Yes, I do think its far from GA status. Here's what I noticed:
  • The lead is too short. I don't think it summarizes the whole article.
  • I may have re-sized the music video screenshot, but I don't think it passes the Non-free media usage criteria.
  • I believe a consensus was reached regarding the usage of Succession boxes, that they should not be used. I'm not sure.
  • The Publisher and Work fields of some references are not correct.
  • Swift performed the song several times live. So, why isn't it included?
  • The description of music sample does not justify why it is included.

—Novice7 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• In a blunt way, I don't see how anyone had the audacity to pass this filfth. I was going to review it myself, but I didn't now I wish I had. This is not GA status. Candyo32 12:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think perhaps we should assume a little more good faith on the part of the nominator and the reviewer. It certainly has the potential to be good enough for GA and it doesn't look like it would require months of work. Certainly three editors as experienced in bringing music articles up to GA as those above could make light work of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• De-list - References are in shambles. Not good quality or sufficient prose etc. And Candy, I know its frustrating and a bit shocking, please lets not insult the work or anything else. It could be hurtful to the nominator. Calling it "filth" is a bit harsh.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I do apologize to the nominator. I just get a bit frustrated when the GAN is so backed up, and then we have subpar articles that are continually being nominated, and even more frustrated that a reviewer would lead them on in thinking that the article was good quality. Candyo32 22:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On my part, I also apologize to the reviewer and nominator, as it was obviously in good faith. But, as sorry as I am, I cannot say this article is worthy of GA. The reviewer should have contacted someone who has multiple GAs, an administrator, or someone - IDK who, but someone. I could've been of help myself. I promise that I will revamp this article as soon as I am completed with my current project. It won't take long, provided I work on it continuously. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I'm sorry for being rude. Novice7 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - This article meets the GA criteria. - PM800 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• It does not per everything mentioned above. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's close now by help from other users, but the nominated and passed version of the article was in no way GA status. Candyo32 23:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• The above concerns have been fixed since they were posted here, and the article meets GA criteria. - PM800 (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the source reliability, The 9513 is written by professional journalists — in particular, I would say that writer Karlie Justus has plenty of journalistic cred. Also I find it funny that you had issue with that one but not Country Universe, which seems more marginal to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blogs are not reliable. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Prose is still questionable, has contractions and could be expanded. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• White Horse (song) meets the GA criteria and will not be delisted. - PM800 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's better by far, but should be delisted because of the use of contractions, blogs as sources, the music video screenshot not adding anything to the article, text could be expanded, composition and background sections are confused, uses video countdowns. Does that seem like enough? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I think it should be keeped, since it's much more improved now. However, the blog references and review should exchanged or removed, so it would definitely meet the good article criteria. Otherwise, the article will be de-listed. -- Sauloviegas (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep As I had promised, I revamped the article and I think it is now worthy of inclusion as all reasons I had given for it to be demoted were fixed. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 15:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• White Horse (song) was a Good Article before Ipodnano05 edited it. - PM800 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think we all know after all, they did comment here in order to reach a consensus whether the page should be demoted or not. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, "they" did comment here, but how did "they" get here? I believe that there is a logical explanation for all of the initial "demote" sentiments expressed in this discussion. About 19 days ago, Ipodnano05 notified five users on their talk pages about this reassessment. A (rather impolite) message[15] was posted on my page, presumably because I was the one who originally nominated this article for GA. That seems fair enough. However, Ipodnano05 also left (rather polite) messages[16][17][18][19] on the talk pages of only four other users: Novice7, Candyo32, HJ Mitchell, and Petergriffin9901, all of whom have posted here. These users seem to have been notified mainly because of their prior interactions with Ipodnano05; no other users or WikiProjects were notified. Therefore, Ipodnano05 may have acted in violation of WP:CANVASS. - PM800 (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is canvassing. He didn't ask oppose or support the Reassessment. He just asked to comment, if possible. Novice7 (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Those four users seem to have been notified mainly because of their prior interactions with Ipodnano05; besides the original GA nominator, no other users or WikiProjects were notified. Therefore, Ipodnano05 may have acted in violation of WP:CANVASS. - PM800 (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS says it is okay to notify "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". I've edited this article before, and most of the users who posted here are known to work on music related articles. Also, I don't think notifying users acquainted with the nominator is against rules, unless there is excessive posting, biased, or other secret communication. Novice7 (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Novice7 has indeed edited this article before; however, many other users have also edited this article, and none of them were notified of the reassessment. The original GA reviewer, Felixboy, was not notified either. In addition, there are many editors who "work on music related articles". Only four were notified of this reassessment. These four users appear to have been notified based on prior interactions with Ipodnano05. For example, Ipodnano05 and Novice7 have had several positive exchanges on their talk pages. I believe that Ipodnano05 was wrong in notifying these four users based on previous communication. Ipodnano05 has apologized to me once during the course of this reassessment, for not assuming good faith. I would appreciate another apology from Ipodnano05 before this discussion is closed. - PM800 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We have exchanged comments indeed. I apologize if I hurt your feelings in any way. Sorry PM800. Novice7 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's OK, Novice7. Your comments were constructive, not insulting, and you have apologized twice, which is very admirable. It is also not your fault that Ipodnano05 violated WP:CANVASS. When I first got a message from Ipodnano05 notifying me about the reassessment, I was fine with it. I thought that, since it was a "community reassessment", that the community could decide whether or not White Horse (song) was a Good Article. I would have gladly gone along with the consensus. But when I checked back on the reassessment, I was really surprised to see the mean-spirited comments that were posted by Ipodnano05 and Candyo32. It wasn't until weeks later that I looked at Ipodnano05's contributions and realized that some friends had been recruited to post in the discussion. To me, White Horse (song) deserved its Good Article status. If it did not, then that's fine, but I would have liked a fair discussion to take place. My GA nomination was made in good faith, and I did improve the state of the article. And when fellow editors then start criticizing for no good reason - using words like "awful" and "filfth" - it's a little disappointing. Anyways, it doesn't matter now, as there do not seem to be any more objections to this being a Good Article. I would just like another apology from Ipodnano05. After all, it is just the article's class; there was no reason for Ipodnano05 to resort to canvassing in this discussion. - PM800 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, I am truly sorry for disdaining your work. I know it must have been disappointing, but I must make it clear that I do not think I canvased. I asked a few editors to comment, who I know have worked on multiple GA music articles, that way they could add constriuctive critism, agree to demote the article, or disagree and keep the article as a GA. I never told them to lend me support or nothing of the sort. All I did was ask for comments. And how could I have asked someone else who I did not know. Also, four editors are more than enough. I didn't ask more because I didn't see the need to ask 20 editors. I was ready to inform anyone who was a main editor here, went through the articles' revision history and only saw edits by you so I informed you because you deserved to know. I had no idea that my message on your talk page come off as mean-spirited, but I left it with good intentions. So, that you (the main contributor to the article) was aware of the circumstances. Now that I read it, it does sound hasty, but I did not mean for that. I guess I might have let steam get the best of me. Again, I'm truly sorry and hopefully this has clarified any doubts about my intentions. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• "And how could I have asked someone else who I did not know." - OK, so you admit that you knew all of the editors that you contacted. How can you say that's not canvassing? How can you say that, even though you had a positive relationship with four of the five users you notified, that you did not violate the spirit of the canvassing rules? There are many, many other people who have worked on GA music articles. Yet you only posted an announcement on the talk pages of four users who you already knew. As for your message on MY talk page, it was quite different from the messages you posted on the others'. All you wrote to me was: "White Horse is being reassessed since it does not belong on GA." ... Jumping to conclusions much? It sounds like you were already deciding the result of the discussion before the discussion had even taken place. That is not the way things work around here. However, if that was all you had said, then I might not have gotten so upset... but then you went even further and called my work "awful" in your first comment of this reassessment. Seriously, there is rude, and then there's what you did. I honestly thought for a couple of weeks that my work really was "awful", because everyone said it was, until I discovered that you had recruited everyone here based on your prior interactions with them. That is canvassing. - PM800 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm so sorry that I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to. Your work is not awful. It just needed a lot of furthering. You could have had more. And I am kind of becoming offended because you are accusing me of canvassing and other editors of complying with it. I did not convince these people of saying anything. We had not talked about the article priorly. Their response was not because of our past relations. They just voiced their opinion. I asked for comments, which is perfectly allowed as I have seen on FAC. And, as I previously said, I did not recruit them because I thought they would support me. I recruited them because I know they have gotten many music articles to GA, making them fit to comment and add more to the review. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• "You could have had more." - What is that supposed to mean, exactly? Of course the article could have "had more"; every article on Wikipedia can "have more". Every article on Wikipedia can be improved because nothing is perfect. Let me reiterate that for you: No article is perfect, not even Featured Articles or Good Articles. White Horse (song) met the GA criteria, and even though it "could have had more", that was not a good reason to bring it up for reassessment. As for your repeated denials of canvassing, I believe you when you say that you had not talked about the article previously with the other four users. However, you did have positive relationships with them before you asked them for comments here; you admitted that you knew them. And since you knew and respected these editors, it is likely that you had many of the same viewpoints as them. And if you had agreed with them in the past about certain editing decisions, then it was more likely that you would also have the same viewpoint on this particular issue. I believe that, on a certain level, you know what you did now. I would still appreciate it if you apologized to me and the rest of the community for canvassing. - PM800 (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I will not apologize for something I did not do. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep – Looks great now. Covers everything, and the prose has also improved a lot. Novice7 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Wow, I'm impressed at the large improvement you've made. Definitely much, much better.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• In light of Ipodnano's efforts, I'll close this in the next 24-48 hours, barring any objections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Al-Kindi

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

Result: Delisted by Gun Powder Ma per consensus below. Geometry guy 22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This article was arbitrarily de-listed by William M. Connolley with this comment at Talk:Al-Kindi#Not a GA. I am nominating for reassessment here and hope that the editor will join the discussion. Notifying other interested editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Delist: maintaining GA status while at the same being tagged for neutrality issues for ten months is a contradiction in terms. With around 130 edits, Jagged 85 is the main contributor to the article and "He was a pioneer in..." etc. sounds to me like the usual diction with which grandiosely hollow claims are introduced. There are also a number of individual statements tagged so I don't see how this article can be GA given how good real GA article actually are. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I note a lot of tags which need addressing. I brought this here as I don't think that removing the GA icon, and removing from the list of GAs is the right way of going about addressing GA status concerns. I have notified major contributors, the original nominator, the reviewer and the projects listed on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delay I'm looking through the recently added tags now and will try to address as many as I can, although I admit I don't have much knowledge regarding al-Kindi. Has a notice been given to the article's main contributor(s)? If they (or he/she) are still active, I think they would be able to address any concerns quicker and more knowledgeably. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the note immediately above about notificatiuons. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • For citation #24, I don't see much reason this source should be deemed unreliable. Actually it reads neutrally in an encyclopedic manner (although that's not a requirement for an RS) and the source itself is well-sourced. If you click on the "Home" section of the reference it is very clear that this source is indeed reliable. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The article states in the infobox and its categories that al-Kindi adhered to Shia Islam, but there doesn't seem to be a source backing that information and nothing on his stated adherence to Shia Islam is mentioned in the body of the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've taken care of the issue with the camera obscura quote. Since I couldn't find it anywhere in google books nor the regular web except in wikipedia mirror articles, I removed it. I replaced it with important info regarding his involvement with the camera obscura using two reliable book sources with links for anyone to verify. However, I have no objection to reinstating the quote if we decide to accept the reliable source that had been used originally in good faith. Al Ameer son (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately you didn't. I've removed the text to talk for repair William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I was notified of this, but I note that I haven't edited the article or previously participated, except to ask a GA reviewer 1 question: why he had requested for a 3rd opinion without specifying why he had difficulty deciding whether to pass/fail. I'm not going to comment further except to say the following: if there is a dispute over neutrality (which is a content dispute), I don't think criterion 5 is satisfied (and a neutrality tag which hasn't been removed after a reasonable period of time is considered as prima fascie evidence of a content dispute). That dispute would need to be resolved in order for that criterion to be satisfied, and upon that resolution, the tag would need to be removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• delist - no article with an unresolved POV tag on its header for the past 6 months should be a GA. If you care to address the tag, consider for relisting later William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist The good article process is broken. Articles are only judged on form not content. This is a good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) example. —Ruud 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we bored yet? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

After one week of inactivity here and the article itself (Jezhotwells's last edit was on 22 March), it is clear that the Good article reassessment was negative, that is the article should be delisted immediately. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Delisted. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Incredible Melting Man

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

Result: List as GA per substantial improvements made and review comments below. Geometry guy 21:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done many GANs but have never had to go through a GAR, so forgive me if I'm doing this wrong. I am asking for a reassessment of the GAN review by Amadscientist (talk · contribs) of The Incredible Melting Man. I believe his review was in good faith, but I think he is wrong to claim that the problems he identified are so serious that they could not have been addressed within the review itself, and I have to take exception with the fact that he essentially quick-failed the GAN rather than worked with me to more specifically identify problems and then work through them.

I have done some edits to fix some of his specific complaints. However, many of his claims are vague or not backed up with examples. He claims the "lede lacks proper wikilinks" but, although this seems like a particularly easy problem to solve, I was given no examples to work with. He also makes the general comment that the prose contains "puffery or weasel words," and that the prose has "spacing problems," but in all these cases there are no examples. Some of his claims which are flat-out untrue. He said the statement in the lede that Baker's effects were "noted for their goriness" is an editorialization, but as a quick glance at the Reception section shows, the article contains many cited statements from critics that substantiate that statement.

More significantly, I take particular exception to the claim that this article contains OR and that "a great deal of the claims go unsourced; I never use OR, and everything in this article is 100% cited by reliable sources and inline citations. Perhaps there is the need to add additional inline citations to the end of a sentence or two (as opposed to the end of a paragraph or a few sentences later), and that's fine, but this is something the reviewer could have worked with me on and helped me identify specific sentence. No such effort was made. I guess that is my chief complaint here: the article might need some polishing before reaching GAN status, but I believe the problems are so minor that they can be easily worked through in the review, and no such effort was made.

I'm willing and eager to work with editors on these problems. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick-fail is when a reviewer fails an article for one of the listed reasons without extensive review. I gave a complete review of the article. Wikipedia good article guidelines state:

Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the criteria listed here. You can also put the article "on hold" or ask for a second opinion. If you wish, you can inform the nominator of your actions.

I chose to fail the article based on the amount of work that I precieved was needed and the need for added input from other editors to help. Basic guidelines of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog state: if the article is not of Good Article quality yet, don't be afraid to fail. I am an editor that will fail a nomination if I believe the work will take more than the time of a hold or there may be difficulties in the editor or editors understanding of MoS. I do indeed have the right to list "The Incredible Melting Man" as one of my reviews. I also do understand that it is your right to submit to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I do however, believe you misinterpretation of a "Quick fail" is illustrative of you misunderstanding of guidelines. No offense. I can always add more detail and or examples if you truely do not see what wikilinks should be added. While I did not speak to specifics on that I did believe the guidance was enough. You didn't even wikilink "Science Fiction" in your lede.

If the wikilink problem is easy enough to solve (it is what I believed as well)...why do you need further guidence? As for the Rick Baker critique, I was VERY specific.

I did not percieve that my concern with spacing required a specific...there are a few and I stated that the article required a good copy edit. I also said that "the overall prose in general is very poor and may require additional editor input to pass GA. There are editors available for assistance with Project Film that can help." this was a major factor in the "Fail".

Perceptions of OR are common and mean no insult. Editors do not always see their own OR, and again, on this I was specific: "To say that the film is an homage of a genre without a reference constitutes original research." While I do understand your right to ask for reassement, I also wonder if it is due to the fact that the article was failed and not held.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to press the issue, because I feel that others should weigh in and this shouldn't be a back and forth between just the two of us. However Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#How to review an article states: "If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed (as described at Wikipedia:Good article nominations) without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues. Some reviewers refer to this as "quick-failing"." This means that your failing my article without the benefit of a hold period, despite the level of detail in your post, was a quick-fail. As for your comment that I "didn't even wikilink "Science Fiction" in your lede", that is because in past GANs I've been asked to remove links to genres and general things like that, per WP:OVERLINK. Had I had the benefit of a review, I would have explained this and been willing to discuss which phrases should be linked and which shouldn't. And don't worry, I'm not personally offended by the OR statement, I'm just saying there is no OR. The specific example you cite above (about the "homage") was already sourced, and I've also added an additional inline citation to the end of that sentence address your concern. This, too, could have been easily solved in a GAN review. — Hunter Kahn 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Also want to point out this part of the policy: "If it is apparent from the article edit history and talk page that the nominator has already put extensive work into the article and is genuinely trying to improve its quality, then generally a quick-fail is inappropriate even if obvious issues still exist. Give someone else a chance to review the article and provide the needed help." — Hunter Kahn 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Hunter, but that is not what I did. The "Above problems" are things that would mean no extensive review is needed to fail without further reading of the entire artice. I did not "Quick Fail" sir. I assure you. I really do respectfully and with no animosity, request that you reread that section very carefuly to understand where you have misinterpreted the guideline.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I am trying to say is simply, as reviewers, we are not required to place a GA nomination on hold. It's not that I don't place nominations on hold...I just didn't feel the article, as it stood could be raised to GA standards within the hold period.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but I respectfully disagree and feel that the issues could have been resolved within the hold period. That's why I've brought it here, so other editors can weigh in. — Hunter Kahn 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Based on the issues noted in the review, immediately failing it appears to be overly harsh, as I don't see anything that could not have been fixed in a week's time. Some of the comments are helpful (the plot could be trimmed a little, and you can't use phrases like "some sources say"), but I'm confused about others. There's a note that claims go unsourced, yet the article looks well-referenced to me; if things need sources, note explicitly what areas do. The article's not a GA yet, but the writer should've had an opportunity to fix in this case. Might as well use this GAR to many any fixes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Reply Obviously the writer of the article would agree with you. I can't argue or debate opinion. Yes, it may be seen as "Overly harsh". I saw enough problems to decide the article would be "difficult" to work through a GAN hold and felt the amount of work would not be accomplished in the hold period. I am an editor who is not afraid to "Fail" a GA review. I believe much of the disillusion of GA is due to the process. It isn't that people are loosing faith in GA, it just seems that many GAN's become battles. Once an editor begins a review, backing away is not exactly a good thing to do just because you may sense difficulties ahead. I made a desicion and I do stick by it. I also felt I was specific about the OR claim. You are correct however, that the GAR is a good place to make the needed adjustments. I will step back from further envolvment on this article. It has been very difficult already to just communicate guideline on GAN process, and while I believe Hunter brought this here in good faith it was also brought here out of a clear misinterpretation of the process. I know it seems "Harsh", but that doesn't seem a worthy reason on top of misunderstanding of "Quick Fail" to bring to GAR. I have thus far reviewed 4 articles this week. Three were failed and one was "held". I am also in the process of a fifth. If the GA process is to be respected it should not push forward an individual's articles just to get it to GA level out of the frustration of the editor, which I feel this is. No disrespect to Hunter. But..just being upset that I didn't hold and work through every detail with the editor doesn't seem worthy of a GAR, especialy with an unjustified accusation. The very reason I didn't hold is because the level of problems was high in my perception as the reviewer. Becoming specific on every single detail of an article that is a fail is not something I felt was needed because I could have done so afterwards in a much less confrontational atmosphere and in a more liesuerly fashion. I myself am familiar with theses types of articles having brought a similar one to GA. The difference in my eyes is the GAN for my article had no where near the amount of notations and changes needed that this one had and still took nearly a week to work through. My single "Hold" article I had this week, I thought would be a "Pass". There were few real problems but enough that the editor wanted time over the weekend and I didn't want to make any changes he may have disagreed with as some things were only suggestions. But, enough real problems existed that a hold was placed to not rush the editor. Attempting a hold for "The Incredible Melting Man" seemd like it would be rushing the article. 7 days was not enough time.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I feel that entirely too much focus in this GAR has been on whether this was a quick-fail or just a fail. Frankly, I don't care. In all the 116 articles I've worked up to GA status, I've never been outright failed, nor have I ever had one that I couldn't bring up to standards within the 7 day hold period, so I'm really not familiar with the quick-fail criteria and may well have misunderstood it (as one other user seems to have pointed out as well). That wasn't my point in bringing it to GAR. My point was that the problems are not so insurmountable that I couldn't have addressed them in 7 days, given the chance. I know you disagree, so I sought other opinions, and am now working to address the problems (see below). — Hunter Kahn 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

    I agree with you about the focus, but hopefully we are now back on track. Concerning the nature of the "fail" (personally, I prefer to say "not listed"), I would like to note that in addition to good article reassessment, there is no minimum time between nominations, so that if a reviewer leaves a detailed review, and you can fix the problems, then you can renominate immediately. Admittedly, it may take time for another reviewer to get to the article, but this is one reason that "holds" are not mandatory. Geometry guy 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Procedural comments. There is a lot of confusion surrounding "quick-failing", and having guidelines written by a committee does not guarantee clarity! As noted above, there is a passage at WP:Reviewing good articles which states:
  • "If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed (as described at Wikipedia:Good article nominations) without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues. Some reviewers refer to this as "quick-failing"."

This is correct but confusing: the statement "If the article does not have any of the above problems, it cannot be failed without going through the on hold process" is logically distinct, and not implied! In the second sentence, "Some reviewers refer to this as "quick-failing"", the referent of "this" is ambiguous: "quick-failing" is intended to refer to the process of failing for one or more of the five reasons given (the "quick-fail criteria"). Ironically, the sentence is correct even with the ambiguity: some reviewers do assume, as Hunter Kahn does here, that "this" refers only to the second clause of the previous sentence (failing without going through the hold process), even though this contradicts Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/guidelines#How to review an article, where "quick-failing" is step 2, while failing after consideration of the article and good article criteria as a whole is in step 3.

Consequently, the present review was not a "quick-fail", as the "quick-fail criteria" were not invoked (nor do they apply) and the reviewer left a detailed review with reference to all of the good article criteria.

Whether to place an article on hold has always been a matter for reviewer discretion: there used to be some guidance at WP:Reviewing good articles, some of which could usefully be reinstated. In any case, there is no obligation to place a nomination on hold; if it is, however, there is also no requirement to limit the hold period to 7 days.

I hope that clarifies matters! Geometry guy 17:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Review comments. I have read through the article, and find, generally in agreement with the GAN review, that the main issues of concern are 1a (prose), 1b (lead, words to watch, fiction), 2b,c (use of citations, possible synthesis/editorializing), and 3b (unnecessary detail), although I would also question the rationale for the use of a non-free image from Robocop. The sourcing looks very good to me, although one or two sources ("The Book of Lists: Horror"?) may be less reliable and one or two reviews less notable than others. I don't see why Jonathan Demme's brief appearance is lead-worthy, and find the plot summary a bit too detailed. Regarding the lack of citations in the lead and infobox, this is fine as long as the material is cited elsewhere in the article. The plot summary is also uncited, which is fine provided that it contains nothing more than a summary of the viewing experience; for example, the last clause "implying the possibility of another accident in the future" is analysis.

The most substantial issue, in terms of work to do, is unencyclopedic writing, which cuts across 1a, 2 and 3b. A first example is the following:

“ The Incredible Melting Man was originally intended to be a parody of horror films. This is why the film includes several comedic moments in addition to the horror elements, such as when Steve West's ear detaches and gets stuck on a tree, and when a janitor sweeps West's melted body into a garbage can at the end of the film. It is also the reason for several comedic lines of dialogue that appear out of place with the rest of the film, including one moment when homeless men notice the melting West and say to each other, "You think we've got trouble, look at that dude."^[5] ”

I often ask the question "according to whom?" when reviewing, as opinions should be attributed. We learn elsewhere in the article that the writer/director claims he intended a parody, but the producers "decided a straight horror film would be more financially successful". The source used there is the same as the source [5] used here: Adams book on "Showgirls, Teen Wolves, and Astro Zombies". Presenting this information as "This is why..." and "It is also the reason..." in the editorial voice of the article is unencyclopedic unless multiple sources support this version of events and this explanation alone. The film is not a "straight horror film" according to these examples and the reviews, yet the article states it is in the lead.

As a second example, I find the article confusing when referring to the "appliances" (a rather specialist term) worn by Rebar: I understand that "Baker created four distinct stages of make-up design" and that these do not all appear in the final film, but the article suggests both that the other stages were edited out, and that they were not filmed because Rebar was uncooperative. Both views are sourced to Meyers, but only in the version of the lead reviewed is one of these views attributed to him.

As a third, there is too much detail in the cultural references section. This article is not about "It came from Hollywood", "Robocop" or "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and does not need plot details such as "their silhouetted images are superimposed over the film to give the impression that they are sitting in a movie theater as they make their jokes". Two or three sentences in each case would suffice to convey the connection with The Incredible Melting Man. Also, take care to avoid words which editorialize, as in "Bottin even dubbed the RoboCop effects "the Melting Man"."

Encyclopedic prose should be written for the timeless present of the reader: this means using the narrative present for plot summaries and plot details, and the past tense for almost everything else. Phrases such as...

• "Future Academy Award-winning make-up artist Rick Baker"
• "...would simulate gradual disintegration"
• "in 1996, both of those films would be featured in seventh season episodes"
• "Rick Baker, who would go on to win multiple Academy Awards for Best Makeup..."

...are not encyclopedic, as they refer to past events from the point of view of someone in the past. The article uses "who later..." several times, which is better, if not ideal.

Encyclopedic prose is also out-of-universe: "He must consume human flesh in order to survive, and his strength and fury only grow as his murderous rampage continues." is in-universe, and thus inappropriate for the lead. Even in the plot summary, occasional reminders that the narrative is taking place within a film are recommended.

These examples are not comprehensive. Further, the prose needs a general copyedit.

• "who often played villains in science fiction films throughout the 1950s." ("often" and "throughout")
• "The same year of the film's release" ("same", "of"?)

In one case, an attempted fix made the prose worse, leaving a hanging noun phrase: "The first feature film written by screenwriter and director William Sachs,[1] Some sources have described The Incredible Melting Man as a remake of First Man into Space (1959)"

It looks like the article is now receiving attention from multiple editors; I believe such attention is necessary to meet the criteria. Geometry guy 23:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. "Steve" or "Steven", or does the film use both?

• Thanks for these comments, Geometry guy. Between these specific comments and those from the original review, I think I can now start to improve the article as I would have during a hold period. I am going to have time tonight to do a thorough run through this article, and expect that I can bring it up to snuff by either tonight or tomorrow at the latest. I just ask your patience for that one day. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  You are welcome. Reassessments typically last longer than that, so you have time to make fixes! I hope other reviewers will also comment. Geometry guy 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, I may need to take another general sweep through the prose, but I've gone through the entire article and I believe I've made changes consistent with the comments by Amadscientist and Geometry guy. In particular, I've tried to remove unencyclopedic wording, added additional attribution language in areas mistaken for OR, and made other sweeping changes (including severely cutting down on the Cultural references section and combining what had been two subsections into one). I was hoping you could weigh in and let me know if you are happy with these improvements. I also hoped to ask for further guidance in two areas: a) Wikilinks in the lede. Amadscientist said he believed more needed to be added, but per WP:OVERLINK I've always been told to try to steer clear of wikilinking general terms, and was hoping to get more guidance on what specifically should be linked that currently isn't. b) Fair use images. I thought I had described the rationale in each of the images (the one in filming: to illustrate Baker's melting effects; the one in cultural references: to show the Robocop effects and draw a comparison between those effects and those in Melting Man), and I truly believe these images serve a function that text cannot, so I think the fair use is appropriate. But images aren't my area of expertise, so any help in beefing up the rationale language would be appreciated. I'd also like to make a final plea for keeping the Robocop image. The MST3K image has been removed, but it would be detrimental to the understanding of the article (one of the fair use standards) to remove the Robocop one, and just because its a screenshot from a different film doesn't mean it cannot be used in this article if a rationale applies. Thanks for your help! — Hunter Kahn 06:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your excellent improvements. I am going through the article again. I still have problems with the following lead sentence: "Originally written as a parody of horror films, it was changed during filming to a straight horror film after the producers determined it would be more financially successful that way." The body of the article is more nuanced and this analysis relies heavily on one source. It should be possible to convey the same basic information more neutrally. Geometry guy 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your continued attention to the article! I've rewritten the sentence a bit to make it more in line with the wording in the body of the article. Let me know if that works, or if further tweaking is needed. The additions add some length to the lede, but it's an important element of the article so I think it's appropriate. Also, I added language to hopefully respond to your "clarification needed" tag, but if you think further clarification is needed, feel free to readd it. — Hunter Kahn 02:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I note that Amadscientist has failed 4 out of 6 GAN reviews so far during the GAN backlog elimination drive, which is a far far higher failure rate than anyone else taking part. It may be that he was just unlucky to pick some bad articles, but, as nominator of one of his "quick failed" articles (International Dunhuang Project), I believe that he is failing articles too quickly, without giving the nominators a chance to respond, when there is a possibility that the articles could be brought up to standard with a little extra work. In the case of International Dunhuang Project, Amadscientist admits that the article is "well written, good in both scope and focus", and has no specific comments about the contents of the article, but quick failed it on the basis that it is over-reliant on the International Dunhuang Project web site as a source (a valid complaint, but difficult to avoid as there are no reliable 3rd party sources that give detailed information about the activities of the IDP). I find it very discouraging to have a well written and comprehensive article quick failed like this, and think it would be more constructive for Amadscientist to put articles on hold, as everyone else does, if there is a possibility that the problems identified can be addressed, and only quick fail those articles that clearly and uncontroversially fall well below GA standard. BabelStone (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the information. If you want to raise systematic concerns relating to the GAN backlog elimination drive, the drive talk page is the best place. Community GAR is also available for concerns about other specific reassessments. This reassessment page should focus on this article, and whether it meets the GA criteria. Thanks (in advance and/or noted in the edit history) to editors for concentrating on that. Geometry guy 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• To whom it may concern, Geometry guy (talk · contribs) has indicated he will continue his review, and my messages to Amadscientist (talk · contribs) have not been returned Amadscientist (talk · contribs) has declined to participate any further. However, since the feedback I've gotten from the changes above are good, and since this GAR has been inactive for a while, I just want to ask that others please not be deterred from weighing in here. I believe the article is very close to GA status right now. — Hunter Kahn 14:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Proposal to close and list. I have finally completed my review of the article. The prose is still a bit loose in places, but not sufficiently so that I believe it remains a GA concern. In the absence of further comments, I therefore propose to close this reassessment and list the article as a GA in 48 hours. Geometry guy 18:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Geometry Guy! Your efforts are very much appreciated. — Hunter Kahn 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Simon MacCorkindale

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

Result: Delisted per comments below. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 21:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the GA review of this article was cursory and inadequate and am hence requesting community reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Although on the whole well written, there are some examples of clumsy phrasing such as:

• ''In January 2007, MacCorkindale was given a five month sabbatical from Casualty due to a storyline and toured the UK in a revival of the Agatha Christie thriller The Unexpected Guest.

• There are contradictions within the article:

• They lived together in Buckinghamshire near the River Thames, and from 1995 on a farm in Northamptonshire.
• After rejecting the chance to play Captain Jonathan Archer in Star Trek: Enterprise,[23] MacCorkindale settled in the UK once again, joining the cast of the BBC One medical drama Casualty in 2002, portraying clinical lead consultant Harry Harper.
• He was surprised to be offered the role of Harry, having spent years beforehand working in the United States, but found its Bristol location ideal having recently moved to the West Country.
• He lived on and ran an Arabian stud-farm on Exmoor with his wife, British actress Susan George.

• Some clarifications of where he lived and when would be good.

• Somewhat improved, but They had previously lived together in Buckinghamshire near the River Thames, and bought a in Northamptonshire in 1995. is meaningless. Did you check what you had written before (or after) hitting the save button?
• I am still confused about how he was living in Northamptonshiore whilst appearing in a TV series filmed in the US? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• You are aware that people can own more than one property at the same time right? And that it doesn't say he was living there? There, I have made it clearer. Gran² 10:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Filmography:The film (and play) is called Macbeth, not Macduff.

Jezhotwells (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think I have rectified these issues. Gran² 10:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur that the article is now sufficiently improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. Prose quality is below GA standard. There are short sentences which give a choppy feel. The information doesn't flow logically. We have use of first names. There is a feel of information culled from sources almost in a cut and paste manner, so language is sometime inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and is not consistent throughout. Article would benefit from a good copy-edit, and some serious thought given to selection and arrangement of information. The lead doesn't inform the reader early enough why this person is notable. We have his occupation, and then we go straight into history. The lead doesn't fully cover the man's career, nor deal appropriately with the topic. See WP:Lead. The Filmography seems rather long, and criteria 3(b) may not be met: "unnecessary detail". There appears to be little critical analysis or reflection on the man's work. We are told what the man has done, and what he felt and thought about matters, "surprised", "never too comfortable", etc, in a manner that feels a little too show-biz gossip, and internal perspective, and not quite enough neutral, distanced commentary appropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. I feel this article doesn't meet criteria 1(a) and (b), 3 (a) and (b), and 4. I thought I would just tidy it up before closing this GAR, but I became aware of the amount of work needed. My recommendation is that this article is delisted and editors spend some time building the article up to meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria (following the links in that guideline for further assistance), and then resubmitting. It is possible sometimes for a GAR to be a productive process, but after a month, little work has been done on the article. SilkTork *^YES! 13:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would probably be because nobody gave me any comments until you... I disagree with the bulk of what you say, but seeing as that's basically a death sentence, you may as well delist it, and be done with it... Gran² 14:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, let me deal with each of these points:
  • "Prose quality is below GA standard." - Examples?
  • "There are short sentences which give a choppy feel." - Examples?
  • "The information doesn't flow logically." - I disagree, so examples?
  • "We have use of first names." - Where? I can't see any there which shouldn't be.
  • "There is a feel of information culled from sources almost in a cut and paste manner, so language is sometime inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and is not consistent throughout." - I strongly disagree, please provide examples.
  • "Article would benefit from a good copy-edit" - What wouldn't?
  • "some serious thought given to selection and arrangement of information." - I take offense at this.
  • "The lead doesn't inform the reader early enough why this person is notable." - It says he's an actor. Saying what he is most notable for as an actor clearly violates NPOV.
  • "The lead doesn't fully cover the man's career, nor deal appropriately with the topic." - I disagree
  • "The Filmography seems rather long" - Well, if it wasn't, then it would be incomplete...
  • "There appears to be little critical analysis or reflection on the man's work." - There's some; is this really a serious issue in a Good Article? I also strongly disagree on your further points relating to this.
  • "It is possible sometimes for a GAR to be a productive process, but after a month, little work has been done on the article" - Well, obviously, there were no comments for a month...

• So yeah, I strongly disagree with all of your points. Please provide concrete examples so I can actually do something about them. Gran² 23:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, good work, Gran2, in adding sourced content to bring a poor stub up to this level. The sourcing looks pretty good, although I would question the use of the "Simon MacCorkindale Fan Page" and the "unknown publisher" simon.helenheart.com.

Unfortunately, I agree with the concerns raised above that the article does not yet meet criteria 1 and 3b, and possibly also 3a and 4. The main issue is a lack of prose clarity. This is an encyclopedia article, and it needs to be written from an encyclopedic viewpoint; it should describe the life of Simon MacCorkindale in a way that the reader can easily digest. In particular, sentences such as

• "Poor eyesight prevented him from following his father's footsteps and so he planned to be a theatre director instead." and
• "His biggest role yet came in 1984 when he cast as Angela Channing's (Jane Wyman) lawyer Greg Reardon in the soap opera Falcon Crest, without requiring an audition."

are written from an historical viewpoint.

However, the latter example illustrates a wider problem of poor prose: in many sentences, the word order, punctuation, and content creates confusion. Does "he cast as" mean "he was cast as"? Who did not require an audition?

I can provide more examples before or after closing this reassessment, but here are a few general comments with indicative examples:

• Within a paragraph, each sentence should focus upon a single idea that follows naturally from the previous sentence. Combining multiple ideas into one sentence can be done, but if it is not done well, the result is a lack of clarity (Examples: "After appearing in a number of UK television productions such as Within These Walls, Sutherland's Law,[2] I Claudius as Lucius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth as Lucius,[7] and making his film debut in 1974's Juggernaut,[2] his break came when he was cast as Simon Doyle in the 1978 film adaptation of Agatha Christie's Death on the Nile at the age of 25." and "MacCorkindale returned to the UK in 1986, once he had left Falcon Crest, to form a production company and the following year set up Amy International Artists based at Shepperton Studios alongside his wife Susan George; he also owned Anglo Films International.").
• When including multiple clauses in a sentence, try to order them so that they are closely linked. ("The role impressed MacCorkindale as Chase was "a very cerebral individual"[8] and also meant he "found himself in the first wave of UK stars to make it big in America," along with Joan Collins in Dynasty which led to a further influx of British actors finding work there.")
• Don't make temporal leaps ("When in the UK, they previously lived together in Buckinghamshire near the River Thames, and owned a farm in Northamptonshire in 1995, where they started their Arabian horse business.")

Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 22:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've requested a copy-edit from WP:LOCE... Gran² 17:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad they are stepping in. Feel free to renominate once the prose is fixed. Geometry guy 21:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company

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

Result: Kept No action needed, as there is no dispute about maintaining the GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC).

I carried out the original WP:GAN review and awarded the article GA-status. I also suggested WP:PR as I believe that the article may have the potential to go forward, at a future date, to WP:FAC. My review can be found at Talk:Churchill Machine Tool Company/GA1.

A certain editor is challenging the article and I believe that that editor is engaged in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. He regraded the article to C-class without going through WP:GAR (see [20] and Talk:Churchill Machine Tool Company#Demoting to C - class); is attempting to have the article renamed (see Talk:Churchill Machine Tool Company#Requested move; and has also made a Notability Noticeboard referral (see Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Churchill Machine Tool Company).

His statement at the Notability Noticeboard states: "I edited a lot of the unimportant information from the page, but the page's editors have expressed feelings of ownership over the work. There is a lot of ego connected to the page because it was rated GA class by means of a speedy, uninterested group of reviewers. The history and talk page discussions show that emotions ran high when previous edits were made to remove unimportant details.--Screwball23 talk 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)" and my reply reads: "That statement is certainly untrue. I carried out the WP:GAN assessment it was my 365th assessment (see User:Pyrotec/GA reviews) and it took me the best part of two days to carryout. The editor making this comments has never ever completed a WP:GAN review, he started work on one (see here Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2) and was Proded by an Admin (Wizardman), the reply was was "Sorry, I read your message, and I think the #1 issue about the article is its style. It is not engaging or fun to read. I didn't gain any new insights or interesting details. The minute details about it's omissions are irrelevant; it is just a really boring article, and I can't put myself into the mood to edit it anymore. And truth be told, this lack of interest is what is killing its GAN, and will continue to do so. --Screwball23 talk 03:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (it can be found at User talk:Wizardman/Archive32#Codex Vaticanus and was copied by the Admin to Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2)".

I am referring this article to WP:GAR for Community Reassessment. I beleive that my assessment of the article as GA-clas was fundamentally correct. Pyrotec (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that this review is closed as no change required to current status. The user whose comments spurred this review in the first place does not wish to seem to discuss them further. A peer review of the article has been conducted which is complementary about the depth and scope of the article, in these circumstances I see no point in prolonging this review. NtheP (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy for the review to be closed and that would provide the article with some "stability"; but as I opened it, it would not be appropriate for me to close it. Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Glenn & Viola Walters Cultural Arts Center

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

Result: Listed. I made a mistake with my initial review, so therefore will personally make the article a GA. Wikipedian2 (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This nomination was failed by User:Wikipedian2 after a superficial one line review at Talk:Glenn & Viola Walters Cultural Arts Center/GA1. The review reads: "Please add far more information to the article, and ensure that all information is fully referenced. After you have addressed the issues, you can resubmit. Thank-you, Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)". Examining the article, it is reasonably well written, well referenced to reliable sources, complies with key MoS elements, is neutral, covers the subject in reasonable detail, stable and is illustrated by correctly licensed and captioned images. The reviewer left no detailed information on what was lacking and I have listed it here to determine if the community agrees that this article meets the GA criteria. I am notifying both reviewer and nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that to reach the Good Article criteria, the article must include further references (especially in the introduction) to ensure the article fully supports its own facts. That is why I failed it. I apologise for not being detailed enough. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read WP:Lead#Citations, which makes no requirement for citations in the lead: only material that "is challenged or likely to be challenged" would need citing in the lead. The lead summarises the article where adequate referencing is provided. Are there any other statements that need citations? If so, please elaborate. It is expected that specific instances of shortcomings be provided in reviews. What additional information do you feel should be added to the article? Please give details. I note also that you made no obvious attempt to contact the nominator to provide feedback, or even inform them of the fail. I don't think that that is helpful behaviour. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian2, thank you for the review, but as Jezhotwells has shown, your objections are without merit. Having gone through FAC several times, including two articles promoted to FA (plus a featured portal), and having gone through GA about 35 times (with 34 passes) I think I am fairly familiar with the criteria, and I only nominate articles that I think are there. Now, I don't expect a simple pass based just on my track record, as I can sometimes miss a period or comma, or what reads fine to me really does need a tweak because it is hard to copy edit your own work as what you have in your mind may not match what you wrote. But a quick fail is in this instance is highly improper (unless the quick-fail criteria has been re-vamped). As Jezhotwells points out, and has been debated extensively before at FA (and I think GA) that we generally do not do citations in the lede/lead, as it is just a summary. Controversial statements or details would be one such instance, and specifically in cities we usually cite the population - but that is more to prevent simple vandalism and because the figures change so often. As to sourcing in general, without looking, I would find it very suspect if more than a sentence or two does not have a source for the entire article. I generally have a citation for every-single sentence, and often more than one citation per sentence. I tell the reader where I got. To re-iterate another point brought up by Jezhotwells, what more information would you like? This arts center is less than ten years old, and I think the article fairly and adequately represents the coverage the article has received by reliable sources. I cannot just make stuff up. The one and only area I thought might need work, and a proper review might shed some light on it, is the coverage since it has opened as to what goes on there (as to the history section). The problem being that there are just so many events that you cannot fit them all, but how do you properly summarize everything without getting close to OR, if not crossing that boundary. Personally, I think what is there meets the GA criteria, but certainly not FA standards. Anyway, please re-consider your initial assessment, at least provide far more specific details, or excuse yourself from the process completely. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked, and every-single sentence has at least one citation, as to the body of the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think the best thing to do would be to put this back in the nomination queue with the original timestamp, so that it can get a fresh review. I hope another uninvolved editor see this and confirms this is the best course and closes this discussion, so that i can put it back in the queue for you. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am new to this process, and still learning as to the criteria of good articles. Everybody makes mistakes, especially when new. After reading your above comments, and reviewing the article and the GAN specifications, it is more than fair to say that I made a huge mistake, and your article does appear to meet what is necessary for Good Article status. I must apologise for wasting your time, and will personally make the article a GA. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that Wikipedian2. I have fixed the talk page templates and will get this reassessment archived. If you want to do another review, then just ask me or another experienced reviewer to mentor you. And I suggest taht you use one of the templates such as {{subst:FGAN}}, {{subst:GAList}}, {{subst:GAList2}} or {{subst:GATable}}. I find them useful in organising the review and most importantly making sure that I check each aspect. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you, that helps a lot. Have a nice day. Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I thank you as well Wikipedian2, it takes a lot to admit a mistake, but you have made amends and you will do just fine. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

iPad

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Result: kept

I am requesting a reassessment of iPad. The iPad article is good but I think that a reassesement is necessary. ~~Awsome EBE123 ^talk_Contribs 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why this page and Talk:IPad/GA2? Pick one, please; I don't care which, although there's probably a convention to follow. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the other discussion as this page is where it should be. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be some mention of the lack of Flash support so the coverage is broad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added some content on the lack of Flash support - I now have no issues with it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see much if anything wrong with it, I don't particularly like the style of the prose in some parts but that's fairly minor, so I'm second guessing the issues I should be looking at. It would be better if you mentioned what you think has changed for the worse? Szzuk (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone close this discussion as no really substantial issues have been raised? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, closed as kept. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

SA-500D

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

Result: kept

Myself and other members of WikiProject Spaceflight, including the editor who nominated this article for GA status, have expressed concerns regarding the thoroughness and leniency of the original assessment. It is requested that another review be conducted, with emphasis on areas where the article does not quite meet the criteria, hopefully allowing improvements to be made without the need to delist. --GW… 08:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments made prior to 08:47 on 27 February 2011 copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight:

Could somebody please have a look at SA-500D. It has just been listed as a GA, however I believe the assessment was inadequately thorough and lenient. I would appreciate a second opinion before requesting a reassessment. --GW… 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly agree that the article seems rather brief in sections that should be greatly expanded, such as the Configurations section of the article. Many items are left unsourced as well; whether this is due to improper and unclear placement of the citations in the article or supposition, I am unsure. However, it is decently written in a technical writing style, without dramatization, it does seem to at least mention most aspects of the facility (I am not personally familiar with it though), and it does include a fair number of relevant pictures and a video, even if not directly related to the nearby article section. Nonetheless, it still seems to suit the criteria better as a B-class, rather than a GA-class article. --Xession (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I was surprised to not receive any criticism before the article got the GA stamp. I appreciate your constructive criticism that I might improve the article. I had essentially reached the end of my independent improvement process.

Xsession, could you please {{fact}} tag what looks unreferenced to you? I'll be happy to fill in any blanks.

What ought we do to expand the Configurations section? The original intent was to provide the context for SA-500D. In fact, that section had been part of the lede previously, specifically because it was there for establishing content. I have thought to write articles for each of the other configurations, but time being what it is... -- ke4roh (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue regarding citations really seems to be mostly placement of them. For instance, in the Configurations section, only the first bullet-point is referenced; now, I'm assuming here, but it seems that the rest of that information probably came from the same book, and as such, the entire section could be cited to that book by moving the reference to just below the text. As for expanding it, I don't own the referenced book, and don't know if you do either, but it seems there should be more to say about each model. Maybe there isn't enough information about them that is notable enough for a separate article, but this article would be a great location for the information if it can be found. Again, it is certainly at least a B-class article; don't get the impression I'm dogging it for being poor quality, because its definitely on the right track. Happy editing! --Xession (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. What else does it need besides what I did today? -- ke4roh (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I expressed my clear concern right out there although even I had something left in my heart. I think that something is the problem. Even I WOULD HELP IN THE REASSESSMENT OF THE PAGE.thanks. Wrote in A friendly foRmat don't mind.--Ankit Maity 08:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• You beat me to it. I'd already expressed my concerns on the last reviewer's talkpage (User talk:Ankit Maity), as I don't beleive that the WP:GAN review was carried out correctly, it was at most a marginal GA; and I was considering opening a WP:GAR myself. Pyrotec (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Detailed comments

I tend to do the WP:Lead last and will do so here.

• Ground test configurations -

• 1st para says "five models" and 2nd para says "five pre-flight configurations", are these the same thing? Perhaps they are as the following paragraphs list four other "Other ground configurations". Note: It might be helpful to add a "lk-on" on those thrust units.

I standardized the wording a bit. How's that? -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Development of the test article -

• The first sentence of this section duplicates the last sentence of the previous section - are both needed?

Ah. That was hard to see in the editor with references spelled out. I took out the second one. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the grammar of the first paragraph. Is the Saturn V three stages or four (or even five): it seems to be stages 1 to 3, plus an instrument unit, with the Apollo module on top (since the SA-500D was a full stack "less the Apollo module on top")?

Yes, I tried to clarify. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Are "jolts" and "shimmies" technical terms, and do they need wikilinks and/or explanations?

I removed that bit. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Third stage -

• I don't like all these undefined bits are jargon even if they are wikilinked. OK, "CM", "SM", "LES" and "SLA" are wikilinked so I know what they are, and the third stage is a "S-IVB-D", but what is a "S-IB-D/F"?

I suppose I could leave the CM, SM, and LES off entirely. It's all part of the Apollo module which technically wasn't part of SA-500D. They will only come up again at the bottom when addressing the parts on display. I added a passage about the numbering schemes and spelled out the acronyms. They are all pointed out in the picture, for what that's worth. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Instrument Unit -

• What's an IU ring its not defined? It seems, to be an object or "thing" can an object/thing have responsiblies?

Defined. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• What's an S-IU-200D/500D?

Clarified. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

....to be continued, later. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pyrotec! Your comments have been most helpful. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Its looking much better. I'll just keep adding comments and look at the "corrective" actions at the end if that is OK? I suspect that they will all be what is needed to bring the article up to standard. Pyrotec (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks again for the help! -- ke4roh (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree these assessments are sometimes given too casually, and I have a couple of accuracy/completeness concerns:

• The term "Apollo module" was used inappropriately; such a term was never used by NASA engineering and seems to reflect a lack of knowledge about the Apollo spacecraft, which consisted of two separate vehicles: the Command/Service Module, and the Lunar Module. I've fixed the references by changing "Apollo module" to "Apollo spacecraft".
• Corrective action: It isn't clear from the information given in this article (or the sources cited), whether or not the BP-27 accounted for the Lunar Module mass (which would have been necessary for an accurate dynamic test.) Unfortunately there don't seem to be any pictures available of exactly what BP-27 looked like. The LM was usually simulated by a LM Test Article (LTA) (such as that carried on Apollo 6 and Apollo 8), which would have been a separate piece of hardware carried inside the SLA. Other than this, it qualifies as at least B class. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know where information on which SLA was used for dynamic testing might be hiding? I was only barely able to piece together that BP-27 was used for the dynamic tests, and BP-27 doesn't appear to contain an SLA.[21] I asked the USSRC curator which SLA is in the horizontal stack, and he wasn't sure. BP-9, the other Apollo boilerplate designated for dynamic testing was launched on SA-10 July 30, 1965 and what remained burned up on reentry in 1969, so it was not available for dynamic testing in 1966. While I am certain (because the tests wouldn't make sense otherwise) that some object accounted for the mass of the LM and SLA, it would seem that folks of the day didn't have much to say about what was on top of the Saturn V. (I could go to MSFC and dig up test reports, I suppose, but that probably qualifies as original research. I also can't say that sources are mum on which parts were used for testing, because I haven't seen every source. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I found a source that put LTA-2 on SA-500D and put that in the article. I will also add some more information about the dynamic testing from the test plan and see if I can find some usable info about BP-27 being used for dynamic testing in Houston prior to shipment to Huntsville. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The article appears to be massively improved and I propose to close this as kept if there are no further comments in the next five days. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Closed as keep. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)