Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 54

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 55)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 53) →

Structuration[edit]

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

Result: Delist Clear consensus here that this article does not meet the current Good standards. To my mind the biggest issue is the overuse of technical language that most lay readers would find impossible to follow. There are also the comments kindly provided by Lfstevens on the talk page that need to be addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for delisting due to GA criteria 1A "the prose is clear and concise". The article was created as a student project and was then promoted to GA by the student's supervisor. I think this is procedurally problematic. Two other editors made comments during the GAN which do not appear to have been addressed. The article has subsequently been copyedited by GOCE. The copyeditor has left a long list of unaddessed comments on the talk page which make it clear that the article is still full of unexplained jargon. Spinning Spark 09:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A long list of problems here. Will give the reviewer and nominator some time to address these issues, but at this stage it looks like it needs a lot of work to be kept. AIRcorn (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be delisted as per concerns above. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. Bad form all around in the original passage. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per concerns above, especially that an extremely thorough copyedit has been unable to fix systemic and extensive problems in the article. It clearly should not have been passed in the first place, and was done so despite clear issues raised by more objective reviewers. As Wizardman says, "bad form all around". BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I read the article for myself and read the list of concerns cited by User:Aircorn. For the article to have GA status those concerns should be addressed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist. It was promoted out of process and against WP:WIAGA standards. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for failing 1(a) the prose is clear and concise; 1(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections and list incorporation (the See also section is rather long for a Good Article); and 2(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for statements likely to be challenged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the review being procedurally problematic - we only discourage reviews by significant contributors, and the reviewer was not a contributor. That the review is not up to normal GA standards is, I think, simply the result of inexperience with the GA criteria by the reviewer. However, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, it might be good practise for supervisors to allow GA reviews to be done by an independent reviewer. As regards grading the student, it would be up to the supervisor to judge the finished work by the university's own standards, not by ours. A supervisor wanting to award a grade purely on a GA listing would need to be advised that listings can be somewhat random depending on the experience and views of the reviewer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as quickly as possible Holy Moses this is a poorly written article. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note (post-closing) -- I would just like to state for the record that I was the Campus Ambassador for this class and thus was supervising this student's work. I had absolutely nothing to do with the GA nomination, except for perhaps planting the seed by mentioning it was a possible source for an article review. The student self-nominated the article and, again, I was not involved in the review process except as a bystander. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dodo[edit]

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 • GAN review not found

Result: Keep Procedural close, editor actually wants peer review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article became a good article in 2007. I have recently expanded the article significantly, but I would like to know if it was for the better, and how I can improve it further. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this page is for reassessing articles that clearly do not meet the GA criteria. If you want comments then list it at WP:Peer review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, and thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 (webcomic)[edit]

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 • GAN review not found

Result: delisted I have looked at this article and agree that the referencing is well below standard as noticed by TenPoundHammer. AS there have been no other comments within two weeks I am de-listing this. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GA passed 5 years ago, and I'm surprised that it did.

First of all, it is very lacking in secondary sources. Nearly every source is to the strip itself. And of the sources that aren't:

This site is a retailer that sells the comic — not a reliable source.
This and this are other people's webcomics, only verifying that those two comics (which are not notable in their own right) gave a shout out to Jack.

The other sources are the artist's VCL gallery, and listings from the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and Ursa Major awards. While I don't think it's even notable (there is years of consensus saying that Ursa Major and Web Cartoonists' Choice are not enough for WP:WEB), one thing at a time. See among others, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_and_Mab's_Furry_Adventures, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination) — these discussions have all shown a well established consensus that WCCA is not enough to meet WP:WEB. And the fact that Ursa Major Awards' article was AFD'd 2 years ago, I'd say it's not a notable award either.

Even back in 2007, the nomination was called into question ("I'm unsure how this has got to GA - it is completely lacking in reliable sources and the referencing is thin - largely references to awards sites and the comic itself. This is particularly noticeable in the themes and reception sections which should be heavily referenced to reliable third party sources and they aren't."), but nothing ever came of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~ETA: Any chance I could AFD this as it stands? Zig Zag (character) had an equally flawed GA, and was successfully taken to AFD even while it had the green disc on the talk page.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One fight at a time. Why don't you withdraw that AFD of yours until you get this reassessment handled? Veled (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the original nominator, reviewer and primary contributors been notified? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer appears to be retired, as they've only edited twice in the past year. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the others? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISD was both the nominator and most prominent editor, so I notified them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WikiProject Furry, whose members might be able to help. GreenReaper (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ETA part deux. I have withdrawn the AFD but still hold that the article is far below GA standards due to its heavy reliance on primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Picts[edit]

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 • GAN review not found

Result: delisted The rationale for delisting provided by Efraimkeller appears to be correct. No-one has stepped forward to address the noted problems so I am closing this as a delist. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails to meet the first two GA criteria.

1a. Many sentences are unclear and wordy. Passive voice is used throughout, either unnecessarily or to gloss over the lack of a clear source. ("...had previously been described as...", "said to have been", "thought to be..." "have been used to argue the existence of..."). Other examples:

INTRODUCTION

"There is an association with the distribution of brochs, place names beginning 'Pit-', for instance Pitlochry, and Pictish stones." Vague. What association? And what is being associated with this distribution? A region or a time period? And how?

"...had been subsumed ... amalgamation" -- passive voice; also subsumption and almagamation (subsume/amalgamate) are redundant.

"Archaeology gives some impression of the society of the Picts." What impression? How? The next sentences are about written history, so the issue of archaeology is left dangling.

HISTORY
"The means by which...although there is speculation that" There are many examples, like this, of unnecessarily wordy constructions.
"The change from Pictland to Alba may not have been noticeable at first; indeed, as we do not know the Pictish name for their land, it may not have been a change at all"
Noticeable by whom? And why does it matter whether name-changes are noticeable if they might not even be a change? Many sentences like this that add nothing to the substance of the article, as the lack of knowledge of Pictish names has already been established.

KINGS and KINGDOMS

"The early history of Pictland is unclear. In later periods multiple kings existed, ruling over separate kingdoms, with one king, sometimes two, more or less dominating their lesser neighbours." What are examples of "two kings" "more or less dominating"? And what are "lesser neighbours" in this context, if we are talking about "separate kingdoms"? Separate Pictish kingdoms or Picts separate from kingdoms of another kind? And why does that matter if the word "Pict" is applied from outside, and perceived (esp. in later eras) to be blurred with Gaels? The late history of Pictland is also unclear, as the article itself attests. If little is known about how kings and kingdoms were divided, or passed from one to the other, why is there a section called "Kings and kingdoms?" Again, nothing of substance is being said here.

The examples above are just a few; other paragraphs in the article contain similar problems in abundance.

2a & b. Factual accuracy / verifiability: there are some mismatches between statements and the sources cited in support of those statements. For example, the Woolf Conversions does not demonstrate that the kingdom of Fortriu was "centered around Moray." Adomnán's "Life of Columba" is not a text that presents academic evidence, though the text of the article cites that source regarding evidence of "a Pictish kingdom...existed in Orkney." (And again, what does it mean to be a Pictish kingdom far from the Pictish homeland, if the Picts didn't call themselves Picts and their distinctions from their neighbors are unclear?)

"the evidence of place names suggests a wide area of Ionan influence in Pictland"
-- the source cited here contains the place names which the author takes to be evidence, but does not lay out an argument of that kind. The author uses etymology and place-name to "suggest" or "speculate" on a number of issues, but does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective.

The Talk page for this article shows numerous concerns about verifiability voiced by other readers. Some of these concerns may be resolved, but for now the article leaves many readers feeling less than confident.

2c. The article seems to contain original research.

Statements like "Although the popular impression of the Picts may be one of an obscure, mysterious people, this is far from being the case" (INTRODUCTION) are left un-cited, so there is a strong impression of didactism stemming from the author's opinion.

"the evidence of place names suggests a wide area of Ionan influence in Pictland"
-- the source cited here contains the place names which the author takes to be evidence, but does not lay out an argument of that kind. The author uses etymology and place-name to "suggest" or "speculate" on a number of issues, but does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective.

In the secton RELIGION: "The importance of monastic centres in Pictland was not, perhaps, as great as in Ireland." "The cult of Saints was, as throughout Christian lands, of great importance in later Pictland." The author cites sources that offer speculation and detail about religion, but none of them offers the comparative views of "importance" that this article ventures.

The section on ART has very few citations; the citations in LANGUAGE are disputed handily on the talk page.

Efraimkeller (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re. Fortriu in Morayshire, the Woolf article cited (Dun Nechtain, Fortriu and the Geography of the Picts Scottish Historical Review 2006 85(2):182-201) deals with this in great depth. This appears to have been accepted by others in the field (see for example Fraser, Caledonia to Pictland p50). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 Re the introduction... this section should conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It should summarize material from the main body of text and referencing should thus be unnecessary. The association between place names and Pictish stones is geographical... this should perhaps be clarified. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 Re the Language section: This section summarizes current academic consensus fairly accurately. There have been several competing hypotheses regarding the Pictish language:

1. It was a Germanic language and the ancestor of the Scots language.

2. It was a Q-Celtic language related to Gaelic.

3. It was a P-Celtic language related to Welsh, Gaulish, Cumbric and the Brythonic British Language.

4. It was a pre-Indoeuropean language.

Of these, "1" has only ever been a fringe theory and was rejected by the 19th century. "2" was the favoured hypothesis of William Forbes Skene. This was popular for a while as it discounted an Irish origin for Scottish Gaelic, but has been limited to a minority view since the late 19th century. "3" was first suggested in the 16th century and while it competed with "2" to some extent during the 19th century, it has been the leading Celtic hypothesis since the early 20th century. The evidence for "4" has been a series of inscriptions in Ogham script that are found on certain pictish artifacts, mostly the symbol stones. These have long been dismissed as unintelligible. However, more recent work has interpreted several of them as Q and P-Celtic. This is covered in Katherine Forsyth's Language in Pictland. Today, virtually all historians in the field regard the pre-Indoeuropean language hypothesis to be untenable. The current view is that it was a P-Celtic language that was partially gaelicized through contact with Dalraidan Scots. Some tidying of the text may be in order, but there is no original research here, nor can the sources presented in this section be regarded as unreliable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4. The charge that Simon Taylor's 35 page Seventh-century Iona abbots in Scottish place-names (in Broun & Clancy (eds.), Spes Scotorum: Hope of Scots. Saint Columba, Iona and the Scotland. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1999.) "does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective." seems, well, more than a little odd. Are you suggesting we reject information that is reliably sourced and which represents current, mainstream academic consensus as "original research" because you don't like the way the source was written? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 5 With regard to GA criterion 1a, an article has to be "well-written" in a clear and concise form as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Passive voice is considered acceptable. The standards of prose being demanded by Efraimkeller are considerably higher than those routinely asked for at GA. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had time to give this a proper look, but my initial impression that the shortcomings of the article are somewhat exaggerated and that even if the original GA was achieved in an era prior to our current obsession with in-line citations it should not take much effort to sort it out. For example " the popular impression of the Picts may be one of an obscure, mysterious people" is indeed uncited but as the subject is addressed on page 1 of Tim Clarkson's 2008 The Picts: A History we might reasonably assume it's not a very controversial statement. The talk page does show "numerous concerns about verifiability" but no few of them seem to be about fringe theories regarding the language, which seems to be less controversial in academic circles. I am far from being an expert but I will give it a further look when I can. Ben Mac Dui 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From EfraimKeller:, I'm new to wikipedia, so I accept the possibility that I'm applying the wrong standard. But this article struck me as a hack job; highly evasive and fanciful. I urge a deeper look at this. To convey my problems with the article more succinctly, I will just say that the article is slick, wordy, and presents the idea that something might be known, more than it presents any knowledge. It seems to have been written by someone with fantasies of ancient peoples, and a desire to cobble together vague research in order to present a picture isn't actually supported. The worst examples of this is the constant obsession with nomenclature for obscure categories of Celtic peoples, that, by the author's own admission, are mixtures of fiction and vagueness.

Comment 4. Catfish Jim asked: "Are you suggesting we reject information that is reliably sourced and which represents current, mainstream academic consensus as "original research" because you don't like the way the source was written?" NO. I'm suggesting that citations can not support a claim unless the cited source reports authoritative research on a claim. For example, if you argue that baboon populations diverged into two subspecies due to an ecological niche, you need a source which *presents* research on that topic, not just a source that *mentions* research on that topic.

Comment 5. My comment about passive voice was not merely a complaint about passive voice, but specifically, the *use* of passive voice "to gloss over the lack of a clear source."

Sorry if I'm wasting anyone's time... Efraimkeller (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all mate, your right to comment is just as good as anyone else's. Try to remember to sign your posts using four tildes(~). Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the original nominator, reviewer and primary contributors been notified? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Breton horse[edit]

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 • GAN review not found

Result: kept There appear to be no problems that would justify delisting, the expand from the French tag does not justifyt delisting. Thus the article should keep its GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with "Expand from French". Is that an insta-fail? Also needs a major copy edit; nearly every sentence begins with "the". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would really be nice if there was some sort of notification on the talk page the the article was a potential candidate for GAR, like is done at FAR...you know, try to talk to people? Yes, this article can (and will, probably this summer) be expanded from the French version, but for now, I believe it still meets the GA "broadness" criteria - all of the basic info is there. If you have any specific questions WRT coverage, please let me know. I took several of these French breeds to GA before I began working with User:Tsaag Valren to bring info over from the French WP (where she has taken quite a few of them to GA/FA). I've done a quick copyedit, but I'm not seeing where you get "nearly every sentence" beginning with "the" - the majority of them didn't. Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breed history section. I'm seeing a lot of sentences starting with "the" and it makes it read really dull. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still not getting it. In that section, first paragraph - none of three sentences start with "the", second paragraph - 3/8 do (none successive), third paragraph - 2/12 do, fourth paragraph (first paragraph of Crossbreeding) - none of three, fifth paragraph - 1/9 do. Overall, that's 6 of 35 - not even 20 percent. This is not most, and not even a lot. Dana boomer (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a notification on the talk page, by the addition of the GAR template. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant a prior notification. Something like "I'm thinking of putting this article up for GAR, is anyone out there interested in working to address the issues before I do so?" and then waiting a week or so to see if anyone answers. Like I said, that's the requirement that was put into place a couple of years ago at FAR, and it seems to work relatively well - sometimes there's no response and the article goes on to FAR, other times someone goes through and cleans up the article and there's no need for going through the whole FAR process. Not relevant now, at least to this article, but I guess it's something to think about. It just would have been nice to have something like that here, because (in my opinion) the issues are relatively minor and could have been addressed/discussed without coming here. Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA is a lot more simplistic than FA. As passing an article is pretty unbureaucratic, delisting one should also be. Though it can be slow this process is not usually a major drain. AIRcorn (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a GAR because there are too many "the"s or because of a tag that was placed by one editor back in September who was mass-tagging dozens of articles with translation tags. The French article is now a featured article over on fr.wiki, so of course that material could be brought over here, but that does not in the least detract from the quality of the existing article. This does, indeed, seem like a sledgehammer being taken to an article that at most needs some minor copyedits. Montanabw^(talk) 18:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the expand from French tag be on the talk page? Broadness may be an issue if there is information missing, but the tag does not necessarily mean that is the case, I can't read french so cannot judge this. Too many the's does not seem like a strong 1A reason to delist, and there are only four as I type so the issue may already be resolved. AIRcorn (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only possible delisting issue I can see being made here is that it might fail the broadness criteria. Reading the article I did not get a sense that anything major was missing. Although the French version goes a lot more into the history of the horse, the requirements at GA does not require every major fact be present. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expand from language tags go on the article, at least according to the template documentation and every placement I've ever seen. The French article is definitely longer (it's an FA on the French WP, after all), but as you said, the criteria for GA is broadness, not comprehensiveness. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might see if I can change that. Clean-up tags I can understand, but tags which do not necessarily mean the article is bad should not be displayed so prominently in my opinion. Where would one go to start a discussion on this. AIRcorn (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. Possibly one of the subsections of the WP:Village pump (the proposals page, maybe?), but other than that I don't have any suggestions. Dana boomer (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Kirk Hinrich[edit]

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

Result: Delist Consensus here is that the article no longer meets the Good article requirements AIRcorn (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is probably a speedy candidate for delisting, but I'm kinda confused about delisting myself. This article has so many issues.

There's alot of quotes, which is given some undue weight, some of them is even unsourced.
Many dead links
Some tone issues "playoffs in a thrilling seven-game series". "Despite the US effort, the Greek sealed the deal with free throws and won 101–95" Sealed the deal? Really that's confusing sports slang.
The article doesn't really had a decent upgrade after the 2006-07 season, with every subsection about two sentences.
Nothing on his style of play and so forth so it's not comprehensive.
More to come in an hour or two, but this isn't close to even B class.

Secret ^account 00:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual reassessments are quite easy, just conduct a review against the WP:GACR, notify editors and Wikiprojects that might be interested and wait for responses. It can always be brought back here if there are disagreements. Articles tend to languish here for weeks so that is probably the easiest way to deal with an article you think is an uncontroversial delist. I can help out if required. AIRcorn (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, more issues I found in the article is.

Some incomplete sentences "It was in the third game of the series that the Heat's James Posey shoulder tackled Hinrich, as he ran the fastbreak." And what?
Source vertification issues. Here's one example "Hinrich suffered an acute viral infection shortly before the beginning of his first season, requiring months to fully recover.[13]" Five games isn't months, source doesn't mention the time, plus the next sentence is unsourced commentary "showing a continued good grasp of fundamental skills, solid playmaking, leadership, and a surprising defensive intensity"
"Hinrich is known for his intense on-court demeanor" seems misplaced in the 04-05 subsection, unsourced.
"possible start of a rivalry was born" inaccurate, unsourced comment that fails WP:NPOV.
I just fixed an very obvious typo of "category". While I can't really comment on grammar issues considering that I'm slightly dylexcic, with simple errors like that, an good copy-editing is needed.
Citation formatting is a mess.

I stopped right there, I see more errors and tone issues, but it will get kinda lengthy. I'll mention it if anyone is willing to work on the article. Currently this is a huge mess, and most of the article needs to be rewritten. I already created an reassesment page, so I guess I'll leave it alone. There's a few other athlete articles I don't think they should be GAs so I'll do a talk page listing.

Secret ^account 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Can you let the relevant Wikiproject and editors know about this (including the GA reviewer) if you haven't already. AIRcorn (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of doing that. Nominator, and original GA reviewer inactive, relevant Wikiproject notified. Looking at the history, I don't think it should have passed the original reassessment, there was plagiarism problems (which were fixed) and so forth, what a mess. Secret ^account 05:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I only just noticed but there was no GAR link added to the articles talk page (added now). It will probably not affect this nomination too much, but should probably be take into account by the closer. AIRcorn (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It been six weeks and none of the concerns were fixed, only very minor edits/vandalism reverts. Can I delist it? Thanks Secret ^account 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically no. But I can. Will do so in the next few days if nobody beats me to it. AIRcorn (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it, Aircom. Go Phightins! (talk)

Nawa-I-Barakzayi District[edit]

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: Delist I have looked at this article thoroughly and I feel that the concerns raised by Ravichandar84, regarding its broadness, are justified - I commented on these myself when doing the GA review and suggested some possible sources. Nothing has really happened in the subsequent two years and the last edit was made over four weeks ago, so I determine that the article should be de-listed now and that it may be nominated at WP:GAN when it is suitable for scrutiny. As per note 1 above,(Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment) I consider myself to be an uninvolved editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No information on the pre-civil war history of the district as if the area did not exist on the face of the earth prior to the event. No images from the pre-Enduring Freedom era. Fails GA criteria 3 and 6.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the primary editor of this article. This place isn't London: it is a small third-world community in the middle of nowhere with an extremely high illiteracy rate; consequently few things are written down. I'm am not making this up when I say that many locals think 9/11 was a response to the US invasion of Afghanistan: that's how terrible the local knowledge of history is. Everything I was able to find from before the civil war is in the Climate and Geography section. While I did interview some the older locals about the history of the area, putting it here would violate WP:NOR. There are no free images from before the civil war for the same reason. If you are aware of some hidden repository of central Helmand Province history, I would be more than happy to include it. Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of books on the history of Afghanistan. Even a sentence or two on the pre-civil war history of the district would do. Unfortunately nothing is mentioned here.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 04:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to check this out. I am sure you might find other sources, too.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 04:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll switch sections. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this going? It sounds like an agreement is being reached. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I contend that for images, I used what was available. For earlier content, I moved some material from elsewhere in the article to the beginning, but we clearly have a lot more history even before the 1950s. Obviously just the beginning of a fix. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not an issue. If there are no suitable or free ones available then you don't need to provide any. Broadness is a valid concern regarding early history. Have you included any information from the above Helmand Valley link? AIRcorn (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to a weak keep here. Still pretty low on pre-modern history, but it probably just scrapes by the broadness category to mine mind. AIRcorn (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not too happy with it either, but have had another project going for the past few months. Good news is we've got Scott's Helmand Valley Archives (which has an in-depth section on Nawa from before the civil war), plus the information from the Helmand Province page. If/when I ever finish my other project, updating it shouldn't take too long. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original GA reviewer and I see that little has been added to address the points in the peer review and the GA review about broadness. I should perhaps not have passed it two years ago - I do feel the lack of context and pre-modern history mean that this does not meet the criteria and that it should be de-listed until this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Edward Norton[edit]

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. Although concerns were listed by the GAR nominator there appears to be little wrong with the article, and it seems to meet the criteria. The nominator has not responded with any detail about problems and the discussion has run its course. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple issues, i am listing some :

Many unsourced materials (or inferring from the source, instead of directly quoting and stating the material) throughout the article.
Not enough coverage of the career as per WP:Bio .
Many language flaws.
Presentation style not per GA standards.

So i want a through revision and review of the article. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I am not seeing a lot wrong with this article. Fixed one citation needed tag, but everything else appears sourced. Career coverage is good, don't know what language flaws is referring to and the presentation style is fine. Unless something else is brought up I say Keep this as a Good article. I notified the only active major contributor and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers for you. AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Haymarket affair[edit]

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 • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. This article appears to be in good shape, although one editor feels there is some bias, which I could not find myself. The article is well referenced, reads well and conforms sufficiently with the MoS. I removed a "weasel words" tag which had been placed on a quotation as I feel that tagging a quotation in this way is inappropriate. I also consolidated one stray sentence in the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one may see by viewing the article and its talk page, as well as external media coverage, Haymarket affair fails to integrate current research regarding the matter. Start would be a more appropriate classification. Considerable work is needed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC) All of the questions raised in Timothy Messer-Kruse's blog http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ need to be addressed at a minimum, regardless of whether the sweeping assertions he claims to have proved, page 8 of his book, are accepted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure whether I am proceeding in an appropriate way, see Talk:Haymarket_affair#Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment. Perhaps since the assessment was done so long ago a simple delisting, followed by efforts to improve the article would be more appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all affected Wikiprojects have been notified at this point. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion which concerned the article version of January 24, 2008 is at Talk:Haymarket_affair/Archive_3#Good_article_nomination_on_hold, approving reviewer was a prior account of User:Steven Walling who has been notified. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some major changes have occurred since this was initiated [1]. They appear to be addressing the issue that the nominator raised. Does this re-assessment need to continue? AIRcorn (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are mostly my work, much of which is reverted on sight. The article, which remains an embarrassment, is still being defended by a small crew of POV editors. It will take several months at the current rate to make substantial improvements. Spurious policy "reasons" to maintain the article in its current state continue to surface. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "small crew" is a half dozen or more. The "other side" is mainly, if not entirely, Fred. The most "embarrassing" part of the editing history is the attempt, in the name of improvement, to add 22,000 bytes of text based entirely on primary sources (trial transcripts) -- it is perfectly proper to revert such edits. The surest way to get the article delisted is to replace secondary sources with primary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep listing Appears to meet the standards of GA from a casual read through. Note that GA requirement is not nearly as strict as a FA. Also, as Aircorn notes, recent objections have been largely addressed. LK (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the requirements of GA's is that they are focused. Addition such as this fall outside that criteria and have been correctly reverted. Since this review was opened it appears many of the concerns have been addressed. While there is certainly room for improvement nothing from my read through, admittedly as someone who knows very little about the topic, could be described as an embarrassment. As has been stated above the GA criteria are not that strict and in my opinion it meets those criteria. I would recommend keeping this as a good article and sorting out any further improvements at the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Taiwan[edit]

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: Delist I am closing this discussion as an uninvolved editor (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment). This discussion has run its course, with no-one suggesting that the article is kept on the GA list whilst the present instability continues. When the article has stabilized it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that, following the renaming of the article in March and the subsequent merge of the Taiwan (island) article into it, this article no longer meets all of the GA criteria. The current version of this article differs significantly from the version that passed a GA review:

Information introduced from the island article is probably not of GA quality and some of it is still unsourced (although many of it was brought up to a good quality). The patching of sections together may have affected the quality of the article and some of the references may be dead links.
The article is very unstable following the merge and arguments over the use of "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" are spilling over from the talk page into the article, especially in the politics section.
For the reason above, the article may not be entirely Neutral now that focus has shifted from the ROC to Taiwan in general. A debate over whether Taiwan-culture is uniquely "Taiwanese" or "Chinese" keeps reappearing.
As said, the article is very different and has been expanded significantly with Geography and History sections, so the GA-status doesn't reflect these sections.

I hope that a reviewer can look over the article and reassess its quality. Thanks. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that delisting for now is the best course of action for this article. The main issue is its current instability in light of the recent ROC->Taiwan move and merging of information from other articles. I don't believe a full reassessment is necessarily in order until the article stabilises again, but I don't believe it should retain its GA status in light of recent events there either. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another process to remove the GA status without a full reassessment? Or will a reviewer simply remove it soon? -- Peter ^{Talk page} 00:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with the GA process, I assume the reviewer will handle it as they see fit. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as a 'speedy delist' in the GA process. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways to delist an article; individual or community reassessment. There is no such thing as a speedy delist, but the closest is the individual re-assessment. There one editor judges it against the criteria, informs the relevant people/projects and allows a short time (week?) for their concerns to be addressed. If they are not then that individual can delist the article. Community re-assessment is different in that any editor can comment on whether an article meets the WP:GACR and then someone assesses the consensus of the discussion and based on that decides what status the article should be. So in short an individual re-assessment has one reviewer and is usually faster, while a community re-assessment can have multiple reviewers and is best for controversial delists or when two or more editors disagree about an articles status. By posting this re-assesment here you have initiated a community reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist on the grounds of instability. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Margaret Thatcher[edit]

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: relist It appears that there is consensus amongst participants that this artcile meets the GA criteria following recent improvements. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My belief is that this article was delisted for political reasons unrelated to its quality but rather to its subject. This is a biography article, and not a critical assessment of Margaret Thatcher as a politician; other linked articles do that, and in accordance with summary style this article simply summarises them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher is one of the most controversial Priome Ministers of the 20th century. I cannot see how completely downplaying negative views of Thatcher, while giving huge amounts of space to her supporters can possibly be considered NPOV. I don't, of course, think the article should be an attack piece, but it confuses neutral with sympathetic point of view. I'd actually say this goes so far as to make the article's educational purpose compromised. I think any reasonable reader of an article on a politician would expect to be able to learn about the triumphs, failures, controversies, and public views of the politician. By concentrating only on the triumphs and positive viewpoints, the article - although it does a very good job at presenting them - fails in its educational remit.

I think that one key example is that before it was last delisted from GA, it had three paragraphs describing and analysing the end of her premiership - and was still delisted for concentrating too much on views of her supporters. It now has been cut to one paragraph, basically saying that the policy was unpopular, but not explaining what the policy was, why it was unpopular, and downplaying the riots. Margaret Thatcher was forced out of office for that and other unpopular decisions; that's a pretty significant part of her career to be glossing over, and the other reasons for her fall aren't even mentioned.

One might compare three roughly corresponding sections from Premiership_of_Margaret_Thatcher#Fall_from_power, which, while written somewhat in the essay style, informs the reader concisely why she was forced to leave office:

Thatcher sought to relieve what she considered the unfair burden of property tax on the wealthiest section of the population, and outlined a fundamental solution as her flagship policy in the Conservative manifesto for the 1987 election. Local government rates were replaced by the community charge—popularly known as the 'poll tax'—which levied a flat rate on all adult residents, with rebates for low earners, but a minimum payment of 20%.^[1] [...] The poll tax was introduced in Scotland in 1989 and in England and Wales in 1990. This highly visible redistribution proved to be one of the most contentious policies of Thatcher's premiership. Additional problems emerged when many of the tax rates set by local councils proved to be much higher than earlier predicted. Opponents organised to resist bailiffs and disrupt court hearings of community charge debtors. One Labour MP, Terry Fields, was jailed for 60 days for refusing to pay. [...] As the crisis deepened and the prime minister stood her ground, opponents claimed that up to 18 million people were refusing to pay.^[2] Enforcement measures became increasingly draconian. Unrest mounted and culminated in a number of riots. The most serious of these happened on 31 March 1990, during a protest at Trafalgar Square, London. More than 100,000 protesters attended and more than 400 people were arrested.^[3]

and

Thatcher's political "assassination" was, according to witnesses such as Alan Clark, one of the most dramatic episodes in British political history. The idea of a long-serving prime minister — undefeated at the polls — being ousted by an internal party ballot might at first sight seem bizarre. However, by 1990, opposition to Thatcher's policies on local government taxation, her Government's perceived mishandling of the economy (in particular the high interest rates of 15% that eroded her support among home owners and business people), and the divisions opening in the Conservative Party over European integration made her seem increasingly politically vulnerable and her party increasingly divided. A Gallup poll in October 1990 showed that while Thatcher remained personally respected there was overwhelming opposition towards her final initiatives — 83% disapproved of the government's management of the National Health Service, 83% were against water privatisation, and 64% were against the Community Charge, while various polls suggested the party was trailing Labour by between 6 and 11 points.^[4] Moreover the prime minister's distaste for consensus politics and willingness to override colleagues' opinions, including that of Cabinet, emboldened the backlash against her when it did occur.^[5]

These provide a clear understanding to the reader of the controversies that led to her leaving office, in a neutral way, without whitewashing the issue, whereas the current article fails utterly at this; indeed, since the community charge is covered (badly) in Margaret_Thatcher#Economy_and_taxation, and never brought up again, and the other issues aren't really discussed at all, the section on her resignation is nearly incomprehensible.

There is no valid argument in Malleus' claims, it's simply an unconcealed attack. 86.** IP (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "unconcealed attack" was the the one that you just made: "There is no valid argument in Malleus' claims". Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument, particularly before you revised it, consists solely of a claim of malfeasance on my part. If you drop your claims about my motivations, your argument would be reduced to a statement that unspecified information is in other articles; you have not provided any defense of the decision to only remove the negative material to other articles. 86.** IP (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we on the same page? In what way have I revised my claim about the motivation for your delisting? I have stated my opinion very clearly and it has certainly not been changed by your outbursts here and elsewhere. I get it that you don't like Margaret Thatcher, I'm not one of her greatest fans myself, but this is a summary article of her life, not her political career. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You spend more time attacking me than talking about the article before the change, now you very slightly talk more about the article. You still provide no defense of the article in your opening statement, however, since you fail to even fairly summarise the nature of the dispute.

I find your claim that a person only known for her political career should not have a balanced portrayal of that career - but should instead only focus on the positive events - bizarre. The article is, by space, about, what, 75% on her political career? It's just a very unbalanced view of this career. 86.** IP (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel that I've been lured into controversy here, and I therefore have no option but to take some very good advice that was offered to me recently, and leave this for others to decide. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at Margaret_Thatcher#Legacy. Of 9 paragraphs, 5 are positive, 1 negative, one mixed, and two are pretty much completely neutral. Thatcher herself and two of her promoters are given substantial space for quotes, of multiple sentences; Critics have their views presented in a very rushed summary.

Parts of this article are quite good, insightful, even. The section on the Miner's strike is an excellent summary of a controversial issue. The writing is excellent. But there's enough sections and parts that show bias and fail to explain an issue that I don't think this could be considered GA. Noone would want this to be turned into an attack piece, but controversial aspects of her career need just as well explained as the uncontroversial, and... Yes, I'm harping on this a bit - but the surprising, catastrophic loss of her career soon after leading her party to the third term is not something you gloss over; it needs explained if the reader is going to understand her career; that's a basic completeness issue (Good article criteria 3). Instead, it's crammed in at the end of Margaret_Thatcher#Economy_and_taxation, and that it was one of the reasons for the end of her premiership - one of the defining events in British politics of that period - let alone the other reasons for it - aren't made explicit at all.

I don't think this needs a huge amount of work - balance out the sections on views of her career a bit (to make it fit within NPOV); sort out the confusing, non-chronological snarl of political section, and make sure it reflects and, where appropriate, explains the causes of the important milestones in her career (Good Article Criterion 3), and all's fine. But it shouldn't be a good article until it actually comes within the good article criteria, which, at present, it does not. 86.** IP (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And I'm interested in the views of independent reviewers, as always at community GAR. Geometry guy 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The paragraph quoted by 86.** IP above starting "Thatcher sought to relieve ..." certainly paints a free-flowing picture, but at least a couple of points stand out as innacurate even on a quick read. The community charge was in the 1987 manifesto, but nobody cared. Candidates wern't asked about it on the doorstep and ministers barely mentioned it. It only became a "flagship" after the election. The last couple of sentences are more dangerous; to read them you would think that an increasing level of disaffection culminated in the Poll Tax Riots. The riots took place before the tax was introduced. So, a nice story, but rotten history, and a long way from 86.** IP's claim that it "informs the reader concisely why she was forced to leave office". Mr Stephen (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage is inaccurate, that's certainly a problem, and needs fixed but it certainly doesn't justify one article's bad coverage to say another is also problematic. One of my biggest concerns is the possibility that good information on Thatcher exists nowhere on Wikipedia. 86.** IP (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I thought you were suggesting that the paragraph you quoted from Premiership_of_Margaret_Thatcher is better than the one we currently have at Margaret Thatcher. If we accept that it is not (because it is not good history) let us cast it to one side. One of my concerns is stop embroidered or misremembered information that, to coin a phrase, "everybody knows, so it must be true" masquerading as history. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression it was. If it isn't, BOTH articles have problems. 86.** IP (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Why's that then? --John (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would mean that neither did a good job of neutrally and accurately explaining Thatcher's political career, and hence that such did not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. 86.** IP (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is according to your preconceptions or else which reliable sources? --John (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article Margaret Thatcher fails to do a very good job at explaining things. If the big article is wrong, and the main article doesn't describe her political career in any coherent, chronological way - and also has a legacy section which is a POV mess of nothing but praise. What we have in Margaret Thatcher is "During her premiership Thatcher had the second-lowest average approval rating, at 40 percent, of any post-war Prime Minister. Polls consistently showed that she was less popular than her party.[160] A self-described conviction politician, Thatcher always insisted that she did not care about her poll ratings, pointing instead to her unbeaten election record" - but the article fails to explain why she was disliked, while talking at length in praise of her. 86.** IP (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put this another way, since people seem determined to nit-pick one example, find one minor flaw, then act as if that proves that everything's fine. She had some of the lowest approval ratings of any serving prime minister of the 20th Century, but , while we get plenty of quotes from her and her supporters - like her attack on the miners - we get almost no quotes from the people she battled against, nor her detractors, and the reasons for her fall are barely explained. And, as I've said before - and noone has commented on - the Legacy section is primarily quotes from her supporters, praising her, with opposition minimised, and this carries across much of the article. 86.** IP (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I was asking about which reliable sources you wish to base this on. That is important, especially on an emotive subject like this one on which everybody has their own opinion. When I was working on this article last year I took a lot of material from Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain. It's a nice source because Marr is a reliable source and is pretty neutral. What reliable source do you wish to base your proposed changes on? --John (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters, so long as it's reliable; As the article's an overview, the exact details don't matter so long as the balance issues are fixed. To be honest, it takes a lot less knowledge and resources to spot balance problems than to make a plan to fix them. 86.** IP (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If you don't have a single reliable source which supports your assertion that there is important material omitted from the article, I cannot comment on your opinion though. --John (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information about her leaves out the context that allows it to make sense. The section suddenly talks about her fall from public favour, but never explains it. The NPOV issue is explained elsewhere: There's lots of quotes from her supporters (and I suspect the, but her detractors are reduced to a paragraph and a half. There's actually a lot of uncited claims in that section, as well; I'll mark them. 86.** IP (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not seeing that the issues presented rise to the level of delisting the article. Are with issues with the article or with Margaret Thatcher herself? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is a requirement for good articles. Theres also citation issues, completeness issues, and various other problems; I can't see this as passing GA. 86.** IP (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't see how you can justify your opinion without being able to list any reliable sources to back it up. --John (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how "This fact is uncited", "this isn't in the citation given" can be callously disregarded. 86.** IP (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make a list, please, of items currently in the article which you contend are not in the citations, then we will have something to talk about. --John (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could damn well bother to check the article, where they are tagged. Did you even bother to look at the article before snarking off? 86.** IP (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflictI say the Legacy section is biased. Indeed, many of the citations contain negative content which was simply edited out when they were used. You seemingly disagree. However, you cannot try to claim that making bald assertions - not justified by the citations given - is GA level, so I can't see how you justify it. If you want citations, there are obvious ones. From Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, we could easily fix the problems in the resignation section - "A Gallup poll in October 1990 showed that while Thatcher remained personally respected there was overwhelming opposition towards her final initiatives — 83% disapproved of the government's management of the National Health Service, 83% were against water privatisation, and 64% were against the Community Charge, while various polls suggested the party was trailing Labour by between 6 and 11 points" cited to Gilbert A. Lewthwaite, 'Conservatives meet, reassess Thatcher', Baltimore Sun (9 October 1989), p. A8. Or we fcould uyse the citations in the article to balance out the legacy section, by not only using them for positive material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7593554.stm says she is "reviled in many areas for dividing the country into "us" and "them" and abandoning communities struggling with huge economic changes to their fate." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681973.stm has a description of the harm she did to Scotland. Or are these sources only good enough to praise Thatcher, and cannot be used for criticising her? 86.** IP (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, that's quite an attitude you have there! Do you find it gets you what you want in your life? It's perfectly normal on this project to ask for supporting evidence before making changes, indeed it's a main principle of our work. Far from being snarky, it allows us to have a meaningful conversation and to see whether we can reach a compromise. I will have a look later today, but meantime it would be appreciated if you can refrain from making assumptions about me. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this entire thing started off with asn accusation of bad faith against me, and I'm very, very rapidly growing tired of it. I make points, 95% of them are ignored, and then people harp on a single one, and hen proceed to act as if the one being harped on was my only point. It's very, very frustrating, and I can't see how simple facts like "the article failss to explain the reasons for the public dissatisfaction with Thatcher that led to her resignation, and probably should" have been blown into this bullshit of "Oh, you just don't like Thatcher." There's only two sections I find problematic, I've discussed them numerous times, all I've gotten in response are personal attacks and attempts to get me to buy biographies before having the right to say that a section is confusing and poorly-structured, or that sections show a rather readily apparent bias since they choose only the positive facts from the sources to report. And quite frankly, since the article cannot pass GA given the large amount of uncited content, I think this should just close. This whole damn thing seems to be nothing but an attempt to pillory me, in the hopes of not having to fix article problems. 86.** IP (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very careful look at the problems you perceived. I found no evidence of major amounts of uncited material, and I did read the sources in detail. As regards the NPOV problem you complain about I don't see it as such a big deal as you do; I brought a little more negative material in from the same sources. I don't think there is any doubt (and this is reflected in the article) that she was one of the most polarising leaders the UK has had, being seen as either a revolutionary reformer or a reactionary blackguard, depending on who you ask. I don't think it is reasonable to demand that we balance these points of view in a word count or letter count sense; I'd ask you here if there are any major sources or points of view which you feel remain unrepresented in the article as it stands? --John (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's improved a lot in response to the complaints. I think the major issues are the first Thatcher quote in the Legacy section really needs discussion and contextualization (good or bad), and I still think the organization of the premiership section is unnecessarily awkward. I think this article could stand with a careful check-over; there were some problems, and I doubt they're just in the bits we focused on. 86.** IP (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you think there might be problems but you don't know what they are? Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is undergoing rapid work at the moment. I'll answer once it's done. 86.** IP (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of bias[edit]

Here's a good example, from Margaret Thatcher#Legacy:

In 2011, Labour leader Ed Miliband praised some of Thatcher's key policies, stating: "Some of what happened in the 1980s was right. It was right to let people buy their council houses. It was right to cut tax rates of 60, 70, 80 per cent. And it was right to change the rules on the closed shop, on strikes before ballots. These changes were right, and we were wrong to oppose it at the time."

First of all, that's original research.

Secondly, the next line is "But while some of it was right, too much of what happened was based on the wrong values."

This gives the impression Milliband is a Thatcherite, but depends on original research and quotemining; the whole Legacy section has major balance issues, where extreme weight is given to her supporters. 86.** IP (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did ^not come away with the impression that the article was suggesting Miliband was a Thatcherite.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not evidence of bias, but rather a good example of the cruft contemporary articles attract. It is absurdly overweighted recentism, and I have cut it accordingly. Geometry guy 08:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basic issues preventing GA status[edit]

There seems to be some concerted POV editing going on in the article, and I have flagged a number of issues in connection with this here. The issues mainly relate to WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP; on top of this there is irrelevant / trivial material being included and numerous instances of weasley language. I would say that the article is some way from GA status, another concern (though this should be easier to get agreement on) is that the lead does not adequately summarise the article's contents. Jprw (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've had a very fair hearing in article talk and that all of your concerns have been thoroughly addressed. I would be happy to read your further concerns regarding the lead; as far as I am aware you have not previously shared these concerns. --John (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absolute travesty. You have singularly and consistently refused to address the specific concerns that I raised. Jprw (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; noone has agreed with Jprw's claims, and he engages in very bizarre readings of sources. 86.** IP (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading and disingenuous to say the least. It would be more accurate to describe the situation as being a cabal of two (i.e. you and user John) doing their best to duck the issues I flagged, throwing up smokescreens, and having a quite breathtakingly blase attitude towards various WP: BLP tenets, the most serious of which being that you allow a fringe view to misrepresent and potentially libel the subject as a racist. Jprw (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May I suggest that some of this discussion is asking Wikipedia to do something it cannot do? There are two editors here who perceive bias in the article, but they disagree on the direction of the bias. This is not a problem Wikipedia can resolve. Every editor, indeed every reader, looks at an article from their own standpoint, and sees different things, sometimes completely different things, from those with different standpoints.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project: the purpose of articles is to provide readers with information, including especially facts, and even more especially facts about opinions (which are sometimes even more factual than "facts"). Then we let readers make up their own minds.

The neutral point of view is not a neutral evaluation, but a presentation of information that represents significant viewpoints fairly. In an article on a controversial topic (such as this one) there can be as many views on due weight as there are editors, and discussion is needed to find a balance. What matters, however, is that the significant views are represented, and that clearly undue weight is avoided. Beyond that, we have to trust the reader: many have their own strong opinion anyway, and a mere Wikipedia article isn't going to change that. Encyclopedia articles are not written to change opinion, but to ensure that whatever the reader's opinion (no matter how strong or weak), they are more informed after reading the article than they were before. Geometry guy 21:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the recent edits have done great strides in fixing the problems. 86.** IP (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist as a Good article. Have been following this for a while now. My feelings are that this version meets the Good article criteria. So does this one and even this one. The NPOV criteria for Good articles is not an exact position, it has a bit of leeway either side. Nothing I am seeing leans too far one way or the other. In my opinion the article should not be {{NPOV}} tagged or delisted because of these edits. Further improvements should be dealt with at the article talk page, not here. AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, or at least open to a new review. I think the issues are rapidly disappearing. 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.** IP (talk • contribs)

Relist as GA. An important part of the spirit of GA is that articles remain under constant scrutiny and their GA status can change at any time through reassessment. Despite the ups-and-downs of this reassessment, on balance the article has benefited from a "brush up and tidy". I think it should be noted by all that simple maintenance of this article is a challenging task in itself, as the article is a magnet for cruft, recentism and POV pushing. It would be an extraordinary achievement to bring the article to FA status. As for maintaining GA status, a constructive and collaborative approach is a far better way to achieve that goal than a confrontational one. I hope all editors contributing here have seen or see the benefit of that. Geometry guy 23:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even I blanched at the prospect of taking this article to FAC. My only concern was to make it a decent article, given that Thatcher's inevitable death will be a mega news event, rather than the embarrassment it was before. I'd agree that the article has been improved slightly, but nothing like enough to justify its delisting. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in case it needs saying, of course I agree with your comments about the need for "a constructive and collaborative approach". Let's hope that there aren't too many more of these individual reassessments. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12[edit]

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: Delist I have carefully examined this article and it contains a number of elementary grammatical mistakes, weasel words, unclear statements and a lack of citations for key points. The lead does not fully summarize the article. No action has been undertaken to remedy these faults. The article may be renominated at WP:GAN when these issues are addressed. I am an uninvolved editor as per note 1 above.(Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment) Jezhotwells (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently passed by He to Hecuba (talk · contribs). The review was later deleted by an admin per WP:Deny as He to Hecuba was discovered to be a sock. It was decided to conduct individual reassessments on the articles passed by Hecuba at the GAN talk page. This is one outstanding from that list. I am initiating a community GAR instead of an individual one because I have also previously failed articles from the GA nominator due to prose issues and would probably do the same here if I conducted an individual re-assessment. However, other reviewers (some who are quite experienced with the process) have found the level of prose acceptable in similar articles, so I feel it is only fair to make this a community re-assessment. AIRcorn (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Some of the prose in the lead and the Description section seems a little terse and it doesn't always flow well. But the remainder of the article is a decent read. I see a number of inconsistencies in the formatting of the references. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, the lead does not fully summarize the article, the prose does not read very well and insufficient context is provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Justin Bieber on Twitter[edit]

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

Result: Withdrawn without prejudice to re-open this discussion after AFD discussion is over.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

In this community reassessment, voting is not allowed because this discussion is not a vote. In other words, "delist", "keep", or any other is not allowed here; moreover, (non-)administrator is allowed to close as either "kept" or "delisted" with rationale. If you make one vote, try to either ~~strike~~ or take it out. You are welcome to give your opinions about this article's Good Article status and GA qualifications. As for this article, FA nomination was attempted but failed. Also, this article is nominated for deletion. As I am reading this article, there are too many references that are not easy to read, and there are too many numbers. I sense recentism weighing in on this article, and excessive material of what may already have been included in Justin Bieber article prevails. Per WP:IINFO, this article lacks any significant viewpoint on Bieber and his Twitter activities. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This process deals specifically with the GA criteria and nothing else. It would be best to relate any comments on this article back to this criteria (the above case appears to be criteria 3a and 3b - broadness and focus). The way it usually runs is that editors will say how the article does or does not meet this criteria and then allow interested parties the opportunity to fix those issues. The aim is always to get the article up to GA standard, not to delist it. If you are happy that the article meets the criteria you can add a bold keep along with your rational. If your comments have not been addressed adequately you are allowed to add a bolded delist along with an explanation. Also an administrator is not needed to close this, in fact most of the closes done here are from non-administrators. It needs to be someone who is not a significant contributor to the article or not the nominator, although in this particular case it might be a good idea to get someone who has not commented on the article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... here, this is not a majority vote. If criteria is met, they can say that a criterion is met, not "keep". If criteria is not met, they can say that it fails one criterion, not "delist". Get it? I don't allow voting stuff because it might invite atrocious arguments here. --George Ho (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't a majority vote. They never are. One valid delist reason will outweigh any number of invalid keep reasons. But you still don't get to dictate how people can express their opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of bringing this here while the AFD is still ongoing. If it gets deleted or merged then a reassessment is not needed. I would suggest that participants wait for the result of the AFD before deciding on what this article should be assessed as. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article talk page, there's also a complete re-write of this article ongoing at the same time. The intent is apparently to replace the existing article with the re-written version. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stability is also a criteria. A complete rewrite would most likely cause it to fail in that regard. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the stability of the article at the moment, which may be exacerbated by public interest in the article's editorial process. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how about we close this discussion now, and then reconsider after any AFD closure, or rewriting has completed. As it stands this discussion will achieve nothing much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... can this be reopened after AFD? I don't want another reassessment, unless I have no other choice. Also, the bot is not working, so it may be reopened at anytime after AFD is closed, unless article is deleted. --George Ho (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that is the best situation. This can be reopened at anytime; if the article is deleted nothing more needs to be done, if it is kept then this process can run its course. The least drama filled way would be for the nominator to withdraw the reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; a GAR right now, with discussion about the existence of the article ongoing and relatively heated, isn't the best way to go and might attract reviewers interested only in deletion. Let's table this for now and revisit if necessary--but that a review is warranted is clear from various comments at the AfD from editors whose ability to judge this I have faith in. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I was thinking more about a personal reassessment, but, ok, here we go! – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA

1:

1(a):

Fail

The prose is dreadful. You can't begin an article with "As of June 2012, Justin Bieber's Twitter account (@justinbieber) was the second most popular Twitter account, after that of Lady Gaga.".
The article is bloated, hard to read and overly detailed. Half of 'Twitter usage as a communication platform', according to me, should not be in the article. Just an overview of he subject, not going into the smallest details...
The first paragraph of 'Followers and fans' should be half smaller as it is overly detailed with figures...

1(b):

Fail

The lead needs to be rewritted in accordance with MOS:LEAD.

2:

2(a):

Pass

I must say that the article is nicely referenced, though...

2(b):

Pass

2(c):

Pass

3:

3(a):

Fail

There is no section about the content that he posts on Twitter, it is stuffed into other sections.

3(b):

Fail

Per 3(a) and 1(a).

4:

Fail

Per the tag on top of the article.

5:

Pass

6(a):

Pass

6(b):

Neutral

I do not know what Beaver performing has to do with his fans and followers... I suggest removing that picture...

Those are comments from just reading the article, I didn't go in depth, just checked it quickly against WP:WIAGA. Hope it helps! – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy)[edit]

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

Result: Delisted Article merged into List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters. AIRcorn (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sorely lacking in worthwhile content. The "Role in Ed, Edd n Eddy" section is a mostly unsourced "say what you see" account at best, and original research at worst. The short "Creation" section includes the most real content, but is entirely sourced to primary sources. The "Personality" section is more of the same as is in the "Role" section- again, say-what-you-see or original research, sourced directly to the show. The "Reception, appearances in other media and merchandising" section contains nothing about this character in particular; instead, everything is about all three characters or the show generally. I'm not convinced that this character even needs their own article, but, aside from that, this is certainly not ready for good article status. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I brought the "Role" and "Personality" issues up in the GAN, but I wasn't the reviewer who passed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this isn't ready for Good Article status. There's not enough focus on the subject of the article. The "Personality" section is all original research. The creation section should be significantly larger and have more than one sentence about Eddy. The article is not written in a way where it would be friendly to a reader unfamiliar with the subject: i.e it assumes that "Eddy"'s personality is something the readers would have an innate understanding of. As much as being "say what you see" I'd say that there are examples of WP:Peacock too. Eshlare (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy). Looking at the sourcing in both articles I am thinking a merge/redirect to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters would be the way to go. AIRcorn (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made a proposal to merge these articles here. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal seems unanimous in merging the character bios. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok, the articles have been merged, and the bot has removed them from the list of GAs. This discussion can now be closed. J Milburn (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War[edit]

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 • GAN review not found

Result: delist: There are significant causes for concern enumerated by editors below. No attempt has been made to address or comment on these. Best course is for comments to addressed and then the article may be renomiated. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely long, and needs to be reduced in size. Editors come here, add material that belongs on pages covering more specialized topics, and the excess material remains while continuing to build up. Specifically, the article is not in compliance with Good Article criteria 3b (it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail). An article like this cannot be regarded as a Good Article. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to have a community reassessment then you will need to provide details. Please read and follow the instructions on this page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you need to be rather more specific, section by section enumerate where material is not compliant with the [[good article criteria. You should also notify the reviewer and primary contributors. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article makes use of Wikipedia:Summary style, per criteria 3b. It surpasses the recommended 100 kB per Wikipedia:Article size, with 128 kB of prose, which means it could better use the Summary Style. Unless there is something specific, that is excessive or irrelevant to American Civil War being addressed by the article, it still meets the GA criteria. I don't see any other issues with it. maclean (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as GA class. The article might be a bit long but it is not excessively so. From my understanding, the American Civil War is a vast subject, so it makes sense to me that the article covering it would need to be large to cover it adequately. 76.7.238.93 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to buck the trend, but I think this could use summary style much better. Fourteen paragraphs on slavery are much more than is needed. The "The Territorial Crisis and the United States Constitution", "Emancipation during the war" and "Victory and aftermath" sections are also far too long. These sections could be split into content fork articles relatively easily and linked with a {{main}} template. They are probably notable enough to be articles in their own right. To me, in its current state, this easily fails 3b (focus). AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not voting here, but merely commenting that there has been a back-and-forth for years on whether causes, especially, should be made longer, as was done recently, or shorter, as was done before. I don't think everyone will ever agree about this.76.187.151.110 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have to agree with Aircorn, there are sections that need to be summarized significantly better than they are currently. Overall the article is very good, and therefore I would not support delisting, however the article does need improvement, and content that is removed in the summerization can be moved to appropriate articles, this way verified content is not lost.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The article admits that it gives "only the broadest outline" of the battles. Unless we can make that even broader, it should be delisted in its present state. And speaking of states, I think keeping this article would be a bit of systematic bias. Inter change able 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Silver Line (Washington Metro)[edit]

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: Concerns have been raised about whether the article is accurate and needs updating. the nominator for re-assessment appears to not wish the article to be delisted so no action needs to be taken here. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that this article has not been kept up to date with the unfolding controversies over the Silver Line -- debates over Virginia's funding, the Loudon County Board of Supervisors' issues over whether to support the line's extension, issue of project labor agreements, etc., etc.

Rather than having the Good Article rating withdrawn, I would be much happier if other users who are better informed than me would undertake the editing needed to update this article and again make it a useful refernce for anyone wanting to have an up to date guide to the key issues involved with this project. Nandt1 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So If you don't wish the artcile to be delisted please withdraw this nomination. Here we invite editors to examina artciles against the Good article criteria. Nothing more, nothing less. I think your best coutrse would be to invite participation from relevant projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you suggestions on "relevant projects"? Nandt1 (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously those listed on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lupo the Butcher[edit]

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: It appears that the concerns raised have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this has severe sourcing and neutrality issues. I also do not believe that the article has enough substance for a good article to begin with. Something which was overlooked in the previous GAN was the issue of sourcing. The main source seems to be a resource named Xolo TV. The only Xolo TV I could find seems to be a internet blog with no official credentials, and no reliability. The interview itself seems to exist somewhere on youtube as part of a series of interviews from an individuals blog. I alsodon't think a television/film article should have to cite the credits of the opening titles for production information if the episode/film in question is notable.

As for the reception of the short, some of it comes from a website that quotes entirely from a press release from Cartoon Network and doesn't seem to be objective. That it featured in a book and DVD from the film festival who debuted the short isn't really an example of it being well received either. The only useful information in the article that comes from a verified reliable source seems to be the Eric Fogle comments. Eshlare (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Here is the original Xolo TV posting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEQED4A4Tc&list=PL98570C4F58DFE0BC&index=28&feature=plpp_video Eshlare (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Xolo TV is not a YouTube blog. It is a reliable site, but is now defunct. Gabe, who is a member of Xolo, just used to upload Xolo videos to his YouTube channel. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only mention of such a site on the internet I can find is this: "Xolo.TV is an online platform where people can create their very own TV channel and enabling users to instantly receive and watch other shows." If this is the same Xolo that "Gabriel" conducted interviews for then it sounds like a self-published source. Explain how it passes wp:RS.Eshlare (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're not going to find it on the internet, it's defunct. --Khanassassin ☪ 10:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, maybe I'm wrong. Here's the actual site: HERE - Found in the Internet Archive. Is this reliable? -If not, then I agree with this not being a GA, sadly. --Khanassassin ☪ 10:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The interview is with the actual creator of the short though? How could such a thing not be used? Additionally, you might be able to find the same content or more here. Statυs (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to comment here on my talk page (although I would most likely have done so at some point without the request). I noticed this article a short while ago and found a few issues with it (tagged and on the talk page). Broadness was not a major concern (three minute films by there nature are unlikely to have much information about them), but some of the prose was below par. I have not looked into the sources closely yet. I will comment more fully when I have some more time. AIRcorn (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I ask why the person who passed the article in the first place was not notified of this discussion? Statυs (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Spike & Mike Book source even for? The link is to a commercial site selling the book and probably shouldn't be there. Anyway, the article has only 5 sources: the film itself, a one-sentence menion calling it a "cult classic" but not elaborating; and the creator of Glenn Martin DDS saying it inspired him. The prose is kinda clunky on the article, too — the sentence "Antonucci, being a part of an Italian immigrant family, wanted to make an Italian immigrant character inspired by his father and uncle, Lupo (originally "Lupo the Barber"), having a bad day "because of fucking America", who he would put in three-and-a-half movie, which he thought "worked out"." is incredibly awkward and should be split up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do feel the sourcing is rather poor. The Spike & Mike Book – Outlaw Animation should be formatted like a book and not a web citation. In addition, the prose still is all over the place: the "Being a part of an Italian immigrant family himself..." section is still confusing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I should use a "cite book" ref? And I really don't understand what's so horribly confusing with the "Italian" sentence. --Khanassassin ☪ 10:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, use the cite book. Also, the sentence is just all over the place. Try this "Due to his Italian heritage, Antonucci wanted to make an Italian immigrant character—the titular "Lupo the Barber"—who would blame America for all of his problems. This character was inspired by his father and uncle. In the end, Antonucci felt that putting him in three-and-a-half minute movie "worked out".[1]"

OK, so did I do it right now? --Khanassassin ☪ 11:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that's a lot better now. I wonder, does that book have any more info in it? Also, I know the prose in this version sucks, but is any of the MTV references or the fact that the animator took 2 years to make it true? If you could find a ref for those things, it could help bulk up the article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current books don't have anything else to offer. And, there's nothing about the "2 years", but the chicket promo can be found on MTV's site: It's called "Lupo the Butcher Meets His Match". There's also a book which confirms that he has another promo for MTV called "Converse Meats Lupo the Butcher" (and yes, with a "meats", not "meets" :)) and another one called "Lupo the Butcher Goes Hollywood".

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.

North American river otter[edit]

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: I have examined the article and see no serious concerns. Those mentioned by the nominator could be raised on the article talk page. The article has adequate references which in fact support those noted by the nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several short paragraphs in "Physical characteristics".
"In Idaho, juvenile, yearling, and adult males averaged 8, 11, and 17% heavier, respectively, than females of the same age." — this kinda seems to stick out as one arbitrary research example. Could more research be shown on this?
Could "playing" be expanded or merged? It seems odd to have a subsection for just two sentences.
"There are reports of photographs of retrieving otters that were used by hunters near Butte, Nebraska." — unsourced
The last paragraph of "Conservation status" is unsourced.
The image in the same section should be moved or shrunken, as it's crunching the references.
Other sections have unsourced statements.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are familiar with this process now so please follow the instructions at the top of the GAN page and inform major contributors, nominator, reviewer and projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify WikiProject Mammals and Dana Boomer, who reviewed it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - somehow I missed that. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

^ Peter Smith, 'Failure in British Government: The Politics of the Poll Tax', National Tax Journal, vol. 48, no. 2 (June 1995), p. 297.
^ Adrian Johnson, Letter: 'Remembering the poll tax campaign', Birmingham Post (26 April 2008), p. 9.
^ "Violence flares in poll tax demonstration". BBC. 31 March 1990. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
^ Gilbert A. Lewthwaite, 'Conservatives meet, reassess Thatcher', Baltimore Sun (9 October 1989), p. A8.
^ Christopher Foster, British Government in Crisis (London: Hart, 2005).

[1] Peter Smith, 'Failure in British Government: The Politics of the Poll Tax', National Tax Journal, vol. 48, no. 2 (June 1995), p. 297.

[2] Adrian Johnson, Letter: 'Remembering the poll tax campaign', Birmingham Post (26 April 2008), p. 9.

[3] "Violence flares in poll tax demonstration". BBC. 31 March 1990. Retrieved 2008-10-30.

[4] Gilbert A. Lewthwaite, 'Conservatives meet, reassess Thatcher', Baltimore Sun (9 October 1989), p. A8.

[5] Christopher Foster, British Government in Crisis (London: Hart, 2005).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]