Misplaced Pages

:Good article reassessment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:24, 29 April 2007 view sourceJohntex (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,715 edits →[]: Reply to IvoShandor← Previous edit Revision as of 02:47, 29 April 2007 view source Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo (talk | contribs)68 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 348: Line 348:
Ok the quotation has been removed once more from the lead and placed in another section. Beyond that, I truly believe the lead is fine. Again, take away Jackson's personal life and his career gets the same coverage length-wise as Michael Jordan does in his lead.] 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Ok the quotation has been removed once more from the lead and placed in another section. Beyond that, I truly believe the lead is fine. Again, take away Jackson's personal life and his career gets the same coverage length-wise as Michael Jordan does in his lead.] 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


:<s>'''Delist''' From an outside view I find this article to be quite biased and in general badly written. It will never progress if the persistent fanboy gushing is not addressed promptly.--] 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)</s> :'''Delist''' From an outside view I find this article to be quite biased and in general badly written. It will never progress if the persistent fanboy gushing is not addressed promptly.--] 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::I ask the community to disregard the above "vote." The user has less than 50 edits and is clearly not well-positioned to make a call that requires some quasi-extensive experience with the articles and policies of Misplaced Pages.] 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC) ::I ask the community to disregard the above "vote." The user has less than 50 edits and is clearly not well-positioned to make a call that requires some quasi-extensive experience with the articles and policies of Misplaced Pages.] 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::It offends me very much that you would cross out my vote like it was nothing, not to mention that you didn't even tell me about it. I may not have have many edits but my opinions are as valid as the next persons. And anyway, just because I don't have many edits, it doesn't mention I haven't read the wikipedia policies or the edit history of the article I'm giving an opinion on - believe me I've done both. Its presumptuous and rude of you to think otherwise - act on - without any evidence. If you don't agree with my opinion fine, I can accept that, but removing it is another issue altogether and something I don't at all appreciate.--] 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Not sure if I agre with that. I guess if the user cares they can respond, but it's rather drastic to strike out a user's comments. ] 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC) :::Not sure if I agre with that. I guess if the user cares they can respond, but it's rather drastic to strike out a user's comments. ] 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::As the user is not one that can participate in a consensus-building exercise on Misplaced Pages, then there is nothing wrong with just completely removing their statements (and votes), much less crossing them out. In fact, I've had personal experiences with this during my FA reviews. The votes cast by recent editors were promptly removed and discarded. Basically, their votes should be ignored, and I wanted to make it firmly clear to whoever is adjudicating whether there is consensus that the above person can be disregarded.] 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC) ::::As the user is not one that can participate in a consensus-building exercise on Misplaced Pages, then there is nothing wrong with just completely removing their statements (and votes), much less crossing them out. In fact, I've had personal experiences with this during my FA reviews. The votes cast by recent editors were promptly removed and discarded. Basically, their votes should be ignored, and I wanted to make it firmly clear to whoever is adjudicating whether there is consensus that the above person can be disregarded.] 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:47, 29 April 2007

Shortcut
  • ]

The Good article review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if Good article listed articles still merits their good article status, contesting former GA's that someone may think was improperly delisted, or request feedback on articles that have not yet been promoted.

Articles on this list are graded against the good article criteria in which an article is checked to be at the GA-Class grade on the article assessment scale. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the article's status. This is not a Peer Review Process; for that see Misplaced Pages:Peer Review.

If you believe an article should be delisted

If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it:

  1. Check that you have logged in, anons may not delist articles.
  2. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet.
  3. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
  4. If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s). If possible, put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Misplaced Pages maintenance templates.
  5. If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the criteria , you can delist it and remove it from the list at WP:GA immediately. To do this remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA|25 December 2024}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.
  6. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
  7. Remove the article from the list at Misplaced Pages:Good articles.

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please check that you have logged in, notify the editors in the article's talk page that it is under review, and provide a link to the GA Review page before listing the article here.

If you believe an article should be listed

If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away.

  1. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page.
  2. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
  3. However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfill all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be listed as a Good Article.
Good article review (archive) (Latest) →

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Include ] in the section heading.

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

This article has been listed as a GA candidate for a month. Today, an editor failed the article without a review. Their reason was that more information will become available at some point in the future, so they failed the article.

The GA criteria states

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

This article meets that criteria because it is stable.

The idea that more information will become available in the future is not a reason to fail it now. If the article makes GA now and then becomes unstable later, it can be delisted later. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and it is improper to fail this article on the basis of something that might happen in the future.

As of today, the article is informative, and I think it passes all the GA criteria. I ask that the article be given its GA review based upon what the article is today and what is known today about the topic. Johntex\ 16:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I am the editor who failed this. I hesitated, because as Johntex says the GA criteria do not make it absolutely clear that the reason I gave for failing it was legitimate. I was also influenced by this comment of Raul654's, on FAC talk, indicating what the original FA criterion of stability was intended to govern. Of course he's talking about FAC, but the concern seems to arise for GA too.
I'm not going to vote to support or reverse my fail; either outcome seems reasonable. However, I'd also like to see discussion of the GA stability criterion and what the boundaries are. Raul654 made it clear that he judges the Virginia Tech massacre article to be unstable. What counts as unstable for GA? Mike Christie (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply Hi Mike, thank you very much for your note. As you say, it will be good to talk this out a little and see what the consensus is.
I am of the opinion that if an article is stable today but might change in the future, that we should review it on the basis of what it is today. Otherwise, we may as well delist Mars and Pluto and for that matter we may as well take away FA from Solar System. We will undoubtably learn more about these topics in the future and in fact we have probes at or on the way to Mars and Pluto right now. I admit this is not a perfect analogy, but I do think it helps to illustrate what an article should be judged for what it is today, and for what is happening to the article today.
I think the "stability" criteria is more about whether the article is changing too fast for the GA reviewer to decide what version to review, and whether (once reviewed) the article will just immediately change to fall out of GA standard. That is not likely to happen here for several months at a minimum.
In the best case, GA standards will be maintained in this article through the whole season. It really only takes one or two well-written updates a week. At worst case, the article could be delisted if/when it no longer makes the criteria.
Anyway, thanks for your note and your opinion. I don't take it personally that you failed it, and I am glad you don't take it personally that I asked for a review. Johntex\ 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Hi John, no hard feelings I hope. I am on the fence about these types of articles. It is hard to say they will be stable when off-season develops are as frequent as they are in football. I think I am going to remain neutral on this one. I don't think the reviewer was totally wrong, this is kind of a gray area. We had a similar discussion concerning Spore, an unreleased video game, I believe its failure was endorsed. IvoShandor 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, on stability. A science article (or any academic type article) isn't unstable because of new discoveries, mainly because in the academic world, new discoveries don't just flood the publications. They are carefully reviewed as opposed to being released at a rate that someone documenting the topic and reviewing said documentation for certain criteria wouldn't be able to keep up with it. With Spore, above that was the case, it couldn't be kept up with because there was ever changing speculation about the release date. With an article about a future football season, its hard to say. They have a spring game of some sort, certainly, when do they start practice? July? What happens before that? Camps? Something to be sure. Like I say this is hard to judge but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibilities that an article mostly about a topic that hasn't really taken place or come together yet could be considered unstable. IvoShandor 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply - the spring practices and spring scrimmage is done. Nothing happens during the summer unless some unexpected event happens. Practices resume in August. Johntex\ 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • endorse fail At issue here is the problem that the article is largely incomplete. It's not like 1 or 2 changes are expected in the future, as new information arises. The 2007 season has not even been played yet. This article can ONLY contain speculation and very little else. Give it 9 months. Misplaced Pages is in no rush. Look, the Longhorns have played HOW many seasons? If it is THAT important to the nom to get a Longhorn article to GA status, work on improving one for which the information IS complete. Looking at GA and FA, there are no other Longhorn season articles that have been elevated. Why not work on the 2006 season or any other? Give this one time, and in January, when the season is done, renominate it to GA status.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, the article contains NO speculation. The article contains only known, published, verifiable information about the scheduled games and historical information about these teams involved; such as their starting rankigns. Johntex\ 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse fail Ordinarily, i'd probably support this kind of article because changes would likely come incrementally as the season progresses, however, in this case, the actual team itself isn't even known, since there's no roster. If the roster was extant, (Even just the names of the players, positions I could understand not being known yet until very close to game time) then I think it would be compleate enough to count as sufficiently broad, but otherwise, well, its not really your fault, but it just doesn't seem to cover everything that an article on a sports team should cover. Get that roster and reference it to the level of the rest of the article, and i'd support this for GA status, even if the season is upcoming. Homestarmy 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The roster is an interesting point. It is generally released very near to the start of the season so I do have to wait a bit on that. Johntex\ 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust

This article was delisted by Alexsanderson83 with the accompanying edit summary: removed 'The Holocaust' as article does not address Ownership of the Holocaust. I found this insuffcient, notified the user, reverted the changes and listed the article here. I have invited Alex to explain why this article should be delisted here. IvoShandor 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article fails to address a key issue. Ownership of the Holocaust. The article in its present form does not address this issue at all. This fact means it to be in my opinion B Class with need of a major overhaul. It would be a good article to be featured were it brought up to standard due to the subject matter.

The article intimates the Holocaust to be a mainly Jewish event. Both the cultural and historical understanding can differ from this position. The article fails to address the two two key positions on the subject, deciding it to be a Jewish tradegy and acknowledging that others died. Motive versus mechanics argument not even addressed. Alexsanderson83 12:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment User:Londo06 had repeatedly made this claim on the talk page but when asked to provide sources, has failed to give any evidence whatever for a scholarly debate on Ownership (apparently it has to have a capital O). User:Alexsanderson83 has not contributed to this debate, nor has he sought to add anything relevant. We need evidence that "Ownership" is a real issue of debate before adding it. Instant deletion from GA staus on a whim of a single editor is surely not acceptable. Paul B 13:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't know what you mean by ownership, that is definitely not the right terminology. Secondly the whole second paragraph of the lead is devoted to what you claim to be absent, Alex's assertions are requiring the citations from what I can see. IvoShandor 13:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ownership is the academic term referring to which mutually exclusive understanding of the term 'The Holocaust' to which one is referring. The motive to kill, or the executions themselves in simple terms. Alexsanderson83 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I just finished reading the talk page. I was unfamiliar with the term, what a bizarre choice of word. IvoShandor 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Debate over whether or not to include one concept (still somewhat poorly defined in the Talk page) does not negate the fact that the article is stable, neutral, well written, broad based, etc. I don't see how the aforementioned concept keeps this article from meeting good article criteria, especially given the content that IvoShandor pointed out. MrZaius 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The second paragraph is there, but the assertion that 'The Holocaust' is ... the killing of approximately six million European Jews. This is offensive to many. The article not fully addressing that it is understood by many throughout the world both academically and culturally as the murders by the Nazis in the camps. (I don't include the likes of Iranian Presidents and other anti-semites). Following the opening up of Soviet files and British declassification of files, it is believed that the mechanics over the motives is the most prevalently held position in the academic community. Alexsanderson83 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
But not by others. Personally, I lean towards a more inclusive definition, but, again, where does the article fall short under WP:WIAGA? MrZaius 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This really sounds like a content dispute more than any reason it doesn't meet the GA criteria, GAs are not FAs and not subject to the stringent requirements there. The article does indeed consistently talk about other groups who were murdered. That is suffcient for GA, IMO. IvoShandor 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Alexandserson83 repeats almost word-for-word Londo06's bizarre assertions that this mysterious Ownership debate has emerged "following the opening up of Soviet files and British declassification of files". I fail to see the relevance of these uspecified files, which has never been explained by Londo06. I suspect sockpuppetry. Paul B 13:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would think it would be more like the facts being out there in the real world. Themes being discussed by academics and social commentators alike. The ownership theme is perhaps the major debate of the recent past. I would suggest reading works by the likes of Laurence Rees on Auschwitz. Also accept that the Soviet Union is gone and that files allowed much work on the Nazi atrocities to be done and that the British declassify information in line with the law. This is common knowledge.Alexsanderson83 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The intricate details of specific 60 year old government documents of the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom are hardly "common knowledge". Give links to the papers and explanations of why they make the current two paragraph def invalid on the article's talk page, not here. The article does include fairly extensive coverage of non-Jews killed during the Holocaust. That it lacks it in the opening sentence is not grounds for removing it from the Good Article list. MrZaius 13:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a small, fringe issue and its lack of inclusion does NOT make this delistable. If the person who is argueing that the information should be included, and they have references, they are invited to be bold and add it themselves. However, this small, fringe, accademic issue does not seem to make the article not a Good Article. There is nothing wrong with the article as-is. Keep it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Peer Review needed The issue of where people were killed is an issue. If you were killed in camp, not being Jewish you are included, but are deemed a 2nd class victim. If you are a Jew killed outside the camps then there are people who say that murder is part of the Holocaust. And a Communist under the same circumstances is not.
    • I thought this was the only argument about the Holocaust. Is it the Final Solution or the Holocaust. The article seems to be confusing the two. Could be me, I am neither Jewish or a Professor, but to me THE Holocaust was the organised killings in the camps. 90.192.37.69 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Second class victim? Okay this discussion needs to relate to the GA review, not semantics or content disputes, this isn't a peer review process. We are here to decide if this article meets the GA criteria, no one yet has given any reason that it doesn't, please try to stay on topic. IvoShandor 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Illinois Observatory

This was one of my first GAs, it was passed by Badlydrawnjeff without a review, though he said he reviewed it and would post comments eventually. I wonder if it is up to GA, if you vote delist, please provide a rationale as I will attempt to fix any and all concerns raised during the review. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep A fine article, meets all criteria. The refs should probably all have retrieval dates, but that is a small issue, and not worth delisting now. Just fix that. Looks fine to me. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson

I believe this article does meet the GA criteria. It lacks many citations, and the Lead has information that is not in the main body of the article. Clarkson's early years are limited to only two short sentences, and many sentences like "Clarkson is most associated with the British motoring programme" without facts is POV. A lot of (short) paragraphs read like trivia. The references section should also be looked at for the right formatting style, and if they actually are references, or just filler. andreasegde 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delist: End is listy, badly structured (too many short sections). weak lead, one sentence paragraphs. Not very broad, bio section way too short, unless he was really young which he isn't. Numerous citation needed tags, not nearly referenced enough. Fails GA criteria #1, #2 and #3. IvoShandor 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article is comprehensively referenced, and even a cursory examination of the citation needed tags indicates that many of them are spurious (in several cases, a "citation needed" tag appears in the same paragraph as a citation for the relevant material). I see only minor issues here (eg, the laundry lists), which should be worked out on the talk page. Interestingly, a number of the short paragraphs were introduced by the nominator, immediately after he inappropriately replaced the article's free image with a fair use image. Nandesuka 12:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Nandesuka actually works on the article, so his opinion is biased. I did split the Lead into three sections (to show what was needed) moved a couple of references to the end of sentences, and I put a fair use image on the page, which was reverted (no problem at all). This review is supposed to be conducted by neutral editors. andreasegde 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My rationale is a bit different but I stand by my original vote minus the speedy, it appears to be quite unstable at the moment. IvoShandor 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sort this out on the talk page and I'll change my vote to keep. IvoShandor 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I am just not sure which version I should be reviewing, which is why I still say delist. IvoShandor 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep The version I see right now looks GA-like. The section on Engineering needs some clean-up, but on the balance this seems a fine article. If there are real stability problems (and not just minor fixes but real content disputes) than maybe a 1-month cool off period to see if it can be stabilized, but other than the non-encyclopedic tone of the Engineering section, it looks fine.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters in Devil May Cry

First of all as the lead says, this article is a list which is not accepted at GA. This list is also to in-universe and therefore fails WP:WAF. Tarret 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Few things from the reviewer to counter those points:
    • I removed the outdated "list" sentence. It's not a list, and Misplaced Pages editors need to understand that articles with numerous sections aren't lists like "List of birds".
    • This article is not completely from an in-universe perspective. I forced the writers to add a section on concept and creation before I'd pass the article. Second, many subsections contain out of universe information, such as voice actors and other related development information. Third, the lead clearly establishes the topic as fiction and introduces the characters and their designer. Fourth, the section often cites the title of each game in regard to summarizing plot points, instead of ingoring where it came from. As someone who has helped promote the concept and craft it, I can say with certainty that out of universe does not mean saying the word "fictional" every sentence; it means finding the most real-life material available for a topic and covering it in addition to the in-universe points.
    • Although I'd prefer to see more details about cultural impact, the sources have been reaped enough to comply with the MoS subcriterion. If this were going for FA (which I don't recommend, given the limitations), I'd expect to see (a lot more) real-world information, better prose, and complete merges; however, this is GA level, and there is a difference.

— Deckiller 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was a list, the header just stayed there, now it's a profile pages for secondary characters. Second the article isn't in-universe, it always refers to the characters as such by addin lines such as "In Devil May Cry mythology...". -凶 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well the article looks okay, it has issues though starting with the opening sentence. The title wasn't bolded or wikilinked (fixed), and "set in the modern day" is just awkward. Even though I'm not going to vote as I don't really know the subject and did not read the whole thing, I looked it over enough to pick up a few points:
  • "As the series progresses it is eventualy revealed that" eventually is redundant.
  • I'm not an expert in wrting fictional entries but, when talking about voicing of the characters it might be wise to say "the character is voiced by " instead of "Dante is voiced by " or "she is voiced by" on occasion, this will help with the perspective and it also makes it more formal.
  • A lot of people don't like IMDb as a ref.
  • I don't know anything about Video games so maybe a little background about at least what years the games range from. Also would be a good way to expand to the lead, "Since 1999, there have been five games in the series..." etc.
  • "Ref 16 is blank." Quadzilla99 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

Many sections have either none or too few inline citations, especially for an article this length with so many assertions of fact, the few citation needed tags do not represent the number of citations needed here. In addition the structure is poor at best and confusing at worst. The Awards section is poorly composed, consisting of many short and once sentence paragraphs, also citation lacking. Three small sections, theft, annuity and forfeit are too stubby to be their own sections and would better be served by a blanket history section. The last part of the article is a list which should either be merged elsewhere, moved to its own page and summed up in the article or deleted. This is at a first look and if its not convincing enough I will delve furtherIvoShandor 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the Other section is too ambiguously titled to be useful. Just in case it wasn't obvious, Delist. IvoShandor 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Delist per nomination concerns. LuciferMorgan 09:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Delist per nom LordHarris 10:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment These are valid concerns, I'll see if I can do anything to remedy the situation. --Xdamr 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, most of us here are willing to change our opinions if conditions merit such an action. IvoShandor 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Delist per nom. Not enough done in four days. andreasegde 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Delist, Not enough of the article appears to be referenced, while it could be argued that the awards section might possibly be referenced by one of those broad looking references at the bottom, several other sections besides that don't seem to be referenced either. Homestarmy 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Marquette Building (Chicago)

Nominated for delisting. Poor structure, history section really is more than that, the restoration section and much of the history section is really just about architecture. Thus the actual history present is stubby at best and fails the broadness criteria as well. In addition the lead doesn't meet WP:LEAD, several facts find their only mention within the lead. In general the article is far from broad and such a famous example of Chicago architecture surely has more information available than this. IvoShandor 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see multiple other problems, I can note them here if others would like. IvoShandor 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I will list them when I get a shot, today or tomorrow or sometime soon. IvoShandor 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are my issues and, for the most part, why I say delist:

  • Several one sentence and short paragraphs/sections.
  • Unencyclopedic exact address in the lead.

 Done moved. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The lead doesn't really represent a good summary per WP:LEAD, there are still several detailed facts that appear only in the lead.

 Done added some. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The whole article needs a copy edit.
  • Need citations:
  • It is considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School of Architecture

 Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The building features several distinct elements that have earned it honors as a Chicago Landmark, a National Historic Landmark, and a National Register Historic Place.
Not necessary IMO. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Can't tie these together without citation, it would represent unpublished synthesis, or OR.
  • Around 1950, the terra-cotta cornice was removed from the Marquette Building when an additional story was added.

 Done cited. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The preservation of this building was championed by the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.
  • Broadness
  • Surely the history section of a 112 year old building considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School cannot meet the broadness criteria if it is only six sentences long.
  • The architecture section isn't very thorough or broad either, on the interior it only describes the lobby on the exterior it only describes the sculpture and the windows.
  • Consider adding a section where you can discuss its landmarks statuses, its awards and why it is such a significant example of the Chicago style of architecture.
  • The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building
  • The one and only ; ), Who is the architect?
  • This part of the architecture section could use a rewrite, it is really choppy: The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building. These are large panes of glass flanked by narrow sash windows. The grid-like window frames and spandrels are facilitated by the steel structure which enables non-load-bearing masonry walls. This was one of the first steel-framed skyscrapers. The building is built around a central light court featuring an ornate lobby. The lobby is decorated with mosaic panels made by the Tiffany firm and bronze heads of native Americans, animals, and early explorers. The two-story rotunda lobby contains panels of lustered Tiffany glass, mother-of-pearl and semi-precious stones that depict scenes of the early history of Illinois. The hexagonal railing around the lobby atrium is decorated with a mosaic frieze by the Tiffany studio depicting events in the life of Jacques Marquette.
  • The Restoration section seems unfocused.
  • At least one full date unlinked.

 Done linked. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • External links always go last.

 Done moved. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The city of Chicago footer template seems like overkill and clutter, it doesn't even link to the article.

Most WP:WPChi articles should get this tag. Good navigational aidTonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • All of the images in the gallery should be moved to commmons and the gallery removed and replaced with a Commons link using {{Commons}}. If you don't want to move the images to Commons at least remove the gallery, per WP:NOT.
  • Much of the sections outside of architecture (as noted above) are also choppy, thorough copy editing by unaffiliated eyes should help to resolve the flow problems.

This is all I have for now. Hope that helps. IvoShandor 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Just so everyone here knows, as should be obvious from my comments above, this is a serious, good faith GAR with no ill intent or previously implied retaliation involved. IvoShandor 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Good work on these things so far, the broadness notes are important in my opinion. We shall see what others think. I am not wedded to delisting this, it just needs to be better is all. IvoShandor 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Washington streetcars

Warned by me on the article's talk page in December 2006 regarding lack of citations etc. Delist. LuciferMorgan 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should be delisted as the article is too listy. LuciferMorgan 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

*Delist Teemu08 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delist: per four month warning. The article is also badly structured, listy in places, and the aforementioned stub sections aren't helpful either. IvoShandor 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been working on a complete re-write. I'm not quite done, but I'm replacing the present version with what I have now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranor (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Following Cranor's work, the argument listed against in the nom is now addressed with 63 footnote numbers, and many of them are cited multiple times (one is even cited more than 30 times). Slambo (Speak) 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The massive improvements make it hard for me to see anything that stands out against GA status in this article. Homestarmy 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Can't see going from Speedy Delist to Keep, the article is still listy, and not just in the lists, there are so many section breaks and bolded words I lose track of what the article is about. IvoShandor 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Yea it's well referenced but let's start with the problems.
    • The article doesn't mention the title of the article - Washington, D.C. streetcars should be de-linked and bolded.
 Done Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The lead is way too small for an article this size
    • Table of contents is too big
    • I see refs before punctuation, refs with spaces
    • Dates are'nt formatted correctly - July 13, 1868 should be July 13, 1868
 Done Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Only text in the lead should be bolded, there's text in almost every section bolded
    • About 20 external jumps
    • Article contains lots of one sentence paragraphs
    • External links section should be at the end of the article
 Done Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The See Also section comes before notes
 Done Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So Yea, this article in no-way should ever become a good article unless something is done. M3tal H3ad 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delist Solid article. I struck my above comment and changed to weak, still needs a little work. I just did some significant work on it to help out and checked off some of the above reviewers cocnerns. Metal Head was correct in most of his assessments, although I disagree with some. I would think it's alright to have portions of the title linked sometimes see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, so you don't have to be to repetitive and mention them again in the next sentence, I did fix that though anyway (I know what the MoS says no need to repeat it). Never had a problem with large TOC's, I went through and fixed the dates in the text (not in the references due to time/interest level), I think redirects are often bolded and everything bolded is in fact a redirect, although the redirects should go to the exact section and not to the top of the article, fixed the layout issues (although I was forced to tag the link farm of an EL section), the main problem remaining for me is the external jumps those really need to go. Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice work but i still stand by my decision. This "Paragraph" 'Colorado Avenue Terminal on 14th Street, now a Metrobus stop' has no full-stop, as does 'The Median on Penn, built in 1903 ' And these sentences don't make much sense
    • Public transportation began in Washington, D.C. almost as soon as the city was founded. When was this?
    • Why is something so simple like 'day' wikilinked
    • but service ended soon after it began. Why did it end?
    • After the Herdic Company went under, awkward use of "went under" what about bankrupt or disbanded, whatever happened
    • Much of the article reads like "Went along 10th street and U, but changed to U and 11 street soon after. When the new company came in it went to 13th street etc etc. I'm not sure what you mean by the title, but the example you provided had the title of the game bolded, this didn't. M3tal H3ad 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist however, rework could bring this to GA. article has good breadth and depth of content, but needs widespread effort. prose is listy and rambling in places, excessive section breaks, bolded words, and general formatting problems occur throughout. top suggestion: you may want to consider creating stub articles for sections of low notability, and then place a see also section header/footer on the section. this would improve readability, particuarly for sections of individual companies or operations. single bullet lines in cars and barnshops needs complete rework, or creation of a stub article, or a list. ChicagoPimp 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

William Fuller (football player)

I'm the main contributor to this article; I nominated and it passed two weeks ago. However, I just noticed while browsing around that the user who passed it is a confirmed sockpuppet (see the discussion on GA/R talk page). So I thought it should put it up for review just to be safe. The two notes I'd like to make is that although the article is short it's comprehensive—the player did not have an article until a month ago and the Houston Chronicle's extensive online archives (which I've searched through thoroughly) don't really have much to add to the article (other than brief mentions like Fuller recorded two sacks, Fuller is expected to make the Pro Bowl, Fuller is looking forward to the season etc.). Also there are no pics available for the article on flickr or otherwise, as you can see here, I'm good at finding free pics so if there were some I'd have found them. Quadzilla99 10:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The review is here. Quadzilla99 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Note I added a stats table to fill the article a little more. Quadzilla99 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is the exact kind of article GA was intended for. It is well written, broad, and well referenced. I see no reason not to keep it. On fix, which I made myself, was to change NFL career to Pro Career. Otherwise, it looks fine. GAs cannot be held up for lack of pics, and it looks NPOV and stable enough. I say keep.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral (for now): A few comments follow.
  • I would say it is worth mentioning that he is tied for the 20th spot on the all time sack leaders list.
Done, I put it down by his stats table.
  • Any hall of fame consideration here? What are his chances, surely someone must have written something about that.
No, the Hall of Fame is tough in football. Fuller made four Pro Bowls so he has no chance, Harry Carson made nine Pro Bowls and he wasn't elected until his thirteenth or fourteenth try.
  • How did his stats compare with other players? Was he ever amongst league leaders in key statistics for defensive players?
I'll try to find some info. Most of the best sites (databasefootball, pro-football-reference.com, NFL.com etc.) don't keep lists of season sack leaders.
  • Is post '96 the only years with contract info available? Because as is it kind of reads like, "this guy got a big contract and then didn't perform," mostly due to the reast of the sentence.
  • After the 1996 season Fuller signed a two year $5.6 million dollar contract with the San Diego Chargers, while there his production steeply declined.
  • That's the sentence I singled out above, it seems to imply some sort of connection or seems to be trying to make a point of some sort.
I definitely didn't mean to imply that. I added a note about an earlier contract he signed, so now it will just appear as though I'm just mentioning that contract to be consistent. I'll see if I can find some more info, he was never a highly publicized player for whatever reason. He seems to have played in several players shadows. Like I said he didn't have an article until a month ago. He replaced Reggie White in Philadelphia and followed this guy (the one in the pic) as a pass rusher at UNC so that probably didn't help either.
  • Do we know anything about his other college seasons at all? Any bowl game appearances?
Not really in terms of individual accomplishments. As I mentioned there's not much info on him I can find. I mentioned that the team made three bowl games.
  • A couple things are mentioned in the lead but nowhere else in the main body of the text, as the lead should be a summary of the article they should appear elsewhere as well.
  • His All American honors
  • His position (This is in the infobox which I guess is probably ok.)
Comment His All-America honors are mentioned in the college section, as is the fact that he was a defensive lineman I could be more specific I guess. Quadzilla99 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much fine other than that, some of the above should definitely be addressed I think. IvoShandor 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ALCO FA

Has zero citations and is stubby in places. Delist. LuciferMorgan 01:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh now I see the show/hide link, can you change their color, that was too hard to see, they didn't seem to do anything that's why I called them ridiculous, no offense intended, they're actually kind of neat. IvoShandor 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought might be the problem as it seemed to me to be a bit dark on dark to begin with. As I remember, the background color in those cells used to be a lighter color. I'll see about rectifying at least that much shortly... Slambo (Speak) 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see them now btw. IvoShandor 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

School counselor

This article is US based, almost completely ignoring what a school counselor is outside of the country (except for one run-on sentence section about Korea). The history section only deals with this and also has zero citations. Theoretical framework and services only has one citation, and the citations in the article are not properly formatted. Teemu08 07:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the weather forecast sees potential for WP:SNOW... --Ling.Nut 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article does cite references in APA format. Misplaced Pages contains many articles that are American. School counseling was invented in the United States.whicky1978 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Update, School Counseling was first developed in the United States, and is barely beginning to take root in other countries. It does have a large professional association and the grand majority of school counseling training programs in the world are located in the United States. It is quite ludicrous to consider deleting this article based on it being written from a predominantly American perspective. I would invite people who know more about it from the perspective of other nations to join in and update it to a more international perspective. I, personally, would be quite interested to learn about school counseling training programs in other countries. I believe they are sadly quite rare at the moment. Kukini 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not an AfD..... Homestarmy 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Be that what it is...the rationale that this is only from an American perspective is a tad problematic as, to my knowledge, there are no (or very few, if any)school counseling associations outside the United States to date and that school counseling itself is an American-based profession. Thus, the argument that this article fails the broadness criteria is based on a pretty limited perspective of school counseling. Kukini 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The article certainly presents the topic as if there were more than just the United States to consider, your argument seems flawed and if it's not the article's structure is. IvoShandor 10:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I am considering archiving this discussion as Delist, Keep and Update isn't really a position for keeping this as a GA as much as it is an admission that the article fails GA criteria #3a. IvoShandor 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Four to two is indeed a majority to delist, but its not an 80 percent majority, the last real new thing was Kukini's keep vote on the 19th from what i'm seeing, that's only five days. Homestarmy 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I would tag this for cleanup if I saw it while browsing. Look at this section of the prose: "This movement emphasized personal, social, moral development." That's actually a sentence, or this one:"Often counselors will coordinate outside groups that wish to help with student needs such as academics, or coordinate a state program that teaches about child abuse or drugs, through on-stage drama (Schmidt, 2003)" where's the period?—and what's with the wikilinking for Personal/social development later on? I doubt an article could ever be created for such a topic; it would certainly get nuked at any afd. Also, the see also section is beneath the reference section, the writing is informal ("For example,""Though not ideal,""Additionally, it has to have"). The following statements seriously need sources also:
    • "Elementary professional school counselors also spend 35-40% of their time in classroom guidance."
    • "A fully-implemented district-wide comprehensive school counseling program meets the needs of 100% of the students—just as the district's mathematics program is for 100% of the students."
    • "" Quadzilla99 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

There seem to be NPOV problems, such as this line: This raised concern as some perceived his actions as child endangerment, although Jackson has vehemently denied these tabloid rumours. media attention that is negative being stated as "tabloid rumours" seems a bit biased. Strong fox 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delist Lead is far too long, surely some/most of the stuff about his accomplishments can be better said somewhere else in the body of the article? It seems like a bunch of overkill with so much in the lead. Homestarmy 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delist The lead definitely could be trimmed, you could almost make a whole new section with the information there. There are also many citation needed tags throughout the article, and I'm sure other areas could also use some more inline citations as well. --Nehrams2020 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment this needs to be re-set, Strong Fox never put a notice on the article's talk page. Editors should be given notice and time to address concerns. Quadzilla99 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Per my previous reasoning I moved this back to the top, now I'm going to go notify the article's editors on the talk page. Quadzilla99 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Quadzilla99 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the lead the main problem? That can be fixed quite easily. Seems harsh to vote de-list just based on the lead. Some tags are still unaccounted for, but overall the article is teeming with citations.UberCryxic 14:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If the lead is fixed, we can of course change our votes, i've changed my vote plenty of times based on article improvements. These reviews can last quite awhile. Homestarmy 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, the first main paragraph is designed to explain the importance of the subject of the article, ie. to answer the question "Why is Michael Jackson relevant?" after "Who is Michael Jackson?" already being answered in the opening sentence. That's why the accomplishments are listed there. You'll notice a similar pattern for musical acts of equivalent stature, like Elvis Presley and The Beatles. There's a lot of talk about impact, achievement, sales, and so on. It's virtually impossible not to note down things like that for people like these. So far, I have removed the awards from the lead and placed them in another section. I have also mentioned the albums released after Thriller to give his musical career some sort of chronological perspective. Beyond that, the lead seems to be fairly all-right and of appropriate length.UberCryxic 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the first and fourth paragraph, but the second and third go into so many specifics, that it seems less of a summary and more of a compleate list of every important influence Michael Jackson has had on, well, a whole bunch of things. For instance, where the second one lists the artists he's influenced, that kind of thing can easily be generalized into something like "Has influenced a great number of modern singers" or something like that. Then the main part of the article should be where the elaboration on who the people he's influenced are, because then there's plenty of room to explain every influence as much as needed. Homestarmy 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Lead is still way too long as far I'm concerned. I don't really care for any rationalizations, it's too long and should be cut. Quadzilla99 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate that long articles should have leads of three to four paragraphs. This one is more like three paragraphs (the first part is two introductory sentences). Whether you care for rationalizations or not is irrelevant; you're getting some, and in this case they are justified. To Home: those two paragraphs highlight the significance of the subject. At their core they are fine, but we can discuss how much information needs to be modified so it's of acceptable length to you guys. Beyond that, there are precedents that I used in writing those parts of the lead, especially Bing Crosby, whose influences in the lead are explained as follows:

One of the first multi-media stars, from 1934 to 1954 Bing Crosby held a nearly unrivaled command of record sales, radio ratings and motion picture grosses. He is usually considered to be among the most popular musical acts in history and is currently the most electronically recorded human voice in history. Crosby is also credited as being the major inspiration for most of the male singers that followed him, including the likes of Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, and Dean Martin. Yank magazine recognized Crosby as the person who had done the most for American GI morale during World War II and, during his peak years, around 1948, polls declared him the "most admired man alive" ahead of Jackie Robinson and the Pope Also during 1948, the Music Digest estimated that Crosby recordings filled more than half of the 80,000 weekly hours allocated to recorded radio music.

The tone of the lead for that article is similar to the one for Michael Jackson, as are the details. This aside, however, I actually disagree with the assertion that the lead goes into specifics. It really doesn't, merely highlighting the major influences and aspects of Michael Jackson's career. The one part where it may is the third paragraph, although, again, there are tons of precedents with biographies of musicians that include sales figures and other chart accomplishments in the lead. If they are notable, they should be there. And with Michael Jackson, clearly that information is notable.UberCryxic 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm the main contributor on the Michael Jordan article which was recently promoted to FA, so I don't need any instructions on how to write an article on a well known iconic figure. Quotes in the lead (specifically about the subject rather than from the subject) are a bad idea unless the quotes are tremendously famous. So for starters I would cut the lengthy quote. Quadzilla99 08:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This whole thing can go:"heralding and displaying complicated physical techniques, like the robot and the moonwalk, that have redefined mainstream dance and entertainment. At his height, he was characterized as "an unstoppable juggernaut, possessed of all the tools to dominate the charts seemingly at will: an instantly identifiable voice, eye-popping dance moves, stunning musical versatility, and loads of sheer star power."" The first half sentence is unencyclopedic hyperbole and can be lopped off, the previous sentence will be fine without it. The second sentence is a quote which is in general a bad idea for a lead, also contains hyperbole. Quadzilla99 08:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I didn't think it necessary, I've removed the quotation from the lead.UberCryxic 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not questioning your credentials, but it does not seem fair to refuse "rationalizations," as you put it. Quotations can sometimes do a good job of encapsulating a whole lot of information into one or two sentences. That's why this one was found and placed in the lead. It did an effective job at conveying the importance of the subject. The Michael Jordan lead is really not all that different from the Michael Jackson lead. You even talk about awards he's won, which is actually something I removed from the Michael Jackson lead as a response to this review. The Jordan lead, like the Michael Jackson lead with Vanity Fair, also mentions critical perceptions, like ESPN and the Associated Press. The language is somewhat comparable...."widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of all time"......"widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time"....."instrumental in popularizing the NBA around the world"....."redefined mainstread dance and entertainment"...and so on. Now I am beginning to challenge your implicit assertion that the leads of these two articles are notably different. Apart from the quotation, which is not a big deal at all, they are not. Both leads do a good job at highlighting the status and "magnitude," if you will, of the subject. And if you include just career achievements, then the two leads are actually of similar length. The only reason why the Michael Jackson lead is slightly longer is because it has to document his controversial personal life.UberCryxic 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The quotation was removed at one point, but I was reverted by another (far more persistent) user with whom I did not want to get into a big discussion or an edit war, especially over something so relatively insignificant. I am still officially supporting the removal of that quotation, but I can tell you right now it will not be an easy process getting it past some other users. There are plenty of precedents on articles about musical acts discussing specific and future artists that they have influenced. If the artists in question are notable, and clearly they are here, there's nothing wrong with mentioning them in the lead. The insinuation that the list represenets "everybody he's ever influenced" is ridiculous; that list really would deserve its own section. The people mentioned are meant to be representative of the various genres in which Jackson has had an impact....and, again, they are famous.UberCryxic 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok the quotation has been removed once more from the lead and placed in another section. Beyond that, I truly believe the lead is fine. Again, take away Jackson's personal life and his career gets the same coverage length-wise as Michael Jordan does in his lead.UberCryxic 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Delist From an outside view I find this article to be quite biased and in general badly written. It will never progress if the persistent fanboy gushing is not addressed promptly.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I ask the community to disregard the above "vote." The user has less than 50 edits and is clearly not well-positioned to make a call that requires some quasi-extensive experience with the articles and policies of Misplaced Pages.UberCryxic 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It offends me very much that you would cross out my vote like it was nothing, not to mention that you didn't even tell me about it. I may not have have many edits but my opinions are as valid as the next persons. And anyway, just because I don't have many edits, it doesn't mention I haven't read the wikipedia policies or the edit history of the article I'm giving an opinion on - believe me I've done both. Its presumptuous and rude of you to think otherwise - act on - without any evidence. If you don't agree with my opinion fine, I can accept that, but removing it is another issue altogether and something I don't at all appreciate.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if I agre with that. I guess if the user cares they can respond, but it's rather drastic to strike out a user's comments. Quadzilla99 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
As the user is not one that can participate in a consensus-building exercise on Misplaced Pages, then there is nothing wrong with just completely removing their statements (and votes), much less crossing them out. In fact, I've had personal experiences with this during my FA reviews. The votes cast by recent editors were promptly removed and discarded. Basically, their votes should be ignored, and I wanted to make it firmly clear to whoever is adjudicating whether there is consensus that the above person can be disregarded.UberCryxic 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
And this actually gets funnier....I just checked the user's history again and I notice that this person has actually made "extensive," if I can use that word for someone with less than 50 edits, contributions in wikispace, particularly for FA reviews. I have no idea what this user had in mind, but obviously these actions on his or her part are inappropriate. I just hope they found out who it was during those reviews.....UberCryxic 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I don't feel like arguing but usually newly created accounts get crossed out on FACs. Althought the edit count is low, the editor has been signed up for a while. Most voters crossed off on FACs are newly created accounts that are suspected duplicate voters, not low count voters who supposedly don't know the criteria, which is not that complicated especially now incidentally. Quadzilla99 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, do you believe that the user's vote should not count? If so, then I do not really care which part you cross out. If you want, you can go ahead and cross the username only. Makes no real difference to me. If you do believe that the user's vote should count, then we are going to have somewhat of a discussion on our hands, to put it mildly.UberCryxic 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I have gone ahead and arbitrarily crossed out the "vote" as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.UberCryxic 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment I do think the user's vote should count, I've notified him/her and I'll let you two discuss it if he wishes to come here and comment. Usually users who appear to have registered just to vote on an FAC are discounted, that user registered 8 months ago. Hopefully he/she will come comment and I won't have to carry this on any further. Quadzilla99 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How long they have been registered for is irrelevant. I've seen people who've been registered longer than this and they have like 20 or 30 edits. I believe the informal requirement for participating in these activities is something like registration for a month and at least 100 edits in mainspace, not wikispace. The edits that this person does have are all in areas that he or she should not have been involved in to begin with.UberCryxic 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see what notifying the user will accomplish. Obviously that person will claim that his or her vote is legitimate. But the whole point is that when it comes to matters like this, opinions from these users are trivial.UberCryxic 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a major problem with this article, and I'm now gonna tell you why. There is a lot of CRAP on that article. It's a breeding ground for people to dump trash about Michael, and then the SAME hypocrits go back and claim that there are fan boys gushing out. I must say it's a convenient way to keep the article in its overly bias state. It's actually an extremely clever method. Of course, most people here are tabloid junkies who hate Michael so it makes it easy to just pile up hateful posts and dump 'em in the article. That's why this article is bias. Don't try flipping this around. This article still paints Michael as a molester and then an musician. It should be the other way around, but unfortunately it ain't, and it's sad to see these haters then try to accuse unknown fans of coming on and dumping out crud. Sad... really really sad. --Paaerduag 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

keep since this delisting consensus was started because someone said that the article is full of fan gush, which is totally ridiculous and acutally the REVERSE situation is occuring, I have decided to cast my vote to keep the article as a good article. I will not believe these ridiculous rants by haters claiming that the article is full of fan gush, it is acutally full of haters gush which is disgusting and bias, and should be removed. --Paaerduag 07:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega

Too few references, other issues such as solo linked years.Sumoeagle179 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Solo-linked years is actually permissible, and recommended in most cases, per WP:MOS. Dr. Cash 07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Solo linked years is generally not recommendable, see WP:DATE; specifically here there is considerable dispute though. In my experience in FAC's they're not well liked. Although that's an easy fix. Quadzilla99 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Does this review need any more attention, I see a 1 to 0, and although there's no rule against it, I don't really think its a good idea to act on a 1 to 0, its just one vote so to speak..... Homestarmy 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, 1 to 0 is no consensus, default keep. I will look at the article if I have a chance. IvoShandor 11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Too few references in article, and source of references is narrowed primarily to APO references. Expanding references to a broader variety of sources would likely increase content and improve verifiability. Background of formation is sufficient, but article needs a section of significant contributions, expansion of charity events and/or community service. For having 300k members, a mention of notable alumni also would help. ChicagoPimp 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Champagne (wine region)

The objection I have to this article is that most of the information contained therin more properly belongs in a different article, that of Champagne (province). The wine region article should be delisted, split and merged into the province article, and renamed something like "Wine making in Champagne", then each article could be renominated for GA as appropriate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Well Wine making in Champagne would not be an appropriate title since the wine history of the region is a vital component to terroir of the region. I'm not sure how familiar Jayron is with wine but there is much more to the creation of wine then just "wine making" with the people, places and history each adding profound elements that make wine like Champagne truly different from any other sparkling wine. For reference, similar articles along this line would be Napa Valley (wine) and Languedoc wine.To that extent I do think Champagne (wine region) is the most appropriate title and place for this information. After looking over Dr. Cash's comment, I agreed with him that an article titled Champagne (province) should include more details on "the government and politics, demographics of the population, transportation, economy, sports team" etc like an article on a US state like Rhode Island or another French province like Lorraine (region). As the majority contributor to the wine related history and info, I agreed with him that the wine related history and info overwhelmed the provincial article so I went ahead and split the two and renominated the wine region to be evaluated on its own merit. I hope this clarifies things for you. Agne/ 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, as an FYI, if sections such as the "Military history" are what caught your eye as maybe belonging better in Champagne (province), I will direct your attention to the citation references at the bottom. They are all from wine books since those elements of Champagne history has had a profound affect on the wine industry in that region. Every item in the Champagne (wine region) article is tied back into its influence on the wine. Agne/ 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I tried to bring these concerns to light in my initial GA review, because the article was initially nominated as Champagne, and dealt solely with the wine-making aspects and nothing about the political, geographical, and cultural aspects of the province. The article was then split and renominated, as Champagne (wine region), and I still have some doubts about GA status, but the article was passed by Sandstein before I could do anything, and I decided not to challenge at the time. Dr. Cash 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As I noted, everything in the article is specific and relevant to the wine region and wine. Is there another area that I should look at or improve to take care of these doubts? Agne/ 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral for now: Weak lead, doesn't conform to WP:LEAD and includes one sentence paragraph. Some of the information in the History section is probably a bit too detailed for an article about the wine region. Is there a difference between the wine region and the whole of the province, that should be made explicitly clear. IvoShandor 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments IvoShandor. I worked on the lead to address some of your concerns. As for the history section, if you can point me in the right direction I'll see what I can do. The largest sub section is the "Rivalry with Burgundy" which is only relevant to an article about the wine region and wouldn't have a place in any other article. The "Military Conflict" is by far the smallest sub-section and gives context to the history of the area and the blood that is in soil. The only references in the "Military conflict" section come from wine books because they are pertinent to understanding the terroir. Is there something that you would recommend? Agne/ 07:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The blood that is in the soil? Anyway, is there a difference between the wine region and the province? I will take another look at the article and come back with specifics. IvoShandor 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
heh, pardon the literary device. :p But that is one aspect of the terroir that is often talked about in regard to the Champagne region. The wine from the area is so different from wines from other areas no matter how finely detailed that a wine producer would try to imitate the condition of the area and the wine making techniques. That innate difference is attributed to the "sense of place" that the Champagne region has and Champenois do talk about the blood that in their soil due to all the battles and conflicts that the area has saw. Terroir is fascinating in that regard. If you are an avid reader (or just the curious sort) a book you may want to consider is James Wilson Terroir. Even if you're not into wine, it's a pretty good read. Agne/ 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
One sentence in this article catches my eye, "From the key market of Paris to the palace of Louis XIV of France at Versailles, proponents of Champagne and Burgundy would spar to get the upper hand.". This wasn't literally fighting, was it? Seems a bit unusual way to word it, its not very direct unless they're literally fighting. Homestarmy 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Reworded. Agne/ 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)