Misplaced Pages

:Good article reassessment - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M.K (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 21 December 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:40, 21 December 2006 by M.K (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Shortcut
  • ]

The Good article review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if an article still merits its good article status or contesting former GA's that someone may think was improperly delisted. 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. Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article.
  6. If the problem(s) is not resolved, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA|25 December 2024}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.
  7. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
  8. 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 fulfil 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 re-listed as a Good Article.


Archive
Archives
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11


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.

Invasive species

Since the merge with the article "invasive plants", the article focuses mainly on plants, rather than discussing invasive species in general. I think a thorough review work is needed. Gidip 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Erg, that looks bad. How was this merge conducted, what did the article look like beforehand? Right now, there's almost no wikilinks which in my experience indicates it hasn't been looked over much, the lead is far too long, the references almost all seem to be from a list given on the talk page with little explanation on how they actually reference the article, yea, this doesn't look good. Homestarmy 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Delist and add appropriate tags, also expand to explain other than plants. Tarret 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Autobianchi Primula

I question if the article fulfills two of the criteria. 3. It's not very comprehensive compared to other good car articles. 6. It should be possible to find some free pictures to illustrate the article. --Boivie 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and like most other Car articles i've seen, its written like advertising. Homestarmy 03:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't see it as advertising at all. It is basically a description of a 60's car. Considering that it is similiar to an Austin Morris, it would be very difficult to "advertise" or "promote" such a car. As for comparing the "comprehensive"ness with other GA car articles, well, it is difficult to get English language sources for such a car (while it's no problem for the US-built Taurus or Town Car or a special exclusive car). This article will never get FA, but it is a perfect example of a short GA. I would note one criticism. There should not be a footnote to the Italian Misplaced Pages as it is not considered to be a reliable source. Unfortunately Bravada, the major contributor to this article (as well as one of the defenders of the GA project), is no longer around. --RelHistBuff 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with RelHistBuff Balloonman 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Anton Alexander von Werner

I don't know enough about the subject matter and available references to judge whether the biography could be expanded much, but what concerns me most is the lack of information outside a basic biography, namely analysis/criticism of his works and any influence he had on German art or culture. Quarma 04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist This article is very short... which probably isn't in and of itself enough to get it delisted, but for a supershort article I would expect exceptional prose and thought. This article is almost exclusively redlinks. It has wording that shows mild POV (Eg "Among his more important works must be named".) I'd like to hear more about why "chiefly interesting for the historic value of his pictures of the events of the Franco-Prussian War." And explanation of some of those redlinks and why they are important.Balloonman 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No lead section, since there isn't actually any sections, therefore, it can't comply with WP:LEAD. Delist. Homestarmy 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agriculture

I think that this article fails the comprehensiveness criterion. I know alot more than a couple of paragraphs and lists could be added to this article to improve it. Tarret 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to the nominator I left the appropriate message on the article's talk page for you. --Ling.Nut 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Not enough citations for an article this length. Also, my real problem is that this article seems to be nothing more thant a bunch of lists. To mention a few:
"cut flowers, ornamental and nursery plants, timber, fertilizers, animal hides, leather, industrial chemicals (starch, sugar, ethanol, alcohols and plastics), fibers (cotton, wool, hemp, and flax), fuels (methane from biomass, biodiesel) and both legal and illegal drugs (biopharmaceuticals, tobacco, marijuana, opium, cocaine)."
"chemical fertilizer, chemical insecticides (see pest control), and chemical fungicides, soil makeup, analysis of agricultural products, and nutritional needs of farm animals"
"hydroponics, plant breeding, hybridization, gene manipulation, better management of soil nutrients, and improved weed control"
"irrigation, drainage, conservation and sanitary engineering"Balloonman 10:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Clinical Depression

A MOS nightmare, this article is laden with {{fact}} tags, really short paragraph and sections, entirely unreferenced sections, few inline cites in general for such a long article, listy areas that need conversion to prose, numerous redlinks, among other problems. Teemu08 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to the nominator I left the appropriate message on the article's talk page for you. --Ling.Nut 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach

Very long article; very few cites. Warned by Agne. --Ling.Nut 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. needs cleaning up and cites.Rlevse 23:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Retain as good article. This has been on my watchlist for well over a year so I invite interested editors to please review the extensive history of the article for the details about how it has come to its current form and only then make due comment. Citing length and references comes across as mindless cant, especially given the extraordinary effort that many editors (not myself) have made to the content. Let me reiterate that: please review the history - it should take you several hours, but you will see the degree to which the issues have been thought through and explored. It is definitely worthy of GA. Eusebeus 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment hours of endeavor and discussion on the subject is NOT criteria for maintaining as a GA. The article itself has to testify to that fact. I haven't read it yet, but the question is does the article itself deserve to be a GA.Balloonman 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I brought the article here, so implicitly my vote is "delist". This article is almost a test case of the rule regarding inline cites. The coverage is obviously thorough. The topic is important. I would even venture to agree that the topic has been researched to the last detail. Do peer-reviewed journals in the music field let you get away with the sort of vast uncited wasteland I see here? I mean, it is a desert, in terms of inline cites. I might make the "dedicated editors" argument in favor of Keep (see "Kanab ambersnail" just below this), but IMO that argument covers cases where the article is well on its way toward meeting the standards, not one in which the standards haven't even been given a cursory glance. Even the dedicated editors feel that there is a need for cites; see the response to Agne's warning here. --Ling.Nut 14:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. TBH, I tend to agree w/Tony on this one. GA has lost much of its meaning thanks to a well-intentioned but flawed approach to assessment, which results in non-experts and dilettantes demanding inline cites for stuff that is wholly obvious to anyone familiar in the field and creates the impression of a first year term paper, not an encyclopedic entry. Eusebeus 16:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I support citations. It does a few things. First, it adds stability to the article. Second, it adds credibility to the article. Yes, it may make it more 'term paperish,' but when dealing with a medium that can be edited by anybody those references are a comforting sight that the article is accurate. Give me two articles, one that is better documented than the other and I'll trust the documented one much more than I would the identical undocumented one. Yes, I agree that sometimes people go overboard with citations, but on a whole, I support the need for them. An article of this length definately, IMHO, needs more.Balloonman 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delist I agree that an article of this length definately needs more citations. Right now a lot of the article feel like OR due to the lack of references. It also has wording issues that I didn't like, for example, "Many of his keyboard works are anthologies that show an eagerness to encompass whole theoretical systems in an encyclopaedic fashion, as it were." Balloonman 16:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent) No less than three dedicated editors of this article have explicitly stated that they do not wish to retain GA status (see Eusebius, above; others on the article's talk page). I'm calling WP:SNOW. I'll wait one day for arguments; then delist and archive this discussion. No 7-day wait, in other words. --Ling.Nut 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I may be misreading Eusebius above, but it sounds to me as if he is critical of the notion of failing due to lack of inline citations. As for Tony and Sandy on the articles talk page, they are not commenting on the merits of this particular article, but are talking about getting rid of the GA status period... They see GA as a waste of time and effort and thus don't care if the article is delisted. I don't see their votes to delist as real votes on the merits (or lack thereof) of this entry.Balloonman 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think citation is absolutely necessary. But the question is what needs to be cited. I've expressed myself on this point elsewhere so I won't bother to repeat myself. But the issue as noted at the Metric expansion of space applies here as well. Eusebeus 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, motivation is irrelevant. There still is no support for Keep, and crucially, none from its own editors (for whatever reason). I'm still calling WP:SNOW & waiting one day. --Ling.Nut 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I object to citing snow. For the record, I vote to retain. Eusebeus 18:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I object to citing snow as well... to be perfectly honest with you, based on the articles talk page, I question your objectivity in regards to this article. You clashed with Tony and Sandy, and want to wash your hands of this nomination. Also, you raised this issue as a test case for citations, if you call for SNOW, then your 'test case' is null and voice. Finally, I do not believe that citing people who object to the idea of GA is valid for delisting a particular article. If it was, let's go ahead and have those who do not like GA to give a standing delist to ALL articles. An article needs to be evaluated and delisted on it's own merits---not upon a theoretical opposition to the notion.Balloonman 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Retain as Good Article - or admit that GA is irrelevant. The way to deal with something like this is find what points actually are controversial and require more than a general reference; and mark them with {tl|cn}}. Even FA does not, and should not, require a footnote at every semicolon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • How does delisting this article make GA irrelevant? It is in flaming disregard of WP:V. It is apparently tended by several FA reviewers; that doesn't change the fact that it has little or no verifiability. Actually, the only logical conclusion is "Keep Delist, or admit WP:V (not WP:GA) is irrelevant."
  • Moreover, I agree that the correct thing to do is address problems point-by-point. But this article is so non-verifiable, it would take weeks to do so.
  • And the reason for the WP:SNOW is, the editors themselves show no sign of being willing to cooperate. Exactly how is this point-by-point amelioration of its problems going to proceed under those conditions?--Ling.Nut 19:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 'PS I said I would wait for objections; some were voiced. I withdraw my SNOW. --Ling.Nut 19:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Delist I wonder, why are people giving so much emphasis on References for this article? I think the really quite bad POV problems in the very first sections speak for themselves, just for a taste, lets look at:
"Johann Sebastian Bach was born March 21, 1685 in Eisenach, Germany to an extraordinary musical family--for more than 200 years, the Bach family had produced dozens of worthy performers and composers during a period in which the church, local government and the aristocracy provided significant support for professional music making in the German-speaking world, particularly in the eastern electorates of Thuringia and Saxony."
What is Extraordinary, famous? Because famous can be cited, "extraordinary" would require both citation and proper attribution. "worthy performers" in comparison to what, what is "worthy"? "Signifigant support", what is that supposed to mean?
"There he copied, studied and performed music, and apparently received valuable teaching from his brother, who instructed him on the clavichord."
Couldn't one word be used for "copied, studied, and performed", like maybe just "learned", because this sounds like the script for a documentary. "apparently" is a weasel word and doesn't tell the reader why his brother's instruction was valuable, what if it was someone elses instruction who made Bach great?
"His two years there appear to have been critical in exposing him to a wider palette of European culture than he would have experienced in Thuringia. "
"appear to have" is another weaselly type thing, appears to whom? "exposing him to a wider palette of European culture" is just clearly not encyclopedic style writing, its much too flowely, and what makes the city he was in any more European than another city in Germany? As someone who's seen the dark side of ethnicity vs. ethnicity fighting on Misplaced Pages, I can honestly say this is the sort of thing that might create nasty fights if dedicated editors in those two regions really cared about the article this sentence is in.
I could go on, but I think just a cursory reading of these sections really speaks for themselves, this is not a very neutral article at all. Homestarmy 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this commentary is beyond inane. This is why good editors are giving up on WP:GA. I don't wish to be incivil, but the sheer dilettantism and ignorance of the above itself is borderline insolent. Eusebeus 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to respect my point of view concerning this article's point of view, but I would like to know how i'm wrong, because I have no plans on changing my conception of NPOV or WP:WEASEL any time in the future. Homestarmy 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict; but I think it also responds to H.) Homestarmy is much better than his fellow reviewers. He has at least read the article and brought up specific questions; if the rest of them did so, instead of counting footnotes, GA would be a useful proceedure. However, I think his questions can be answered; mostly with "that's not POV, that is the consensus of scholarship".
  • The Bach family was extraordinary - in the literal sense: beyond the ordinary range; that is consensus. Searching on the terms gives an academic citation as the second hit.
  • Copying, studying, and performing sheet music are three different activities; while they go well together, any of them can be done without the other two.
  • "Apparently" is valid - because any account of this period is from circumstantial evidence, as the cited general sources would show. Nevertheless, Homestarmy's reading shows that it could use clarification. (This is FA nitpicking, btw.)
  • He was studying in Hamburg, which as the article says was a large city and a port; it is "more European" because it was open to influences from all of Europe. Thuringia had no comparable places. Please don't borrow trouble by captious readings; this is not Azerbaijan or M******ia.
This sort of outside reading would be a very useful addition to the talk page of the article, and more of it should be done. If GA encouraged it, it would also be worthwhile for that alone But it is not, without the sort of close answer I have given here, a sound basis for judging articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry (again), but I am not going to be as nice as the above and won't mince words. We have gone through this before at metric expansion and some of the other science articles, where the same level of inanity and ignorance was on display, sadly by the same people. At that time, the points homestarmy raised as problematic were carefully explained, one by one, by editors who grew increasingly incredulous, not only at the problems s/he identified, but further by the apparently stubborn, even willful, incomprehension at their attempts to explain why such efforts to "criticise" were ludicrous. As a result, it is not worth it to respond to these points. The messenger no longer has validity or credibility. It is nice of Septentrionalis to do the above and show you why the few points raised are without substance, but frankly the effort is probably lost. The entire concept of a Good Article has been debased by such an approach and numerous editors now see the category as being in the hands of people whose apparent intellectual capacities civility prevents me from characterising with the full generosity the English language permits. Eusebeus 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the problem with a middle position: I now have to switch sides; I do not think Homestarmy's comments unwarranted. While he is wrong about "apparently", it does need to be clarified. Eusebeus has forgotten that this is an encyclopedia; we must presume we are writing for readers who are ignorant of music and unskilled at English - therefore even such criticisms (and H's are not) would be useful.
This process is useful; it would help if it were not being done as a trial of the article, and so in an adversarial mode. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Eusebeus, i'll have to be twice as nice to make up for you then :D. With that citation for the first thing, I really think it would look better to inline cite it, and then write the phrase something to the effect of "The Bach family, widely acknowladged as extraordinary by academics,...." I just really think this sort of honest attribution gives the sentence more credability, and although it makes the sentence as a whole sound more technical, this is an online encyclopedia, and this sort of attribution thing, as I understand it, really makes articles look more authoritative as a whole. I guess on the second thing if that's really necessary, then I guess its not a problem, I certainly wouldn't delist a GA because of that sort of thing alone, it just looked odd to me was all. On the last thing, i'm afraid I just can't agree to that sort of thing out of principle, its not that I can't understand that a port would be exposed to European culture as a whole more, but rather that it just plains seems like Original Reaserch, even though there's a good common sense argument for it. But think of it this way, a reader doesn't have to be familiar with either location, and the text doesn't really impress the idea hard upon them that they should really learn more about those two cities before reading further. A reader who knows one place is a port but doesn't know much about the other place might wonder if the latter city is perhaps a trading center to some degree, or perhaps on an important road travelling through Germany, or something like that. It just seems to me like judging cultural influences is tricky business overall, and I brought up those disputes as examples because its exactly this sort of ambiguity uninvolved readers might feel from the article that often starts some nasty altercations. Now, I know that the first city is a port and the other doesn't have much, you know it apparently, but would a reader necessarily know or be inclined to learn about it based on the text given? It's just this sort of thing which seems a bit like OR to me. Now, you don't have to cite it necessarily, because we're looking for "good" articles here rather than perfect ones, and I certainly wouldn't hold one tiny citation against an article of this size and say it isn't a GA, but I think the overall pattern of this kind of interpretation of the facts can be risky. However, now that Niel has brought up some issues of his own, I think i'd rather wait for a response to his comments before maybe changing my stance. Homestarmy 01:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I will comment on them at length on the talk page. I agree with Antandrus that the claims of original research are tosh; in fact, most of them appear to be either no real complaint, or the sort of niggle that does not make the difference between a good and a bad article. (Btw, "academics consider the Bachs extraordinary" is weasel-wording; there must be some crank who denies it, like any other consensus statement - but he would be undue weight.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Delist due to a drastic need for copyediting, insufficient citation of references used, and original research. It's been a struggle to resist the urge to comment some of the statements made by various experienced editors so far in this discussion, so I'll just put in my two cents about the article itself and leave it at that. Below, I have provided a limited number of examples of each of the problems I've mentioned:

  • 1(a)/1(d): "Compelling prose, readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers." (like me), and "necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided". A partial list picked at random:
    • ...he enriched the prevailing German style with a robust contrapuntal technique, a control of harmonic and motivic organisation from the smallest to the largest scales, and the adaptation of rhythms and textures from abroad, particularly Italy and France. from the lead paragraph.
    • Bach’s musical style arose from his extraordinary fluency in contrapuntal invention and motivic control, from the Style section.
    • his output showed increasing skill in the large-scale organisation of musical ideas, and the enhancement of the Buxtehudian model of improvisatory preludes and counterpoint of limited complexity, from the Style section.
    • He invested the chorale prelude, already a standard set of Lutheran forms, with a more cogent, tightly integrated architecture, in which the intervallic patterns and melodic contours of the tune were typically treated in a dense, contrapuntal lattice against relatively slow-moving, overarching statements of the tune., from the Style section.
    • A large number of run-on sentences like "Johann Sebastian Bach was born March 21, 1685 in Eisenach, Germany to an extraordinary musical family--for more than 200 years, the Bach family had produced dozens of worthy performers and composers during a period in which the church, local government and the aristocracy provided significant support for professional music making in the German-speaking world, particularly in the eastern electorates of Thuringia and Saxony.", the first sentence of the Early years (1685–1702) section.
    • Varying between referring to the subject as "Bach", or "Sebastian" (compare the Early years (1685–1702) section to the Arnstadt to Weimar (1703–08) section).
  • 2(a): as mentioned in discussions above. Some participants have complained that it is unnecessary to cite "obvious" information. But here's a random sampling of text from the article that I feel needs citations in the interest of verifyability:
    • during a period in which the church, local government and the aristocracy provided significant support for professional music making in the German-speaking world
    • "Sebastian was proud of his family's musical achievements"
    • "Easy listening" realisations of Bach's music and its use in advertising also contributed greatly to Bach's popularisation in the second half of the twentieth century.
    • Jazz musicians have also adopted Bach's music, with Jacques Loussier and Uri Caine among those creating jazz versions of Bach works.
    • Thereafter Bach’s reputation has remained consistently high.
    • Johann Sebastian Bach’s contributions to music, or, to borrow a term popularised by his student Lorenz Christoph Mizler, his "musical science", are frequently bracketed with those by William Shakespeare in English literature and Isaac Newton in physics.
    • Bach’s music was selected for inclusion on the Voyager Golden Records as an example of humanity's best achievements
    • Scientist and author Lewis Thomas once suggested how the people of Earth should communicate with the universe: "I would vote for Bach, all of Bach, streamed out into space, over and over again. We would be bragging of course, but it is surely excusable to put the best possible face on at the beginning of such an acquaintance. We can tell the harder truths later."
  • 2(d): "it contains no elements of original research."
    • Pretty much the entire Performances section
    • "Another development has been the growth of the "authentic" or period performance movement, which as far as possible attempts to present the music as the composer intended it. Examples include the playing of keyboard works on the harpsichord rather than a modern grand piano and the use of small choirs or single voices instead of the larger forces favoured by nineteenth- and early twentieth-century performers."
    • Some composers have paid tribute to Bach by setting his name in musical notes (B-flat, A, C, B-natural; B-natural is notated as "H" in German musical texts) or using contrapuntal derivatives. Liszt, for example, wrote a praeludium and fugue on this BACH motif (existing in versions both for organ and piano). Bach himself set the precedent for this musical acronym, most notably in Contrapunctus XIV from the Art of Fugue. Whereas Bach conceived this cruciform melody as a compositional form of devotion to Christ and his cross, later composers have employed the BACH motif in homage to the composer himself.

-- Neil916 (Talk) 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 2(d) objection removed after reviewing responses, everything else remains. Neil916 (Talk) 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I thought homestarmy's comments were beyond inane, but this "critique" sets new lows even by that measure. Are you kidding? If you think that the rise of authentic instrumental performances or the use of the B-A-C-H motif is Original Research, then that terms does not mean what you think it does. I respect the need for things to be understandable by lay reades, but this dilettantish nitpicking is simply not worthy of detailed response. No wonder editors are giving up on GA. Eusebeus 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Eusebeus, wouldn't most editors who review articles in subjects they aren't directly familiar with be, by definition, amateurs? And besides, while I agree a case could be made that being an amateur concerning an article sometimes make it difficult to accuratly gauge a state of referencing, Neils concerns seem to definently concern copyediting problems as well, which certainly does not require expertise in the subject of the article, but rather, an understanding of writing skills. Homestarmy 00:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
We've been through this before and I've said my peace. I think the fact that the editors of this and other articles have little interest in working with the GA project wrt the "problems" raised in the context of these reviews says more than anything I could add further. Eusebeus 01:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have commented here. None of these make this a bad article; some of them should be fixed before FA, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This raises an interesting question whether the Good Article project should name itself something different; there seems to be a black-and-white view by some people that by delisting an article from GA status, or if an article is not passed to GA, that it is being called a "bad" article (i.e. "not good" = "bad"). That is certainly not the case and could possibly be the source of some of the hostility that has been unleashed on this page. There are bad articles, which get deleted, there are stubs, there are articles, there are good articles, which is intended to identify "superb" articles, but not to the level of the highest standard, featured articles. Neil916 (Talk) 08:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not the position of the article assessment scale, referred to above: "Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job." "Needs work to achieve FA status". GA is two grades below FA; that is one reason I distinguish type II blemishes below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the "original research" complaint at all. These two items--the rise of the authentic performance movement, and Bach's use of his own name as a musical motif--are among the most widely known items in musicology. What exactly about them strikes you as "original research"? Is a cite what you want? Antandrus (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Antandrus, we're all generally pretty active editors, and I for one don't even remember reading the word "musicology" anywhere in my entire life until today. Imagine how a simple reader of the article might feel, they don't have the obligation to reaserch the origins and discussions concerning an article like this :/. Homestarmy 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to pick up a petard on your way out. ;) Eusebeus 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Err, a small bomb used in breaching medieval fortifications? Homestarmy 02:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent) The reason I tried to SNOW this article is because I saw that the editors considered themselves unquestioned and unquestionable experts (either in musicology, or in editing), and furthermore that they had no intentions of cooperating with anyone other than the daisy chain of people who had also labeled themselves as such. I knew that disagreeing with someone who considers him/herself an expert cannot under any circumstances accomplish anything other than spreading ill will & bad feelings. Nothing productive could possibly result. As you see (see above), I was completely right, and others should have listened to me. Absolutely nothing has been accomplished. The experts still consider themselves above question; and ill will is spreading. Good night. :-) --Ling.Nut 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's unfair. You raised these issues at the talk page and the response you elicited was basically, go right ahead: GA is worthless. None of those editors has subsequently had anything to say. I am the only one here being very disagreeable & I'm not an active editor to the page at all. As far as your claim that the article is owned by a cliquish group of experts, that's total rubbish. Do you really think that the legions of folks who have worked at the Bach article are trying to make it accessible only to a select few? That is an unsupportable absurdity. The problem here is that GA project members wade into waters where they have no familiarity and as a result raise objections that are singularly objectionable to anyone who has familiarity in the field. When this is pointed out, the further objection is made that all esoterica should be extensively elaborated: Neil916's example of sensitive performances being a case in point. Instead of taking a moment to read Historically informed performance, for example, we get this Original Research fatuity. His real objection should be that the relevant sub-articles are not bluelinked in the text. It should at least be understandable why it is irritating when such intellectual indolence is promulgated as a virtue clothed in some appeal to the "non-expert" reader. Eusebeus 11:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Please calm down everyone, and especially the GA reviewers, who should know better than to take the bait of people questioning the GA project. If inline references are mandatory, they are mandatory. / Fred-Chess 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. No it is fair. Your evidence that it is unfair is that no one objected to removing the tag. However, the willingness to remove the tag is not evidence of cooperativeness. I said no one would cooperate. I didn't say no one would remove the tag. Cooperating and removing the tag are not the same thing. In fact, the outright eagerness to remove the tag is yet one more example of... uncooperativeness. It's evidence of being a group apart; of being "more equal than others."
  2. The "legions of folks who have worked at the Bach article" are mostly irrelevant. That is not merely true of Bach; it is true of almost all articles. There is almost always a core group of dedicated editors, as well as a fringe group who pop in, add something, and fade away. And the evidence that the core group here is uncooperative is as plain as the nose on your face.
  3. This argument could have been avoided. It could have been avoided several times over. It could have been avoided if the editors of the page had cooperated.. not in removing the tag, but in identifying places where facts should be cited. More to the point, it could have been avoided if the editors had taken the time to cite the article in the first place.
  1. You have used the words "intellectual indolence." Other such polite insults have been used on the article's talk page. Where is the spirit of Misplaced Pages in that? But I am wasting time (see below).
  1. But I am still wasting time. Nothing still has been accomplished. No progress has been or will be made. No one is humble enough to go through and fix the darn thing; everyone is too busy staunchly asserting the unquestionable nature of their expertise (among other things, none of which accomplish fixing the darn article). This is all a huge waste — of — time.
--Ling.Nut 14:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Thank you all for convincing me that the entire GA project isMisplaced Pages:WikiProject Waste of time Why not rename it that? Evaluations by editors who have not read the article are a waste of time; evaluations according to a standard which is not supported by any guideline or any but a handful of editors are a waste of time; charges of original research laid by editors who know nothing about the field in question are a waste of time; especially when a minute of websearching would have dispelled them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Delist - look, if inline cits are mandatory, they are mandatory. If you don't like GA, then it shouldn't matter as to whether or not it gets delisted. The standard at WP is verifiability, not truth. Moreschi 14:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Definition of original research OR is information for which no reliable sources exist: a novel interpretation, new facts, etc. Information for which sources exist, but that lacks them, is merely unsourced information. Whether a particular fact needs an inline citation, a bibliographic reference or is too trivial to bother citing is something about which reasonable people may differ. On the other hand, claiming that something well attested, such as the use of the B-A-C-H theme, is original research (thus, by definition, unsourcable) does not increase the credibility of the claimant. There is a gulf separating, "As a non-specialist, I think the article would be improved by citations for this claim," and "This is original research." (I commend Gödel, Escher, Bach to the reader interested in a short, but amusing treatment of Bach's own use of his own name as a theme.) Robert A.West (Talk) 19:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorta kinda trying to extract myself from this debate (again), but I need to reply to this: Looking at your words and your words only, I agree. Please note that I'm not commenting on other reviewers' opinions etc. I'm just focusing on your words. I for one would never say that even one word of "Bach" was in fact WP:OR. I would — and do — say (with respect to many things in the article, not just this): "As a non-specialist, I think the article would be improved by citations for "
  • IN fact, that sentence sums up my position in its entirety, with absolutely no extra verbiage, and absolutely nothing omitted (well, nothing about inline cites. I do think Homey raised some interesting/relevant points about writing, but.... that's not what your post addressed).
  • --Ling.Nut 19:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Question If an encyclopedia article requires a reader to read entire volumes of literature to verify information, distinquish geniune scholarship from OR, and to understand terminology---is that article of much benefit to the average reader? Why not just shuck the Misplaced Pages article and go straight to the library? As an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", Misplaced Pages does not have the established credibility that a Britannica has which is why policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR are in place. I think the forgotten elephant in the room in this whole ordeal is the Reader. Every action we take (whether it be as authors on the page or as GA reviewers) should be aimed towards the benefit of the reader and what makes the article more accessible and more beneficial to the average reader. If the average reader is curious about what a counterpoint is, they should be wiki-linked to the Wiki page where they can find out about it. If the average reader is curious about the B-A-C-H motiff and would like to verify that what is written on the page is not OR, they should be directed to a source (and where within that source) they can find that information. Pointing a reader to a stack of books at the end of the table and saying "Go fish" is not very helpful. An in-line cite is helpful in that it will at least give the reader guidance to know which book and maybe chapter they could find their desired info. Agne 20:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kanab ambersnail

Fails comprehensiveness criterion. Quarma 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Delist For an article about a critically endangered species of snail there has to be more. Tarret 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment to the nominator I left the appropriate message on the article's talk page for you.--Ling.Nut 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Delist. I've left comment about the issues in the article on its talk page, but it hasn't been edited since. It misses plenty of information on the physical characteristics, lifespan, gender information, efforts to recover the population of the snale, and many others. Michaelas10 (Talk) 08:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Could I have any suggestions as to what to add? RHB 10:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work on trying to expand it, but the new sections are stubby and still require referencing and copyediting. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This article is very well written and well referenced; it beats the tar out of a lot of the crud articles I have hold my nose and Pass because they barely skate past the requirements. It's GA is less than a week old. It has at least one dedicated editor, which is extremely important in my book. I dunno, I may have a reputation as a bean-counter and rule-follower, but the pros vastly outweigh the cons here. Can I persuade others to change their minds? --Ling.Nut 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the original reason of this review, comprehensiveness. Although you might find other GA's at the length, it fails to compare to other animal GA's, such as Elephant. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article isn't up to FA levels yet, but IMHO it is up to GA standards. Yes, I would like to see a little more on the biology of the snail itself, but that isn't always easily available on specific/endangered creatures and as Ling.Nut pointed out, it has a dedicated editor who is looking to improve the article. Balloonman 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not true that it's difficult to find more information. The article itself cites a few very complete sources about the snail, this for instance. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Great Red Spot

It's a science thing. No inline cites. --Ling.Nut 19:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it is one of the older GA which was added before we had a formal process. However you may do as you (or someone else) feels. Tarret 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is longer than the content, leading me to believe it is not a summary, and besides, by being older, this should of been one of those "Excellent Short articles" we were technically supposed to be nominating. This certainly isn't Excellent at all, and furthermore, it isn't very Good either, delist. Homestarmy 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to mention & it was warned by Agne too.--Ling.Nut 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Delist.no cites, too short.Rlevse 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Delist per aboveBalloonman 16:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Speedy Delist There's not even a list of references. --RelHistBuff 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Britney Spears

This was nominated for GA status, but on October 16th an address with 4 edits made it GA status. It has been so since, and I thought it should be brought here instead of automatically delisted since it has been listed for a while. Judgesurreal777 19:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist. I don't feel qualified enough to check quality but based on the fact that this article was passed to GA by an anonymous user: 68.203.249.145 (talk) with 4 total edits to their credit, two of which were vandalism, this article should at the very least be re-reviewed. The pass was not legit. And the article is far from being stable enough for GA status. Cricket02 04:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Correction I'm sorry - I stand corrected. The article was passed to GA by User:Kingboyk . I apologize for the false accusation. But still, with all the items in the to-do list for FA status, seems it should not have passed GA. And also still, the article is far from stable. Cricket02 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • W-e-e-ll. There's some room for improvement/copyediting here, but nothing worth exploding over. There are also some longish stretches without references, notably including:
    • Direct quotes such as ""Unfortunately, we couldn't take our honeymoon right after the wedding because of the closing on our new house."
    • Facts and figures such as "The album debuted at number four on the U.S. charts with over 242,000 copies sold."
  • This kind of thing most definitely needs to be fixed, and I will leave a message to that effect on its talk page... To me it seems the article was given a GA pass by User:TUF-KAT on 5 December 2005. Seems like he/she has been around a while and is heavily involved in music articles. As for being unstable.. yeah, there's lotsa stuff going on here, but unless I missed something (which is very possible) it all looks like normal incremental progress. No reason to punish progress, is there? Finally, there is no fashion clause in WP:WIAGA, so her recent escapades cannot be held against her in a court of WP:GA/R. :-) I say it's flawed, but Keep --Ling.Nut 05:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that someone should clean the article it's just full of news, you won't see anything like in article of Mariah Carey and I'm adding audio samples in the next days.--HW-Barnstar PLS 20:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep for GA, needs work to go higher.Rlevse 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Billy Sunday

A few weeks ago I passed this article for GA, but my passing of the article was questioned on my talk page based upon it's POV. I felt that the POV wasn't rampant and that the article was well written and organized with good citations. I felt that it was one of the better articles I had read, but it has kind of bothered me ever since passing this article that I might have been too easy on it. Thus, I am asking for a GAR to see if I was too easy on it. User Homestarmy suggested that I bring this up for GAR when I asked about it on the talk page. Balloonman 03:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: It looks fine to me. Well-cited, broad coverage. As for POV issues, I see only minor ones, but I assumed this came from the POV of the original source so it is sometimes difficult to detect. It is well on its way toward FA. A good Peer Review and even a first attempt on FA candidacy should catch any significant POV. --RelHistBuff 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep.but put on talk it needs more wikilinks.Rlevse 23:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who originally questioned Balloonman, and he suggested I post my concern here. In a nutshell: Billy Sunday did not care much about theological arguments; he did not attend seminary, nor even college, and he did not travel in those circles. He had immense personal popularity, due to some extent to the fact that he didn't lecture about theology; the American public regarded him as "a regular guy," whose sermons they could actually understand. I am the secondary co-author of the article, and my concern is (and has been all along) that the primary author has emphasized Sunday's fundamentalism not only beyond the point that Sunday did, but to the extent that Sunday's popularity and influence are masked in the article. My concerns are all there on the discussion page with the article, but here I'll copy some of it for you:

Some summarization of your discussion of his religious views might also help to avoid POV tags, too. I don't think either Sunday's fundamentalism or his knowledge of the Bible is in question, or even unique in any particular way. But that's only my opinion.--Rocketj4 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) In the next paragraph, I'll question Sunday's fundamentalist credentials. On the other hand, if there's no question about his religious views, then my discussion of them can't be POV. --John Foxe 14:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC) In my (never humble) opinion, it's a POV issue because.....you are the only one who cares how fundamentalist he was. The general reading public understands that he was a fundamentalist, and the depth and rigor of his fundamentalism wasn't important to him, so is such a discussion necessary in this venue? I submit that it's a POV.--Rocketj4 15:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the unusual features of Sunday's revivals was the high percentage of men who attended, and many contemporary commentators remarked on that. (Bruce Barton, 1913: "no other evangelist can number a larger proportion of men than women on his convert rolls.") A large part of his success was due to the fact that he did not discuss theology; instead, he talked about personal salvation, using the popular vernacular. He used Biblical stories, not exegesis, and he used alliteration and slang, not rhetoric. In other words, in the eyes of the American public, he was not an egghead or a prissy preacher--he was a man's man and he knew how to talk to ordinary people. (Yes, this is how his baseball background and his use of baseball anecdotes and imagery enhanced his ministry, but that's not the subject of this particular rant.) His sermons would have been out of place in a church, but they worked just fine in auditoriums and concert halls, and tabernacles. From Literary Digest, 1916: "other preachers have said the same things before, but never in the same way--the way that the highbrow, lowbrow, or middlebrow all can understand. He has gone out to the people, found them where they are, and delivered his message in terms they could grasp." I'm having trouble recognizing that guy in this article.--68.238.56.79 15:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As to the section on his religious views: I would be surprised if he ever once said, wrote, or maybe even heard the phrase "substitutionary atonement." That isn't to say he didn't believe it. I was trying to make that section more accessible to the average Misplaced Pages reader, who (I'm guessing) will not be familiar with some of your language. I wasn't trying to misrepresent Sunday's beliefs--only to render them in terms more widely recognizible. --Rocketj4 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never questioned Sunday's belief in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, nor that he preached that Jesus died for our sins. What I question is whether he ever used the phrase. However complex his beliefs may have been, his explication and preaching of them were not. He did not employ, nor do I think he was much exposed to, theological discussion on the level where "substitutionary atonement" was used instead of "Jesus died for you and me." He was not a seminarian, nor did he spend much time with seminary or academic theologians. I would prefer that an article for a general encyclopedia reflect that, with use of appropriate language. I continue to believe that emphasizing theological distinctions over presenting the man in the context in which he lived and preached is a POV, and consequently the article will deserve that label.--Rocketj4 17:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So--since I seem to be the only one who is bothered by this, then maybe the POV problem is as much mine as the author's. Any comments? Thanks for your time and for considering this question.--Rocketj4 23:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In reading your comments here, I think the problem is that we are not experts on Billy Sunday... We only know what we see from him on the article, which appears to the uneducated to be balanced and fair. It may not be completely accurate, but I am not qualified to make that evaluation on his theology... nor am I qualified to state that the nuiances in this article aren't accurate. And I suspect that is the case for all... thus I'll case a vote, as nominator, to have this Speedy Kept. I hate to say it, but I .think your concerns are beyond the scope of a GA/GAR. This might be something for the realm of an Request for Comment, but you might be getting into too much specialization there.66.7.182.35 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your input. I'm new to Misplaced Pages, and I'm just learning about the parameters for articles. These comments are just what I need to know. If anyone else has something to add, please do. Thanks!--Rocketj4 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sound

This article lacks inline citations. Also in my opinion an article about sound should also have alot more information than this article has. Would anyone else agree? Tarret 19:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Was warned awhile ago about references but nothing seems to of been done, I think this should be delisted too. Homestarmy 19:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University

I'm afraid I cannot agree with the person who passed this article as to it being well-layed out, as it has no lead. A GA has to be compliant with WP:LEAD, which is not possible without a lead. Now, considering the bounty of referencing, if this was split up into sections that made sense, this might be a GA. But without a lead, (or any sectional organization at all for that matter) I really don't think this is currently a Good Article. Homestarmy 17:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am an alumn of OWU... but the primary editors of this (and the other OWU pages) have an agenda. I agree with Homestarmy and the reason for my agreement are primarily Acticism section has major problems, Problems with references not saying what they the article says they say, and POV. The last point is that the article is claiming that activism and communal work is part of the heart of OWU. But if that activism happens to be missionary activity in the 1800's, , then that is POV. I have a lot of trouble with both Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University and Ohio Wesleyan University being listed as GA. Balloonman 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Balloonman, your argument in the last paragraph is too odd...are you saying that Mormons are activists?....You are implicitly insulting GeeJo for nominating a POV (I don't think this article is POV at all) article for DYK. I hope that someone takes your assault on the main editor and GeeJo seriously. Kenyon09 23:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
First, to clarify, we are not talking about Mormon missionaries, but just missionaries. But just because you may not agree with their purpose, doesn't mean that their activities are no less activist than others. An activist is one who tries to achieve change for a desired purpose. Missionaries are no less activist than somebody standing on a street corner carrying a sign. Obviously OWU thinks missionary activity is a sign of the university's "active program of social action and community service." Furthermore, obviously somebody else, other than myself, believes that this article isn't worthy of GA status. Is that an assault on the person who approved the article for GA? No. Is that an attack on the person who nominated this for DYK, no. *I* was critical of the POV on the OWU main page before this was nominated for DYK (see the OWU failed FAC. Indrian was also critical of the POV in the activism section, and Faria attacked him. This article is an expansion of the section from the main article so naturally, the concerns I had there carry over to this article. I can't help that I, and others, had concerns about the activism section before it was nominated for DYK. If it is implicitly an attack on GeeJo, to believe an article nominated for DYK has POV problems; then would it not likewise be an implicit insult against those of us who expressed POV concerns prior to this articles nomination? Using your logic it would be. I posted this criticism of the Activism section from the OWU main page before I knew the Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University even existed. Which is why when I saw the Activism page I IMMEDIATELY put a POV tag on it! It is no more an implicit attack on GeeJo than having a GAR function is an attack on GA approvers. Which is to say, it is in no way an attack.Balloonman 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
          • First off, OWU doesn't really think (does anybody really think that?) missionaries are engaged in social activism. The link that you provided contains two seperate sentences that are not logically linked. The school simply provided a fact that was a spin-off from its founding days. I can totally understand given your userboxes why you see that sentence, the way you want to see it. Second, let's see how popular your attacks on users like GeeJo will pan out.---This comment was posted by Kenyon09.
Guys, please, this page is just to discuss whether or not Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University is a GA, I don't know what fight y'all have been having over Mormon missionaries or what, but there's plenty more wrong with this article than just that. When I filed this review the lack of organization made me do a knee-jerk reaction without looking at the rest of the article, but there's still plenty wrong with it. Just with the introduction, let's examine NPOV: "Activism was embedded in the very vision for founding of Ohio Wesleyan University and has played an important role in its history. Alumni of the school have become prominent in engaging in controversial issues of their times on three central issues" "embedded" is way too dramatic, "very vision" sends a feeling that this subject is special, "important role in its history" is ambiguous no matter whether its referenced or not, (attribution in the article would be best) "prominent" is also ambiguous. Moving down, near when it mentions Vietnam, the text draws in the reader attentively to the dramatic turnaround to student opinion. Great writing for a history report. Not great for a neutral encyclopedia. Yes, I know I sound like i'm essentially saying to make it more boring so to speak, but not all dramatic writing style is necessarily a good thing. Homestarmy 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment:I'm having a hard time seeing this as GA no matter how much they fix the lead & organization. It assiduously camps out on one POV in every line, e.g.: "During his own college years, president Huddleston mediated between protesters and administration, favoring classic liberal education over brick-throwers." Look at the campus Crusade for Christ section. Do you see balance? I don't see balance. I'm waiting for someone to persuade me not to vote delist (that wasn't a vote ;-) ). --Ling.Nut 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
While I didn't notice the Crusade for Christ paragraph before, I unfortunately don't see much way to change it, (As per my user page, when I saw your comment I jumped at the chance to change it :D ) as there are so many references as to the, quite honestly, extremely preposterous sounding allegations of "most students" (Whatever that means) against Crusade for Christ members, this might just be a case of extremely ridiculous and illogical bias concerning subjects of the article, rather than Misplaced Pages trying to enforce a particular bias. So unfortunately, it doesn't seem entirely POV :/.Homestarmy 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted this section. It was very poorly referenced and full of bias---eventhough it is better than it was when I first stumbled accross it. If it is reintroduced I will take this up for RfC and contact those who have commented here for their input.Balloonman 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent). I'm puzzled. You say "...this might just be a case of extremely ridiculous and illogical bias concerning subjects of the article, rather than Misplaced Pages trying to enforce a particular bias." That's like saying, "This might be a case of cancer, rather than a case of cancer." In other words, I'm not seeing the diff between a ridiculous bias and POV. The point is that the article expands on the thoughts of those holding the ridiculous bias, and the surrounding comments support that position. The position of the Campus Crusade for Christ is not supported by the tone of the article and is not elucidated to the same degree as the opposing position. Dude. It's POV. --Ling.Nut 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that what is there is representing an extremely bad bias, not actually promoting the bias itself. Its like Jew Watch, certainly the article tells readers about Jews Watch's, ah, interesting biases, without endorsing them. However, if there's some references mentioning the opposite viewpoint that are being left out, then that would probably be implicitly POV, and explicitly a violation of Undue Weight. Homestarmy 06:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you see even one sentence in the entire article showing even moderate criticism of the brave and noble OWU? If you say NO then say POV. --Ling.Nut 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Assuming the statues of those women are in the nude, (I prefer not to examine it closely) i'd call that extremely negative publicity for OWU, probably worse for them than criticism. Then again, i'm hardly the most unbiased person to be asking here.....I think the point is that at the end of the day, this article fails for something. Homestarmy 06:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent). I'm puzzled again, since the statutes are clearly heroic rather than critical. But whatever. Very Speedy Delist as being so very POV. I bet a dollar I can Google this stuff and find oodles of criticism of OWU's positions.. um which someone someone forgot to mention.. um.. --Ling.Nut 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are not in the nude... I did look (closely) ;-) But I say delist as well. The Campus Crusade for Christ section is improving over what it was. But it is still not there---and the response I got "you have to be there" does not indicate that it is worthy of being in an encyclopedic article. As for other positions being represented, those of us who present other positions are attacked (ala Kenyon09's comments above and Faria's comments responding to my criticism of references not saying what they the article says they say.) Before Homstarmy brought this up for GAR, I was seriously considering bringing it up for RfC because of the POV on these two articles. One other thing to point out, prior to passing this article as a GA, Kenyon09 had only edited one article on one date. Kenyon's edits to date are still negligible (less than 25 edits.)Balloonman 08:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delist: An article gets created on 9th December and gets GA on the 16th??? The quality of this article is clearly sub B-class, if not Start-class. It is choppy, incoherent, and needs a lot of work. The last section covers recent activism (post-2000) mainly as a list. The 20th Century covers bits and pieces up to the 1980s. Y'all may be talking about POV, but just the quality of the article itself is enough to delist. --RelHistBuff 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Algoma Central Railway

The article fails criterion 2. b., having zero cites. Delist. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Delist --Ling.Nut 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - seven inline citations added from four sources. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Still lacks sufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 13:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Delist.too short, needs more scope, only 4 refs.Rlevse 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Banana

I'm nominating this for GAR due to criteria 2a and 2b. Concern has been expressed on the Talk page by another user dating back to September about 2a, and not much seems to have been done. I've put a notice on both Talk:Banana and the associated wikiproject's talk page and no-one seems to have noticed. - Malkinann 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the references given do seem to be mostly unattributed in the article, so its difficult to tell whether or not the article is or is not mostly referenced. Also, I know we're not supposed to change from British to English, but something about "Fibre" really does not appeal to me, I think many readers will be very confused by that, because the section doesn't actually say what "fibres" are exactly. If it means "Fiber" my first thought is fiber as in the stuff that you eat that doesn't get digested, which doesn't appear to be the case there, and if it means like yarn stuff, i'm very curious as to how banana trees produce a fiber similiar to cloth and exactly what it is like in a more technical sense, but alas, the article does not tell us. I don't think this should be a GA for now. Homestarmy 17:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't have enough inline citations (2. b. violation). Delist. LuciferMorgan 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Delist Historical assertions, statistics, etc., need cites. --RelHistBuff 08:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bourbonnais train accident

I'm nominating this for GAR due to;

  1. Lack of inline cites.
  2. Nominated by admin Slambo and passed by him also. LuciferMorgan 22:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delist I could swear I've seen that name before in similar contexts....
Hey Homey, when did the rule about nominators/major contributors passing their own articles come into existence?
--Ling.Nut 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Not at the time Slambo was passing his trains :). I'm not entirely certain when the pass criteria came into existance, if it was the same time as the mandatory reviews came into effect I think that'd be around May of this year, but if it was back during the Jyllands Posten review that would be later. Although, thinking about it, it may of been created even earlier, I can't remember very well because I mostly just looked at articles I wasn't very involved with. All in all however, when Slambo passed these articles, i'm almost certain the rule was not created yet. Homestarmy 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Criterion 2. b. still means this article needs delisting anyway. LuciferMorgan 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
well the instructions are vague, but the first-ever GAC page of 24 December 2005 says: "If you see an article below under "Self-nominations" that you haven't significantly contributed to and that you consider to be good, remove it from the list, add {{GA}} to its talk page, and list it on Misplaced Pages:Good articles." The question is, what was done before that day? The concept must have existed before the page was created; since it is taken for granted from Day 1.--Ling.Nut 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In the beginning, there was no candidates page. Before then, people just tagged articles which anyone thought were "good", there wern't any standards heh. As you might imagine, this became inadequate over time.... Homestarmy 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent) no reason to be upset about it then... but every reason to delist, delist & delist old articles that wouldn't pass today.--Ling.Nut 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient history flashback: Guess who clarified the wording on the GAC page to discourage self-promotion? That would be Slambo, see 1 March 2006 :-) Altho I really think the verbiage on the original page was simply incorrect; I think it was intended to mean Self-Passing was verboten from Day 1. --Ling.Nut 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes it sounds fishy to me. LuciferMorgan 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If I recall, at around that time we started becoming more concerned with the method of listing articles. But then, I think alot of attention was on Cedar's convienent bot too :D Homestarmy 03:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyhow, this article still fails 2. b. LuciferMorgan 19:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Of course it doesn't. This is a narrative, drawn out of the two narrative sources listed, and with minor points footnoted.
I really am tempted to stay out of this; the faster GA delists all its articles, the faster it will become irrelevant, and we can start over with a system that actually works. But it would be easier if GA could be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, looking at this article more closely, and looking at the title's of the references and the actual content of the article, it appears to me that even with the low number of references, the references might be so comphrehensive, that this article might actually be well-referenced. I mean, they don't appear to be references which have a low claim to reliability, the article content doesn't seem like it wouldn't be in any of the refs, and all in all, I think this might be the least well-referenced looking well-referenced GA :/. I think this should be kept, unless it can be shown that much of the article is OR. Homestarmy 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree - whole parts are uncited. This in no way is well referenced. Delist. LuciferMorgan 23:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Back before I started my 2nd M.A. and then my PhD, I used to write fiction. I was a member of a writing critique group. The thing about critiquing groups is... they are not emotional support groups. Check your ego at the door. If you don't wanna hear criticism, then do not enter. They are not designed to protect and nurture egos; they are designed to improve the quality of the product. That is all.
As for this article, I see an article that could be transformed from a caterpillar to a butterfly with less than an hour's worth of work on the references — probably far less. All the sources seem to be there already. If anyone wants to take the time to apply them properly, I will immediately change my vote to Keep. As the article stands at this exact second, though, I still say delist.--Ling.Nut 23:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


iPod

User:JustinWick and User:Twinxor found that the iPod article hadn't actually gone through the right process to be listed as a Good Article (see the discussion page). It was tagged sometime in Jan 2006. I've delisted it for now. Not sure if it can be relisted or should go through some sort of review process. --IE 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd probably just list it on WP:GAC for the regular good article review. Twinxor t 22:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears to be a very old GA pass, back in the day, there was no candidates page in a mandatory sense, people could volunteer articles for review, but once an editor saw an article which looked good, they just put the tag up. As time as gone on of course the system has become less informal, but immedietly delisting older passed articles would be problematic, the article shoud be kept I think unless there's a problem with it in terms of the criteria today. Homestarmy 22:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There should be some actual policy for this, put somewhere that people like us can actually find it :) That way we won't remove all the "good articles" :). BTW, back in the day was less than a year ago? This was tagged in 2006, IIRC. - JustinWick 18:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea, the GA project only started to get a really formal set of rules and guidelines around when we got the Candidates page. The thing is, at the time, the WIAGA rules were set up so that many old articles actually did still meet the criteria, and I think this one just might still meet them now. Homestarmy 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll just put it up as a good article candidate, as recommended by User:Twinxor. It's probably worth doing this now anyway, cos the content has changed a lot since Jan 2006.--IE 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC) keep.but fix the one citation needed tag.Rlevse 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mario

Someone has replaced all mentions of Mario with Jesus, this needs to be rectified pronto.88_fourganger

That seems to of been fixed, GA status is not revoked for vandalism :/. (That'd bump the majority of articlse off of the list quickly i'd think.) Homestarmy 02:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The "relations" section has an {{unreferenced}} section. The lack of citations in that section fails the factually accurate and verifable section (2a) and may possibly be original research (2d). Hbdragon88 06:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article as a whole needs more inline cites to retain GA status. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
that one section definitely needs refs.Rlevse 23:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Scotland

Fails abysmally on Misplaced Pages:What is a good article? 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c), 5. In particular, the history section is full of nonsense. The article has a lot in it which is good otherwise, so not sure if I should delist it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup section seems to be filled with far too much intrigue, and phrases like "was marked by intense internal dynastic disunity," make me very sad :(. Sad for this article being a GA that is, delist. Homestarmy 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Left message on article's talk page: "Good article Review this article being reviewed for delisting from Good Article status." We need to remember to follow the new rule. I forgot too. :-( --Ling.Nut 01:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire history section had been preposterously masacred by a newbie, hence its laughable state. It has been reverted to its former condition, and further worked on. What other grounds are there for delisting? It came through its recent Peer Review with plenty of positive input, and was considered very close to being ready for FA nomination. The main criticism was its size (too long), which we are actively working on. --Mais oui! 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not claim to have the experience to make a genuinely informed judgement, but I believe the article is in better shape now than it was on 3 December. In my view it is still long on unattributed (if non-controversial) statements of fact, but I had a look at the article on 1 August 2006 after it had achieved GA status and it boasted 14 citations. Today it has 59 so perhaps this apparent flaw is not as serious as I imagine. The size is also some 20% less than a few weeks ago with a great deal of non-notable content removed. Either way, I am grateful to Calgacus for drawing attention to the issue and provoking some action. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The problematic wording I saw does indeed seem to of been removed, and there are many more references for sure, but all the unreferenced early part of the article still irks me. However, since it appears to be using summary style, I presume the parent articles would have the references, so it might be helpful to grab one or two general references from those articles and just cite them at the bottom so people understand that its actually referenced. For now, I think this could be Kept. Homestarmy 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Swedish literature

Several problems here.

  • The article is completely self-referential. If a Martian arrived and read this, he'd think "So what"? It's just a big long history, with little or no reference to Swedish literature's influence and importance in the grander scheme of things.
  • There are several stubby paragraphs, such as "n recent decades, a handful of writers have established themselves internationally, including the detective novelist Henning Mankell and the writer of spy fiction Jan Guillou. But the only writer to make a significant mark on world literature is the children's book writer Astrid Lindgren, and her books about Pippi Longstocking, Emil of Maple Hills, and others." This does not help with flow.
  • What is more, that paragraph is completely uncited and contains POV and potentially controversial assertions. Doubtless other Swedish writers might beg to differ. The vast majority of the lede is also completely uncited.
  • The whole thing is one big long history - inappropriate anyway - but isn't even labelled as such.
  • I'm not a huge fan of the "Lists of important Swedish books" section. First of all there being only one source for this hits POV problems but what is more per Misplaced Pages:Embedded lists shouldn't this be in a separate article?
  • The prose is poor in several places. "a standardization largely due to the full translation of the Bible into Swedish in 1541, the so called Gustav Vasa Bible." This is ugly and ungrammtical - the Bible's called that, not the standardization.
  • Another: "For example Liza Marklund (1962–), Håkan Nesser (1950–), Åsa Larsson, Arne Dahl, Leif GW Persson, and Åke Edwardsson." That's one complete sentence that is just wrong. There's no verb.
  • More uncited POV: "The leading modernist figure soon turned out to be Hjalmar Gullberg (1898–1961). He wrote many mystical and Christian-influenced collections, such as Andliga övningar (Spiritual Exercises, 1932), but continued to develop his style and published his greatest work, Ögon, läppar (Eyes, Lips), in 1959." Moreschi 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In spite of my efforts, this article has continuing stylistic problems. It just doesn't seem to flow properly. Many of the sentences are ungainly. Some are still hard to understand, e.g. "With the advent of social democracy and large-scale strikes, the new winds were blowing in the direction of a working class reformation." It's the phrase "working class reformation" that puzzles me. Note: the word "reformation" is blue-linked to an article on the Protestant Reformation. This seems odd. --Folantin 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I am delighted of this constructive turn of events :-) I find improving articles the most rewarding thing on Misplaced Pages. I think that Moreschi brings up several important issues that I myself wondered while I wrote the article and hoped to get answered by a GA nomination.
Best, Fred-Chess 22:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
IMO the most important thing is the POV. The prose is easy to fix quickly and is not so important anyway. Moreschi 14:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it could be patched up so the prose is intelligible and adequate, which should be all that's required to pass a GA as far as style is concerned. Other reviewers may have different opinions though. Personally, I'd say "comprehensible" trumps "compelling". --Folantin 15:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I agree with the first conclusion about everything being history, just skimming it a bit, many of the sections talk about how the literature of the time was reflecting certain trends in Swedish society of the day. Homestarmy 18:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(remove indents) Did this one come to a conclusion? OK to archive?--Ling.Nut 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No. In the interests of fairness, this one is waiting for the same detailed attention "Agrippina" got. Preferably from the same people. --Folantin 15:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Just checking. --Ling.Nut 18:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You may be waiting a very long time, as we aren't exactly obligated to do something similiar to the uncommonly thorough review over Agrippina to every GA review. Reviews don't have to improve articles at all, just decide whether they should be listed or not. Homestarmy 18:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I'm not entirely surprised by your attitude. You've done nothing to reassure me that GA isn't one big joke with the current bunch of "regulars" in charge applying standards in the most haphazard manner imaginable. I seriously hope the fact that the author of this particular article, Fred Chess, seems to be one of those regulars had nothing to do with the ease in which his work was passed and the subsequent reluctance of his colleagues to give it even the most perfunctory review. Hardly any of the usual crowd who jump all over other articles with the greatest enthusiasm seem to have given this one so much as a passing glance. --Folantin 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Update - I gave this article a thorough copy-edit and I now think that the prose is adequate. However, there are remaining POV problems that should be fixed for the article to remain as a GA. Moreschi 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "I now think that the prose is adequate". I agree, but is it compelling? Is every last comma in its rightful place? Is every paragraph the optimum size? Apparently, GA standards are so much higher these days. We don't want to set a precedent by letting something that's only reasonably well written through the net.--Folantin 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure. I've checked the prose pretty thoroughly and I know you have too; it's just a shame that no other editors have taken the slightest bit of interest in having a look at an article which was passed for GA when it still had considerable stylistic problems. But if those POV issues you've pointed out can be fixed or explained, then I'm sure it will pass the review. It would certainly meet what I consider reasonable GA standards. My big problem has always been that I object to seeing the GA criteria unevenly applied. --Folantin 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've left a message on Fred Chess's talk, but his talk says that he only has limited internet access at the moment and he hasn't edited since the 3rd. Next time I go to the library I'll try to find some decent-ish books on Swedish literature that will help me to cite the unsourced POV statements. In the meantime, I suggest leaving this here for a bit. Moreschi 19:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I participated in the Agrippina review because I felt the situation was complicated and made people angry, so I felt that it warranted suggestions for improvement. However, this is not peer review, and while nobody is obligated to not be helpful, it is neither mandatory nor necessary to give complex peer-review-esque suggestions on a page with the goal of deciding whether or not an article with a possibly controversial status should or should not be a GA. Very rarely have most reviews gone to the lengths of the Agrippina one, check the archives. The vote currently appears to be two to 0 for it to be GA, since Fred seems ambivalent. Homestarmy 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
My own "Keep" is strictly conditional upon various unsourced statements being referenced. Since Fred isn't around, I'll try to do this myself, but if I can't, then it should be delisted. Moreschi 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to note my concerns about the discrepancy in treatment between Swedish literature and Agrippina (opera) began before the latter was subjected to GA review here. --Folantin 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Concerning: "...the ease in which his work was passed"
I should have acted differently with Agrippa. It is of course subjective whether one finds the prose acceptable or not. However, in the case of Agrippa, I read the text only with great difficulty, and I could not comprehend it. I might have given the impression that I just counted sentence lengths and commas, but I want to assure you that was not the case.
In the case of Swedish literature, I realize the language was bad in parts, but I thought the article was generally comprehensible, which is why I didn't object to the GA promotion.
Regarding that the article is just one long history, I addressed this very issue in its archived peer review. I didn't get objections or suggestions of other methods to write the article. Feel free to present your own suggestions on how to deal with the issue.
The POV problem of the Gullberg section was taken care of not long after I was made aware of it. I wrote that hastily at the time. Sort of a "stub" section that I forgot to complete.
The unreferenced lead section is, I think, referenced in respective parts of the text. However, I'll try to find a reference for the Lindgren claim.
Fred-Chess 12:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It should be fine if you make those fixes. The only outstanding problem I can see is the phrase "working-class reformation", which doesn't quite make sense in English ("reformation" is associated with religious matters). I've tried to alter it to what I think you meant. The alternative is that you meant the winds were blowing in favour of a working-class political movement, i.e. the Swedish equivalent of the British Labour Party (or whatever). If you could just clarify that, it would be great. Thanks. --Folantin 12:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent) Comment Did we come to any conclusions here? --Ling.Nut 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're still waiting for clarification on a few minor issues. There's no great hurry though - especially at this time of the year. --Folantin 09:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
If there is no further outstanding problem, I think this review could be closed. I don't think the current problems are so grave that it merits delisting. Certain issues -- about the reformation and Astrid Lindgren -- could be removed from the article, if they are considered unacceptable. I'll attend them some day, but I have returned my reference literature to the library and at this time of year I am too busy to engage myself with it again. / Fred-Chess 11:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd certainly endorse keep. This is a worthy GA. --Folantin 14:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Davy Jones' Locker

I placed the following at the bottom of the article's talk page. I don't know which maintenance template applies here.

WP's manual of style states:

Possessives of singular nouns ending in "s" should generally maintain the additional "s" after the apostrophe. However, if a form without an "s" after the apostrophe is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Moses' Laws" and "Jesus' tears".

The only literature quoted in the article, such as Daniel Dafoe, writes "Davy Jones's" not "Davy Jones'." This isn't an older or obsolete form of English, and the incorrect "Jones'" is not established. "Jones's" is the correct possessive form of the singular "Jones." On the other hand, "Jones'" is the plural possessive of the (hypothetical) name "Jone." Worse, everyone pronounces "Jones's" correctly, with two syllables, but "Jones'" only has one syllable. This article is making a trivial error of modern English usage right up front in its title, but I don't know how to edit such a glaring mistake. Until this is fixed, I don't see how it can be called a Good Article, so I am asking to have its status reviewed. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 03:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems more like a grammar mistake than something like a factual inaccuracy or reference deficiency, and its just one particular kind, although it is the type of glaring error which I think would certainly make it fail an FA nom, I don't think a GA nom should fail an article for something like this. With the backlog of candidates now, it would save far more time simply to, well, move the article to the right name than fail it, then move it, then re-nominate it, then finally pass it. Homestarmy 04:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Moving the article to the right name before doing anything more with it is pretty much what I was asking for. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 04:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Then again, it seems I made a comment on this talk page way back in September about the faulty reference, if that didn't get fixed, there doesn't appear to of been much work on improving the article in the history, I don't think this article is well-referenced, and probably fails that way. Homestarmy 19:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Some sections listy. Relies heavily on a few sources. Delist.--Ling.Nut 15:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Left message on article's talk page: "Good article Review this article being reviewed for delisting from Good Article status." We need to remember to follow the new rule. I forgot too. :-( --Ling.Nut 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to of been submitted before the rule. Homestarmy 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
ooops. My bad. :-( I'll just disappear again then. Two more papers; three more tests...:-)

--Ling.Nut 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hold on I am the original nominator, just saw it was in review....I have a question for those who think it's too "listy". Would you be happy if I chopped down the list of cultural references, or made a new article with cultural references? A smaller amount of more relevant cultural references could have more citations.

Also, there is not much information available on Davy Jones to begin with, so what specifically should be added? Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 00:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa

Article have quite big NPOV problems. I tagged with POV one section, plus a lot of {{fact}} needing in article from long history, there are some doubting statements also. Really needing some neutral contributor to review this article and deliver his/her assessment. M.K. 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I agree that the article has some 'cite needed' tags that were added after it was reviewed; this is indeed a concern that needs to be addressed. However I diagree with the NPOV tag, no sources has been presented to dispute the single fact mentioned on talk that led to the addition of this tag to the article (the fact is backed by 3 reliable sources).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Another note: We are trying to identify are the sources which contributor presented actually are reliable. Please see and article talk. M.K. 23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I.e. the English book published by Routledge, and the largest Polish daily newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza. As far as I can see they fit WP:RS quite well.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Be a bit more patient and show more trust to neutral contributors who will review this article - they will asses all aspects of this article, including and provided source credibility in AK context. M.K. 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool_F.C.

The article is very confusing and poorly written and I do not know if this is because it was ok when it was reviewed and changed or if because it's a lazy review. Either way.. I'm asking for another review of this article. I am also going to nominate it in the football project group for re-write.--ChrissMari 19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)