Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Digwuren (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 26 September 2007 (→Denial of Soviet occupation: Background.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/backlog

• WP:GAR
• WP:GA/R

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
   • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
   • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
   • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
     • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
     • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
     • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)

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

Denial of Soviet occupation

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The promotion of this article has been brought into question. When reviewing, please take notice to the creation date (September 22) and the fact that the article is now fully protected. LaraLove 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The "question" in question is non-factual accusation by Irpen. Whoever is interested, ask me for details.

The creation date is deceptive, as the article's material had "fermented" in an userspace sandbox for about three months; September 22 was the day of copying the content to mainspace. And finally, there was no sign of edit war between nomination and review of this article.

Sadly, there's been an edit war now, so a review is pointless at this time. It's terribly regrettable how simple trolling can invalidate a good article ... Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nahuatl

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article contains many statements which seem to beg more detailed inline citations. For ONE example, the Geographic distribution section is entirely unreferenced. This will need to be brought up to standard to remain a GA. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Looking at the article in its current state, it appears that the good article criteria are not being met. Specifically, criteria 2 is the problem; this article is well below standard with regards to its level of referencing. There are no inline citations at all, and many places seem to beg for them. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew language

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article does not seem to meet the good article criteria at this time, specifically criteria 2 (b) seems to be lacking. Many parts of this article have unverifiable statements which are not supported by inline citations where they seem to need them. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add {{fact}} tags where you perceive a need for them. Thank you. --Ling.Nut 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be being disruptive to the text of the article simply to make a WP:POINT? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

no. How would you like it of your Significant Other gave you an ultimatum: Shape up or I'm leaving you. Then when you ask what you need to do to shape up, he/she doesn't reply... listing an article on GA/R is such an ultimatum. :-) -- Ling.Nut 04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As a counter arguement, sometimes a spouse is so out of line, they should KNOW when they have screwed up... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist This article needs much more than fact tags, it needs a {{morereferences}}. Huge chunks of sections are completely unreferenced, starting with the origins section. Rather than asking for fact tags, which would really mke the article look ugly, just look over the article. If you see sections without inline citations, add them. They will not be hard to find. Wrad 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Esperanto

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article seems to be below standard with regards to WP:WIAGA criteria 2b, specifically that there are tags and headers asking for additional referencing, as well as several sections that make unverifiable claims, and thus need inline cites to make these claims verifiable. I recommend that we delist the article, if changes cannot be made to bring it up to standard. Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is already delisted, since 4 September. Gimmetrow 00:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was doing the review of this article as a part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force sweep. I do not believe that this article qualifies because I think that it is predominantly a list and should probably sent to FLC where necessary. The main substance of this piece is that there is a short section on the format of the warm up matches, and then a very large table of statistics and scoreboards. The tables far outweigh the actual prose in the article which actually discuss the actual cricket so I don't think that it is an article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist Without statement of the article quality; GA just does not handle lists, and this is essentially a list article. WP:FLC is the proper place to go. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist Agree with above. This is a list (a good one at that), and should be nominated at FLC. I don't think it'll have too much trouble being nominated there. Drewcifer 07:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist While I think this topic could conceivably be an article, its currently a list as far as I can tell. Homestarmy 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: as writer of the article, I asked for a GA review as I really don't see much difference between this and the main article (2007 Cricket World Cup)... Is it just down to the amount of prose in it, or what? Not that I mind this being delisted too much (I'm abstaining due to the obvious COI, fyi), really. Cheers. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Needs more prose to be considered GA. Is really a list. - Shudde 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey State Constitution

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was doing the review of this article as a part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force sweep and found that:

1) The article lack sources for some of its statements. See, for instance, 'Previous versions' section;

2) Some references are strange. What does ref 41 "See notes (2)" mean ?

The bold (2) in the same section as the footnotes. {{ref}}/{{cite}} might improve this, but it should be clear to any reader with initiative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

3) The article is not well written. Its language is so formalistic, which sometimes results in confusion. See 'Taxation and Finance' subsection;

4) Some parts of the article look like a number of sentences unconnected to each other. See the third paragraph in 'Schedule' subsection.

This list is not complete. So I think the article should be delisted. Ruslik 09:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You could just delist it immedietly, it seems like that would be quicker, and if you're reasons are accurate, (and if there's more of them) they seem like fair grounds for immediete delisting. Homestarmy 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not worked on this article, but it seems better than most of those GA lists. If GA wants to become a mark of bad articles, that's fine. too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep There are a few minor issues. The two bolded notes (1) and (2) should probably be incorporated as standard footnotes with the rest for consistancy. Also, there are a few direct quotes here or there without citations, this will need to be fixed. Thirdly, the random trivia on the constitution's length in the lead seems to violate criteria 3 (b) on unecessary details. The lead maybe could be expanded some, but though its short, I couldn't find it much for want. On the balance, with a few quick fixes, this article seems to be GA quality. The fixes should probably be made soon, but they are easy and if made, I see no reason for this not to stay a GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

HiPER

This article, which was described by the person directing the project as being "superb", was failed by a GA reviewer for lacking in-line references. Of course, in-lines references are not a requirement for GA. Is this the right place to take this? Or a re-list on GA? The section above right seems to suggest this is the place. Maury 00:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While Tarret's review was rather terse, and while the new criteria doesn't really state that an article must have plenty of inline citations in general, (But rather, specifies certain things that must have citations with them) this article does seem to suffer from referencing problems. For one thing, there's only three. Also, the only section written with summary style seems to be using a compleatly unreferenced parent section of another article. The e-mail thing is compleatly unreliable, simply because there's no specification on where it is, therefore making it impossible for me or anyone else to figure out exactly what this e-mail is referencing. The other two references seem reliable, but the second is rather short and can't be referencing very much of this article, and while the first is a very authoritative looking primary source, that's all there is. While the references seem to describe what HiPER is, surely a subject like this has been in the press, or has been subject to critical commentary (with "Critical" not necessarily meaning negative) by scientists or reaserchers or something, who would have a vested interest in such a reaserch facility? As with most articles referenced only by one or two references, the chances of important things not being in an article becomes very great. Unless you can prove that the references given are awesome enough to almost compleatly cover absolutly everything important over this subject, I Support the Fail of this article. Homestarmy 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, there's only three

Actually, there's only two. The first is the original technical presentation intended to be distributed to other researchers in the field. I used this to produce the vast majority of the article. The other is a news article about it. there are several others like the second one, but the only reason I included it was because it refed the GEKKO work. I could include the others, but they would simply be padding.

Also, the only section written with summary style seems to be using a compleatly unreferenced parent section of another article

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to. I'll guess though, do you mean the Background section? If so, the identical section is also used in several other articles that have passed GA. The references are fully available in that article, a click away.

The e-mail thing is compleatly unreliable

As stated on the talk page, the e-mail was used solely to verify the caption of the image at the top; although he also passed along several spelling and grammar tips.

Unless you can prove that the references given are awesome enough to almost compleatly

I have no idea what a reference would have to be like to pass the "awesome" criterion "compleatly". All I can say is that the article is essentially a printed (as in "words instead of pictures") version of the first reference. This project is very new and there simply isn't a lot published on it. The entire project, at this point, consists of that first document and a few semi-related research documents that you can find here. New sources will come forth as a result of the funding process, which is going forward now. I will add these as they become available. But in the meantime, the article is based on those references.

Once again I am sad to see that GA turns into a "reference review". There's not one statement in your post above that has anything to do with the article actually being good or not. Maury 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was indeed referring to the background section. Somehow, I didn't spot the two refs in the parent section at first, so I suppose this article's background section isn't necessarily unreferenced compleatly, but the citations aren't in the right place for WP:SCG, so I assume they don't reference anything below the middle of that section. Alone, I don't think that's enough for this article to be failed, but one problem isn't always what leads to an article not becoming a GA, as is this case I assume.
• If the e-mail is just related to the picture caption, I guess it doesn't matter as much then. That caption seems pretty long, but WP:CAP doesn't seem to suggest that a caption must be short, but rather, that the reader may lose interest if its longer than three lines, so I don't think the caption is really much of a problem. However, if the e-mail isn't posted anywhere where someone besides yourself can easily get at it, there's no way for anyone else to verify that anything in that caption is supported by the e-mail or not. Without accessability, all there is backing up that caption is your word that it accuratly reflects the e-mail's content, and nothing more. But since its a caption, i'm not really sure if verifiability is entirely necessary, I don't think i've ever seen a caption referenced before anyway, and the description seems reasonable enough.
• Ok, I guess it wasn't entirely fair for me to ask you to prove a negative, (Namely, that there's nothing more out there that's notable to this subject) this kind of situation hasn't come up very many times :/. But just a cursory google search seems to reveal that this article indeed is missing some information on this topic. For instance, this article seems to indicate that rather than merely being located in the EU, this laser is actually backed by it. Most of that article is just about the laser and likely repeats what's already there, but information about the EU backing this project isn't in it. Currently, the article answers the "What" of what the subject is, but it seems to be missing the "Who", as in who all is involved, even when such information could concievably be in the wiki article and be referenced. A little more digging might reveal more, such as this link, though hopefully from places with less questionable reliability. (It's from a partisan source, though the article itself doesn't seem biased) Or perhaps this, which appears more reliable and reveals more information about which countries are involved with this project. However, no references like these are in the wiki article, and just having one reliable technical document saying what exactly HiPER is doesn't seem to grasp the entirety of this subject from what I can tell. Homestarmy 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Oh I agree, some of these would be good additions. But did you stop to check the dates on them? The article can hardly be blamed for not including information published long after it was written! Maury 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse fail First off, what is it with ginormous captions in power-related articles? Am I missing something? That's enough text to make a separate section altogether. Also the referencing is a problem. They don't follow any type of format, and the referencing of an email is a no-no (it's tempting, I know, but impossible to verify). And some more 3rd party sources would be nice. Most of the article doesn't really require in-line citations, except for whenever data/statistics are brought up. I added a few tags to make things a little easier. This article is certainly not beyond help, but in its current state it's a little weak. Drewcifer 23:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, what is it with ginormous captions in power-related articles? Am I missing something? It's tempting to answer flippantly here, but you brought up the same argument against the NIF article and no one agreed that it was reason for failure. You appear to be doing so again here, but I fail to see any difference between the two cases. Why do you believe long captions are bad? I've never seen you explain this. That's enough text to make a separate section altogether. Perhaps so, please expand on what you're thinking. What would the section be called? Or would the text simply be placed in the Description section? Maury 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I did bring up a similar issue with the National Ignition Facility, you're right: I meant to imply that but I guess it was lost. The last time I brought it up I wouldn't say it was completely disputed, though the review moved onto more pressing matters. But you're right, that in and of itself is not really that big of a deal. I suppose it's more of a pet peeve of mine, not grounds for delisting necessarily. Although such massive captions would be contrary to WP:CAP, that guideline isn't directly part of the GA criteria, only as part of the MoS that isn't required for GA (but it is still recommended). As a suggestion however, I would say that the text would be better suited in the description section. After all it's more of a straight-forward description of HIPER than anything else in the description section. Drewcifer 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I might try this. How about something like "... the laser beamlines (blue in the diagram above)..." Do you think that would work? Maury 01:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. Drewcifer 07:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(to Maurey) Well, that's what Misplaced Pages is good for, it can constantly be updated when new information makes itself available :/ . Homestarmy 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's why we're here! The only reason I haven't added them already is because I've been busy elsewhere. And it's great to see that there's been funding movement, when I wrote it everything was very much a paper project and a prayer. Maury 01:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thunderball (novel)

Listing

Talk:Thunderball (novel)

Two fellows, Alientraveller and Awadewit seem to have forgotten the difference between a GA and an FA. Their demands are endless and have failed this article twice, saying that controversy section needs more sources (It has seven) and add this style section and that section. Bloody hell! Vikrant Phadkay 08:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Alientraveller 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But what about Awadewit comparing it with FAs? Is this called GA reviewing? Vikrant Phadkay 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse failureAnd the article does NOT meet GA standards for the following reasons:

• Criteria 2 (b): In-line citations lacking from several ideas that beg them, as ONE example, (and there are more, so fixing this ONE will not fix the entire problem): "the Daily Express suddenly cancelled the strip (per Lord Beaverbrook) on February 10, 1962, when Beaverbrook and Fleming disputed the rights to the short story "The Living Daylights"." This is an interesting analysis of someone motivation. Statements of simple fact (X did Y) may not be challengable, but statments of analysis (X did Y because of Z) are challengable and require citations to sources where said analysis occured.
• Criteria 3 (a): An article on a work of fiction that contains NO section on critical reception seems well below broadness. This was the central theme of Awadewit's failure notes. Awadewit didn't say she was comparing this article to FA standards and endorsing the failure based on that. Awadewit was giving some articles to use to model this article on. If your goal is to make this the best possible Misplaced Pages article it can be, you could do no better than to model the format of the articles she lists. But this seems to easily fail the broadness criteria if the information exists (Flemming is a well analyzed author; there is HEAPS of literary criticism on him, and that this article makes no use of it makes it fail 3 (a).)
• Criteria 3 (b) or 1 (b-layout): While we're at it, the controversy section seems out of balance with the rest of the article. In the first case, it seems to be mostly about the controversy surrounding the production of the FILM, and thus really not belonging in the article on the NOVEL (thus being unneccessarily detailed per 3 (b) ) AND, what inforamtion is kept about the production of the film really belongs in the section on adaptations (per 1(b) and layout).
• Criteria 1 (a); using correct grammar. Proper paragraph organization is part of good grammar. The second paragraph of the lead, for example, is about the film adaptations, then there is a random sentance about a plot device (SPECTRE)?
• Criteria 1 (b-lead): The lead itself is NOT a true summary of the article. It omits parts of the article (no part of the plot summary appears in the lead) AND it introduces information not found in the actual article (HERE is the missing criticism. If its here, why is there no criticism section???)

Is that enough yet? This is well below GA standard, and continues to be after several reviews. In the state it is in at this time, it is not GA ready. I suggest making the above fixes and renominating at GAC. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't looked at the article yet, but per Jayron's last comment I would like to point out that separate criticism sections are specifically discouraged by WP:NPOV. Not having a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section is far from a legit failing criteria. VanTucky 06:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I was using the term to refer to the practice of "literary criticism" whereby a work of fiction is analyzed critically (and not where bad things are said about it). Criticism can mean "looked at with a critical eye" and not just "bad things said about something". This article lacks ANY reference to reception in the press, reviews of the work, scholarly analysis, sales figures, ALL of which would be "criticism"...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. It's just usually (on Misplaced Pages anyway) people use simply "Criticism" in the second use you mentioned, and "Critical reception" or the like in the classical sense. Funny thing to get confused, considering arts criticism is my business! Anyway, I agree completely. A lack of such a section is not acceptable. VanTucky 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse fail per the immediate above. VanTucky 06:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse failure per Jayron's comment. This article does not yet meet GA criteria. Rai-me 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse failure also per Jayron. Homestarmy 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Nominated at WP:GAC by Kaypoh at 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC). I have done an initial review, and I think it mostly meets the criteria, with a couple of concerns. Primarily, this is a very controversial subject, and pertains to wikipedia itself, and I don't feel that one editor should make the decision alone to list this as a GA, nor do I want an inexperienced GA reviewer to quick-pass this article. Additionally, it should be noted that the article failed WP:FAC only about a week ago (here's the archive of that), though it's equally important to note that the FA criteria are still different than the GA criteria. Dr. Cash 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The "Academics" section doesn't start by saying where specifically these academicians and students are, since the only sources are for England and America, that should probably be spelled out more explicitly. Homestarmy 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (US game show)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Large sections are unreferenced and the article is not complete in coverage of the subject. --Czac 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist Lead needs work, the only picture lacks a fair-use rationale. No External links section. Could also be expanded substantially, I believe. Drewcifer 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist As nominator

Weak Delist - Not beyond help. Mostly minor issues. I don't see too many problems with the lead, but the second paragraph could use some prose work. The external links section seems mostly irrelevant - why are IMDb links to classmate biographies needed? The "Controversial questions" and "Records and statistics" sections need references. However, other than those sections, I don't see many referencing issues. The "Gameplay" section is redundant - it seems to me that "contestant" is repeated far too many times. Raime 01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep I reached basically the same conclusions that Raime did, but believe it deserves the weak keep rather than the weak delete. The picture needs a rationale or needs to go, but beyond that I felt taht it meets the criteria for a GA. The section on "controversial questions" needs a citation or it needs to go as well---it appears to be OR as is. The records/statistics section appears that it might have a reference, but if that reference is to cover all the cited facts, it should be associated with them all. (On a stable piece of work, one citation would be fine, but when it is an electronic format where people can add new items, each bullet needs it's own reference.)Balloonman 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Koenigsegg CCX

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Content issues primiarily PrinceGloria 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am bringing this up for review mainly to gather others' opinions. I am really happy to see every automotive article getting promoted to GA, but at the same time, having been involved with the GA process rather intensely earlier in my Misplaced Pages career, I am also concerned about standards. The major issue I have with this article is one that is slipping throught the cracks of the WIAGA, but nonetheless very important IMHO - I believe the article's content is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article on the subject. If you look at the article, for the most part it consists of a description of technical details of the car, which, even being interested in automobiles above all else, I find hard to digest and relate to. I believe a casual reader might find it very hard to digest through it and get any meaningful message. The other part is a collection of statements made by reviewers, chosen on a purely arbitrary basis (not that I have issues with the choice - you just cannot choose them in an objective manner). This might be hearwarming to enthusiasts, but IMHO isn't really encyclopedic due to its subjective nature.

A secondary issue I have with the article is the quality of prose, which I find questionable at times. For example:

The CCX is also available as the CCXR, which is the same car except that the engine is tuned to run on biofuel.

For me, it is a rather clumsy way of putting it. There are also spelling problems, like "existance" at the beginning of the second paragraph.

I've sad bad things, now for the good things - the article is very rife with references, which is still a rarity among Misplaced Pages article, and at first sight it appears that those were done correctly. For me, this would be a perfect article for a car enthusiasts' Wiki (I don't know if there is a reliable one), but unfortunately it fails on being encyclopedic. I see a lot of effort put into the article, and I guess I'd have to agree that a truly encyclopedic article on the subject would be much more boring and less satisfactory for the car's enthusiasts than this one is. But, I still believe that Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic nature should take precedence... PrinceGloria 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. Two formal issues - in the infobox, the standard is not to include information on whether a transmission is "optional" or not. Secondly, the CCXR is listed as "successor", while it is at the same time described in the article as a version of the same car.

Weak Keep - Yes the writing is poor at times, and yes it is a little overly technical, but what else would you expect in a car article? Unless the car is culturally significant or had a recall or something disastrous, what else is there? I don't think it's a crime to go into too much detail. Drewcifer 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I won't voice an opinion here because I am the one who re-wrote the article, but the point that Drewcifer brought up is why the article is almost all statistics; there's not much more too the car. Also the reviewer comments are from every magazine/website etc. that I could find that actually drove the car. There are many copies of the Koenigsegg press-release and some websites add extra words like a Misplaced Pages article, but the quotations are from people who have driven the CCX. James086 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I can think of at least half a dozen articles on the CCX that are not included (and given that I only read in a few languages, there are bound to be more), so how do you determine which are to be included and which are not? IMHO, reviews are unencyclopedic. I also believe you can write an article on a car not limiting yourself to listing specs - please see such automotive GAs as Mitsubishi i, Simca Vedette or Autobianchi Primula. PrinceGloria 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Facing the Giants

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

After re-review of the article I've found it to have the following issues:

• The biggest problem with the article is alot of POV prose, most notably in the Reviews and Rating controversy. Sentences like "Some critics, perhaps disparagingly, complained that characters confronting problems from an evangelical Christian worldview belonged in Sunday School rather than portrayed in film, as if to say a film could not be well made or entertain with such a worldview." and "yet some reviewers hint that Hollywood often doesn't do as well." should be changed to a more neutral tone.
• The plot section also has some prose problems. Instead of going into all the sub-plots, I'd recommend a much more straight-forward "this happened then this happened." The thing is, the plot section should ideally by in-universe. Also, the later part of the section, the big quote and the last paragraph don't fit with the rest of the section. I'd recommend giving that stuff a subsection of some sort. Also, there are a few more POV issues here too: "This supplies both poignant and comedic moments."
• "Events and situations work themselves out" huh? Please expand.
• The lead section is way to short. See WP:Lead for more info.
• The formatting of the in-line citations are inconsistent with usual style and even with each other. I would recommend using citation templates, though using these are not a GA requirement. Consistency and proper attribution, however, are required, and the templates help do alot of that work for you.
• There are a bit too many External links. See WP:EL for more info.

(Updated the list based on improvements Drewcifer 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)) Drewcifer 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Article fails multiple criteria of the Manual of Style and WikiProject Film's guidelines. I think the issue with the quotations above is due more to poor writing than bias, but either way it needs fixing. VanTucky 04:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist The lead alone is a good enough reason to delist. - Shudde 09:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I cleaned the article up somewhat, but it would be great if the original editors would continue to improve it. I expanded the lead a little, removed the statements in the review section (one had a dead link), fixed the plot statement (it looks like the original plot before the film was released was kept and then just expanded upon), switched over to the citation templates, and removed some of the external links.--Nehrams2020 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - improvements are significant, but it still needs some minor work. The lead could still be expanded more. I agree with Drewcifer; the plot section could be more straight-forward. However, the referencing and citation issues have now been completely fixed. It is mostly the lead I am concerned with, and it is certainly not terrible, but is is just not completely adequate yet. Rai-me 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm happy to say this article is much better since the improvements. The only remaining issues (small issues) are the lead and the plot section. Job well done Nehrams! Drewcifer 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Somebody else is going to have to do the lead and plot, those are my two weak points on Misplaced Pages, and I haven't seen the film so I have no info on the plot. Also, I believe the original editor who brought it up to GA status hasn't been editing on Misplaced Pages for a while. --Nehrams2020 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

University of Texas at Austin

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article contains a large, mostly unreferenced trivia section. It also contains a possibly-unfree image in the "Notable people" section (disclaimer: I am the one who listed the image PUI and its status is still undecided). →Wordbuilder 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've had reservations with the "UT in popular culture" section for some time now, as I think it weakens an otherwise strong article. I therefore have no issue with either deleting it entirely or moving any of the items elsewhere to preserve the article's GA status. jareha 02:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article would benefit by de-emphasizing or removing the Popular Culture section and removing the photos of Notable People. The article's contributors examine other GA-class university articles and their talk pages; they hold tips for improvement. Majoreditor 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with removing the photos, as they don't add much to the article. Additionally, the photos introduce the complication of determining whom — out of such a long list of people — deserves prominent placement. jareha 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've deleted the gallery of notable people and the "UT in popular culture" section. jareha 07:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Concur with above. I have no problems keeping it GA IF these concerns are addressed. — BQZip01 —  03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment—The article looks much better. The changes definitely strengthen it. I was leery of making wholesale deletions without the input of other editors since that sometimes causes problems with other contributors. →Wordbuilder 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep GA - I like Jareha's changes. They definitely strengthen the article. I believe it once again complies with GA standards. Johntex\ 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep GA - A tad listy at times, but some sections just require that. Drewcifer 22:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Angolan Civil War

Angolan Civil War (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I don't believe this article received an adequate review. There is a copyright image which lacks a fair use rationale, and a movie poster that is inappropriately being used in this article (the copyright on the image clearly states it is only appropriate for fail use when it is used to provide critical commentary on the film in question or the poster it self; additionally, the fair use rationale for this image should be specific to each article in which it is used, not a blanket FUR for all uses), the years are not wikified in full dates and some dates are not wikified at all it's very stubby in places with many one-sentence paragraphs, there is a main article link to a redlink article, there are inconsistencies in formatting voting results (ie. 54-22 vs. 12/91), I believe the use of dashes needs to be corrected, it is in need of a good copy-edit, and the references are not consistently formatted correctly. LARA♥LOVE 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist per nomination. The footnotes/citations in particular are a mess. Drewcifer 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Lara's points are valid. However...
  • Copyright image: gone
  • Dead link to a main article: fixed
  • Vote style: Consistent
  • Dashes: fixed
  • Year wikifying:fixed

• Still to be done:
  • Merging stub-paragraphs
  • Converting refs to Cite format

Perspicacite 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Updated fixed items. LaraLove♥ 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Once the copyedit and ref formatting are done, does anyone else think it should try for an FAC?---SidiLemine 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Cincinnati Kid

The Cincinnati Kid (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

There have been two recent reviews, both of which raise similar critiques. The big sticking points seem to be the plot summary, the notes on play section and the DVD section. The reviewers are saying that the plot summary is too long. I disagree based in part on looking at Casablanca (film) which is a FA. The plot summary there is of similar length and detail. It was suggested that the proportion of article that is plot summary was unacceptable as compared to that of Casablanca, but since this is an effort to elevate the article to GA and not FA I can't really agree with that critique. For notes on play, again I look to Casablanca which has sections on things like rumors and bloopers. The notes section seems like a rough equivalent to those sections. As for the DVD section, I really don't understand this critique at all. Supposedly it unfocuses the article, but I note that in the template for upgrading stub film articles to start-class it requires "At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.)" (emphasis added). It makes little sense to me that a DVD section can be used as a rationale for upgrading a stub to start-class but would stand as a barrier to upgrading to GA status. Otto4711 16:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Comment - since I was the original reviewer, I'll obstain from voting, but I would like to clarify my review. Please note that the article has been improved in a few ways based on my initial review, and that my critique of the article has changed a bit since the original review. The problems with the article, as I see them, are:

• Lack of breadth - there are many sections, but all of them go into barely any detail at all. For instance, Production should go into more detail. The Reception section is also entirely insufficient: two quotes, no prose.
• As for the size of the plot section and it's proportion to the rest of the article, I brought that up more as an indication of the article's lack of breadth rather than a bad plot section. As it is, the plot section is about half the article, which leads me to believe the article doesn't go into enough detail elsewhere.
• The notes on play just seems like a glorified trivia section. It also seems particularly easy to incorporate into the prose of the Plot section.
• The Final Hand section also seems odd. First off, it goes into too much detail about the hands - to a non-poker player like myself I have no idea what it all means. Also, I'm not sure about the symbols and colors within the prose. I've never seen an article do that before - though in all fairness I was unable to find any kind of MoS on that.
• The DVD section seems unnecessary, especially since the DVD seems fairly unremarkable. However, upon further review of other GAs and some FAs, some have similar DVD sections of similarly unremarkable DVDs, so I could be wrong on this one. Although the section seems unnecessary to me, I wouldn't say that in and of itself is a deal breaker.
• A few one or two sentence paragraphs.
• A few issues with prose as well: "He did mute the colors throughout both to evoke the period and to help pop the card colors when they appeared." for example.
• The in-line citations are poorly formatted. Drewcifer 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is the first I'm hearing of some of these criticisms. Taking them in order: Lack of breadth - I'm not sure what else you're looking for to get it to GA status. It has information on the casting process, the replacement of the director, information on differences in directorial style, information on the theme song...what aspect of production are you saying is insufficiently covered? The reception section could be stronger, but it's better than it was during your initial review. Plot summary section - the notion that the proportion is an issue because of coverage in the other sections is a new one. Notes on play - this critique contradicts the plot critique. If the plot section is already disproportionate to the rest of the article, how does making it longer by incorporating more text help? Fimal hand section - the most unusual jargon like button or all in is all wikilinked for definitional purposes. The remaining jargon like "bet," "call" or "raise," I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that even the most un-knowledgable person about poker doesn't know what a bet is or has never heard an expression like "call your bluff" to know what these things mean. Colored card symbols - it is quite standard in articles about cards and card players, see for example Poker probability, Joe Hachem, Contract bridge and so on. The lengths of sentences and issues with the prose are new criticisms. The in-line citations are all formatted using citation templates. Otto4711 20:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I see what you're saying about the citations. First time I'd used them and the dates were wrong. They're now corrected. Otto4711 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist There are only a few issues that keeps my from saying "Keep". First is that the lead seems to be out of line with the standard depth required for a lead, per WP:LEAD. Specifically, the lead is not a summary of the article. If the lead could be expanded some to more fully summarize the article, this would probably be GA quality easily. Also, it would be nice to see the article expanded to include more critical reception as well as some hard data (box office receipts, etc.) on the public reception of the film; for example IMDB clearly lists some award nominations for the film (Golden Globes, Laurels). This link: also from IMDB, lists several reliable reviews of the film. If these fixes could be made, the rest of the article seems GA quality to me. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have added a summary paragraph to the intro. How much time do I have to make the other fixes under this process? Otto4711 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• A while. And should it not be fixed before the GA/R closes, it can always be renominated at GAC. LaraLove 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse delist per Jayron. It otherwise looks good. LaraLove♥ 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lead still needs a bit more. The summary seems kind of random and trivial in places; for example it mentions an actor considered but not given the a lead part, but makes no mention of the actors who actually appeared in the movie? I would think that at LEAST Steve McQueen (as the title character) and Edward G. Robinson (as his nemesis) would bear some mention in the lead. The lead is also poorly organized. Paragraph 1 contains production and plot summary info, paragraph 2 contains two unrelated facts, and paragraph 3 has some critical reception. Perhaps organize the lead to mirror the organization of teh article... Maybe Paragraph 1 can be about the cast and production, paragraph 2 would be a plot summary, and paragraph 3 can be about reaction and reception? The critical reception section DOES look better now. It is longer than 2 sentances, which it suffered from before. But this is getting REAL close, IMHO. Fix the lead, and you may have a GA here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized something else that would probably be really easy: a cast section. Most GA film articles have it. Drewcifer 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK. I have re-written the lead. It's now paragraph 1 plot summary, paragraph 2 cast and production and paragraph 3 reception. I realize that this is not the same order as the article but I tried it both ways and IMHO it flows better in that order. I have also added a cast list. If this isn't good enough then I guess the article is just doomed to live on as a less-than-GA. Otto4711 00:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Struck thru prior vote. Rock on and get down wit your bad self. This is how GA/R should work. I think that all relevent fixes have been made, and I see nothing that anymore that should cause this to be removed from GA. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RevoPower

RevoPower (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The reason given on the talk page is very stand-offish, and doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. The information in the article is as accurate as possible from reliable sources, and the reviewer offered absolutely no basis for their accusation of the article being an advertisement. The review offered absolutely no way the article could be improved, and pointed out no problems with sourcing other than apparently accusing the manufacturer of releasing fake specifications, and saying that a third party source is needed. The reviewer offered absolutely no reason why these sources were unreliable, or where reliable sources could be found. The reviewer additionally said that there was too much speculation, but didn't actually show any speculation, looking it over myself there is no speculation that isn't backed up by what the company says, and even the shortest look at WP:CBALL shows that speculation is in opinions and original research, not in future events. The review reeks of WP:IDONTLIKETHECOMPANY, not that the article itself doesn't actually meet the requirements for being a good article. Now, obviously if it wasn't worthy of being a good article, I wouldn't want it to be one, but the review gives absolutely no reason why the article doesn't meet the GA Criteria, except barely touching on reliable sources, only to say that the company isn't reliable enough to give the specifications and motivations behind their own product. Going through the GACR, 1 I feel is met, there are probably a couple errors but nothing that couldn't be spent by having a couple more sets of eyes look it over, 2 is the only thing the reviewer seemed to touch on, but again everything in the article is sourced, with nothing controversial that would make a primary source unacceptable, 3 I also feel is met, given that the article covers the major aspects of it, even though it is short, because there isn't much to say, 4 I also feel is met, although the reviewer disagreed and called it little more than an advertisement, without actually saying what was written like an advertisement, 5 is definitely met, I think there's been one vandal in the entire time the article has been up, and that was a bit of NPOV OR, no page blanking, most contributions to the article are minor things, like fixing acronyms and such, 6 is definitely met given the high quality photograph of the object that the company donated. I really wouldn't mind this article failing if someone gave a decent reason as to why it didn't meet the requirements, and didn't personally attack other editors in their review. If someone could give a decent reason as to how the article itself has problems that couldn't be quickly fixed, I'd be fine with it, not statements about the thing itself. lucid 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

• Delist. The references are weak and article is short. It's currently "B"-class. While I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an advertisement, it lacks enough references from reliable sources to qualify as GA-class. That said: keep up the good work. With some work the article may be able to progress to GA-class. Majoreditor 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Again though, you're not saying how the references are weak. I could add extra references from their press section and a quick google search, but it wouldn't add anything to the article except pdf links. If someone can come up for a reason that RevoPower's own sources are contentious or unduly self-serving I'd agree, but as it is I don't see how the sources are in any way unreliable. --lucid 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: You're missing the point Lucid, the references are unreliable because they are mostly from the company itself. See reliable sources. The gist is that reliable sources are published and independent of the subject matter. There is nothing stopping the company from saying whatever it wants about itself with absolutely no editorial oversight. Of course they are going to make themselves look good, of course they have a conflict of interest when presenting information about themselves. Find some independent sources to back up the assertion and the article would have a much better chance here. IvoShandor 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • (edit conf)Being from the company does not make something unreliable, being from the company and being controversial in a way that the company would be using to promote itself would be unreliable. They are going to make themselves look good, yes, but they can't really bend specifications. And what assertion? Clearly you're not talking about assertion of notability, given that's more than established, so what in the article needs asserting? What would be NPOV without a source-- or for that sake, with one? I can say with about 98% certainty that anything sourced to the company is somewhere else too, especially anything that would actually be in their favor (which I would probably support removing anyway, if it were serious), or could easily be removed without effecting the quality of the article-- barring of course the "the company says, claims, notes" etc. bits. The problem is you're saying the company has a reason to promote itself, which is of course true, what you haven't shown, or even said, is that their intent to promote has biased their facts in a real manner that lowers the quality of the article --lucid 09:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Basically, I am of the opinion that the site is absolutely self serving, its essentially an ad for a yet to be released product, so really it is nothing more than speculation on the company's part, about how the company thinks things will result for the product once it is released. There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. Sorry, but Delist. IvoShandor 09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Changing to keep or list (whatever's appropriate, can't remember) per the work done to diversify sources. It was never my contention that this particular company was making erroneous claims, just that that can be the perception, thus if something is declared good, it should have the best, independent, sources available. Thanks for your work here and sorry I wasn't more help, I have been on a semi-wikibreak, mostly discussing a few things and working on some stuff in my user space that isn't quite ready for the limelight yet. : ) IvoShandor 06:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• • And again, the secondary sources back up this information as well. If you can find anything in the article which is contentious or self-serving to the point where the article is obviously biased or unreliable, please tell me. Right now, there's no basis to improve on any part of it, no any reason to disapprove --lucid 09:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The burden is on you to prove the source is reliable, its neutrality is disputed here, it would be best if you just brought some independent sources, they shouldn't be too hard to find I would think. Since you ignored this part of what I wrote: There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. I have reposted it for you here, this alone is enough reason to oppose the use of the source. As for assertion, I meant assertions, as in statements of fact that are cited within the article. I wasn't questioning the notability. Why are you linking to WP:NPA in your edit summary. I didn't attack you at all, I looked at the article and the source and made a comment about it. If that's a personal attack, then I don't know what to say. IvoShandor 09:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, just balance out the sources with more independent ones, and the use of the company website becomes no problem. When the entire article is based on it though there is no way to know whether any of information has ever been confirmed independently, or fact checked. IvoShandor 09:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as showing the source is reliable goes, I'd have to say that keeping in the company's specifications because everything else has higher MPG is a pretty good sign that they aren't making their stuff seem better than it is. Anyway, I've added more secondary sources, there's still a few more out there but they don't have much new, or are borderline reliable/notable (see the talk page for one), and removed some stuff that wasn't really needed and only really linked to the company's page. It's fairly well balanced now-- the FAQ is still used a lot, but it's needed to give a broad scope of the Wheel. --lucid 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if i'm looking at the right section, but when I see the latest GA nomination failed heading, it sure looks like the reviewer gave several legitimate reasons for failure, such as the article reading like an advertisement, among other things. Not even commenting on the accuracy of the review, I really don't think the basis given for starting this GA/R is accurate at all. Homestarmy 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

the accuracy of the review is the entire point. --lucid 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You said that the review "doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. ", but the only review I see nearest to the bottom doesn't appear to be like that at all, quite the contrary really, there seem to be several WIAGA-relevant objections. Homestarmy 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevant, maybe, explanatory no. Saying "it reads like an advertisement" without actually providing something that reads like an advertisement, or saying that the sources are unreliable without actually showing where a source is wrong, or at the least contentious enough to not be reliable is little more than saying "I don't like it, here's a few blanket statements that could be said about any article without anything to back them up, that way they can't be disproven" --lucid 16:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see then. While I don't agree that specific examples of deficiencies in articles always have to be specified, I guess I can see how you could interpret his review to be meaningless. I'll give the article a closer look. Homestarmy 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Comment Well, reading the article, I don't think it really is an advertisment. It just appears that way because what's there is mostly positive in nature, though I don't think its written in a non-neutral way, its just that all the facts about the subject presented here are fairly positive. Lucid, is this really all the material available on this subject? No criticism or anything else? Homestarmy 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. It's unreleased, so about the only criticism is people on message boards, which is obviously WP:UNDUE and not an RS. The closest thing to criticism is PopSci showing a meter from "Loafer" to "Lance" on the RevoPower article, with the arrow pointing to "Loafer", but that's not much of a criticism really, not to mention it can't really be cited because it's not in text. It did make a pretty big sweep through the blogosphere awhile back, one of them might have some criticism, but even the more popular blogs are generally not reliable sources. Of course, once it is released, it will probably get a surge of media attention, and I can look around then. If it's as popular as they're hoping for (100,000 units in the first 6 months, I think, I don't have the exact quote here) it wouldn't be surprising to see a bunch of towns passing laws and telling people they are/aren't ok and such on it, like those electric RAZOR scooters that were so popular a couple years back, or pocket rockets, or Segways, or any number of other weird transportation things that have come up in the past few years. Of course, if it gets in magazines that get to review it I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism, not to mention people complaining about how it's 'eliminating the point of biking' or something to that effect if it really catches on. I'm already thinking about the future of the article to be honest, I figure there will probably be a "Legality" and "Reception" section once it's released, and probably a new section for new types of wheels, as they are released (the four-stroke, hybrid, etc. models they mention) --lucid 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• List as GA, Since there doesn't seem to be any more new comments, i'm siding to list this article. Primary sources aren't weak simply because they are primary, and references do not have to be held up to Misplaced Pages's standards of neutrality. Unless someone can demonstrate how the RevoPower main website is factually innacurate, I just don't see how it is a bad reference. Furthermore, if there's really nothing else available to add, I don't see what can be done in terms of expansion, and this subject seems like the kind of obscure topic that probably won't expand very quickly even when it is publicly produced. There might be criticism in the future, or the company might tank and make such a section irrelevant, but there's a whole lot of might be's that go with many contemporaneous subjects that are GA's on Misplaced Pages, and I don't think there's enough mights for this article to automatically make it too unstable. Homestarmy 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep One-sided and short, but neither is a major concern given the nature of the topic. Drewcifer 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse GA listing per Homestarmy and Drewcifer. Rai-me 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

Veganism (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article seems to lack a NPOV and lacks details explaining the criticism of this particular topic. Tarret 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Criticism is provided in 'Ethical concerns' section by POV of Davis and Jarvis, also various health precautions are included throughout the article. The article has barely changed since original GA review, so specific criticism of POV-ness would be appreciated. Kellen 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific the article is very "pro-vegan" meaning that there is very little mention of the "counter-vegan" point of view. Also as the tag in the Demographics says the section lacks a more worldwide point of view most noticably in areas such as Asia, and Africa. Tarret 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - most governments do not record details of diet in their census, and so it's difficult to find reliable sources about numbers of vegans worldwide. I think there's an information-gathering attempt on the Talk page about this issue. -Malkinann 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I typically contribute to the article from a "counter-vegan" perspective, if you will, and I'm not sure we need to put a whole lot more criticism into the article. Could you give specific examples of passages that need a "counter-vegan" rebuttal? Though you do have a good point - we need to gather a more global view particularly in the demographic section. Kellen has found some good sources that should be integrated into the article. There just isn't a lot of information out there about many parts of the world, though. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The demographics section is actually a virtually unsolvable problem; there are no good statistics for number of vegans almost anywhere in the world. The research has just not been done yet. I did some cross-wiki research but this yielded few results. Since there is no one we can cite, I do not believe this is a good reason for delisting.

There are also few, if any, notable "counter-vegans." There's a variety of people, including vegan orgs, pointing out the need for supplementation, so this is covered extensively in 'health,' but not much else. Kellen 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist This is not on dietetic grounds, but the author and chef Anthony Bourdain is quite notably anti-vegan and vegetarian. In almost several of his best sellers he declaims veganism. While mentioning that there is an mainstream objection to the diet on the grounds that its strictures limit gastronomical joie de vivre might seem trivial, it is an easily overlooked topic. Honestly, I feel that the article reads in an unbalanced fashion. While it is true that the majority of mainstream sources don't have much criticism of a vegan diet health-wise, I had a hell of time getting a neutral mention of what the multiple reliable sources reported as cases of vegan baby malnutrition into the article at all. In consideration of the general tone, and the missing vital stats that Kellen mentioned, I think the article should be delisted. VanTucky 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

almost several? Right. ;)--SidiLemine 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You apparently missed the point I made about these stats not existing anywhere such that there is no possibility to cite them, and therefore that this is not a proper grounds for delisting. Kellen 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - the article does read POV, sections underdeveloped/stubby, the section lacking worldwide view should be remodelled so that the tag would not be applicable etc. This is clearly not a good article. PrinceGloria 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - I think that simply creating a subsection of the Ethical concerns section labeled "Criticisms," then simply moving the paragraphs from Jarvis and Davis into that subsection would go along way. I think in this case, just having a section boldly titled "Criticisms" would be useful, rather than scattering said criticisms throught the article. Also, I think that mentioning Bourdain would be a very good idea. Drewcifer 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Comment on comment - actually, I find neither a good idea. I HATE "criticism" sections, they are a way of sidelining some views on the subject, as well as trying to do away with NPOV issues ("what do you want? there is a criticism section!"). I believe the article should be written in a balanced way in all. I also am not sure whether Bourdain is that notable. OTOH, I am not that convinced that the medical community is so unanimous in their praise of the benefits of veganism. PrinceGloria 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed that the tag should be removed, but I was allowing time for others to confirm/disconfirm my research that there are not many other applicable sources for vegan demographics. I have to again ask for more specific criticisms of the article as POV since the article has changed little from the original GA review. Kellen 12:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events

A Series of Unfortunate Events (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Only passed a few days ago, the original reviewer left only this comment on the Talk Page as their review: "Enjoyed this one. Pass." Upon further review, I've found it to have the following issues:

• Some of the images do not specify their source.
• Many of the sections are poorly referenced, most notably the Distribution section.
• The references are poorly formatted.
• Small lead section.
• Reception section could be expanded.

Chief editors, reviewers, and WikiProjects have been notified. Drewcifer

EDIT: I've stricken out issues which have since been addressed. 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

• Comment. I agree with Drewcifer, the article should be de-listed per above concerns. Majoreditor 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. But we're looking for decent articles, not best articles. This passes all the criteria. Would you say this article is 'decent'? Mrmoocow 09:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's decent, but I wouldn't say it satisfies all the criteria. Namely, criteria #1b and WP:Lead (too short, doesn't summarize article), criteria #6 and WP:NFCC (no sources for some images), criteria #2 and WP:CITE (poorly formatted references), and criteria #3 (the reception section is somewhat small, though I suppose that might just be my opinion). The 2nd bullet point above, the lack of in-line citations, is currently under debate at WP:WIAGA, so we can ignore that one for now. Drewcifer 09:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. The lead fails the guidelines of WP:LEAD, there are numerous uncited facts, and the lead image is supposedly not under a fair use doctrine, which is extremely unlikely considering it includes copyrighted book covers. Unless we want to hear from the publisher's lawyer, this should be rectified immediately. VanTucky 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Frickative has addressed the issues of references and proper citations. Clamster 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Still a few problems when I read this (lead, reception is very small relative to in-universe information (didn't the series get compared to the Harry Potter books? This would be highly appropriate if my memory serves...), the book presentation could probably be put into a table, or at least add publication dates to it to get a sense of the timeline. The Reoccuring themes section has a few references but sounds like a lot of WP:OR, but only lacks the references to help support this section. --Masem 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Weak lead, inappropriate images (I question the copyright of the infobox image being held by the uploader. I don't believe that taking a picture of copyrighted book cover allows one to get around the copyright or take it as their own work.) I also agree with Masem's comments.

Music of Hungary

Music of Hungary (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

A good majority of the popular music section contains original research, I wasn't sure if this was enough to be delisted. This with all the other Music of X articles were primarily written by User:TUF-KAT who has since left. T Rex | talk 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Weak delist - Certainly not beyond help. The popular music sections in particular need some formatting and referencing. Drewcifer3000 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Unless someone takes the initiative and fixes the referencing issues. At the moment, it doesn't meet criteria. On another note, it's good to see the new template being used *feels special* :) Giggy\ 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - the lead section is also a mess. PrinceGloria 08:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist Stubby sections, unsourced info, external jumps and the citations need formatting. LuciferMorgan 12:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Intro seems to have been fixed up. Good enough for GA, just fix up the pop culture. Wrad 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm undecided on this. There's a lot of good stuff well set out in it but I have a couple of scope and potential OR issues. What would make me move into the keep camp would be the following.

• The popular music section needs looking at. A lot of it does look as if it may be OR but there is a reference to popular musc at the bottom. This needs clarification. And BTW, why are their sections called "Hardcore, Metal" and "Punk", when hardcore is a subgenre of punk?

• The classical music section could do with a bit more especially about Hungary's contribution to the establishment of the Austrian/Viennese classical tradition and to operetta. Haydn was someone born just on the Austrian side of the modern border with Hungary who worked for the Hungarian House of Esterházy much of his life. Franz Lehár is categorised as a Hungarian composer and is, after the Vienneses Strausses, the best known operetta composer. And when mentioning non-Hungarian composers influenced by Hungarian folk traditions, then Brahms's Hungarian Dances are the best known example.--Peter cohen 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Lead needs to be trimmed, there is information (as noted above) that needs citation, sources need to be consistently formatted, I'm not sure why bullets are being used in the Popular music section, but that needs to be worked into paragraphs. There were some other little minor things, but I fixed them myself. LaraLove♥ 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Although only reviewed a few months ago, the article seems somewhat weak based on its lack of references, poor reference formatting, lack of breadth (only historical and architectual), and small lead section. Chief editors, previous reviewers, and appropriate Wikiprojects have been notified. Drewcifer3000 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

• Comment 1. Please see comments in the 'Presido' article below - please state what material in the article you think needs citing - ie. good faith challenges. 2. poor reference formating is a MOS issue and as such, a guideline - by what logic do you insist on it as a requirement for GA? 3. To aid 'breadth' can you suggest some areas you feel aren't sufficiently covered so we can improve them? 4. Lead section summarises a pretty short article - seems fine by WP:LEAD. --Joopercoopers 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy to extrapolate:

• Lack of references:
  • When I'm wrong I'm wrong. The article seems to have sufficient references given it's size, so my mistake. I've stricken the comment from above.
• Reference style:
  • GA criteria 1a: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation."
    • But you objection is the formating of the citations - not included in the GA list - and even at FA (despite Tony1 efforts the contraty) not complying with every ever-changing wishlist of the ever-growing MOS is not a reason not to promote, so it certainly shouldn't be a delist reason here.--Joopercoopers 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The layout section mentions references. I'm not aware of any discussion with Tony1, I'm just going by the criteria as they read. But, as far as reference formatting goes, what I usually say is that a particular approach isn't required, but consistency is. The references are currently not formaatted consistently with one another.Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Done.-- SECisek 07:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lead:
  • From MoS guidelines for lead sections: "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The lead does not mention it's architecture.
    • I fixed this. Chubbles 13:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Breadth:
  • Although I don't actually know if such information exists or is all that relevant, what about the church in modern times? It's obviously still standing, so is it still used? As for the architecture was it built in a certain style? What little knowledge of church architecture I know leads me to believe that alot of churches were built in particular contemporary fashions, each church a bit more extreme than the last. Though like I said, I could be wrong, or this information might not even exist. Overall it just seems like a very small article, especially looking at how big the sources are.

Hopefully these are easy fixes, the second and third in particular. Drewcifer3000 10:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead does briefly mention that some of the original architecture is retained. Judging by the photos it seems like a fairly typical English parish church with the usual hodge-podge of architectural styles that's the result of standing for centuries. Except in wealthy town centre parishes (or very occasionally if there was a particualrly wealthy local landowner) and arguably Abbeys and Cathedrals, English churches have tended to grow by accretion, rather than being demolished and re-built all of a piece. As for current activities it's an active parish church of the established Church of England with all that implies. Possibly the significance being under the care of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet rather than the Diocesan could be added, with all that implies for opposition to the ordination of women, from a quick look a tthe parish website tht seems to be the most significant difference from the "norm".

All of that sounds like interesting stuff that should be in the article. To the layman that fills in some gaps. Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Note 2 of the criteria highly recommends that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. In addition to looking pretty, it's appropriate that credit is given where credit is due, and it's important that all the information be consistent so that it's easy for the user to read. I'll format it if I have time, however, if I or someone else here is not able to do this, it really does need to be done. Lara♥Love 13:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Done -- SECisek 07:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep - To expand on my above comment, I went through the article and corrected some minor issues (use of dashes, ref formatting) and I have to agree that the lead could be expanded a bit. Nothing vast, just a couple extra sentences. It's very basic right now. I'd also like to see some expansion in the body, as noted in the above comments. Otherwise, it's a good article. I particularly like the first image and think it should be nominated at WP:FI. Regards, Lara♥Love 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to move this discussion along: have your reservations been addressed? Would you say the conditions have been met to keep, or would you delist? Drewcifer 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I would note that even a cursory glance at this building shows it to be cast mostly in the Gothic or Gothic Revival style. IvoShandor 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• That would be Gothic, based upon its age, somewhere a source must say this, the crenellation on the parapet is a dead give away and the pointed arches on the windows. Looking at the full image through the external link, it looks like most of the additions tried to match up with the original style, though I am sure there are elements from other styles as well, the Gothic Revival movement was quite popular around the time some of the additions and changes took place. IvoShandor 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, that's interesting stuff, and as a layman I had no idea about any of that. That stuff should be in the article, no? Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely it should. I wouldn't write an article about a historic building, church or otherwise, without doing as much research as I could about the architecture. IvoShandor 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist - Lead could use some expansion; it is a little inadequate right now. Also, per Drewcifer, I think the scope of the article should be widened. However, these are minor concerns. Otherwise, the article is well-written and well-referenced. I'll change this to a Keep if the lead and body are expanded. Raime 14:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Everything really looks quite good except breadth. Needs more research and expansion. Wrad 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delist The points that strike me are that the lead includes material not in the body of the article - the material re visiting bishop and no women priests. This should be added to the section on the history of the congregation Also, given how many parishes share a vicar, it might be useful to state whether this has happened here. WP:Cite recommends page citations, could the pages for the ook citation be indicated, please? (I've already changed one of the web citations to point to the more exact page.) Given there seems to be someone responding to the comments here, I expect these points to be addressed relatively soon. When this has happened, I'll change to keep.--Peter cohen 13:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Work continues. -- SECisek 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has improved quite a bit since the GAR began. I am at the limits of what I can add. I hope we have addressed most/all your concerns. -- SECisek 21:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

National Ignition Facility

This article has been under a lot of GA scrutiny lately (just take a look at the talk page), so I hesitate to bring it up here, but it seems to me like it doesn't quite fulfill all the requirements. My few issues with it are its small lead, a CRAZY caption for the first image, poorly formatted references, entire sections without in-line citations ("Background") and others without enough (the first half of "NIF and ICF"). Drewcifer3000 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I don't think the lead is too short, and picture captions aren't really related to the GA criteria, but I do have some concerns about overly dense jargon, such as the second half of this sentence: "....unforeseen problems caused by non-uniformities in the compression of the target (hydrodynamic instabilities).", and I have no idea what this sentence in the lead means, "Nevertheless NIF achieved first light in December 2002", is this some kind of fusion power related euphemism? The first unreferenced section appears partly referenced by its parent section, but indeed, certain critical parts of the article seem to be without citations, where plenty of fact statements are being made. Homestarmy 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's some sort of MoS thing about having an entire paragraph as a caption? My issue with the lead isn't necessarily its length, but that it doesn't summarize the whole article. And of course the reference issues. And I didn't really notice the dense jargon, but I suppose I agree with you on that one. Like I said, I was hesitant to bring it up, but I figured it warranted further review. Drewcifer3000 00:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any MoS guideline about picture caption size, but I suppose the lead could be expanded somewhat by going more into the process detailed in the NIF and ICF section. The background section doesn't seem to have much to do directly with the NIF, but its existance doesn't seem unwarranted since this appears to be a rather technical article. I'm not really decided either way on this one, I just though the jargon thing might be useful for anyone trying to fix the article. Homestarmy 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that WP:CAP talks about that. Lara♥Love 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well considering that most of this discussion seems to boil down to the caption and the "poorly formatted references", it seems to me that Drewcifer3000 just volunteered to fix it! :-) Seriously though, with the exception of the references issue (see the talk page for a tiring discussion of that topic), is there anything left that really strikes anyone as a GA-fail? Maury 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was a simple fix, I would do so, but knowing completely nothing about anything the article is talking about, I'm afraid I can't be of much help. My problems with the article are pretty much described in the article's nomination. Looking at the discussion page, I can see that some of the information is un-referenced for decent reasons, mainly because the information is repeated in various sections. So, my main question is, why repeat it? Ideally, only the lead should summarize/repeat the article (and therefore is ok to be unreferenced). Not only does repeating something leave uncited parts of the article, but it's just kind of redundant. As far as the reference formatting, try using citation templates. Those do all the work for you. And the caption, I can see why it is important information, but why not make that it's own section? There's enough text there to warrant a subsection of background at the very least. A lead image isn't necessary, or required of GA status, so moving it wouldn't hurt anything. Hope this advice seems doable. Drewcifer3000 20:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I've tried a couple of the CITE systems, and I can't say I found any of them particularly helpful. Even with the tools, it's just too much work to do the whole CITE thing. Yeah, I know, someone said that you should use CITE, but I can't help but feel that the cabal in question didn't actually have to use it. My real complaint with CITE is that it's inline, and since the template is so frikin' huge, it makes the articles almost uneditable if you do use it. Its so bad that I have given up completely on FA, and only go for GA these days -- GA doesn't even need inlines, and I'm just lazy enough to do those when the feeling strikes me. I have this nasty feeling in my gut that someone will actually go and make a new CITE system that actually works, and then all of the regs will be updated to say that you should use that system instead. And then I'll get messages saying articles are being put into GAR because they use the old system rather than the new one.

But here's the point I want you to consider -- let's say I did re-write all of the refs into CITE... do you think the article would be improved as a result? Or to put it another way, would you describe the current article as bad? Don't get me wrong, I am not writing off your suggestions by any means. But the process of getting even a GA has become so incredibly Byzantine that the idea of going through it again makes me shudder. I want to be sure that the article has real problems, as opposed to being listed for not following some regs that are quite possibly going to change in the future.

Maury 01:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maury. Verifiability equals credibility. Insisting on citation of sources often improves the quality of an article (by improving the quality of its info sources), but that isn't always the case. However, it does always improve the verifiability of the content. Thanks! -- Ling.Nut 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about citing sources (aka references), or CITEing sources? I am talking about the later, not the former. Maury 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I empathize with everything you've said: citing can be a very arduous task. Indeed, making a GA is a very difficult task, laregly because of in-line citations. The rationale behind them are manifold, and I won't go into that here, but I can assure you that the GA criteria will continue to require them, even if the actual process of making them is somehow made easier. That said, ask yourself a simple question: is GA status really that important to you? You've definitely made a good article here, so kudos there, but is it really that important to you for it to be a "Good Article" with a capital GA? If it is, then it would be worth putting in some time to add some in-line citations and take into consideration the other comments made. If not, then let it go. Regardless of it's classification in Misplaced Pages, I doubt 75% of Misplaced Pages's readers will know or care. That's just my honest opinion, take it as you will. Drewcifer 05:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GA does not require inline refs, read 2.b. And, as the article in question does use inline refs, is there any remaining issue of concern here, or should we all just move along? Maury 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote directly from WP:WIAGA 2b: "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles." Ok, but then there's two footnotes, one of which says "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced." The way that is worded, it is highly up to interpretation. My interpretation of it is this: any complete thought that is not common knowledge must come from some source. If a fact comes from a source, you should reference that source. Pretty simple really. That is my own interpretation of the criteria, but I don't think I am alone. And also, keep in mind that the in-line citations are only one issue out of 4 that I brought up in the original nomination, the others being the lead, caption, and reference formatting.. Drewcifer 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The problem (or at least, the main problem) with that idea is the term "common knowledge." Please note this article is in WikiProject Physics and thus falls within the purview of Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines.
2. Is that an oppose vote, or merely a continuation of the philosophical discussion? If it's the former, please show actionable points. But bear in mind #1 above.. :-) Thanks! --Ling.Nut 23:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's an Oppose vote. To reiterate the things that I think should be improved: the lead should be expanded to reflect WP:LEAD, the caption of the main image should be fixed somehow (I'd recommend just making the image and the explanation a subsection of the background section), format the references and in-line citations (I'd recommend using citation templates), and of course, add some in-line citations. This last point seems to be a point of contention, but to quote from the Scientific citation guidelines: "The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement... Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information ... it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources ... in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided. These inline citations are often inserted either after the first sentence of a paragraph or after the last sentence of the paragraph." I cut some parts out of the quote to make it more readable, so feel free to read the whole paragraph on the main page. The page also has an example which might help. Honestly, a good portion of the article already follows those guidelines, so it really shouldn't be that much of a problem to add a citation at least per paragraph. Drewcifer 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Maury, two things: First and foremost, I'm OK with this article as GA. I say Move along, nothing to see here — Pass. Second (and far less important, in this particular context), I still haven't quite figured out what you're unhappy with about citing refs. I mostly like the system we used in Georg Cantor, thou even that could be improved upon.. my main beef is that the inline refs should've been templated to make them clickable back to the relevant reference in the references section... so instead of plain text such as "Dauben 2004, p. 1." you'd have something clickable like Dauben (2004:1) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFDauben2004 (help). In fact. I may just change them some day. I dunno, I'm kinda lazy though :-P HTH --Ling.Nut 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I should have linked to this earlier... go to water memory, click edit, and try to follow the text. It visually illustrates the problems that you end up with when you try to edit them. The solution, IMHO, is to put the REF tag in the text and the CITE at the bottom. That's how it used to work with the original NOTE system, but if I reconstruct the history correctly, everyone complained so they made the new REF system work inline. But then they introduced CITE after this, and I think that's where the problem began. Maury 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak delist A decent article weighed down by a lot of technical language. I think some of the terms could do with small explanatory articles that could be linked. Anisotropy is one example. Also UV and IV should best be put in parentheses after their first full spelling before being used as initials thereafter. I think referencing should be increased to at least one a paragraph - in that case if the one source explains the whole para. You have quite a large number of sources and if someoen wanted to WP:Verify the article, then it becomes quite difficult to know what to check where. If the information in a paragraph is fully given in multiple sources, then just give one. The references themselves should eb better formatted. They can be given in Chicago style, if you don't like CITE. I don't have a problem with the lead. My computer and wikipedia between them have decided not to show me the pictures today. The caption looks useful where it is, but I wonder whether a key might make it less wordy.--Peter cohen 09:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist I disagree that the language is a problem. I think the article is accessable, it provides wikilinks for people needing more information, and seems to not be an issue. The long caption doesn't bother me either. However, there are some issues:

• I know that WP:SCG has a lower threshold for inline citations, but there is NO reference AT ALL provided for the first section on the ICF Mechanism. Even if there is no inline citations, there should be a reference for this information somewhere. All information should be in the references listed at the end of the article; even if not specifically footnoted. Since there are NO extra references beyond the footnotes; that leaves me no option than to say that all unfootnoted information is unreferenced, therefore unverifiable...
• The format of the references is substandard. References need basic bibliographic information. We have no authors, no publication information, no accessdates, NOTHING but some HTML links. These will need to be cleaned up. Using citation templates to do so is optional. Go ahead and add this information manually without the templates, or use them, that is fine too. But the references need to be formatted correctly.
• Frequently in the article, statistics and data are quoted. Even SCG requires that data be and numbers to carry specific inline cites; this article has several places where such data has no source. This must be fixed.
• Criticism section contains some uncited statements that beg for citation. Such as: "Critics point out". Really? Who are these critics? Have they published their concerns? If so, can we name them? or at least provide an inline citation to their published criticism?

Make the fixes and this will be GA quality. Without them, it is below standard and should be delisted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bringin' on the Heartbreak

Originally reviewed and given GA status a year and a half ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

• Citation needed tags in the Def Leoppard section.
• Short lead paragraph.

WikiProject Songs has been notified.
edit: I've since adjusted the above nomination based on improvements to the article since the original nomination. Drewcifer3000 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - per nom. Lead defintely needs expansion, and what few inline citations are listed need formatting work. Raime 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep; article now seems to meet criteria. However, could the lead be exapnded at all? It is adequate and it currently meets GA standards, but is still fairly short. Rai-me 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Could do with some proof-reading too. I suspect that a non-native speaker of English was involved given reference to the video being "shooted".--Peter cohen 19:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

on re-examination, nothing's happened to change my view. Citation tags, links to disambiguation pages. (Which Doug Smith directed the video? Not obviously any on that page. Perhaps the same as the Douglas Smith mentioned in the Hawkwind page but that is another disambiguation link with none of those candidates looking likely either.)--Peter cohen 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to delist. There are quotations and judgments about the song early in the Def Leppard section without in-line references. Also "shooted" is still there. Is this a valid conjugate of which I'm unaware, or is it indiation that a copy-edit is still needed.--Peter cohen 11:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Inadequate lead, more cites needed and also the cites currently present need formatting. LuciferMorgan 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  It might be perfectly acceptable for there to be no inline citations in the first half of the article - please provide details of the statements you think require them. --Joopercoopers 12:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've placed a grand total of 4 {{fact}} tags in the Def Leoppard section, so nothing too major. I also addressed a few of the typos mentioned above, as well as reformatted the in-line citations. The Lead still needs work, as do the uncited facts. Also, the disputed image I mentioned above seems to have been fixed. I've adjusted my nomination above to reflect the changes made. Drewcifer 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - I agree with the above. Weak lead, inadequate citation. Why is this two articles in one? Is that common for covers to be merged into originals? LaraLove♥ 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it's pretty common. It's because it's the same song, just different version of it. See Hurt (song) for another example. I know there's more examples (sometimes three or four versions are represented) but I can't think of any right now. Drewcifer 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have actioned the four fact tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been improved to what I believe to be GA standards. Unless there's any complaints, I'd like to close and archive this review as Keep. Drewcifer 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

You can't just close without consensus. It may be better to keep these sweeps reviews on the talk pages and avoid GA/R unless there are no responses or improvements on articles of questionable quality. Otherwise, do on holds. LaraLove 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't close it without consensus. That's why I went to the trouble to contact every reviewer above and asked them to re-review (yourself included). And I think bringing up the article here was justified since a) it was nominated really before sweeps even began, and b) noone has really come to the rescue of the article except $yd! and myself. Old reviews have a tendency to be forgot about even when changes have been made, hence my contacting everyone to have it reevalutated. It would've just sat here and eventually been delisted otherwise. I'll see about fixing up the article a little bit more based on your and Peter Cohen's suggestions. Drewcifer 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - HOWEVER, I think the credits and charts section should be switched and the lead needs to include something about chart positions, in my opinion. LaraLove 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Fixes still needed:
  • Direct quotes are unreferenced... First paragraph of the Def Leppard Version section, first paragraph of the Mariah Carey Version section, second paragraph of the Mariah Carey section.
  • Lead should be expanded some. It does not fully summarize the article.
  • Organization is a bit weak. Most Good and Featured song articles have "Development" "Reception" "Video" etc. subsections. I would expect to see these subsections under each of the versions. This is not a major issue, but still, while we are working on making this the best possible article...
• These fixes seem easy to do. I would also like to see more inline citations; there are some challengable statements in the article which express opinions (like "The popularity of the video and the exposure the band received caused a resurgence..." Really? Did someone make this connection outside of wikipedia? This sounds like an opinion to me), but I understand that I am in the minority in disliking unsourced opinions here...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

Article was last reviewed on May 27, 2006 by Cedars, so it's been awhile. Has entirely too many 'citation needed' tags, and there could be issues with the lead section. Might want to check out the section called 'the high', too. Either way, it's probably good for this article to have another look at this time, since it's been awhile. Dr. Cash 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist as per nom. The citation tags are the only real problem though. Hopefully someone can adopt the article soon and fix them up. Otherwise a pretty good article. Drewcifer3000 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Hold it This looks like a job for Superman. Let me have a short while with it and see about the cite needed tags. What's wrong with the lead?--SidiLemine 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, glad to see someone's willing to work on it. Also, while we're at it, i noticed that the references are formatted inconsistently. Might want to check on that too. Drewcifer3000 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, will do. Can someone please add fact tags as needed, and I'll do it as they come. I think this could actually have a shot at FAC. What do you think?--SidiLemine 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest reconsidering which sources are cited on the more medical matters. Cochrane or other systematic reviews, such as ], are better for reporting the state of play on current research than individual experimental studies. --Peter cohen 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm totally new to this kind of articles, and to medical quesytions in general. If you can, please point out the "weak" sources you find and I'll try to replace them with better ones.--SidiLemine 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The link that I was suggesting replacing is the one with the ref name "Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer" at . Unfortunately, I don't have time to get involved with checking all the other citations at present. (Another good article review post yesterday has already distracted me far too much and "interesting" things are happening as a result of my involvement.) If you're looking for the best citations on a topic then the phrase "systematic review" is a good indicator. Basically, it involves the reviewer(s) setting out clear criteria for what counts as something relevant to their area of interest and for assessing what they have decided is relevant. They then search article databases for as many relevant articles they can find and also the "grey literature" of findings that have not been published e.g. because they didn't have interesting results etc. These are assessed according to the defined criteria. Because systematic reviews assess the work of other researchers and put together the results of the papers that have been assessed as of a good standard using transparent criteria, they are just the sort of secondary literature that Misplaced Pages policy favours. Anyway, I'll put cannabis on my watch list and have a look when I have more time.--Peter cohen 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the good advice. I'll be sure to look into it.--SidiLemine 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please Review and advise.--SidiLemine 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, but I would say some of the sections still need some in-line citations. I think that is just the nature of the beast: alot of the content of the article is "controversial or contentious" because the subject is controversial and contentious, therefore in-line citations are required. So the problem sections, as I see them, would be the last paragraph of Government debate, Criminalization and legalization (you may be able to lift some sources from the Legality of cannabis page), and The high. Also, the references still need to be properly formatted. I know this sounds like a ton of work, but hopefully still seems doable. Drewcifer 09:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Would anyone mind adding tags where appropriate? That way I can sweep through and add references, etc. --SidiLemine 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go through and add some tags. No promises that I'll have time to do the whole article, but it should get you going in the right direction. Lara♥Love 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist as having potentially controversial uncited facts, including {{fact}} tags present. Article doesn't feel comprehensive, and the intro needs work. VanTucky 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist(EC) - A few things I've noticed while going through the article:
  • The lead is too long. It should be a summary of the article. Currently, it's too detailed. Note what chemical compounds it contains in the lead, but expand on what they do or how they affect the user in the body of the article.
    • Done (I think?)--SidiLemine 12:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Expand on Justice Thomas' filed opinion. His full name doesn't even come up. I also think the full names should appear first, followed by last alone.
    • Done.--SidiLemine 12:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • References need to be consistently formatted.
  • Spell out numbers ten and under.
    • Done--SidiLemine 12:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • These things I'm correcting as I see them, but perhaps correct them if I miss some:
    • All dates need to be formatted for user date preferences. Currently there are some without this.
      • What does that mean?--SidiLemine 12:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
        • September 6 2007 rather than September 6, 2007. Lara♥Love 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
          • OK. Thanks.--SidiLemine 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Use of U.S. needs to include periods (meaning no US). Also, there is a back and forth between spelling out and abbreviating. This isn't really necessary. U.S. can be used after the first spelled out occurrence.
    • Watch out for typos/misspellings.
    • There is a need for additional wikification. Lara♥Love 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article's summary is full of alot of mistakes and misplaced information:

for example:

I also think this line needs to be reworded to be more accurate

Humans have been consuming cannabis since prehistory, although since the 20th century a rise in its use for recreational, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes.

It should read

Humans have been consuming cannabis since prehistory for nutrition, fiber, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes, and since the 20th century there has been a rise in its recreational use.

I also don't think the section relating cannabis to other drugs is appropriate unless it is on the US policy section.

I also don't understand the |other methods| section, and I think it needs to be removed. gumballs in high school in ridiculous

I dont think there is enough external links and resources to continue good research on cannabis.

Kief is not the flowering tops of the cannabis plant, and and is not often mixed with tobacco, it is the trichrome matter from the flowering tops compressed according to the Moroccans.

Cannabis is clearly a Hallucinogen, which often exhibit symptoms of other drugs, and the classification is not confusing.

The new cultivation techniques should focus on the invention of hydroponics bc of the illegality. Not because it makes a stronger product.

This Line should be re written:

The production of cannabis for drug use remains illegal throughout most of the world through the 1961 ......

It should read The production of cannabis remained legal throughout most of the world until the United Nations 1961........

Cannabis was legal for much longer then it was illegal, and the wording of this article makes it appear as if it has been illegal longer.

I would like to be given permission to go in and edit this article

Let me know if I can

--The Pot Snob 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Rollins

Article has an unnecessary trivia section and a very large amount of lists. Article also lacks a section on the criticisims of the artists work. --Tarret 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Necessity of quote in the lead (which is not recommended) is questionable. Wikilinked term in quote is also not recommended. Terribly under-referenced. References also need to be consistently formatted. Otherwise, it shouldn't be too far from GA. Correct the noted issues and renominate at WP:GAC. Lara♥Love 05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still under-referenced. Fact tag near the end (although, there needs to be additional references past that one tag). Also, the inclusion of the official website external link in the body needs to be removed. Lara♥Love 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. (Removed the external link). It needs more references and expansion; it doesn't cover Rollins career in Black Flag too well. CloudNine 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Not enough references, improperly-formatted references, way too list-y (I'd recommend separating the end into a new discography/bibliography article, perhaps List of Henry Rollins works or something like that), a big uncited trivia section, switches between citations and external jumps, no sections on either the impact and popularity nor criticism of his work. -- Kicking222 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Delist Keep Inconsistent referencing (Link no 3 should have been an inline reference and appears to be broken). Trivia section should be deleted/integrated. Personally, I don't have a problem with the rest of the lists. The biography section from the last three pargraphs of Henry Rollins#Black Flag down is very sparcely referenced. Given the number of forked articles, I'd guess that a lot of the facts are referenced in those articles. Things like Rollins's friend being shot should be easy to source and fixable in a relatively short time. If the referencing can't be fixed in reasonble time from now, then delist stands.(Datestamp matches my striking initial comments and inserting new text.)--Peter cohen 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC) In view of progress since I last looked, I've changed my vote from conditional delist to conditional keep just to acknowledge what is happening.--Peter cohen 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've just discovered this GA/R (can the Alternative music Wikiproject be notified in future?), and I may be able to save; I've got access to several good references. Removed the trivia section. CloudNine 06:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Removed quote in lead, moved list to Works of Henry Rollins. Now referencing and expanding. (diff) CloudNine 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but only on the strength of the improvements. Good work cloud nine. --linca 12:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: based on improvements, I don't see any of the concerns that have been mentioned above any longer. IvoShandor 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Will improve and send to WP:FAC soon. Referencing and expansion is still ongoing though. CloudNine 11:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article will have to be completely rewritten before that. It is based on a complete copyvio of this article. That's still a great work you did Cloud Nine. If you are willing to reword it, I'd be glad to help with the few missing sources.--SidiLemine 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• No. That page is an earlier version of the article. See the bottom of the page. CloudNine 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Amazing. Does that mean it isn't suitable as a source?

• Delist - Not broad in coverage, lacks alot of references. Drewcifer3000 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Broadness is a serious issue, and there are a few tags that need resolving. The Radio and Television work is a real problem; there are only two recent things listed, where as I know for a fact he has done a LOT more TV than this. He's a frequent contributor on the VH1 nostalgia programs, he's done a 1/2 hour standup special on Comedy Central (Live and Ripped). A very quick google search turned up this: Not saying it is an adequate or reliable source, but it's a start. IMDB might be a good start too... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, large parts of the article are still unreferenced or in need of more referencing, such as the entire Rollins Band section, and most of the Black Flag section. Plus, the article contains no reception of Rollin's work, for an artist of his type there is LOTS of criticism (positive and negative) out there to draw from. This article makes NO review of the reception of his work, which again, seems to indicate a lack of broadness required for a GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree. Still referencing and expanding; I'll create a 'Legacy' section soon. CloudNine 10:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion: The Works section should have a paragraph or two talking about his works. That's not to say you should just list them, but give a brief overview of both his solo works and works within a band. Just having a link for a section isn't all that great. Drewcifer3000 03:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it's a LONG way away from FAC, but IMHO, it is a GA. The references could be enhanced, but it's not grounds enough to delist.Balloonman 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I still don't see where the major problems have been adressed (broadness and referncing issues. see above). This has been here for a month. Even if the vote is deadlocked, we should archive this as a no-consensus. Could everyone please re-read the article and see what you think about this. I'd like to see this one off the backlog soon... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like CloudNine is still working on the article, but I still don't think it meets criteria. Since it has been here for a month, and there still seems to be alot of work (criticisms, prose cleanup, etc) I'd recommend delisting the article for now with an invitation to renominate the article here when chief editors feel the article is ready. However there is no consensus here to delist, so at least archive this discussion and hope for the best. Drewcifer 10:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had too much time to work on the article recently, although I think it's improved greatly since the initial version. (My priority is the Rollins band section) I'm not sure about including a "Musical style", "Criticisms" or "Legacy" section; Rollins' only solo releases have been spoken word, and I've not read many criticisms of them. What do you think? CloudNine 10:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take part of my comments above back. Criticisms are usually reserved for specific articles or songs, since people's opinions might change drastically. I guess my only concern with the article is an overall lack of breadth (the whole is one big Biography section), but I'm just not sure what else to add. Catch 22 I guess. Drewcifer 10:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any available information on his personal life? Lara♥Love 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a lot. He's not married, so I expect the article, past his early life, will only cover his professional life. CloudNine 11:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per several uncited facts likely to be challenged, including some with {{fact}} tags. The section on his radio and television work needs serious expansion as well. The article as a whole reads like a fan site. Let's have less adoring tribute and more sober encyclopedic tone that provides sufficient context thank you. The article as a whole does a poor job of stating the obvious. VanTucky 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm hoping to work on this article again today. Could you point out the prose that reads like a fan-site? CloudNine 09:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• (I have not yet been shown examples of fan-site prose in the article, so it's hard to act on this delisting. {{fact}} tags will soon be addressed. CloudNine 11:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This review has been going for more than a month now. I recommend we delist the article until editors feel it is ready to be reevaluated, at which time a fresh review can be started. Drewcifer 06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would concur with that decision. There is no shame with renominating the article at WP:GAC once it is finally up to standard. This one has had MORE than enough time to work out the kinks, none of the major criticisms (lack of broadness, poor referencing) have been addressed. We have been told over and over again that they are GOING to be adressed, but I see no major changes in moving this towards GA since I first looked at it four weeks ago...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• There have been major changes! I've made 130 edits to the article, in which time I've made the biography section fully comprehensive, reorganised the article, removed the trivia, referenced several uncited facts. What is the article lacking in broadness exactly?

There have definately been major changes, and the article is definately much better. There do seem to be a few lingering issues though. You can have a few more days I suppose, but it's not like we're gonna hold you to a deadline or anything. I just figured it's been up here a really long time, and that it would be better to re-adress this issue starting from scratch whenever that time comes. I didn't mean to downplay the substantial improvements that have been made, it was just a pragmatic suggestion. Drewcifer 09:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! There wasn't any work done on the article until about half-way through its review. What would you say was the top priority? CloudNine 09:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to imply that no work had been done ever on this article, just that the issues that I saw when I first looked at the article had not been fixed since I had first looked at it. The biggest issue remaining is the expansion (with full referencing, of course) of two sections: Musical style and Radio and television appearances. Also, the radio and television section continues to be largely unreferenced... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a Negative Nancy, Jayron, but I given the recent changes to the GA criteria (diff) I don't really see what needs to be referenced. Anything specific you had in mind? Drewcifer 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While the Henry Rollins Show section and the Other Appearences section do not contain any information that I would find contentious, as there is nothing there that is not referenced directly to the shows in question (Rollins appeared in XXXX is plainly self referenced to the credits of XXXX and does not need any further referencing... I know this) HOWEVER, the section on Harmony In My Head contains several statements I would think beg referencing and are easily challengable, such as:

• "The show aired every Monday evening, with Rollins playing a variety of music which could mostly be classified under the broad rock and roll umbrella" According to whom? If someone classifies something, that's analysis. We do not provide our own analysis of his show. WHO has decided that his show plays this type of music. I am not denying that it does. I only note that this is a statement of opinion, and note that we do not provide opinions at wikipedia, we report the opinions of others.
• Also, "Drawn almost entirely from Rollins' own extensive collection" is a surprising fact. I would want to know what this statement is based on. Is there a published account or review or interview somewhere where this statement is verified?
• "Rollins posted playlists and commentary on-line, but due to fan demand, these lists were expanded with more info and published in book form as Fanatic! by his 2.13.61 imprint in November 2005." Really? Is this why it was published? Fan demand? According to whom? This sentance provides analysis. Analysis is opinion, and challangable, and thus needs reference.

WIAGA says that challangeable statements need inline cites. Simple statements of easily checkable facts (He appeared on XXXX show on YYYY date) don't seem all that challengable. However, in situations where critical analysis is done (That some sort of music belongs to one genre or another, for example) or where superlative or otherwise unusual claims are made, they are challengable and need references.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(dedenting) Indeed. That's the only section I haven't tackled (apart from expanding Musical style), and it's the only one with problems. CloudNine 07:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:GAR
• WP:GA/R

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
   • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
   • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
   • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
     • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
     • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
     • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)

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

Denial of Soviet occupation

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The promotion of this article has been brought into question. When reviewing, please take notice to the creation date (September 22) and the fact that the article is now fully protected. LaraLove 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The "question" in question is non-factual accusation by Irpen. Whoever is interested, ask me for details.

The creation date is deceptive, as the article's material had "fermented" in an userspace sandbox for about three months; September 22 was the day of copying the content to mainspace. And finally, there was no sign of edit war between nomination and review of this article.

Sadly, there's been an edit war now, so a review is pointless at this time. It's terribly regrettable how simple trolling can invalidate a good article ... Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nahuatl

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article contains many statements which seem to beg more detailed inline citations. For ONE example, the Geographic distribution section is entirely unreferenced. This will need to be brought up to standard to remain a GA. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Looking at the article in its current state, it appears that the good article criteria are not being met. Specifically, criteria 2 is the problem; this article is well below standard with regards to its level of referencing. There are no inline citations at all, and many places seem to beg for them. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew language

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article does not seem to meet the good article criteria at this time, specifically criteria 2 (b) seems to be lacking. Many parts of this article have unverifiable statements which are not supported by inline citations where they seem to need them. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add {{fact}} tags where you perceive a need for them. Thank you. --Ling.Nut 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be being disruptive to the text of the article simply to make a WP:POINT? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

no. How would you like it of your Significant Other gave you an ultimatum: Shape up or I'm leaving you. Then when you ask what you need to do to shape up, he/she doesn't reply... listing an article on GA/R is such an ultimatum. :-) -- Ling.Nut 04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As a counter arguement, sometimes a spouse is so out of line, they should KNOW when they have screwed up... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist This article needs much more than fact tags, it needs a {{morereferences}}. Huge chunks of sections are completely unreferenced, starting with the origins section. Rather than asking for fact tags, which would really mke the article look ugly, just look over the article. If you see sections without inline citations, add them. They will not be hard to find. Wrad 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Esperanto

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article seems to be below standard with regards to WP:WIAGA criteria 2b, specifically that there are tags and headers asking for additional referencing, as well as several sections that make unverifiable claims, and thus need inline cites to make these claims verifiable. I recommend that we delist the article, if changes cannot be made to bring it up to standard. Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is already delisted, since 4 September. Gimmetrow 00:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was doing the review of this article as a part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force sweep. I do not believe that this article qualifies because I think that it is predominantly a list and should probably sent to FLC where necessary. The main substance of this piece is that there is a short section on the format of the warm up matches, and then a very large table of statistics and scoreboards. The tables far outweigh the actual prose in the article which actually discuss the actual cricket so I don't think that it is an article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist Without statement of the article quality; GA just does not handle lists, and this is essentially a list article. WP:FLC is the proper place to go. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist Agree with above. This is a list (a good one at that), and should be nominated at FLC. I don't think it'll have too much trouble being nominated there. Drewcifer 07:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist While I think this topic could conceivably be an article, its currently a list as far as I can tell. Homestarmy 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: as writer of the article, I asked for a GA review as I really don't see much difference between this and the main article (2007 Cricket World Cup)... Is it just down to the amount of prose in it, or what? Not that I mind this being delisted too much (I'm abstaining due to the obvious COI, fyi), really. Cheers. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Needs more prose to be considered GA. Is really a list. - Shudde 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey State Constitution

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was doing the review of this article as a part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force sweep and found that:

1) The article lack sources for some of its statements. See, for instance, 'Previous versions' section;

2) Some references are strange. What does ref 41 "See notes (2)" mean ?

The bold (2) in the same section as the footnotes. {{ref}}/{{cite}} might improve this, but it should be clear to any reader with initiative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

3) The article is not well written. Its language is so formalistic, which sometimes results in confusion. See 'Taxation and Finance' subsection;

4) Some parts of the article look like a number of sentences unconnected to each other. See the third paragraph in 'Schedule' subsection.

This list is not complete. So I think the article should be delisted. Ruslik 09:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You could just delist it immedietly, it seems like that would be quicker, and if you're reasons are accurate, (and if there's more of them) they seem like fair grounds for immediete delisting. Homestarmy 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not worked on this article, but it seems better than most of those GA lists. If GA wants to become a mark of bad articles, that's fine. too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep There are a few minor issues. The two bolded notes (1) and (2) should probably be incorporated as standard footnotes with the rest for consistancy. Also, there are a few direct quotes here or there without citations, this will need to be fixed. Thirdly, the random trivia on the constitution's length in the lead seems to violate criteria 3 (b) on unecessary details. The lead maybe could be expanded some, but though its short, I couldn't find it much for want. On the balance, with a few quick fixes, this article seems to be GA quality. The fixes should probably be made soon, but they are easy and if made, I see no reason for this not to stay a GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

HiPER

This article, which was described by the person directing the project as being "superb", was failed by a GA reviewer for lacking in-line references. Of course, in-lines references are not a requirement for GA. Is this the right place to take this? Or a re-list on GA? The section above right seems to suggest this is the place. Maury 00:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While Tarret's review was rather terse, and while the new criteria doesn't really state that an article must have plenty of inline citations in general, (But rather, specifies certain things that must have citations with them) this article does seem to suffer from referencing problems. For one thing, there's only three. Also, the only section written with summary style seems to be using a compleatly unreferenced parent section of another article. The e-mail thing is compleatly unreliable, simply because there's no specification on where it is, therefore making it impossible for me or anyone else to figure out exactly what this e-mail is referencing. The other two references seem reliable, but the second is rather short and can't be referencing very much of this article, and while the first is a very authoritative looking primary source, that's all there is. While the references seem to describe what HiPER is, surely a subject like this has been in the press, or has been subject to critical commentary (with "Critical" not necessarily meaning negative) by scientists or reaserchers or something, who would have a vested interest in such a reaserch facility? As with most articles referenced only by one or two references, the chances of important things not being in an article becomes very great. Unless you can prove that the references given are awesome enough to almost compleatly cover absolutly everything important over this subject, I Support the Fail of this article. Homestarmy 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, there's only three

Actually, there's only two. The first is the original technical presentation intended to be distributed to other researchers in the field. I used this to produce the vast majority of the article. The other is a news article about it. there are several others like the second one, but the only reason I included it was because it refed the GEKKO work. I could include the others, but they would simply be padding.

Also, the only section written with summary style seems to be using a compleatly unreferenced parent section of another article

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to. I'll guess though, do you mean the Background section? If so, the identical section is also used in several other articles that have passed GA. The references are fully available in that article, a click away.

The e-mail thing is compleatly unreliable

As stated on the talk page, the e-mail was used solely to verify the caption of the image at the top; although he also passed along several spelling and grammar tips.

Unless you can prove that the references given are awesome enough to almost compleatly

I have no idea what a reference would have to be like to pass the "awesome" criterion "compleatly". All I can say is that the article is essentially a printed (as in "words instead of pictures") version of the first reference. This project is very new and there simply isn't a lot published on it. The entire project, at this point, consists of that first document and a few semi-related research documents that you can find here. New sources will come forth as a result of the funding process, which is going forward now. I will add these as they become available. But in the meantime, the article is based on those references.

Once again I am sad to see that GA turns into a "reference review". There's not one statement in your post above that has anything to do with the article actually being good or not. Maury 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was indeed referring to the background section. Somehow, I didn't spot the two refs in the parent section at first, so I suppose this article's background section isn't necessarily unreferenced compleatly, but the citations aren't in the right place for WP:SCG, so I assume they don't reference anything below the middle of that section. Alone, I don't think that's enough for this article to be failed, but one problem isn't always what leads to an article not becoming a GA, as is this case I assume.
• If the e-mail is just related to the picture caption, I guess it doesn't matter as much then. That caption seems pretty long, but WP:CAP doesn't seem to suggest that a caption must be short, but rather, that the reader may lose interest if its longer than three lines, so I don't think the caption is really much of a problem. However, if the e-mail isn't posted anywhere where someone besides yourself can easily get at it, there's no way for anyone else to verify that anything in that caption is supported by the e-mail or not. Without accessability, all there is backing up that caption is your word that it accuratly reflects the e-mail's content, and nothing more. But since its a caption, i'm not really sure if verifiability is entirely necessary, I don't think i've ever seen a caption referenced before anyway, and the description seems reasonable enough.
• Ok, I guess it wasn't entirely fair for me to ask you to prove a negative, (Namely, that there's nothing more out there that's notable to this subject) this kind of situation hasn't come up very many times :/. But just a cursory google search seems to reveal that this article indeed is missing some information on this topic. For instance, this article seems to indicate that rather than merely being located in the EU, this laser is actually backed by it. Most of that article is just about the laser and likely repeats what's already there, but information about the EU backing this project isn't in it. Currently, the article answers the "What" of what the subject is, but it seems to be missing the "Who", as in who all is involved, even when such information could concievably be in the wiki article and be referenced. A little more digging might reveal more, such as this link, though hopefully from places with less questionable reliability. (It's from a partisan source, though the article itself doesn't seem biased) Or perhaps this, which appears more reliable and reveals more information about which countries are involved with this project. However, no references like these are in the wiki article, and just having one reliable technical document saying what exactly HiPER is doesn't seem to grasp the entirety of this subject from what I can tell. Homestarmy 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Oh I agree, some of these would be good additions. But did you stop to check the dates on them? The article can hardly be blamed for not including information published long after it was written! Maury 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse fail First off, what is it with ginormous captions in power-related articles? Am I missing something? That's enough text to make a separate section altogether. Also the referencing is a problem. They don't follow any type of format, and the referencing of an email is a no-no (it's tempting, I know, but impossible to verify). And some more 3rd party sources would be nice. Most of the article doesn't really require in-line citations, except for whenever data/statistics are brought up. I added a few tags to make things a little easier. This article is certainly not beyond help, but in its current state it's a little weak. Drewcifer 23:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, what is it with ginormous captions in power-related articles? Am I missing something? It's tempting to answer flippantly here, but you brought up the same argument against the NIF article and no one agreed that it was reason for failure. You appear to be doing so again here, but I fail to see any difference between the two cases. Why do you believe long captions are bad? I've never seen you explain this. That's enough text to make a separate section altogether. Perhaps so, please expand on what you're thinking. What would the section be called? Or would the text simply be placed in the Description section? Maury 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I did bring up a similar issue with the National Ignition Facility, you're right: I meant to imply that but I guess it was lost. The last time I brought it up I wouldn't say it was completely disputed, though the review moved onto more pressing matters. But you're right, that in and of itself is not really that big of a deal. I suppose it's more of a pet peeve of mine, not grounds for delisting necessarily. Although such massive captions would be contrary to WP:CAP, that guideline isn't directly part of the GA criteria, only as part of the MoS that isn't required for GA (but it is still recommended). As a suggestion however, I would say that the text would be better suited in the description section. After all it's more of a straight-forward description of HIPER than anything else in the description section. Drewcifer 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I might try this. How about something like "... the laser beamlines (blue in the diagram above)..." Do you think that would work? Maury 01:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. Drewcifer 07:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(to Maurey) Well, that's what Misplaced Pages is good for, it can constantly be updated when new information makes itself available :/ . Homestarmy 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's why we're here! The only reason I haven't added them already is because I've been busy elsewhere. And it's great to see that there's been funding movement, when I wrote it everything was very much a paper project and a prayer. Maury 01:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thunderball (novel)

Listing

Talk:Thunderball (novel)

Two fellows, Alientraveller and Awadewit seem to have forgotten the difference between a GA and an FA. Their demands are endless and have failed this article twice, saying that controversy section needs more sources (It has seven) and add this style section and that section. Bloody hell! Vikrant Phadkay 08:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Alientraveller 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But what about Awadewit comparing it with FAs? Is this called GA reviewing? Vikrant Phadkay 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse failureAnd the article does NOT meet GA standards for the following reasons:

• Criteria 2 (b): In-line citations lacking from several ideas that beg them, as ONE example, (and there are more, so fixing this ONE will not fix the entire problem): "the Daily Express suddenly cancelled the strip (per Lord Beaverbrook) on February 10, 1962, when Beaverbrook and Fleming disputed the rights to the short story "The Living Daylights"." This is an interesting analysis of someone motivation. Statements of simple fact (X did Y) may not be challengable, but statments of analysis (X did Y because of Z) are challengable and require citations to sources where said analysis occured.
• Criteria 3 (a): An article on a work of fiction that contains NO section on critical reception seems well below broadness. This was the central theme of Awadewit's failure notes. Awadewit didn't say she was comparing this article to FA standards and endorsing the failure based on that. Awadewit was giving some articles to use to model this article on. If your goal is to make this the best possible Misplaced Pages article it can be, you could do no better than to model the format of the articles she lists. But this seems to easily fail the broadness criteria if the information exists (Flemming is a well analyzed author; there is HEAPS of literary criticism on him, and that this article makes no use of it makes it fail 3 (a).)
• Criteria 3 (b) or 1 (b-layout): While we're at it, the controversy section seems out of balance with the rest of the article. In the first case, it seems to be mostly about the controversy surrounding the production of the FILM, and thus really not belonging in the article on the NOVEL (thus being unneccessarily detailed per 3 (b) ) AND, what inforamtion is kept about the production of the film really belongs in the section on adaptations (per 1(b) and layout).
• Criteria 1 (a); using correct grammar. Proper paragraph organization is part of good grammar. The second paragraph of the lead, for example, is about the film adaptations, then there is a random sentance about a plot device (SPECTRE)?
• Criteria 1 (b-lead): The lead itself is NOT a true summary of the article. It omits parts of the article (no part of the plot summary appears in the lead) AND it introduces information not found in the actual article (HERE is the missing criticism. If its here, why is there no criticism section???)

Is that enough yet? This is well below GA standard, and continues to be after several reviews. In the state it is in at this time, it is not GA ready. I suggest making the above fixes and renominating at GAC. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't looked at the article yet, but per Jayron's last comment I would like to point out that separate criticism sections are specifically discouraged by WP:NPOV. Not having a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section is far from a legit failing criteria. VanTucky 06:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I was using the term to refer to the practice of "literary criticism" whereby a work of fiction is analyzed critically (and not where bad things are said about it). Criticism can mean "looked at with a critical eye" and not just "bad things said about something". This article lacks ANY reference to reception in the press, reviews of the work, scholarly analysis, sales figures, ALL of which would be "criticism"...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. It's just usually (on Misplaced Pages anyway) people use simply "Criticism" in the second use you mentioned, and "Critical reception" or the like in the classical sense. Funny thing to get confused, considering arts criticism is my business! Anyway, I agree completely. A lack of such a section is not acceptable. VanTucky 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse fail per the immediate above. VanTucky 06:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse failure per Jayron's comment. This article does not yet meet GA criteria. Rai-me 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse failure also per Jayron. Homestarmy 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Nominated at WP:GAC by Kaypoh at 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC). I have done an initial review, and I think it mostly meets the criteria, with a couple of concerns. Primarily, this is a very controversial subject, and pertains to wikipedia itself, and I don't feel that one editor should make the decision alone to list this as a GA, nor do I want an inexperienced GA reviewer to quick-pass this article. Additionally, it should be noted that the article failed WP:FAC only about a week ago (here's the archive of that), though it's equally important to note that the FA criteria are still different than the GA criteria. Dr. Cash 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The "Academics" section doesn't start by saying where specifically these academicians and students are, since the only sources are for England and America, that should probably be spelled out more explicitly. Homestarmy 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (US game show)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Large sections are unreferenced and the article is not complete in coverage of the subject. --Czac 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist Lead needs work, the only picture lacks a fair-use rationale. No External links section. Could also be expanded substantially, I believe. Drewcifer 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist As nominator

Weak Delist - Not beyond help. Mostly minor issues. I don't see too many problems with the lead, but the second paragraph could use some prose work. The external links section seems mostly irrelevant - why are IMDb links to classmate biographies needed? The "Controversial questions" and "Records and statistics" sections need references. However, other than those sections, I don't see many referencing issues. The "Gameplay" section is redundant - it seems to me that "contestant" is repeated far too many times. Raime 01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep I reached basically the same conclusions that Raime did, but believe it deserves the weak keep rather than the weak delete. The picture needs a rationale or needs to go, but beyond that I felt taht it meets the criteria for a GA. The section on "controversial questions" needs a citation or it needs to go as well---it appears to be OR as is. The records/statistics section appears that it might have a reference, but if that reference is to cover all the cited facts, it should be associated with them all. (On a stable piece of work, one citation would be fine, but when it is an electronic format where people can add new items, each bullet needs it's own reference.)Balloonman 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Koenigsegg CCX

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Content issues primiarily PrinceGloria 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am bringing this up for review mainly to gather others' opinions. I am really happy to see every automotive article getting promoted to GA, but at the same time, having been involved with the GA process rather intensely earlier in my Misplaced Pages career, I am also concerned about standards. The major issue I have with this article is one that is slipping throught the cracks of the WIAGA, but nonetheless very important IMHO - I believe the article's content is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article on the subject. If you look at the article, for the most part it consists of a description of technical details of the car, which, even being interested in automobiles above all else, I find hard to digest and relate to. I believe a casual reader might find it very hard to digest through it and get any meaningful message. The other part is a collection of statements made by reviewers, chosen on a purely arbitrary basis (not that I have issues with the choice - you just cannot choose them in an objective manner). This might be hearwarming to enthusiasts, but IMHO isn't really encyclopedic due to its subjective nature.

A secondary issue I have with the article is the quality of prose, which I find questionable at times. For example:

The CCX is also available as the CCXR, which is the same car except that the engine is tuned to run on biofuel.

For me, it is a rather clumsy way of putting it. There are also spelling problems, like "existance" at the beginning of the second paragraph.

I've sad bad things, now for the good things - the article is very rife with references, which is still a rarity among Misplaced Pages article, and at first sight it appears that those were done correctly. For me, this would be a perfect article for a car enthusiasts' Wiki (I don't know if there is a reliable one), but unfortunately it fails on being encyclopedic. I see a lot of effort put into the article, and I guess I'd have to agree that a truly encyclopedic article on the subject would be much more boring and less satisfactory for the car's enthusiasts than this one is. But, I still believe that Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic nature should take precedence... PrinceGloria 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. Two formal issues - in the infobox, the standard is not to include information on whether a transmission is "optional" or not. Secondly, the CCXR is listed as "successor", while it is at the same time described in the article as a version of the same car.

Weak Keep - Yes the writing is poor at times, and yes it is a little overly technical, but what else would you expect in a car article? Unless the car is culturally significant or had a recall or something disastrous, what else is there? I don't think it's a crime to go into too much detail. Drewcifer 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I won't voice an opinion here because I am the one who re-wrote the article, but the point that Drewcifer brought up is why the article is almost all statistics; there's not much more too the car. Also the reviewer comments are from every magazine/website etc. that I could find that actually drove the car. There are many copies of the Koenigsegg press-release and some websites add extra words like a Misplaced Pages article, but the quotations are from people who have driven the CCX. James086 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I can think of at least half a dozen articles on the CCX that are not included (and given that I only read in a few languages, there are bound to be more), so how do you determine which are to be included and which are not? IMHO, reviews are unencyclopedic. I also believe you can write an article on a car not limiting yourself to listing specs - please see such automotive GAs as Mitsubishi i, Simca Vedette or Autobianchi Primula. PrinceGloria 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Facing the Giants

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

After re-review of the article I've found it to have the following issues:

• The biggest problem with the article is alot of POV prose, most notably in the Reviews and Rating controversy. Sentences like "Some critics, perhaps disparagingly, complained that characters confronting problems from an evangelical Christian worldview belonged in Sunday School rather than portrayed in film, as if to say a film could not be well made or entertain with such a worldview." and "yet some reviewers hint that Hollywood often doesn't do as well." should be changed to a more neutral tone.
• The plot section also has some prose problems. Instead of going into all the sub-plots, I'd recommend a much more straight-forward "this happened then this happened." The thing is, the plot section should ideally by in-universe. Also, the later part of the section, the big quote and the last paragraph don't fit with the rest of the section. I'd recommend giving that stuff a subsection of some sort. Also, there are a few more POV issues here too: "This supplies both poignant and comedic moments."
• "Events and situations work themselves out" huh? Please expand.
• The lead section is way to short. See WP:Lead for more info.
• The formatting of the in-line citations are inconsistent with usual style and even with each other. I would recommend using citation templates, though using these are not a GA requirement. Consistency and proper attribution, however, are required, and the templates help do alot of that work for you.
• There are a bit too many External links. See WP:EL for more info.

(Updated the list based on improvements Drewcifer 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)) Drewcifer 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Article fails multiple criteria of the Manual of Style and WikiProject Film's guidelines. I think the issue with the quotations above is due more to poor writing than bias, but either way it needs fixing. VanTucky 04:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist The lead alone is a good enough reason to delist. - Shudde 09:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I cleaned the article up somewhat, but it would be great if the original editors would continue to improve it. I expanded the lead a little, removed the statements in the review section (one had a dead link), fixed the plot statement (it looks like the original plot before the film was released was kept and then just expanded upon), switched over to the citation templates, and removed some of the external links.--Nehrams2020 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - improvements are significant, but it still needs some minor work. The lead could still be expanded more. I agree with Drewcifer; the plot section could be more straight-forward. However, the referencing and citation issues have now been completely fixed. It is mostly the lead I am concerned with, and it is certainly not terrible, but is is just not completely adequate yet. Rai-me 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm happy to say this article is much better since the improvements. The only remaining issues (small issues) are the lead and the plot section. Job well done Nehrams! Drewcifer 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Somebody else is going to have to do the lead and plot, those are my two weak points on Misplaced Pages, and I haven't seen the film so I have no info on the plot. Also, I believe the original editor who brought it up to GA status hasn't been editing on Misplaced Pages for a while. --Nehrams2020 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

University of Texas at Austin

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article contains a large, mostly unreferenced trivia section. It also contains a possibly-unfree image in the "Notable people" section (disclaimer: I am the one who listed the image PUI and its status is still undecided). →Wordbuilder 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've had reservations with the "UT in popular culture" section for some time now, as I think it weakens an otherwise strong article. I therefore have no issue with either deleting it entirely or moving any of the items elsewhere to preserve the article's GA status. jareha 02:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article would benefit by de-emphasizing or removing the Popular Culture section and removing the photos of Notable People. The article's contributors examine other GA-class university articles and their talk pages; they hold tips for improvement. Majoreditor 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with removing the photos, as they don't add much to the article. Additionally, the photos introduce the complication of determining whom — out of such a long list of people — deserves prominent placement. jareha 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've deleted the gallery of notable people and the "UT in popular culture" section. jareha 07:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Concur with above. I have no problems keeping it GA IF these concerns are addressed. — BQZip01 —  03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment—The article looks much better. The changes definitely strengthen it. I was leery of making wholesale deletions without the input of other editors since that sometimes causes problems with other contributors. →Wordbuilder 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep GA - I like Jareha's changes. They definitely strengthen the article. I believe it once again complies with GA standards. Johntex\ 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep GA - A tad listy at times, but some sections just require that. Drewcifer 22:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Angolan Civil War

Angolan Civil War (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I don't believe this article received an adequate review. There is a copyright image which lacks a fair use rationale, and a movie poster that is inappropriately being used in this article (the copyright on the image clearly states it is only appropriate for fail use when it is used to provide critical commentary on the film in question or the poster it self; additionally, the fair use rationale for this image should be specific to each article in which it is used, not a blanket FUR for all uses), the years are not wikified in full dates and some dates are not wikified at all it's very stubby in places with many one-sentence paragraphs, there is a main article link to a redlink article, there are inconsistencies in formatting voting results (ie. 54-22 vs. 12/91), I believe the use of dashes needs to be corrected, it is in need of a good copy-edit, and the references are not consistently formatted correctly. LARA♥LOVE 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist per nomination. The footnotes/citations in particular are a mess. Drewcifer 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Lara's points are valid. However...
  • Copyright image: gone
  • Dead link to a main article: fixed
  • Vote style: Consistent
  • Dashes: fixed
  • Year wikifying:fixed

• Still to be done:
  • Merging stub-paragraphs
  • Converting refs to Cite format

Perspicacite 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Updated fixed items. LaraLove♥ 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Once the copyedit and ref formatting are done, does anyone else think it should try for an FAC?---SidiLemine 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Cincinnati Kid

The Cincinnati Kid (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

There have been two recent reviews, both of which raise similar critiques. The big sticking points seem to be the plot summary, the notes on play section and the DVD section. The reviewers are saying that the plot summary is too long. I disagree based in part on looking at Casablanca (film) which is a FA. The plot summary there is of similar length and detail. It was suggested that the proportion of article that is plot summary was unacceptable as compared to that of Casablanca, but since this is an effort to elevate the article to GA and not FA I can't really agree with that critique. For notes on play, again I look to Casablanca which has sections on things like rumors and bloopers. The notes section seems like a rough equivalent to those sections. As for the DVD section, I really don't understand this critique at all. Supposedly it unfocuses the article, but I note that in the template for upgrading stub film articles to start-class it requires "At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.)" (emphasis added). It makes little sense to me that a DVD section can be used as a rationale for upgrading a stub to start-class but would stand as a barrier to upgrading to GA status. Otto4711 16:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Comment - since I was the original reviewer, I'll obstain from voting, but I would like to clarify my review. Please note that the article has been improved in a few ways based on my initial review, and that my critique of the article has changed a bit since the original review. The problems with the article, as I see them, are:

• Lack of breadth - there are many sections, but all of them go into barely any detail at all. For instance, Production should go into more detail. The Reception section is also entirely insufficient: two quotes, no prose.
• As for the size of the plot section and it's proportion to the rest of the article, I brought that up more as an indication of the article's lack of breadth rather than a bad plot section. As it is, the plot section is about half the article, which leads me to believe the article doesn't go into enough detail elsewhere.
• The notes on play just seems like a glorified trivia section. It also seems particularly easy to incorporate into the prose of the Plot section.
• The Final Hand section also seems odd. First off, it goes into too much detail about the hands - to a non-poker player like myself I have no idea what it all means. Also, I'm not sure about the symbols and colors within the prose. I've never seen an article do that before - though in all fairness I was unable to find any kind of MoS on that.
• The DVD section seems unnecessary, especially since the DVD seems fairly unremarkable. However, upon further review of other GAs and some FAs, some have similar DVD sections of similarly unremarkable DVDs, so I could be wrong on this one. Although the section seems unnecessary to me, I wouldn't say that in and of itself is a deal breaker.
• A few one or two sentence paragraphs.
• A few issues with prose as well: "He did mute the colors throughout both to evoke the period and to help pop the card colors when they appeared." for example.
• The in-line citations are poorly formatted. Drewcifer 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is the first I'm hearing of some of these criticisms. Taking them in order: Lack of breadth - I'm not sure what else you're looking for to get it to GA status. It has information on the casting process, the replacement of the director, information on differences in directorial style, information on the theme song...what aspect of production are you saying is insufficiently covered? The reception section could be stronger, but it's better than it was during your initial review. Plot summary section - the notion that the proportion is an issue because of coverage in the other sections is a new one. Notes on play - this critique contradicts the plot critique. If the plot section is already disproportionate to the rest of the article, how does making it longer by incorporating more text help? Fimal hand section - the most unusual jargon like button or all in is all wikilinked for definitional purposes. The remaining jargon like "bet," "call" or "raise," I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that even the most un-knowledgable person about poker doesn't know what a bet is or has never heard an expression like "call your bluff" to know what these things mean. Colored card symbols - it is quite standard in articles about cards and card players, see for example Poker probability, Joe Hachem, Contract bridge and so on. The lengths of sentences and issues with the prose are new criticisms. The in-line citations are all formatted using citation templates. Otto4711 20:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I see what you're saying about the citations. First time I'd used them and the dates were wrong. They're now corrected. Otto4711 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist There are only a few issues that keeps my from saying "Keep". First is that the lead seems to be out of line with the standard depth required for a lead, per WP:LEAD. Specifically, the lead is not a summary of the article. If the lead could be expanded some to more fully summarize the article, this would probably be GA quality easily. Also, it would be nice to see the article expanded to include more critical reception as well as some hard data (box office receipts, etc.) on the public reception of the film; for example IMDB clearly lists some award nominations for the film (Golden Globes, Laurels). This link: also from IMDB, lists several reliable reviews of the film. If these fixes could be made, the rest of the article seems GA quality to me. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have added a summary paragraph to the intro. How much time do I have to make the other fixes under this process? Otto4711 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• A while. And should it not be fixed before the GA/R closes, it can always be renominated at GAC. LaraLove 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse delist per Jayron. It otherwise looks good. LaraLove♥ 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lead still needs a bit more. The summary seems kind of random and trivial in places; for example it mentions an actor considered but not given the a lead part, but makes no mention of the actors who actually appeared in the movie? I would think that at LEAST Steve McQueen (as the title character) and Edward G. Robinson (as his nemesis) would bear some mention in the lead. The lead is also poorly organized. Paragraph 1 contains production and plot summary info, paragraph 2 contains two unrelated facts, and paragraph 3 has some critical reception. Perhaps organize the lead to mirror the organization of teh article... Maybe Paragraph 1 can be about the cast and production, paragraph 2 would be a plot summary, and paragraph 3 can be about reaction and reception? The critical reception section DOES look better now. It is longer than 2 sentances, which it suffered from before. But this is getting REAL close, IMHO. Fix the lead, and you may have a GA here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized something else that would probably be really easy: a cast section. Most GA film articles have it. Drewcifer 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK. I have re-written the lead. It's now paragraph 1 plot summary, paragraph 2 cast and production and paragraph 3 reception. I realize that this is not the same order as the article but I tried it both ways and IMHO it flows better in that order. I have also added a cast list. If this isn't good enough then I guess the article is just doomed to live on as a less-than-GA. Otto4711 00:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Struck thru prior vote. Rock on and get down wit your bad self. This is how GA/R should work. I think that all relevent fixes have been made, and I see nothing that anymore that should cause this to be removed from GA. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RevoPower

RevoPower (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The reason given on the talk page is very stand-offish, and doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. The information in the article is as accurate as possible from reliable sources, and the reviewer offered absolutely no basis for their accusation of the article being an advertisement. The review offered absolutely no way the article could be improved, and pointed out no problems with sourcing other than apparently accusing the manufacturer of releasing fake specifications, and saying that a third party source is needed. The reviewer offered absolutely no reason why these sources were unreliable, or where reliable sources could be found. The reviewer additionally said that there was too much speculation, but didn't actually show any speculation, looking it over myself there is no speculation that isn't backed up by what the company says, and even the shortest look at WP:CBALL shows that speculation is in opinions and original research, not in future events. The review reeks of WP:IDONTLIKETHECOMPANY, not that the article itself doesn't actually meet the requirements for being a good article. Now, obviously if it wasn't worthy of being a good article, I wouldn't want it to be one, but the review gives absolutely no reason why the article doesn't meet the GA Criteria, except barely touching on reliable sources, only to say that the company isn't reliable enough to give the specifications and motivations behind their own product. Going through the GACR, 1 I feel is met, there are probably a couple errors but nothing that couldn't be spent by having a couple more sets of eyes look it over, 2 is the only thing the reviewer seemed to touch on, but again everything in the article is sourced, with nothing controversial that would make a primary source unacceptable, 3 I also feel is met, given that the article covers the major aspects of it, even though it is short, because there isn't much to say, 4 I also feel is met, although the reviewer disagreed and called it little more than an advertisement, without actually saying what was written like an advertisement, 5 is definitely met, I think there's been one vandal in the entire time the article has been up, and that was a bit of NPOV OR, no page blanking, most contributions to the article are minor things, like fixing acronyms and such, 6 is definitely met given the high quality photograph of the object that the company donated. I really wouldn't mind this article failing if someone gave a decent reason as to why it didn't meet the requirements, and didn't personally attack other editors in their review. If someone could give a decent reason as to how the article itself has problems that couldn't be quickly fixed, I'd be fine with it, not statements about the thing itself. lucid 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

• Delist. The references are weak and article is short. It's currently "B"-class. While I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an advertisement, it lacks enough references from reliable sources to qualify as GA-class. That said: keep up the good work. With some work the article may be able to progress to GA-class. Majoreditor 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Again though, you're not saying how the references are weak. I could add extra references from their press section and a quick google search, but it wouldn't add anything to the article except pdf links. If someone can come up for a reason that RevoPower's own sources are contentious or unduly self-serving I'd agree, but as it is I don't see how the sources are in any way unreliable. --lucid 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: You're missing the point Lucid, the references are unreliable because they are mostly from the company itself. See reliable sources. The gist is that reliable sources are published and independent of the subject matter. There is nothing stopping the company from saying whatever it wants about itself with absolutely no editorial oversight. Of course they are going to make themselves look good, of course they have a conflict of interest when presenting information about themselves. Find some independent sources to back up the assertion and the article would have a much better chance here. IvoShandor 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • (edit conf)Being from the company does not make something unreliable, being from the company and being controversial in a way that the company would be using to promote itself would be unreliable. They are going to make themselves look good, yes, but they can't really bend specifications. And what assertion? Clearly you're not talking about assertion of notability, given that's more than established, so what in the article needs asserting? What would be NPOV without a source-- or for that sake, with one? I can say with about 98% certainty that anything sourced to the company is somewhere else too, especially anything that would actually be in their favor (which I would probably support removing anyway, if it were serious), or could easily be removed without effecting the quality of the article-- barring of course the "the company says, claims, notes" etc. bits. The problem is you're saying the company has a reason to promote itself, which is of course true, what you haven't shown, or even said, is that their intent to promote has biased their facts in a real manner that lowers the quality of the article --lucid 09:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Basically, I am of the opinion that the site is absolutely self serving, its essentially an ad for a yet to be released product, so really it is nothing more than speculation on the company's part, about how the company thinks things will result for the product once it is released. There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. Sorry, but Delist. IvoShandor 09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Changing to keep or list (whatever's appropriate, can't remember) per the work done to diversify sources. It was never my contention that this particular company was making erroneous claims, just that that can be the perception, thus if something is declared good, it should have the best, independent, sources available. Thanks for your work here and sorry I wasn't more help, I have been on a semi-wikibreak, mostly discussing a few things and working on some stuff in my user space that isn't quite ready for the limelight yet. : ) IvoShandor 06:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• • And again, the secondary sources back up this information as well. If you can find anything in the article which is contentious or self-serving to the point where the article is obviously biased or unreliable, please tell me. Right now, there's no basis to improve on any part of it, no any reason to disapprove --lucid 09:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The burden is on you to prove the source is reliable, its neutrality is disputed here, it would be best if you just brought some independent sources, they shouldn't be too hard to find I would think. Since you ignored this part of what I wrote: There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. I have reposted it for you here, this alone is enough reason to oppose the use of the source. As for assertion, I meant assertions, as in statements of fact that are cited within the article. I wasn't questioning the notability. Why are you linking to WP:NPA in your edit summary. I didn't attack you at all, I looked at the article and the source and made a comment about it. If that's a personal attack, then I don't know what to say. IvoShandor 09:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, just balance out the sources with more independent ones, and the use of the company website becomes no problem. When the entire article is based on it though there is no way to know whether any of information has ever been confirmed independently, or fact checked. IvoShandor 09:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as showing the source is reliable goes, I'd have to say that keeping in the company's specifications because everything else has higher MPG is a pretty good sign that they aren't making their stuff seem better than it is. Anyway, I've added more secondary sources, there's still a few more out there but they don't have much new, or are borderline reliable/notable (see the talk page for one), and removed some stuff that wasn't really needed and only really linked to the company's page. It's fairly well balanced now-- the FAQ is still used a lot, but it's needed to give a broad scope of the Wheel. --lucid 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if i'm looking at the right section, but when I see the latest GA nomination failed heading, it sure looks like the reviewer gave several legitimate reasons for failure, such as the article reading like an advertisement, among other things. Not even commenting on the accuracy of the review, I really don't think the basis given for starting this GA/R is accurate at all. Homestarmy 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

the accuracy of the review is the entire point. --lucid 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You said that the review "doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. ", but the only review I see nearest to the bottom doesn't appear to be like that at all, quite the contrary really, there seem to be several WIAGA-relevant objections. Homestarmy 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevant, maybe, explanatory no. Saying "it reads like an advertisement" without actually providing something that reads like an advertisement, or saying that the sources are unreliable without actually showing where a source is wrong, or at the least contentious enough to not be reliable is little more than saying "I don't like it, here's a few blanket statements that could be said about any article without anything to back them up, that way they can't be disproven" --lucid 16:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see then. While I don't agree that specific examples of deficiencies in articles always have to be specified, I guess I can see how you could interpret his review to be meaningless. I'll give the article a closer look. Homestarmy 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Comment Well, reading the article, I don't think it really is an advertisment. It just appears that way because what's there is mostly positive in nature, though I don't think its written in a non-neutral way, its just that all the facts about the subject presented here are fairly positive. Lucid, is this really all the material available on this subject? No criticism or anything else? Homestarmy 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. It's unreleased, so about the only criticism is people on message boards, which is obviously WP:UNDUE and not an RS. The closest thing to criticism is PopSci showing a meter from "Loafer" to "Lance" on the RevoPower article, with the arrow pointing to "Loafer", but that's not much of a criticism really, not to mention it can't really be cited because it's not in text. It did make a pretty big sweep through the blogosphere awhile back, one of them might have some criticism, but even the more popular blogs are generally not reliable sources. Of course, once it is released, it will probably get a surge of media attention, and I can look around then. If it's as popular as they're hoping for (100,000 units in the first 6 months, I think, I don't have the exact quote here) it wouldn't be surprising to see a bunch of towns passing laws and telling people they are/aren't ok and such on it, like those electric RAZOR scooters that were so popular a couple years back, or pocket rockets, or Segways, or any number of other weird transportation things that have come up in the past few years. Of course, if it gets in magazines that get to review it I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism, not to mention people complaining about how it's 'eliminating the point of biking' or something to that effect if it really catches on. I'm already thinking about the future of the article to be honest, I figure there will probably be a "Legality" and "Reception" section once it's released, and probably a new section for new types of wheels, as they are released (the four-stroke, hybrid, etc. models they mention) --lucid 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• List as GA, Since there doesn't seem to be any more new comments, i'm siding to list this article. Primary sources aren't weak simply because they are primary, and references do not have to be held up to Misplaced Pages's standards of neutrality. Unless someone can demonstrate how the RevoPower main website is factually innacurate, I just don't see how it is a bad reference. Furthermore, if there's really nothing else available to add, I don't see what can be done in terms of expansion, and this subject seems like the kind of obscure topic that probably won't expand very quickly even when it is publicly produced. There might be criticism in the future, or the company might tank and make such a section irrelevant, but there's a whole lot of might be's that go with many contemporaneous subjects that are GA's on Misplaced Pages, and I don't think there's enough mights for this article to automatically make it too unstable. Homestarmy 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep One-sided and short, but neither is a major concern given the nature of the topic. Drewcifer 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse GA listing per Homestarmy and Drewcifer. Rai-me 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

Veganism (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article seems to lack a NPOV and lacks details explaining the criticism of this particular topic. Tarret 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Criticism is provided in 'Ethical concerns' section by POV of Davis and Jarvis, also various health precautions are included throughout the article. The article has barely changed since original GA review, so specific criticism of POV-ness would be appreciated. Kellen 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific the article is very "pro-vegan" meaning that there is very little mention of the "counter-vegan" point of view. Also as the tag in the Demographics says the section lacks a more worldwide point of view most noticably in areas such as Asia, and Africa. Tarret 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - most governments do not record details of diet in their census, and so it's difficult to find reliable sources about numbers of vegans worldwide. I think there's an information-gathering attempt on the Talk page about this issue. -Malkinann 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I typically contribute to the article from a "counter-vegan" perspective, if you will, and I'm not sure we need to put a whole lot more criticism into the article. Could you give specific examples of passages that need a "counter-vegan" rebuttal? Though you do have a good point - we need to gather a more global view particularly in the demographic section. Kellen has found some good sources that should be integrated into the article. There just isn't a lot of information out there about many parts of the world, though. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The demographics section is actually a virtually unsolvable problem; there are no good statistics for number of vegans almost anywhere in the world. The research has just not been done yet. I did some cross-wiki research but this yielded few results. Since there is no one we can cite, I do not believe this is a good reason for delisting.

There are also few, if any, notable "counter-vegans." There's a variety of people, including vegan orgs, pointing out the need for supplementation, so this is covered extensively in 'health,' but not much else. Kellen 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist This is not on dietetic grounds, but the author and chef Anthony Bourdain is quite notably anti-vegan and vegetarian. In almost several of his best sellers he declaims veganism. While mentioning that there is an mainstream objection to the diet on the grounds that its strictures limit gastronomical joie de vivre might seem trivial, it is an easily overlooked topic. Honestly, I feel that the article reads in an unbalanced fashion. While it is true that the majority of mainstream sources don't have much criticism of a vegan diet health-wise, I had a hell of time getting a neutral mention of what the multiple reliable sources reported as cases of vegan baby malnutrition into the article at all. In consideration of the general tone, and the missing vital stats that Kellen mentioned, I think the article should be delisted. VanTucky 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

almost several? Right. ;)--SidiLemine 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You apparently missed the point I made about these stats not existing anywhere such that there is no possibility to cite them, and therefore that this is not a proper grounds for delisting. Kellen 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - the article does read POV, sections underdeveloped/stubby, the section lacking worldwide view should be remodelled so that the tag would not be applicable etc. This is clearly not a good article. PrinceGloria 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - I think that simply creating a subsection of the Ethical concerns section labeled "Criticisms," then simply moving the paragraphs from Jarvis and Davis into that subsection would go along way. I think in this case, just having a section boldly titled "Criticisms" would be useful, rather than scattering said criticisms throught the article. Also, I think that mentioning Bourdain would be a very good idea. Drewcifer 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Comment on comment - actually, I find neither a good idea. I HATE "criticism" sections, they are a way of sidelining some views on the subject, as well as trying to do away with NPOV issues ("what do you want? there is a criticism section!"). I believe the article should be written in a balanced way in all. I also am not sure whether Bourdain is that notable. OTOH, I am not that convinced that the medical community is so unanimous in their praise of the benefits of veganism. PrinceGloria 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed that the tag should be removed, but I was allowing time for others to confirm/disconfirm my research that there are not many other applicable sources for vegan demographics. I have to again ask for more specific criticisms of the article as POV since the article has changed little from the original GA review. Kellen 12:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events

A Series of Unfortunate Events (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Only passed a few days ago, the original reviewer left only this comment on the Talk Page as their review: "Enjoyed this one. Pass." Upon further review, I've found it to have the following issues:

• Some of the images do not specify their source.
• Many of the sections are poorly referenced, most notably the Distribution section.
• The references are poorly formatted.
• Small lead section.
• Reception section could be expanded.

Chief editors, reviewers, and WikiProjects have been notified. Drewcifer

EDIT: I've stricken out issues which have since been addressed. 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

• Comment. I agree with Drewcifer, the article should be de-listed per above concerns. Majoreditor 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. But we're looking for decent articles, not best articles. This passes all the criteria. Would you say this article is 'decent'? Mrmoocow 09:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's decent, but I wouldn't say it satisfies all the criteria. Namely, criteria #1b and WP:Lead (too short, doesn't summarize article), criteria #6 and WP:NFCC (no sources for some images), criteria #2 and WP:CITE (poorly formatted references), and criteria #3 (the reception section is somewhat small, though I suppose that might just be my opinion). The 2nd bullet point above, the lack of in-line citations, is currently under debate at WP:WIAGA, so we can ignore that one for now. Drewcifer 09:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. The lead fails the guidelines of WP:LEAD, there are numerous uncited facts, and the lead image is supposedly not under a fair use doctrine, which is extremely unlikely considering it includes copyrighted book covers. Unless we want to hear from the publisher's lawyer, this should be rectified immediately. VanTucky 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Frickative has addressed the issues of references and proper citations. Clamster 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Still a few problems when I read this (lead, reception is very small relative to in-universe information (didn't the series get compared to the Harry Potter books? This would be highly appropriate if my memory serves...), the book presentation could probably be put into a table, or at least add publication dates to it to get a sense of the timeline. The Reoccuring themes section has a few references but sounds like a lot of WP:OR, but only lacks the references to help support this section. --Masem 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Weak lead, inappropriate images (I question the copyright of the infobox image being held by the uploader. I don't believe that taking a picture of copyrighted book cover allows one to get around the copyright or take it as their own work.) I also agree with Masem's comments.

Music of Hungary

Music of Hungary (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

A good majority of the popular music section contains original research, I wasn't sure if this was enough to be delisted. This with all the other Music of X articles were primarily written by User:TUF-KAT who has since left. T Rex | talk 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Weak delist - Certainly not beyond help. The popular music sections in particular need some formatting and referencing. Drewcifer3000 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Unless someone takes the initiative and fixes the referencing issues. At the moment, it doesn't meet criteria. On another note, it's good to see the new template being used *feels special* :) Giggy\ 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - the lead section is also a mess. PrinceGloria 08:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist Stubby sections, unsourced info, external jumps and the citations need formatting. LuciferMorgan 12:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Intro seems to have been fixed up. Good enough for GA, just fix up the pop culture. Wrad 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm undecided on this. There's a lot of good stuff well set out in it but I have a couple of scope and potential OR issues. What would make me move into the keep camp would be the following.

• The popular music section needs looking at. A lot of it does look as if it may be OR but there is a reference to popular musc at the bottom. This needs clarification. And BTW, why are their sections called "Hardcore, Metal" and "Punk", when hardcore is a subgenre of punk?

• The classical music section could do with a bit more especially about Hungary's contribution to the establishment of the Austrian/Viennese classical tradition and to operetta. Haydn was someone born just on the Austrian side of the modern border with Hungary who worked for the Hungarian House of Esterházy much of his life. Franz Lehár is categorised as a Hungarian composer and is, after the Vienneses Strausses, the best known operetta composer. And when mentioning non-Hungarian composers influenced by Hungarian folk traditions, then Brahms's Hungarian Dances are the best known example.--Peter cohen 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Lead needs to be trimmed, there is information (as noted above) that needs citation, sources need to be consistently formatted, I'm not sure why bullets are being used in the Popular music section, but that needs to be worked into paragraphs. There were some other little minor things, but I fixed them myself. LaraLove♥ 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Although only reviewed a few months ago, the article seems somewhat weak based on its lack of references, poor reference formatting, lack of breadth (only historical and architectual), and small lead section. Chief editors, previous reviewers, and appropriate Wikiprojects have been notified. Drewcifer3000 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

• Comment 1. Please see comments in the 'Presido' article below - please state what material in the article you think needs citing - ie. good faith challenges. 2. poor reference formating is a MOS issue and as such, a guideline - by what logic do you insist on it as a requirement for GA? 3. To aid 'breadth' can you suggest some areas you feel aren't sufficiently covered so we can improve them? 4. Lead section summarises a pretty short article - seems fine by WP:LEAD. --Joopercoopers 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy to extrapolate:

• Lack of references:
  • When I'm wrong I'm wrong. The article seems to have sufficient references given it's size, so my mistake. I've stricken the comment from above.
• Reference style:
  • GA criteria 1a: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation."
    • But you objection is the formating of the citations - not included in the GA list - and even at FA (despite Tony1 efforts the contraty) not complying with every ever-changing wishlist of the ever-growing MOS is not a reason not to promote, so it certainly shouldn't be a delist reason here.--Joopercoopers 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The layout section mentions references. I'm not aware of any discussion with Tony1, I'm just going by the criteria as they read. But, as far as reference formatting goes, what I usually say is that a particular approach isn't required, but consistency is. The references are currently not formaatted consistently with one another.Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Done.-- SECisek 07:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lead:
  • From MoS guidelines for lead sections: "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The lead does not mention it's architecture.
    • I fixed this. Chubbles 13:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Breadth:
  • Although I don't actually know if such information exists or is all that relevant, what about the church in modern times? It's obviously still standing, so is it still used? As for the architecture was it built in a certain style? What little knowledge of church architecture I know leads me to believe that alot of churches were built in particular contemporary fashions, each church a bit more extreme than the last. Though like I said, I could be wrong, or this information might not even exist. Overall it just seems like a very small article, especially looking at how big the sources are.

Hopefully these are easy fixes, the second and third in particular. Drewcifer3000 10:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead does briefly mention that some of the original architecture is retained. Judging by the photos it seems like a fairly typical English parish church with the usual hodge-podge of architectural styles that's the result of standing for centuries. Except in wealthy town centre parishes (or very occasionally if there was a particualrly wealthy local landowner) and arguably Abbeys and Cathedrals, English churches have tended to grow by accretion, rather than being demolished and re-built all of a piece. As for current activities it's an active parish church of the established Church of England with all that implies. Possibly the significance being under the care of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet rather than the Diocesan could be added, with all that implies for opposition to the ordination of women, from a quick look a tthe parish website tht seems to be the most significant difference from the "norm".

All of that sounds like interesting stuff that should be in the article. To the layman that fills in some gaps. Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Note 2 of the criteria highly recommends that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. In addition to looking pretty, it's appropriate that credit is given where credit is due, and it's important that all the information be consistent so that it's easy for the user to read. I'll format it if I have time, however, if I or someone else here is not able to do this, it really does need to be done. Lara♥Love 13:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Done -- SECisek 07:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep - To expand on my above comment, I went through the article and corrected some minor issues (use of dashes, ref formatting) and I have to agree that the lead could be expanded a bit. Nothing vast, just a couple extra sentences. It's very basic right now. I'd also like to see some expansion in the body, as noted in the above comments. Otherwise, it's a good article. I particularly like the first image and think it should be nominated at WP:FI. Regards, Lara♥Love 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to move this discussion along: have your reservations been addressed? Would you say the conditions have been met to keep, or would you delist? Drewcifer 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I would note that even a cursory glance at this building shows it to be cast mostly in the Gothic or Gothic Revival style. IvoShandor 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• That would be Gothic, based upon its age, somewhere a source must say this, the crenellation on the parapet is a dead give away and the pointed arches on the windows. Looking at the full image through the external link, it looks like most of the additions tried to match up with the original style, though I am sure there are elements from other styles as well, the Gothic Revival movement was quite popular around the time some of the additions and changes took place. IvoShandor 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, that's interesting stuff, and as a layman I had no idea about any of that. That stuff should be in the article, no? Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely it should. I wouldn't write an article about a historic building, church or otherwise, without doing as much research as I could about the architecture. IvoShandor 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist - Lead could use some expansion; it is a little inadequate right now. Also, per Drewcifer, I think the scope of the article should be widened. However, these are minor concerns. Otherwise, the article is well-written and well-referenced. I'll change this to a Keep if the lead and body are expanded. Raime 14:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Everything really looks quite good except breadth. Needs more research and expansion. Wrad 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delist The points that strike me are that the lead includes material not in the body of the article - the material re visiting bishop and no women priests. This should be added to the section on the history of the congregation Also, given how many parishes share a vicar, it might be useful to state whether this has happened here. WP:Cite recommends page citations, could the pages for the ook citation be indicated, please? (I've already changed one of the web citations to point to the more exact page.) Given there seems to be someone responding to the comments here, I expect these points to be addressed relatively soon. When this has happened, I'll change to keep.--Peter cohen 13:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Work continues. -- SECisek 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has improved quite a bit since the GAR began. I am at the limits of what I can add. I hope we have addressed most/all your concerns. -- SECisek 21:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

National Ignition Facility

This article has been under a lot of GA scrutiny lately (just take a look at the talk page), so I hesitate to bring it up here, but it seems to me like it doesn't quite fulfill all the requirements. My few issues with it are its small lead, a CRAZY caption for the first image, poorly formatted references, entire sections without in-line citations ("Background") and others without enough (the first half of "NIF and ICF"). Drewcifer3000 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I don't think the lead is too short, and picture captions aren't really related to the GA criteria, but I do have some concerns about overly dense jargon, such as the second half of this sentence: "....unforeseen problems caused by non-uniformities in the compression of the target (hydrodynamic instabilities).", and I have no idea what this sentence in the lead means, "Nevertheless NIF achieved first light in December 2002", is this some kind of fusion power related euphemism? The first unreferenced section appears partly referenced by its parent section, but indeed, certain critical parts of the article seem to be without citations, where plenty of fact statements are being made. Homestarmy 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's some sort of MoS thing about having an entire paragraph as a caption? My issue with the lead isn't necessarily its length, but that it doesn't summarize the whole article. And of course the reference issues. And I didn't really notice the dense jargon, but I suppose I agree with you on that one. Like I said, I was hesitant to bring it up, but I figured it warranted further review. Drewcifer3000 00:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any MoS guideline about picture caption size, but I suppose the lead could be expanded somewhat by going more into the process detailed in the NIF and ICF section. The background section doesn't seem to have much to do directly with the NIF, but its existance doesn't seem unwarranted since this appears to be a rather technical article. I'm not really decided either way on this one, I just though the jargon thing might be useful for anyone trying to fix the article. Homestarmy 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that WP:CAP talks about that. Lara♥Love 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well considering that most of this discussion seems to boil down to the caption and the "poorly formatted references", it seems to me that Drewcifer3000 just volunteered to fix it! :-) Seriously though, with the exception of the references issue (see the talk page for a tiring discussion of that topic), is there anything left that really strikes anyone as a GA-fail? Maury 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was a simple fix, I would do so, but knowing completely nothing about anything the article is talking about, I'm afraid I can't be of much help. My problems with the article are pretty much described in the article's nomination. Looking at the discussion page, I can see that some of the information is un-referenced for decent reasons, mainly because the information is repeated in various sections. So, my main question is, why repeat it? Ideally, only the lead should summarize/repeat the article (and therefore is ok to be unreferenced). Not only does repeating something leave uncited parts of the article, but it's just kind of redundant. As far as the reference formatting, try using citation templates. Those do all the work for you. And the caption, I can see why it is important information, but why not make that it's own section? There's enough text there to warrant a subsection of background at the very least. A lead image isn't necessary, or required of GA status, so moving it wouldn't hurt anything. Hope this advice seems doable. Drewcifer3000 20:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I've tried a couple of the CITE systems, and I can't say I found any of them particularly helpful. Even with the tools, it's just too much work to do the whole CITE thing. Yeah, I know, someone said that you should use CITE, but I can't help but feel that the cabal in question didn't actually have to use it. My real complaint with CITE is that it's inline, and since the template is so frikin' huge, it makes the articles almost uneditable if you do use it. Its so bad that I have given up completely on FA, and only go for GA these days -- GA doesn't even need inlines, and I'm just lazy enough to do those when the feeling strikes me. I have this nasty feeling in my gut that someone will actually go and make a new CITE system that actually works, and then all of the regs will be updated to say that you should use that system instead. And then I'll get messages saying articles are being put into GAR because they use the old system rather than the new one.

But here's the point I want you to consider -- let's say I did re-write all of the refs into CITE... do you think the article would be improved as a result? Or to put it another way, would you describe the current article as bad? Don't get me wrong, I am not writing off your suggestions by any means. But the process of getting even a GA has become so incredibly Byzantine that the idea of going through it again makes me shudder. I want to be sure that the article has real problems, as opposed to being listed for not following some regs that are quite possibly going to change in the future.

Maury 01:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maury. Verifiability equals credibility. Insisting on citation of sources often improves the quality of an article (by improving the quality of its info sources), but that isn't always the case. However, it does always improve the verifiability of the content. Thanks! -- Ling.Nut 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about citing sources (aka references), or CITEing sources? I am talking about the later, not the former. Maury 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I empathize with everything you've said: citing can be a very arduous task. Indeed, making a GA is a very difficult task, laregly because of in-line citations. The rationale behind them are manifold, and I won't go into that here, but I can assure you that the GA criteria will continue to require them, even if the actual process of making them is somehow made easier. That said, ask yourself a simple question: is GA status really that important to you? You've definitely made a good article here, so kudos there, but is it really that important to you for it to be a "Good Article" with a capital GA? If it is, then it would be worth putting in some time to add some in-line citations and take into consideration the other comments made. If not, then let it go. Regardless of it's classification in Misplaced Pages, I doubt 75% of Misplaced Pages's readers will know or care. That's just my honest opinion, take it as you will. Drewcifer 05:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GA does not require inline refs, read 2.b. And, as the article in question does use inline refs, is there any remaining issue of concern here, or should we all just move along? Maury 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote directly from WP:WIAGA 2b: "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles." Ok, but then there's two footnotes, one of which says "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced." The way that is worded, it is highly up to interpretation. My interpretation of it is this: any complete thought that is not common knowledge must come from some source. If a fact comes from a source, you should reference that source. Pretty simple really. That is my own interpretation of the criteria, but I don't think I am alone. And also, keep in mind that the in-line citations are only one issue out of 4 that I brought up in the original nomination, the others being the lead, caption, and reference formatting.. Drewcifer 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The problem (or at least, the main problem) with that idea is the term "common knowledge." Please note this article is in WikiProject Physics and thus falls within the purview of Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines.
2. Is that an oppose vote, or merely a continuation of the philosophical discussion? If it's the former, please show actionable points. But bear in mind #1 above.. :-) Thanks! --Ling.Nut 23:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's an Oppose vote. To reiterate the things that I think should be improved: the lead should be expanded to reflect WP:LEAD, the caption of the main image should be fixed somehow (I'd recommend just making the image and the explanation a subsection of the background section), format the references and in-line citations (I'd recommend using citation templates), and of course, add some in-line citations. This last point seems to be a point of contention, but to quote from the Scientific citation guidelines: "The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement... Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information ... it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources ... in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided. These inline citations are often inserted either after the first sentence of a paragraph or after the last sentence of the paragraph." I cut some parts out of the quote to make it more readable, so feel free to read the whole paragraph on the main page. The page also has an example which might help. Honestly, a good portion of the article already follows those guidelines, so it really shouldn't be that much of a problem to add a citation at least per paragraph. Drewcifer 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Maury, two things: First and foremost, I'm OK with this article as GA. I say Move along, nothing to see here — Pass. Second (and far less important, in this particular context), I still haven't quite figured out what you're unhappy with about citing refs. I mostly like the system we used in Georg Cantor, thou even that could be improved upon.. my main beef is that the inline refs should've been templated to make them clickable back to the relevant reference in the references section... so instead of plain text such as "Dauben 2004, p. 1." you'd have something clickable like Dauben (2004:1) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFDauben2004 (help). In fact. I may just change them some day. I dunno, I'm kinda lazy though :-P HTH --Ling.Nut 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I should have linked to this earlier... go to water memory, click edit, and try to follow the text. It visually illustrates the problems that you end up with when you try to edit them. The solution, IMHO, is to put the REF tag in the text and the CITE at the bottom. That's how it used to work with the original NOTE system, but if I reconstruct the history correctly, everyone complained so they made the new REF system work inline. But then they introduced CITE after this, and I think that's where the problem began. Maury 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak delist A decent article weighed down by a lot of technical language. I think some of the terms could do with small explanatory articles that could be linked. Anisotropy is one example. Also UV and IV should best be put in parentheses after their first full spelling before being used as initials thereafter. I think referencing should be increased to at least one a paragraph - in that case if the one source explains the whole para. You have quite a large number of sources and if someoen wanted to WP:Verify the article, then it becomes quite difficult to know what to check where. If the information in a paragraph is fully given in multiple sources, then just give one. The references themselves should eb better formatted. They can be given in Chicago style, if you don't like CITE. I don't have a problem with the lead. My computer and wikipedia between them have decided not to show me the pictures today. The caption looks useful where it is, but I wonder whether a key might make it less wordy.--Peter cohen 09:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist I disagree that the language is a problem. I think the article is accessable, it provides wikilinks for people needing more information, and seems to not be an issue. The long caption doesn't bother me either. However, there are some issues:

• I know that WP:SCG has a lower threshold for inline citations, but there is NO reference AT ALL provided for the first section on the ICF Mechanism. Even if there is no inline citations, there should be a reference for this information somewhere. All information should be in the references listed at the end of the article; even if not specifically footnoted. Since there are NO extra references beyond the footnotes; that leaves me no option than to say that all unfootnoted information is unreferenced, therefore unverifiable...
• The format of the references is substandard. References need basic bibliographic information. We have no authors, no publication information, no accessdates, NOTHING but some HTML links. These will need to be cleaned up. Using citation templates to do so is optional. Go ahead and add this information manually without the templates, or use them, that is fine too. But the references need to be formatted correctly.
• Frequently in the article, statistics and data are quoted. Even SCG requires that data be and numbers to carry specific inline cites; this article has several places where such data has no source. This must be fixed.
• Criticism section contains some uncited statements that beg for citation. Such as: "Critics point out". Really? Who are these critics? Have they published their concerns? If so, can we name them? or at least provide an inline citation to their published criticism?

Make the fixes and this will be GA quality. Without them, it is below standard and should be delisted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bringin' on the Heartbreak

Originally reviewed and given GA status a year and a half ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

• Citation needed tags in the Def Leoppard section.
• Short lead paragraph.

WikiProject Songs has been notified.
edit: I've since adjusted the above nomination based on improvements to the article since the original nomination. Drewcifer3000 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - per nom. Lead defintely needs expansion, and what few inline citations are listed need formatting work. Raime 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep; article now seems to meet criteria. However, could the lead be exapnded at all? It is adequate and it currently meets GA standards, but is still fairly short. Rai-me 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Could do with some proof-reading too. I suspect that a non-native speaker of English was involved given reference to the video being "shooted".--Peter cohen 19:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

on re-examination, nothing's happened to change my view. Citation tags, links to disambiguation pages. (Which Doug Smith directed the video? Not obviously any on that page. Perhaps the same as the Douglas Smith mentioned in the Hawkwind page but that is another disambiguation link with none of those candidates looking likely either.)--Peter cohen 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to delist. There are quotations and judgments about the song early in the Def Leppard section without in-line references. Also "shooted" is still there. Is this a valid conjugate of which I'm unaware, or is it indiation that a copy-edit is still needed.--Peter cohen 11:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Inadequate lead, more cites needed and also the cites currently present need formatting. LuciferMorgan 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  It might be perfectly acceptable for there to be no inline citations in the first half of the article - please provide details of the statements you think require them. --Joopercoopers 12:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've placed a grand total of 4 {{fact}} tags in the Def Leoppard section, so nothing too major. I also addressed a few of the typos mentioned above, as well as reformatted the in-line citations. The Lead still needs work, as do the uncited facts. Also, the disputed image I mentioned above seems to have been fixed. I've adjusted my nomination above to reflect the changes made. Drewcifer 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - I agree with the above. Weak lead, inadequate citation. Why is this two articles in one? Is that common for covers to be merged into originals? LaraLove♥ 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it's pretty common. It's because it's the same song, just different version of it. See Hurt (song) for another example. I know there's more examples (sometimes three or four versions are represented) but I can't think of any right now. Drewcifer 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have actioned the four fact tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been improved to what I believe to be GA standards. Unless there's any complaints, I'd like to close and archive this review as Keep. Drewcifer 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

You can't just close without consensus. It may be better to keep these sweeps reviews on the talk pages and avoid GA/R unless there are no responses or improvements on articles of questionable quality. Otherwise, do on holds. LaraLove 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't close it without consensus. That's why I went to the trouble to contact every reviewer above and asked them to re-review (yourself included). And I think bringing up the article here was justified since a) it was nominated really before sweeps even began, and b) noone has really come to the rescue of the article except $yd! and myself. Old reviews have a tendency to be forgot about even when changes have been made, hence my contacting everyone to have it reevalutated. It would've just sat here and eventually been delisted otherwise. I'll see about fixing up the article a little bit more based on your and Peter Cohen's suggestions. Drewcifer 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - HOWEVER, I think the credits and charts section should be switched and the lead needs to include something about chart positions, in my opinion. LaraLove 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Fixes still needed:
  • Direct quotes are unreferenced... First paragraph of the Def Leppard Version section, first paragraph of the Mariah Carey Version section, second paragraph of the Mariah Carey section.
  • Lead should be expanded some. It does not fully summarize the article.
  • Organization is a bit weak. Most Good and Featured song articles have "Development" "Reception" "Video" etc. subsections. I would expect to see these subsections under each of the versions. This is not a major issue, but still, while we are working on making this the best possible article...
• These fixes seem easy to do. I would also like to see more inline citations; there are some challengable statements in the article which express opinions (like "The popularity of the video and the exposure the band received caused a resurgence..." Really? Did someone make this connection outside of wikipedia? This sounds like an opinion to me), but I understand that I am in the minority in disliking unsourced opinions here...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

Article was last reviewed on May 27, 2006 by Cedars, so it's been awhile. Has entirely too many 'citation needed' tags, and there could be issues with the lead section. Might want to check out the section called 'the high', too. Either way, it's probably good for this article to have another look at this time, since it's been awhile. Dr. Cash 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist as per nom. The citation tags are the only real problem though. Hopefully someone can adopt the article soon and fix them up. Otherwise a pretty good article. Drewcifer3000 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Hold it This looks like a job for Superman. Let me have a short while with it and see about the cite needed tags. What's wrong with the lead?--SidiLemine 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, glad to see someone's willing to work on it. Also, while we're at it, i noticed that the references are formatted inconsistently. Might want to check on that too. Drewcifer3000 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, will do. Can someone please add fact tags as needed, and I'll do it as they come. I think this could actually have a shot at FAC. What do you think?--SidiLemine 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest reconsidering which sources are cited on the more medical matters. Cochrane or other systematic reviews, such as ], are better for reporting the state of play on current research than individual experimental studies. --Peter cohen 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm totally new to this kind of articles, and to medical quesytions in general. If you can, please point out the "weak" sources you find and I'll try to replace them with better ones.--SidiLemine 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The link that I was suggesting replacing is the one with the ref name "Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer" at . Unfortunately, I don't have time to get involved with checking all the other citations at present. (Another good article review post yesterday has already distracted me far too much and "interesting" things are happening as a result of my involvement.) If you're looking for the best citations on a topic then the phrase "systematic review" is a good indicator. Basically, it involves the reviewer(s) setting out clear criteria for what counts as something relevant to their area of interest and for assessing what they have decided is relevant. They then search article databases for as many relevant articles they can find and also the "grey literature" of findings that have not been published e.g. because they didn't have interesting results etc. These are assessed according to the defined criteria. Because systematic reviews assess the work of other researchers and put together the results of the papers that have been assessed as of a good standard using transparent criteria, they are just the sort of secondary literature that Misplaced Pages policy favours. Anyway, I'll put cannabis on my watch list and have a look when I have more time.--Peter cohen 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the good advice. I'll be sure to look into it.--SidiLemine 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please Review and advise.--SidiLemine 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, but I would say some of the sections still need some in-line citations. I think that is just the nature of the beast: alot of the content of the article is "controversial or contentious" because the subject is controversial and contentious, therefore in-line citations are required. So the problem sections, as I see them, would be the last paragraph of Government debate, Criminalization and legalization (you may be able to lift some sources from the Legality of cannabis page), and The high. Also, the references still need to be properly formatted. I know this sounds like a ton of work, but hopefully still seems doable. Drewcifer 09:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Would anyone mind adding tags where appropriate? That way I can sweep through and add references, etc. --SidiLemine 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go through and add some tags. No promises that I'll have time to do the whole article, but it should get you going in the right direction. Lara♥Love 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist as having potentially controversial uncited facts, including {{fact}} tags present. Article doesn't feel comprehensive, and the intro needs work. VanTucky 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delist(EC) - A few things I've noticed while going through the article:
  • The lead is too long. It should be a summary of the article. Currently, it's too detailed. Note what chemical compounds it contains in the lead, but expand on what they do or how they affect the user in the body of the article.
    • Done (I think?)--SidiLemine 12:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Expand on Justice Thomas' filed opinion. His full name doesn't even come up. I also think the full names should appear first, followed by last alone.
    • Done.--SidiLemine 12:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • References need to be consistently formatted.
  • Spell out numbers ten and under.
    • Done--SidiLemine 12:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • These things I'm correcting as I see them, but perhaps correct them if I miss some:
    • All dates need to be formatted for user date preferences. Currently there are some without this.
      • What does that mean?--SidiLemine 12:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
        • September 6 2007 rather than September 6, 2007. Lara♥Love 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
          • OK. Thanks.--SidiLemine 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Use of U.S. needs to include periods (meaning no US). Also, there is a back and forth between spelling out and abbreviating. This isn't really necessary. U.S. can be used after the first spelled out occurrence.
    • Watch out for typos/misspellings.
    • There is a need for additional wikification. Lara♥Love 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article's summary is full of alot of mistakes and misplaced information:

for example:

I also think this line needs to be reworded to be more accurate

Humans have been consuming cannabis since prehistory, although since the 20th century a rise in its use for recreational, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes.

It should read

Humans have been consuming cannabis since prehistory for nutrition, fiber, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes, and since the 20th century there has been a rise in its recreational use.

I also don't think the section relating cannabis to other drugs is appropriate unless it is on the US policy section.

I also don't understand the |other methods| section, and I think it needs to be removed. gumballs in high school in ridiculous

I dont think there is enough external links and resources to continue good research on cannabis.

Kief is not the flowering tops of the cannabis plant, and and is not often mixed with tobacco, it is the trichrome matter from the flowering tops compressed according to the Moroccans.

Cannabis is clearly a Hallucinogen, which often exhibit symptoms of other drugs, and the classification is not confusing.

The new cultivation techniques should focus on the invention of hydroponics bc of the illegality. Not because it makes a stronger product.

This Line should be re written:

The production of cannabis for drug use remains illegal throughout most of the world through the 1961 ......

It should read The production of cannabis remained legal throughout most of the world until the United Nations 1961........

Cannabis was legal for much longer then it was illegal, and the wording of this article makes it appear as if it has been illegal longer.

I would like to be given permission to go in and edit this article

Let me know if I can

--The Pot Snob 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Rollins

Article has an unnecessary trivia section and a very large amount of lists. Article also lacks a section on the criticisims of the artists work. --Tarret 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Necessity of quote in the lead (which is not recommended) is questionable. Wikilinked term in quote is also not recommended. Terribly under-referenced. References also need to be consistently formatted. Otherwise, it shouldn't be too far from GA. Correct the noted issues and renominate at WP:GAC. Lara♥Love 05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still under-referenced. Fact tag near the end (although, there needs to be additional references past that one tag). Also, the inclusion of the official website external link in the body needs to be removed. Lara♥Love 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. (Removed the external link). It needs more references and expansion; it doesn't cover Rollins career in Black Flag too well. CloudNine 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Not enough references, improperly-formatted references, way too list-y (I'd recommend separating the end into a new discography/bibliography article, perhaps List of Henry Rollins works or something like that), a big uncited trivia section, switches between citations and external jumps, no sections on either the impact and popularity nor criticism of his work. -- Kicking222 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Delist Keep Inconsistent referencing (Link no 3 should have been an inline reference and appears to be broken). Trivia section should be deleted/integrated. Personally, I don't have a problem with the rest of the lists. The biography section from the last three pargraphs of Henry Rollins#Black Flag down is very sparcely referenced. Given the number of forked articles, I'd guess that a lot of the facts are referenced in those articles. Things like Rollins's friend being shot should be easy to source and fixable in a relatively short time. If the referencing can't be fixed in reasonble time from now, then delist stands.(Datestamp matches my striking initial comments and inserting new text.)--Peter cohen 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC) In view of progress since I last looked, I've changed my vote from conditional delist to conditional keep just to acknowledge what is happening.--Peter cohen 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've just discovered this GA/R (can the Alternative music Wikiproject be notified in future?), and I may be able to save; I've got access to several good references. Removed the trivia section. CloudNine 06:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Removed quote in lead, moved list to Works of Henry Rollins. Now referencing and expanding. (diff) CloudNine 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but only on the strength of the improvements. Good work cloud nine. --linca 12:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: based on improvements, I don't see any of the concerns that have been mentioned above any longer. IvoShandor 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Will improve and send to WP:FAC soon. Referencing and expansion is still ongoing though. CloudNine 11:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article will have to be completely rewritten before that. It is based on a complete copyvio of this article. That's still a great work you did Cloud Nine. If you are willing to reword it, I'd be glad to help with the few missing sources.--SidiLemine 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• No. That page is an earlier version of the article. See the bottom of the page. CloudNine 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Amazing. Does that mean it isn't suitable as a source?

• Delist - Not broad in coverage, lacks alot of references. Drewcifer3000 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Broadness is a serious issue, and there are a few tags that need resolving. The Radio and Television work is a real problem; there are only two recent things listed, where as I know for a fact he has done a LOT more TV than this. He's a frequent contributor on the VH1 nostalgia programs, he's done a 1/2 hour standup special on Comedy Central (Live and Ripped). A very quick google search turned up this: Not saying it is an adequate or reliable source, but it's a start. IMDB might be a good start too... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, large parts of the article are still unreferenced or in need of more referencing, such as the entire Rollins Band section, and most of the Black Flag section. Plus, the article contains no reception of Rollin's work, for an artist of his type there is LOTS of criticism (positive and negative) out there to draw from. This article makes NO review of the reception of his work, which again, seems to indicate a lack of broadness required for a GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree. Still referencing and expanding; I'll create a 'Legacy' section soon. CloudNine 10:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion: The Works section should have a paragraph or two talking about his works. That's not to say you should just list them, but give a brief overview of both his solo works and works within a band. Just having a link for a section isn't all that great. Drewcifer3000 03:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it's a LONG way away from FAC, but IMHO, it is a GA. The references could be enhanced, but it's not grounds enough to delist.Balloonman 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I still don't see where the major problems have been adressed (broadness and referncing issues. see above). This has been here for a month. Even if the vote is deadlocked, we should archive this as a no-consensus. Could everyone please re-read the article and see what you think about this. I'd like to see this one off the backlog soon... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like CloudNine is still working on the article, but I still don't think it meets criteria. Since it has been here for a month, and there still seems to be alot of work (criticisms, prose cleanup, etc) I'd recommend delisting the article for now with an invitation to renominate the article here when chief editors feel the article is ready. However there is no consensus here to delist, so at least archive this discussion and hope for the best. Drewcifer 10:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had too much time to work on the article recently, although I think it's improved greatly since the initial version. (My priority is the Rollins band section) I'm not sure about including a "Musical style", "Criticisms" or "Legacy" section; Rollins' only solo releases have been spoken word, and I've not read many criticisms of them. What do you think? CloudNine 10:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take part of my comments above back. Criticisms are usually reserved for specific articles or songs, since people's opinions might change drastically. I guess my only concern with the article is an overall lack of breadth (the whole is one big Biography section), but I'm just not sure what else to add. Catch 22 I guess. Drewcifer 10:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any available information on his personal life? Lara♥Love 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a lot. He's not married, so I expect the article, past his early life, will only cover his professional life. CloudNine 11:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per several uncited facts likely to be challenged, including some with {{fact}} tags. The section on his radio and television work needs serious expansion as well. The article as a whole reads like a fan site. Let's have less adoring tribute and more sober encyclopedic tone that provides sufficient context thank you. The article as a whole does a poor job of stating the obvious. VanTucky 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm hoping to work on this article again today. Could you point out the prose that reads like a fan-site? CloudNine 09:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• (I have not yet been shown examples of fan-site prose in the article, so it's hard to act on this delisting. {{fact}} tags will soon be addressed. CloudNine 11:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This review has been going for more than a month now. I recommend we delist the article until editors feel it is ready to be reevaluated, at which time a fresh review can be started. Drewcifer 06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would concur with that decision. There is no shame with renominating the article at WP:GAC once it is finally up to standard. This one has had MORE than enough time to work out the kinks, none of the major criticisms (lack of broadness, poor referencing) have been addressed. We have been told over and over again that they are GOING to be adressed, but I see no major changes in moving this towards GA since I first looked at it four weeks ago...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• There have been major changes! I've made 130 edits to the article, in which time I've made the biography section fully comprehensive, reorganised the article, removed the trivia, referenced several uncited facts. What is the article lacking in broadness exactly?

There have definately been major changes, and the article is definately much better. There do seem to be a few lingering issues though. You can have a few more days I suppose, but it's not like we're gonna hold you to a deadline or anything. I just figured it's been up here a really long time, and that it would be better to re-adress this issue starting from scratch whenever that time comes. I didn't mean to downplay the substantial improvements that have been made, it was just a pragmatic suggestion. Drewcifer 09:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! There wasn't any work done on the article until about half-way through its review. What would you say was the top priority? CloudNine 09:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to imply that no work had been done ever on this article, just that the issues that I saw when I first looked at the article had not been fixed since I had first looked at it. The biggest issue remaining is the expansion (with full referencing, of course) of two sections: Musical style and Radio and television appearances. Also, the radio and television section continues to be largely unreferenced... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a Negative Nancy, Jayron, but I given the recent changes to the GA criteria (diff) I don't really see what needs to be referenced. Anything specific you had in mind? Drewcifer 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While the Henry Rollins Show section and the Other Appearences section do not contain any information that I would find contentious, as there is nothing there that is not referenced directly to the shows in question (Rollins appeared in XXXX is plainly self referenced to the credits of XXXX and does not need any further referencing... I know this) HOWEVER, the section on Harmony In My Head contains several statements I would think beg referencing and are easily challengable, such as:

• "The show aired every Monday evening, with Rollins playing a variety of music which could mostly be classified under the broad rock and roll umbrella" According to whom? If someone classifies something, that's analysis. We do not provide our own analysis of his show. WHO has decided that his show plays this type of music. I am not denying that it does. I only note that this is a statement of opinion, and note that we do not provide opinions at wikipedia, we report the opinions of others.
• Also, "Drawn almost entirely from Rollins' own extensive collection" is a surprising fact. I would want to know what this statement is based on. Is there a published account or review or interview somewhere where this statement is verified?
• "Rollins posted playlists and commentary on-line, but due to fan demand, these lists were expanded with more info and published in book form as Fanatic! by his 2.13.61 imprint in November 2005." Really? Is this why it was published? Fan demand? According to whom? This sentance provides analysis. Analysis is opinion, and challangable, and thus needs reference.

WIAGA says that challangeable statements need inline cites. Simple statements of easily checkable facts (He appeared on XXXX show on YYYY date) don't seem all that challengable. However, in situations where critical analysis is done (That some sort of music belongs to one genre or another, for example) or where superlative or otherwise unusual claims are made, they are challengable and need references.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(dedenting) Indeed. That's the only section I haven't tackled (apart from expanding Musical style), and it's the only one with problems. CloudNine 07:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)