Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pjacobi (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 31 October 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you believe an article should be delisted If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it: Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself. If you can't fix it, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. Remove the article from the list at Misplaced Pages:Good articles. If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below.

If you believe an article should be listed If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be re-listed as a Good Article.

Archives
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

Speedrun

This article is extremely poor. It goes into far too much detail which is boring to the average reader (probably why it's at a staggering 77KB right now). The tone is very conversational and not formal at all. Some of the details are so gratitous and self-promotional that I added {{advert}} in one section; I haven't even reviewed the other parts closely enough to see if there was detail. I don't think this is even a B-class, much less a GA-class, but I would like someone else to weigh in. Hbdragon88 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think most of the content is good for compleatness purposes, but the lead is problematic. It violates the rule against self-references, (This article will discuss....") and is probably too long. It did seem odd to me that it got so specific with particular games, though the references seem to make the specifics somewhat notable. However, in the end, I also think it should be delisted. Homestarmy 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Special relativity

The following is a copy of the GA page for special relativity that describes relativity as passing the required math check for it to then have a GA rating.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics.

Mathematics grading: GA Class Top Importance Some work needed on material relating to equations ~~}~

It is an undeniable fact that the math of relativity fails, and it is therefore impossible for the math check to have found the truth concerning the math involved, and therefore is factually not compatible with the GA requirements. And, as described repeatedly here, that math failure can be confirmed by any unbiased, competent math professional in the world as absolute fact in its failure.

With this fact as undeniable, it is the full situation of whether the GA review group stands up with integrity and truth concerning the factual math error, or fails to maintain integrity and truth concerning the GA rating. If failure occurs, the GA rating is worthless as far as any credible truth.StevenCrum 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's not undeniable, since the Math Project replied that your math was wrong and stood by their assessment. --plange 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The only end conclusion to that situation is since the math proof is factual then they aren't being unbiased or even looking at the math involved, or they just don't know the math. It doesn't matter in any of those situations because you are only looking for an excuse anyway. So, that is your problem because whether you or they understand the math truth or not, the three math proofs are factually undeniable. So, that again, is your problem and not mine. The future will show soon that the math proofs are factual, and then you can explain if you can why your experts couldn't figure that out after it was explained in detail right in front of them. So, do what you choose, and the situation will just come back and bite you with the truth involved.StevenCrum 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it will not come back to bite us, and we are not looking for an excuse, because we have never claimed to be the publisher of original thought, so if this is published elsewhere to be factually true in a reliable source, we will happily change the pages to reflect this. There will be no egg on our face, because we will have consistently applied our policies. So please, expend your efforts with a journal that has the power and ability to publish your findings. We cannot do that, pure and simple, so you can keep arguing until you are blue in the face, but our policy of WP:OR will not change. --plange 00:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the WikiProject actually checks their math or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether or not there is a concrete source we can cite to demonstrate that one of the fundamental aspects of physics is compleatly wrong. So far, you haven't given us a single reliable source. While it is true many mathematics articles have a rather bad habit of never providing really nice references, (I think the excuse is still something about it being common knowladge to highly specialized collage graduates, and therefore, adding a citation is just advertisement for the source or something) most of those articles aren't really accepted as GA's nowaday, and I don't think that the way to solve problems here is to turn an article which has references and passes GA into an article with almost no references and fails miserably. (Since, of course, we'd be using your compleatly unreferenced content) Homestarmy 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as this comment it is amazing to me how many times the truth about the math failure concerning the GA rating is ignored and the endless excuse thing of publications gets used in trying to slither around the truths here. But, if that is your professioanl choice in the matter of passing the buck and irrepsonsibility and excuse-making, then so be it. It's your failure in choosing that is your full choice to make. I have better things to do than to explain professionalism, credibility and other characteristics of "whatever" to even mess with the entire lot of you. What an excuse for what an encycloedia is supposed to be. So, go for whatever excuse thing you want to choose. It sure as beans isn't professionalism or truth-based at all. BTW, vandalism has hypocritically occurred here endlessly also. That fits fully as well.StevenCrum 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Steven, the reason your math is ignored as fact is because Misplaced Pages's core policies demand that nothing ever be presented as fact unless there are verifiable sources to back it up. Misplaced Pages wouldn't be professional at all if anybody could just write whatever they think are "facts" into articles, you don't think everyone in the entire editing community who might want to share original reaserch would do it as well as you think you do, do you? Finally, if by "Vandalism" you mean the closing of the review, I really think WP:SNOW sort of applied. there, I didn't do a count of votes or anything, but it looked somewhere around 7 or 8 to one. Homestarmy 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not slithering around anything. Your math was checked and found false. --plange 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and speedy close - This has alrady been shown to violate WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Steve had no case before, and has no case now. --EMS | Talk 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and speedy close - this renomination is just disruption. I've left a warning on the users talk page. --Salix alba (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and speedy close - per Salix alba. --Pjacobi 15:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Electron beam welding

I was about to immedietly delist this article until I noticed somebody had actually reviwed it, something I consider uncommon enough for articles that should be immedietly delisted that I thought I might as well take it here. There is but a single reference which gives the article an unknown amount of text, and the article doesn't tell the reader precisely what sorts of things this form of welding is used for, although it tells readers about the materials and metals commonly used, it doesn't say whether we're talking chop shop welding, industrial grade skyscraper beam welding, or really much of anything. I don't think this should be a Good Article. Homestarmy 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Microsoft

Relisted dispute back up at top to gain more input

On 6 June 2006, I nominated this article for Good Article. The nomination passed. However, on 11 September 2006, someone moved the article from Criticism of Microsoft to Analysis of Microsoft. The move was deemed unhelpful, and the article was moved back to Criticism of Microsoft. However, in the process of the article being moved and moved back, the Good Article template was somehow removed from the talk page. The article does not appear in the list of good articles either. The talk page does not contain a {{FailedGA}} or {{DelistedGA}} template. As the delisting of Criticism of Microsoft was unjustified and out of process, I request that the Good Article status be reinstated to Criticism of Microsoft. If you believe Criticism of Microsoft should not be a good article, please add an appropriate template to the talk page, indicating your reasons, as the article was a former good article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Were the history or talk page archives deleted, or do you think we could see the diff showing it being passed? Homestarmy 12:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the history of Talk:Criticism of Microsoft. That's where I got the dates (6 July and 11 September) from. Look for edits made on those dates. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I see it now, Lincher seems to of promoted it, this should be relisted unless somebody sees a major problem. Homestarmy 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Relist : I went through it fast and it didn't change much so I still back up my earlier promotion. Lincher 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, shouldn't this have ran for slightly longer than 21 hours?-Localzuk 06:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer in a nutshell, this edit requested a removal of GA (I had awarded ) upon changing title. The title change didn't occur and so I re-evaluated the article in the same manner I had done earlier. If you find enough reasons to delist it, then go ahead but leave the reasons on the article's talk page, if not, just leave your comments on the talk page and they will fix the minor criticism you could have. Lincher 12:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some thoughts on the article's talk page but overall my inclination is for De-listing. Agne 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Contact Lens

I believe this article should be reviewed as it is missing a major function in the Contact Lens story. Although the materials are mentioned this article fails to point out the extensive R&D/testing/science that material manufacturers go through to achieve a finished material and actually how most of the science lays with them. Many of the Dr's involved in the R&D process (at the material manufacturers labs)have supplied the information used in this current article. I also think that if you are going to mention finshed lens companies (who are just basically buyers) the material manufacturers should be mentioned as well. In my opinion this is a bias article aimed towards advertising (also with Johnson & Johnson brands named) and it is not actually explaining the full story!

Thanks in advance for any comments Wikitinker 09:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)