Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 48

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 49)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 47) →

Paintball

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

Result: Delist per comments below. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 17:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I would to request that this article be delisted from GA-status. It reached GA-class at 22:40 today and there was no review for it. The reviewer just passed it with no comments about it. And looking at the article itself, it doesn't look ready for the GA rating. For starters, there is a in the article. For that matter, there is a few sections in the article that isn't referenced. And here this shows that 2 links are dead. I also think that all three pictures in the Games section should be removed. One picture of gameplay is good enough. Now, if I missed a few problems in this review, please add them. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if the reviewer put the comments in the right place - but I know they placed some on my talk page here. Please refer here for their rationale. Jwoodger (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem. The reviewer reviewed the article (which wasn't in the right place), stated problems, but still passed it. I've seen this before. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what I did wrong, I misread the section with the . I will review it again and fix my mistakes. --Nascar1996 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to cull that piece of info, not cited - not wanted. Jwoodger (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Nascar1996 00:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the piece of info in Paintball that was tagged with citation needed (about paintballs needing to tag an area larger than a US size quarter for it to be counted). It was unsourced, so I removed it. Jwoodger (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --Nascar1996 00:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

A very quick glance shows that this article is not up to GA status:

• The lead is 2 very small paragraphs that cannot possibly summarise the contents of the article
• The lead contains no fewer than 6 inline citations- those facts should be in the body and the citations should not be required in the lead
• The contents table is far too long
• From a skim read, the article would be better titled "paintball in the United States"- it provides very little analysis of paintball elsewhere
  • For example, the "miltary theme" section opens with "Paintball is played by over 5 million people in the United States each year" and then leaps to some more (American and vaguely relevant) statistics
• 3 images have no caption whatsoever
• Someone with the requisite right on Commons needs to sort out File:HUNGRYHUNGRYHIPPOSBreakout.jpg
• The vast majority of references are lacking work, publisher and publication date
• The dates in the references are all over the place- some use the international format DD MONTH YYYY, some use the American MONTH DD, YYYY and others still use YYYY-MM-DD (or is that YYYY-DD-MM? Exactly why it should be avoided like the plague)
• I'd have to have a closer look, but I'd question the reliability of some of the sources without publishers and works, it's difficult to tell
• Why does the "legality" section deal exclusively with Australia, Germany and the US? Likewise, why does one US city get as much weight as 2 whole countries including a G7 member?
• What is the relevance of the "see also"s? That should be explained in the section- it's no just a link farm
• The "Terminology" section is completely unreferenced

I'm sorry to be so critical as I'm sure the review was done in good faith and that does look like a long list of problems, but the article could have been justifiably quick-failed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - these concerns seem quite valid and I will look into shaping up this article. One question regarding the long table of contents; given that it's based on the sections in the article - what exactly would be appropriate solution to shortening it? Cheers. Jwoodger (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Go through your section headings and particularly your subsection headings and think "do I really need that" I the answer is no, zap it. I the answer is "I'm not sure" decide whether the information is best served in its own section and decide whether the reader would gain a better understanding with it being there. By those criteria, you could probably remove 2/3 of the current level 3 headers. I'm glad you're willing to work on my suggestions because it's not a million miles away from GA and with a few days' hard work, it could be there. Let me know I you need any more advice or someone to bounce ideas off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment From my point of view, the only thing still needing fixing in order to keep this as a GA is the references - there are still plenty that lack basic details like website publishers, publishing dates or retrieval dates. I'd rate this a keep if these were fixed. I've done a few, but can't help with others. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This reassessment has been open for nearly 2 months, and is in need of being closed soon. As Hamiltonstone suggests, it would be nice to close it as "keep", but I have serious reservations about doing so, and wonder if other reviewers share my them.

• The first concerns NPOV. There is some controversy associated with the topic, and in such cases Wikipedia articles need to be scrupulously careful not to express any editorial opinion. In this case the article reads to me as leaning towards support of the idea that Paintball is harmless fun. For instance the final sentence of the lead ("Despite this, the game and its associated equipment has attracted controversy worldwide due to incidents of injury on and off the playing field, and criticism due to its military theme.") suggests that criticism is unreasonable in the light of the statistics. That may be true, but we then need a source not only for the statistics, but for the idea that the criticism is unreasonable.

• The second related issue concerns citation and prose style. Examples include:

  "The first games of paintball were very different from modern paintball games; they often threw the paintballs at each other, and Nelspot pistols were the only guns available." (According to whom, and how often?)

  "The paintball marker must have attached a loader or "hopper" for keeping the marker fed with ammunition, and will be either gravity fed (where balls drop into the loading chamber), or electronically force fed." and "Modern masks have evolved to be less bulky compared with older designs." (Most of the equipment section is uncited and rather loosely phrased.)

  "Paintball is played with a potentially limitless variety of rules and variations, which are specified before the game begins." (What does "potentially limitless" mean, and according to what source?)

  "Venues are either outdoors or indoors..." (Is there a third option?)

  "Though less expensive and less structured than play at a commercial facility, the lack of safety protocols, instruction, and oversight can lead to higher incidence of injuries." (According to whom?)

  "The number of matches in a tournament is largely defined by the number of available teams playing." (That makes sense, but is rather loose - a source might provide a tighter formulation.)

  "Professional teams can have different names in different leagues due to franchising and sponsorship issues." (Uncited, and "issues" is not an ideal choice of word.)

  Safety: the two statistics differ by a factor of two, and the main cause being "tripping" does not seem to be sourced.

  "Regardless, paintball has received criticism due to incidents of injury." (As in the last sentence of the lead, this frames the discussion - Wikipedia articles should not do that, unless sources do likewise.)

I hope these comments are helpful in improving the article, which contains a lot of useful information, but may not yet be encyclopedic enough for GA status to be retained. I am willing to delist on that basis, if this is not disputed. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - they will be helpful and I intend to sort them out as best I can. I have no strong desire to keep an article at Good status if it doesn't deserve it (though it was nice while it lasted). Jwoodger (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

General comments Certainly not up to GA standard. Please see my comments under "David Cameron" at User talk:Cooltrainer Hugh. Too journalistic; too much trivia; and lacking in historical perspective. Also rather dull and rambling. IXIA (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to address your concerns in the article too - but what parts are you referring to in relation to trivia? Would increasing the size of the History section address the historical perspective concerns? I'm also not sure what you mean by journalistic. Finally, I don't know if I can help with the dull part, how would one make an article more interesting? Jwoodger (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of these issues can be seen in the first two sentences of the History.

• "In 1976, Hayes Noel, a stock trader, Bob Gurnsey, and author Charles Gaines were walking home and chatting about Gaines' recent trip to Africa and his experiences hunting buffalo. Eager to recreate the adrenaline rush that came with the thrill of the hunt, and inspired by Richard Connell's The Most Dangerous Game, the three friends came up with the idea to create a game where they could stalk and hunt each other."

In the first sentence, tense choice is part of the problem: the present continuous is rather journalistic, putting the reader into the moment rather than an objective perspective. Also "chatting" is a bit informal. In the second sentence "Eager to recreate" is rather emotional for encyclopedic prose: the same effect could be achieved by using direct quotation, if a suitable quotation is available. Also consider the verb choice here ("came up with" instead of "had").

Anyway, hopefully you have enough feedback now to have another shot at a GA nomination, so I will close this reassessment now. Geometry guy 17:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics

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

Result: Endorse fail per comments below and WP:LEAD. If an issue is not purely factual (and so needs inline citation), but of minor importance, it can appear in the body of the article, without appearing in the lead, but placing such material in the lead without further elaboration in the body gives it undue weight. Geometry guy 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The initial review was closed as a fail with no notice taken of the actual criteria and no suggestions for improvement other than adding a selection of self-calculated (and therefore possibly OR) statistics. The major reason given was a lack of prose however it is my belief that it is comprehensive in its coverage given the scope of the article and is comparable to other GAs of its type. Additionally it satifies the guidelines set out by WikiProject Olympics at WP:OLYMOSNAT. Listing here as the initial reviewer was experienced so I would like a wider opinion rather than just relisting in the hope of a new reviewer. Basement12 (T.C) 07:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delist I think this article is an example of drilling down in scope too far. The article doesn't satisfy the notability criterion (defining which topics can have their own article). I've placed a banner. Unless notability can be established quickly, appropriate information in this article should be merged into the article on the 1992 Winter Paralympics and this article deleted.

As for GA, the unresolved banner is grounds for not listing it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that is an entirely wrong move. There are thousands of articles of this type in Category:Nations at the Winter Paralympics, Category:Nations at the Summer Paralympics, Category:Nations at the Winter Olympics and Category:Nations at the Summer Olympics as well as multiple sources already listed, there is no doubt that the subject is notable. If you wish to question this I'd suggest taking it up with WikiProject Olympics. As such i've removing the banner from the article with immediate effect. - Basement12 (T.C) 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not referring to any class of articles except those that drill down too far. Whether any of the articles in the categories you listed meets notability or not is irrelevant to whether this article does, nor does the examination here of this article pass judgement on them. In fact we here at GAR can only claim to examine notability in this article to address the appropriateness of the banner I placed.

Please tell us how this article meets the notability requirement through the sources provided. I don't see it.

BTW, the venue for notability evaluations is Articles for Deletion, not the wikiproject the article belongs to. I put up a banner rather than nominating it there because I felt it a gentler way to address the issue (AfD is a tough place) Until you demonstrate otherwise, I feel notability hasn't been met and so I am replacing the banner. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you find wrong with the sources provided? I pointed out the need to take it up with WP:OLY as notability guidelines state "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." The decision that breaking down the results of Olympic and Paralympic Games into by nation articles is one that was reached by consensus by the project and one that has always been accepted since (the entirely unworkable alternative is to add all info on all nations to the top level article e.g. 1992 Winter Paralympics). A source for the results, in this instance specifically grouped by nation, is provided. As such if an article of this type were to be taken to AfD it would most certainly survive. I have placed notes at WT:OLY and the Paralympics task force asking for further input. Basement12 (T.C) 12:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A topic in this case refers to that for an individual article, not a class of articles. By consensus refers to (1) the editors involved with the article in any way, or failing consensus, (2) an AfD nomination. Specifically it is not the Wikiproject-- wikiprojects do not get to pass wikipedia policy and do not get to determine notability of articles.

The alternative if this article were merged is not that all country articles for the paralympics would be merged too. Each article passes or fails notability on the merit of its sources. And it is beyond our scope to address the other articles. Our scope is to determine if the notability banner placed on this article is valid. If it is a valid banner, the article cannot be GA. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Again I ask you what you find wrong with the article's sources? It has already appeared on the main page and been viewed by many other editors with no one finding the notability an issue. In my opinion the banner, and your arguments here, are entirely ridiculous, notability for this type of article has long been accepted, by consensus, by a large group of editors. Even if you don't think that its sources make this particular article notable it is perfectly possible for a subject to be notable, regardless of sources, if community consensus allows for it to be an article. In this case it has been decided, by WP:OLY and others, that being a team (representing a nation) at the world's second largest sporting event, the Paralympics, was merit enough for an article in wikipedia. I'm removing the banner and I'd suggest you take the article to AfD if you wish to continue to disagree with that. Basement12 (T.C) 09:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] None of the article's sources are independent and secondary and discuss the topic substantially (all three). Two such sources are required to establish notability.

I don't believe the section on qualifications is rightfully part of this topic (belong in the article), and so the four sources used in it don't apply. I have replaced the banner on the article again, it has not been there long enough for other editors to comment to seek consensus. I hope other editors will comment on this article, there or here. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, the notability this category of article has been a long accepted fact, hence many of the articles in the categories listed above exist as little more than stubs, many still completely unsourced. If you genuinely think it does not satisfy criteria for inclusion go ahead and take it to AfD where it will get more attention rather than in this bizarre little corner of wiki where nobody seems to look. In the meantime if you insist on continuing the discussion here I will notify editors who have experience of this type of article individually as article alerts are currently down. Basement12 (T.C) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left messages at User talk:Andrwsc and User talk:Parutakupiu, both longtime members of the Olympics project who helped draw up the manual os style for this article type, and User talk:Bib, founder of the paralympics taskforce, as they may be able to show where previous discussions and decisions on notability have occured. Basement12 (T.C) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability does seem to have been discussed a number of times for similar Olymipcs articles. (See archived deletion discussions.) It seems these articles have only been deleted if the nation did not compete at the Olympics that spesific year. For example, the European Union member states did not compete at the 2004 Olympics, and so the European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics was deleted. The articles where the nation did compete a specific year, have been kept. I'm not sure exactly why they have been kept, but I agree that they should be kept. Great Britain have competed at the Winter Paralympics 10 times, and I vote yes for that each time is notable enough for its own article. The Olympics is the biggest sporting event in the world, and the Paralympics the second biggest. Great Britain compete at the Olympics and the Paralympics every four years, with its top olympic and paralympic athletes. Bib (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For example, the European Union member states did not compete at the 2004 Olympics, what an extraordinary and completely inaccurate statement. The 2004 Summer Olympics were held in Greece ( an EU state) and Greece competed as did every other state that was then a member of the EU. I suggest that Bib checks the facts. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that what Bib was refering to, as everyone else seems to have realised, was that there was no European Union team; Greece competed as Greece, France as France etc - Basement12 (T.C) 10:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be possible to find two sources of the kind that satisfy notability such as I suggest at the end of my comment below. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I'd like to jump in here. It is good to take a fresh look at the sources given the question of notability. As I read the notability guidelines it says that sources must be reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in more than a passing or trivial way. Further the guidelines state:

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention by the world at large to support a claim of notability."

What are the sources that the article relies on? I would agree with Diderot that for the purpose of this discussion we must rule out the Classification sources as these do not directly address GB at the 1992 Winter Paralympics, but are instead intended to explain the information that follows. That leaves us with the following sources:

• The first is a Paralympics site and specifically the athletes bios
• Second is the Irish Constitution
• Third is an article in the BBC about an Irish skier added to the 2010 GB team (to address the issue of North Ireland's participation w/ Great Britain at the Paralympics)
• Fourth is the medal table for this Paralympics posted to the British Paralympic website,
• Fifth is a write up about British Paralympic history posted to the British Paralympic website,
• Sixth is an article about British Paralympic involvement in the 2006 Winter Games (the connection is a table at the end of the article with British medalists from the 1992 Games).

When we run these sources through the notability guidelines I think it is safe to say that the sources are reliable and I feel that they are secondary given WP's definition. The question in my mind is do the sources cover the topic in more than a trivial manner? The article relies heavily on the athlete's biographies at the Paralympics site. The link [1] goes directly to a list of every GB athlete at the 1992 Winter Paralympics. The editor relied on the site to support how many competitiors from Team GB and where they competed. I feel that this site does cover the topic substantially, in fact wholly.

Without having read it I would assume that the Irish constitution does not cover the specific 1992 Winter Paralympics but may address something of the issue of NI participation on British Olympic/Paralympic teams. Still coverage is trivial in my opinion.

Same can be said for the third source since it does not mention the 1992 Games at all.

I think the medal table article that lists British medalists along with national medal rankings for each Paralympic Games is topical and covers the information in more than a trivial or passing manner.

There are a couple of paragraphs devoted specifically to the 1992 Winter and Summer Paralympic Games in the fifth site about British Paralympic history. Specific discussion is made of funding for the team and the estblishment of the British Paralympic Committee. I would say that the coverage is more than trivial.

The sixth article does mention the 1992 Games in a table at the end of the article but this is very much a passing comment.

As I see it, and this is completely my opinion, we have three references (athlete bios, medal table, and British Paralympic history) that specifically discuss the 1992 Winter Paralympics in more than a trivial way. All three are secondary sources and credible. From this stand point I would say the sources support notability according to the WP guidelines.

On a different note, I don't feel that this article currently meets the GA Criteria though. The Lead brings up information that is not found in the body of the article. Specifically the ₤500,000 governement grant and the North Ireland issue is not addressed in the body of the article. Also the classification information is in the body of the article but not in the Lead. I think this should be remedied if the article is to be considred for GA. Thank you for your time and consideration, I welcome further comments on what I've brought up here. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Re your comments on GA status, the NI issue is something I'd rather not include at all but something that has been required to stop various nationalistic arguments about the use of GB, as such a brief mention in the lead, where the team's name is first brought up, is all it deserves (you've previously not had an issue this on GAs you've reviewed yourself). The funding paragraph is only a single sentence, it could be placed in its own section but personally I'd say that would be slightly pointless. You're entirely right on the classification not being in the lead, i'll add the info that athletes had to be in one of the disability classifications to the lead. Basement12 (T.C) 19:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Basement, I understand that the information may not be extensive enough for its own section. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, specifically for examining the references re notability. That is the discussion we need to have. I would like to give my opinions of the three references you listed as establishing notability. First I want to say that we evaluate notability based on what sources are currently provided, not those that may very well exist and that are not currently included.

The medal table and British paralympic history sources come from the British Paralympic Association, which is not independent. Their web site states as their purpose:

The British Paralympic Association (BPA) is a registered charity which is responsible for selecting, preparing, entering, funding and managing Britain's teams at the Paralympic Games and Paralympic Winter Games.

The athlete bios from the Paralympic Movement is another source not independent enough since they organize and run the games, they are the paralympic games. It is a superset of the British team, the organization to which it belongs. To say it can show notability would be like saying that content at the NFL web site showed the notability of an NFL team. This type of source could be used to justify notability for any team belonging to any league etc.

Some examples of independent sources would be newspapers, magazines, or studies in journals. This doesn't have to be The London Times, of course. Even something fairly specific or local, like a magazine dedicated to issues of the disabled. Or a hometown newspaper of one of the British athletes that won a medal in the games. The article just doesn't have sources like this offering substantial coverage (guideline wording) about the article subject. And that is enough to justify the banner and therefore fail the article unless the sourcing is improved. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying that your dispute with my assertions is that the sources listed (specifically the International Paralympic Committee and the British Paralympic Association) do not meet the secondary source criterium? Is that what you mean by it not being "independent"? I want to clarify what guideline is being referenced before I make an argument that doesn't hit the central point. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean independent as referred to in the general notability guideline-- "not affiliated[2] with the subject". Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the BBC independent enough? It is cited a few times in the article. The general notability guideline does not requires that all references in an article must be independent. It only requires that some independent sources exist. Roger (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

H1nkles has commented on this source; I agree with him that it is not a substantial mention. I think you should reread the general notability guideline as I think you have misread it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, I understand the need for sources that remain independent of the actual event. I still believe though that the nations that participate at each Paralympics are notable and merit articles of their own. That said I've found a few more independent sites that reference Great Britain's invovlement in the 1992 Winter Paralympics and do so in more than a trivial way. A broader discussion in a neutral forum will need to be held to establish notability on the vast number of articles that fall into this category. I don't think anyone really wants to rehash this argument on another GAR or article talk page. This discussion needs the light of a larger audience. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree those sources pass for notability. Thank you for seeing my point that we need some independent sources to pass it for GA. I use the notability banner to do this. I may have been a little too strong in my initial comment. And I certainly am not bringing up the issue of the article as a class. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jh12 I have added some details about the alpine skiing performances from articles of The Times archived through LexisNexis. I noticed additional articles from that newspaper and at least one from The Independent covering the funding issues faced by the British Paralympic Association and the British athletes in 1992. I respect Diderot's adherence to the notability guideline, but I think it's a stretch to say that a nation's Paralympic and Olympic performances are not covered in significant sources. Notability asks that we "consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be."[1] In this case, I believe we are dealing with a major sporting event of national and international significance whose results are recorded as part of historical record and frequently receives coverage from reliable sources. In my opinion, it is a poor candidate for WP:Afd. --Jh12 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, I don't know if a topic such as this would be. For example I don't remember how much coverage in the press the paralympics got in 1992, nor in England. But really, I brought up the notability issue because I felt an article which doesn't have a couple of independent sources isn't GA quality, (many reviewers will agree with this) and the unresolved notability banner is a valid reason not to pass an article. In fact, it can be quick failed. Perhaps my original comment was too strong. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Section break

I think the question of notability has been well and truly dealt with by the addition of extra sources so hopefully the actual reassessment can now take place in this section. Basement12 (T.C) 13:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Renomination/listing Taking into account that Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics was much bigger, I think that this article is of the same caliber as the one I've mentioned above, it's indepth, got great soureces, and isn't written poorly. Buggie111 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support per Buggie111, article fits criteria, notability issues have been resolved, no need to be delisted. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support per reasons given by Buggie111 and H1nkles. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons given by Hamiltonstone. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of objecting, but, having given the article a good look-over, I have to Support Buggie111's support. Adam Hillman (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no question that the notability issue has now been addressed. However, that wasn't the main reason(s) that the original reviewer failed this at GA. It was mainly to do with criterion 3, regarding breadth of coverage. In addition i would point out that it fails criterion 1 in respect of WP:LEAD - the lead of the article actually contains a heap of information that belongs in a currently non-existent section of the body text. The lead is meant to be a summary, and it present it is not. Sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't mean to jump on you just for opposing but what would you say is missing from the article that means it isn't broad in its coverage? There has been extra material added since that review which didn't say that it wasn't broad but wanted to have some calculated statistics added. As for the lead the information not summarised elsewhere it is on the team name's use of Great Britain (as opposed to UK or GB&NI), this is only included to prevent arguments, see Talk:Great Britain at the Olympics for a selection of them, placing it anywhere else as well would be unnecessary (i'd rather not have it the article at all) and two lines on funding which could go in their own section but I'd say that was a bit pointless. Basement12 (T.C) 07:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of pts. Might get back later. Re the lead: it doesn't matter what the reasons were to put that text in, it just shouldn't be in the lead - it should be in a background section in the body text somewhere. See WP:LEAD - the lead summarises the article. The article may well follow WP:OLYMOSNAT but that isn't going to help it reach GA per se: that particular guideline is pretty 'bare bones' and covers infobox, medals etc. A GA is going to have prose that discussed all main points - be broad in its coverage. The article does that to some degree. I understand YellowMonkey's suggestions. As long as the comparisons between figures is straighforward and does not involve complex calculations, they could be reasonable. The article does not have any coverage from the media generally, such as coverage of the team's achievements as a whole. This could include coverage in sport-specific magazines. I understand that paralympic coverage is limited in mainstream media, but i find it hard to believe it would receive no coverage in magazines of, eg. cross-country skiing. Have these types of sources been searched? hamiltonstone (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to have more to add to the article but bearing in mind that this event occured in 1992 any such team and sport-specific coverage isn't going to be found online, if it exists at all; at this point the Winter Paralympics were not a massive event even compared to this year's Games. If anyone has 18-year old copies of Cross Country Skier magazine lying around I'd be surprised so the best that could be hoped for would be a newspaper article giving a summary of GBs results/achievements across the Games and I can't find any, e.g. Google news archive search. I don't like the idea of adding the stats suggested by YellowMonkey, I believe it is bordering on violating WP:OR and WP:NOT#STATS; unless a statistic is reported by a source how do we decide what is significant to calculate? Regarding the WP:LEAD guideline -"Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions", I think this is an article where common sense should be applied. At the moment I'm not intending to change this as 5 separate GA reviews have already accepted the reasons for the same text appearing solely in the lead. Basement12 (T.C) 15:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The citizenship stuff may be what you are talking about in terms of material only in the lead, but other points are in the lead that should be in the body text. This is not a case for one of those exceptions, and if I'd seen them in another GA my view would be the same. I'd pass this without yellowmonkey's stats, but not without the body text being expanded and then being properly summarised in the lead. I don't see why the sources have to be online to count. As to who would have old copies of Cross Country skier or whatever, the two answers are (a) old cross country skiers (b) a library. But if I'm the lone oppose, then go ahead and tick it - i don't think it's as bad as Yellow Monkey did. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree in retrospect with Hamiltonstone that the lead is not proper as it contains information that belongs in the article proper (ignoring the citizenship stuff). In fact, this is an awfully big lead for such a small article. As for breadth, without searching old sports magazines for coverage, we may very well be missing some main aspect of the topic. Regrettably, I've withdrawn my support. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are three paragraphs in the lead; one deals with the citizenship issue (a special case as previously discussed) and eligibility to compete (classifications); one deals with number of competitors and results (i.e. what is contained in the rest of the article); the final one is a single sentence. I can only assume to satisy WP:LEAD you'd like this final paragraph under a separate heading? I don't see what can be missing from the article in terms of breadth. The only "main aspect" of the topic is to detail results of the GB team at the Games, which it does so how can a main aspect be missing? Basement12 (T.C) 00:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. I believe the article meets the GA criteria and is at a level comparable to other GAs that have been passed in this subject area, such as Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics or Great Britain at the 2010 Winter Paralympics. It provides suitably broad coverage within the scope of the article and I believe if, as suggested, any "main aspect" were missing it would have been seen somewhere in the sources used - Basement12 (T.C) 10:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nominators (and the original reviewers) don't get to give support or opposes at GAR by tradition. When an article is brought here, third parties adjucate.

As to the lead. Yes, the last paragraph, and also the sentence about top 10 finishes are not in the article.

As to breadth. Well maybe a main aspect (a big story about one atheletic performance) or also one or more major points (of which the article can only omit two or three for GA) may be missing by skipping an entire and important class of sources. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article - the top ten finishes are included throughout the article, in their relevant sections, and totalled in the lead. Nothing in WP:LEAD says that there is anything wrong with this. Major points, where in the criteria are they covered? Again the only major points/main aspects that fall within the scope of this article are the results of the team. Results of individuals that could be considered main aspects are few and far between, are mostly restricted to medal winning performances (or are more widely covered by the media than just appearing in sport specific journals, e.g someone like Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards). Anything that could be missing is going to be trivial or merely interesting and not a main aspect/major point. For the record as this is not a vote my use of support is as valid as anyone elses and was merely used to give a summary of my opinion on why it should be listed (we've come a long way from the initial request at the top). Basement12 (T.C) 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it is OK to use the lead for the summarizing the results in the tables, though I suspect the summary belongs in the body too.

I disagree about whether there may be major points/main aspects in the untapped sources. The article is about the team's performance-- but not just the results, but the how and why of each athlete's performance, or the why not. Articles in a specialized sports magazine may have in depth coverage of exactly these for some athletes or the team as a whole; and even perhaps the story of how the athlete trained or obstacles overcome. Depending on the significance of the events, e.g. how major a story it was at the time, it could even be a main aspect of the team's performance. Certainly the how and why of each athlete's perfomance could be major points.

See the footnote under breadth which says that not every major or minor point must be covered. That leaves some room for interpretation, but I usually let a few major points go by before failing an article. I think other reviewers are usually more restrictive.

WP:NOTAVOTE doesn't say that polling is prohibited, rather WP:NOTAVOTE says that polling is not to be used as a substitute for discussion and consensus building. And that's what we have been doing here. Rather the relevant guideline is WP:VOTESTACK. I thought you might be votestacking by notifying Wikiproject Olympics and the Paralympics Task Force of this GAR, but not the reviewer of the article--the person you have the conflict with! That you cast support for your own article in clear violation of GAR tradition and common sense, makes it clear to me that you are indeed votestacking. Please erase your vote. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I had already notified the original reviewer, see this edit, as you told you when you left a note on his talk page (shown here). I notified the relevant wikiprojects and some of their members not to get their support for GA (none of them actually voted) but rather for help in convincing you of the articles notability as at one point you seemed to be suggesting the article was worthy of deletion. Not that notifying them of a discussion relevant to the project would be in anyway against the rules. I find your accusation of votestacking nothing short of offensive; I may be going against a "tradition" but frankly your last comments are misguided, rude and in violation of a number of guidelines including Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As for erasing my vote - why? I clearly state that I am the nominator and it is up to whowever closes the reassessment and not you to decide if it is valid or not. Basement12 (T.C) 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that you indeed did notify the reviewer. My bad, I didn't see the notification or look for their reply as I thought any would be perfunctory. With that piece of information, I am ambivalent whether this is votestacking. However, pointing out what you perceive as a guideline violation is not uncivil in itself. I did assume good faith, but when one perceives multiple instances, good faith is not supposed to be blind faith. Diderot's dreams (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your tone was without a doubt uncivil and you made accusations based merely on your "perceptions" rather than any facts or rules. You clearly do not fully understand the concept of canvassing/votestacking if you believe the neutral tone messages placed on relevant (by relevant here I mean projects whose banners appear on the talk page and may have had knowledgable users who could add informed opinions either way) project talk pages that dealt mostly with the side issue of notability (an issue raised by yourself and not supported by any other user) and not any vote on GA status could count as such. Despite realising your mistake you then stop short of an apology. Before making any similar accusations in the future I'd seriously suggest you familiarise yourself with the guidelines properly and check your facts. At this point I'm choosing not to interact with you any further in this discussion; you seem to be set in your opinions and to have an issue with me. I shall leave it up to the rest of the community to decide the fate of the article Basement12 (T.C) 21:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A few points as my last words on the subject. I have not apologized because I am not convinced that I was in error about the whole issue of votestacking, (the notifying of so many Wikiproject Olympics/Paralympics editors who would likely support the article troubles me as well as voting for promotion yourself) but you did notify one who was likely to oppose so there is some doubt now. I also fail to see how I am "set in my opinions" when I, for a time, supported the article's promotion. Anyway I feel the same about you. I'll cast my oppose vote (subject to change if the article is improved) without further comment. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. GAR is not a vote - and I really mean that literally, not in Wikipedia code language. What matters is whether the article meets the GA criteria or not, and editors' views on whether it does and why. The words "support" and "oppose" here are merely shorthands summarizing a viewpoint (and indeed it usual for editors to summarize their viewpoint more precisely with phrases such as "Endorse fail" or "List as GA"). Consequently it has always been the case (in the c. 3 years in which I have been contributing) that comments from article editors are welcome at a GAR. Such comments are clearly not as objective as those made by uninvolved reviewers, and are given less weight accordingly. But they do not need to be struck. Votestacking has never been an issue here, as far as I recall, as GAR really is not a vote. Geometry guy 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that what you describe as summaries of comments here are in fact informal polling. If they were not, people would summarize with words other than delist or list or comment. We don't see article needs better sourcing or the article is adequately sourced as summaries for posts. Now the decision is not simply a poll, nor is the process, and polling doesn't occur for all GARs. But this polling is not in conflict with WP:NOTAVOTE as NOTAVOTE doesn't prohibit polling, but polling that replaces discussion and consensus building, which still takes place here when polling occurs.

And I am against the article nominator participating in these polls. Not against commenting, not against offering an opinion, but participating in the polling. And I think that is supported by our history. If it is not, please show me a failed GA brought here before this one where the nominator made a list or delist "summary". How far back in the archives do we need to go? I looked though the last complete archive page and couldn't find one. Which is surprising if this were not a poll, certainly some nominator believed the the article they nominated is worthy of listing and summarized it so. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. For failed GANs the nominator is usually the editor opening the community GAR and hence their statement already frames the discussion. In general article editors contribute to GAR discussions regularly, see e.g. Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 in the most recent archive. Let me reassure you that as one of the few editors who closes GARs on a regular basis, I read the comments and the article, and do not regard it as a vote or even an informal poll.

I would not discourage any contribution to the process - indeed I wish there were more contributions. Geometry guy 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Where the Streets Have No Name

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No action. Significant improvement has taken place, and no further reason to delist has been given, so the article retains GA status. Geometry guy 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Article is missing many citations, too many short one- or two-sentence paragraphs, and has other formatting issues. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delist. Sourcing concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This article has been considerably brushed up in a short space of time. I suspect that the remaining uncited information could simply be removed from the article without failing broadness. Further comments would be welcome. Geometry guy 22:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Heroes (TV series)

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

Result: Delist. As discussed below, article needs some work to meet criteria 1a, 2b and 3a. Geometry guy 13:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Heroes article has been a GA since March 2008. Now that the series been cancelled, I think that it's a good time to re-review the article, since it will probably change very little in the future. As it stands, the article has many issues: the prose is not up to scratch, the references are badly cited and not all are from reliable sources, there is way too much cruft and trivial information etc. There are also a few sections which I doubt should even exist, such as all of "Promotions, fandom and references in popular culture", many paragraphs of "Multimedia", and "Comparisons with other works". The worldwide ratings section seems a bit trivial, and while it's a good idea to have international coverage, I don't know if we really need to know how many people watched the premiere in the Netherlands. Some of the references also seem a bit sketchy. The production isn't really well written either, with much of it being just trivial information. Overall, the article is quite out of date, and hasn't really been that well updated since season 2 started. I believe that the article basically fails all of the good article criteria, and as one of the past primary contributors I want to know what others think. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. Not every reference has a consistent citation style, some blogs are cited (against Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29), and are the popular culture references really necessary? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that it desperately needs updating. There's very little about the later seasons and the critical and ratings decline that led to its cancellation. It reads like it's barely been added to since 2008.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I have notified Ckatz and Ophois of this discussion. Geometry guy 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Like Cornucopia, I haven't really updated the article in a while. I mainly just monitor it to make sure there is no vandalism or anything. I agree that the article needs a major overhaul, but disagree with Cornucopia about removing sections such as fandom and references in popular culture as it shows the scope of the show. Right now I am busy working on Supernatural articles, and don't have time to get this one up to standards. Ωphois 21:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I gave the "Promotions and fandom" section a massive clean-up, so it's a lot more acceptable now. My main concern is the sourcing and prose quality. It simply isn't up to GA standards. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 09:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And I don't think the disposal lawsuit section is appropriate or the main article. It only applies to one scene in the pilot episode, so it should probably be moved there instead. The painter controversy is borderline, IMO; it might be more appropriate to be in Isaac's article instead. Ωphois 20:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree; done. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

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

Result: No action. Nomination by editor involved in content disagreement. Please resolve the differences first. Thanks, Geometry guy 14:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there is still to much controversy and bias in this article for it to be included as a good article. The editors are currently trying to resolve their differences, but pending reconciliation, this article needs to be purged from the good article list...--Gniniv (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Santa Claus Lane

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

Result: Endorse fail per consensus and comments below. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has now failed GAN twice now, with both reviewers citing lack of critical reviews and criterion 3a as the reason. Criterion 3a requires that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic", and since there are hardly any notable reviews available from online or print sources, critical reception isn't a main aspect of this album. The note for this criterion at WP:GA? even states, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." This article has all of the content that is available as of now and probably all that will ever be available and meets all other GA criteria as all other issues pertaining to the criteria have been addressed, so I do not understand why this shouldn't be listed.

I have tried to explain to both of the editors who GA reviewed this that "major aspects" is not the same as "comprehensiveness" (and I certainly don't plan to nominate this for FA), but—with as much respect as possible to the reviewers—my commentary went largely ignored and circled back to "there's not enough reviews". I went to the resource WikiProject, an editor provided me with a PDF of a lot of articles about the album; however, most of them were simply passing mentions and the only review in the batch was clearly written by a child. As much as I and others would like more critical reception to be added, you can't add what doesn't exist.

As it has failed twice now for the same reason (and with not much progress trying to discuss with both reviewers), I am taking this to community reassessment. –Chase (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Support I support the listing of this article as per the reasons stated by Chasewc. It is true that original reseatch and fancrufty reviews cannot simply be included in an article as this grossly violates WP policy. Saying this, the article covers well on the other aspects that this deserves to be included as a GA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I won't say too much here, I think I've made my thoughts clear at Talk:Santa Claus Lane/GA2. Basically, I don't think that the article is broad enough. My argument (one of them anyway) is that just because we can't find reviews on the internet, doesn't mean they don't exist. I realise that GA doesn't require comprehensiveness, and I wasn't asking for that at any point. I'd also like to point out that I didn't ignore your arguments Chasewc91, I just disagreed with you. I never expected you to use a fan review or original research.--BelovedFreak 18:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I had a look on Google archives, and while I didn't find any in-depth reviews, there were a few short reviews or mentions about the album in several articles. The websites probably wouldn't be considered too reliable, but I guess since it's a review, and not factual information, we can be a little less restricting as to what we consider reliable. See here and here. If you find several more articles like these, I suppose you could write a solid paragraph on critical reception, no matter how flimsy it may seem. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• MousePlanet is not a reliable source; Village Voice is but the article quotes Amazon.com customer reviews which aren't reliable. And we have to use reliable sources for even the reviews. If we just use some random review from a random music blog, that won't work, because more than likely it's by somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about. –Chase (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am aware of the rules when it comes to reliable sources; I was just unsure of MousePlanet since it came up on the news results and thought I might suggest it. With the Village Voice article, you could use "half of it very rocking, with one certified Spector-tribute genius track (written-produced by Charlie Midnight), "When the Snow Comes Down in Tinseltown." It's actually one of the best half-original rock-Xmas sets ever.", which I believe was written by the author himself. There does seem to be a whole collection of reviews on the archives but unfortunately they charge for access. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Currently, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG because it doesn't contain references from "multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". One of these can be the Village Voice article mentioned above, but at least one more source with "significant coverage" of the album is required as well. Once that changes, I'll reevaluate. liquidluck✽talk 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• An album from a notable artist clearly meets WP:NALBUM. –Chase (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that the opening sentence of WP:NALBUM reads, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." liquidluck✽talk 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• It also goes on to state: In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. This is the debut album from a rather notable musician, clearly it meets criteria. –Chase (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• The key words there are "must" and "may". "officially released albums may have sufficient notability", but they "must meet the basic criteria". I'm sure the subject is notable, the article just has to demonstrate it; common sense isn't good enough for GA status. liquidluck✽talk 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reminder. Community GAR does not exist to discuss notability or WP:NALBUM. We are are here to discuss whether the article meets the GA criteria, nothing more, nothing less. If there are broadness issues, these need to be articulated clearly. If there are sourcing issues, these should not be confused with notability. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose promotion at this point. Chasewc91, there do appear to be reviews out there. Most of them are behind paywalls online, but they're still there. The google hits give a date and a source, so you can check some of them out potentially through a local library, or ask other Duff article editors if they can help with that, esp. if you are not in the US (where most reviews appear to have occurred). The first part of the Village Voice review should at least be cited. Obviously at GA we don't need every review cited. Just a few points from three or so would be enough. You've indicated that MousePlanet is not reliable, so i'll take your word for that, but the review there also alerts you to some potential information about some tracks that might be worth following up in the text using other sources including liner notes (covering songs by Wham, and Paul McCartney in particular). In fact, it is bizarre that these are not specifically mentioned in the "Composition" section, when that same section contains the identities of production staff no one has ever heard of. So: still a couple of things to resolve i think. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per hamiltonstone. In addition to your local library, try Google News and Google Books. Also:
  • Section "Track listing" needs citation(s). --Philcha (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Section "Personnel" needs citation(s). --Philcha (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have never heard of track listings requiring a source. Will add sources to the personnel section though. Furthermore, Google News and Google Books have been used and I had a fellow editor look through a print news archive with no results only passing mentions and one review that was clearly written by a child. Hamiltonstone, you say there are reviews behind paywalls but you do not provide any. That is not particularly helpful. –Chase (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Having some browser problems at present but there should be one in this basket of reviews. I think I used Google News - advanced search - archive - <"Santa Clause Lane" Duff> search term - then confined examination to late 2002 and 2003. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Hang on, i've just worked out there are whole books ( ise the term loosely) published about Hilary Duff. I imagine some are of dubious and hagiographic nature, but none of them have been cited at all. Surely they aren't all writing 100+ pages about Duff and not mentioning her first studio album? What about page 39 of Hilary Duff: A Not-So-Typical Teen (found from snippet view in Google Books) - is there anything there? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the link! Do you happen to know where I could find someone with access to these paid reviews? In regards to the books, I have come across several of these books at my local library in the past - many of them only make passing mention to this album. Sigh! The Not-So-Typical Teen book: page 39 isn't viewable for me, but the title for the chapter that begins on the page prior: "Saving the World and Other Secret Agent Tricks", seems to be in reference to Duff's 2003 film Agent Cody Banks and not this album. –Chase (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also Hamiltonstone, the liner notes do not specifically say that songs by Paul McCartney and Wham were covered. Therefore such content can not be added as this will violate WP:OR. –Chase (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Then what is the source for the "writer" information in the track listing? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• The liner notes simply say the songs were written by whoever they were written by. To use that and come up with the assumption that that is the same song (even though it's obvious) is WP:OR. –Chase (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• <ref name="Rosen">{{cite journal|last=Rosen|first=Craig|date=January 31, 2004|title=Hilary Duff: A Performer's Metamorphosis|journal=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|publisher=Nielsen Business Media, Inc.|volume=116|issue=5|pages=10–14|issn=0006-2510}}</ref> should have a URL to make it easier to check that the citation - and an accessdate= to go with the URL. If you can't find any other URL, use books.google --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• When Buena Vista Records stops selling the album, <ref name="linernotes">2002. ''Santa Claus Lane'' (album liner notes). Buena Vista Records.</ref> you'll have no evidence. I suggest adding the isbn. --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• The Amazon citations for the tracks on "Santa Claus Lane: Hilary Duff: Music" and "Santa Claus Lane [Extra Tracks]: Hilary Duff: Music" will vanish as soon as Amazon stops sell these. The pages from Allmusic will be more secure - original tracks and with bonus track. If you can add isbn as well ... --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Section "Composition" appears to have nothing that also appears on " Track listing". --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• When you've resolved hamiltonstone's concerns about lack of reviews, run the Link checker to check that none of its URLs has not died (the checker does all in one hit) and that all required parameters of the citation are present, and the DAB checker to checks disambiguation pages. You should keep these in your toolbox, as you will be required to use these tools before asking for a GA review. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Then check the lead when the rest is stable. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose My main thing is the someone "meat" of the article really doesn't even talk about the album, or doesn't even need to be included. The background just give career information, the composition section can be inferred from the track listing. Release could be in a release history, and as little chart performance/reception, it could in included as prose in the charts section. Then the reception is basically no reviews besides the Amazon.com editorial. Candyo32 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, Candyo32 summed up what I think pretty well, and there wasn't even an attempt to use the Village Voice article that I suggested (not that I took it personally, but instead of using it, it was just ignored). Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse fail. There is a clear consensus at this GAR, as in the GAN review, that more needs to be done before this article meets the GA criteria, and I believe this GAR can be closed on that basis. It might not be easy to address the issues raised - and it may involve some legwork to find print sources, given that there was less online back in 2002 (and online archives are often not free).

However, positive suggestions and comments have been made. Let me add a few of my own.

• The article should mention that the title track also appears in the soundtrack of The Santa Clause 2 - it may also be worth noting that it featured in the compilation Songs to Celebrate 25 Days of Christmas (indicating some longevity in Disney's eyes at least). There might also be reviews of these works which mention the song.
• The fact that Amazon.com customer reviews are not reliable sources for Wikipedia is irrelevant to whether the Village Voice review is a reliable source. RSS can quote Amazon.com if they want to. In this case the customer reviews are being quoted to illustrate the diverse opinion on the quality of Duff's singing in the album. It is perfectly possible to refer to this, as long as we attribute it to the Village Voice, and do not add additional interpretation. That is quite different from treating the customer reviews themselves as secondary source material. (They are more like primary sources, which the RSS has used.)
• I wouldn't immediately rule out MousePlanet.com as a reliable source. It is a ten year old incorporated company, independent of Disney, employing editors, copy editors and staff writers (at least part time), with clear legal status (including disclaimers, privacy policy etc.). As far as I can tell, WP:RS/N hasn't expressed a view. On the other hand, the review itself is not particularly convincing: the prose is rocky, including misspellings of "Claus" and phrases such as "her voice shows quite a bit of growth when compared to the rest of the songs in this holiday CD" (!)
• The New York Times has an article which mentions in passing "few grown-up fans — except for parents — were paying attention in 2002, when she released her first CD". The relative lack of attention may explain to the reader (and future GAN reviewers) why there is not much critical commentary.

I hope some of the above help at least. Geometry guy 17:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

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

Result: Delist due to content imbalance (criteria 3 and 4): see comments below. Geometry guy 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It desperately needs a criticism section in order to be fair and balanced. Right now the critism is buried under individual topics with wikilinks, but the acclaims seciton is huge. Is it really a good article if we bury the protest but stress the supposed unadultered good of this individual?Titbear (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The acclaim section is a bit of out of hand. Most of it can fairly easily move to List of Nelson Mandela awards and honours. No article "desperately needs a criticism section in order to be fair and balanced". The article should state cited facts, period. Zaian (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not required, or indeed necessarily a good idea. It might instead be better to rework the "Acclaim" section as "Legacy". Geometry guy 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment — This article is missing a lot info and needs a decent copy-edit. Really needs a lot of work to keep its GA status. Zaian, do you know much about Mandela? If you did you'd understand what I'm meaning. However, I'm no expert on him so can't provide examples at the moment. Aaroncrick ^TALK 02:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, actually I'm not sure what you mean. You'll need to give at least some sort of example, or point to areas of improvement, if you are suggesting removing the GA status. Copy-edit examples should be easy enough even if you're not an expert on the topic. Zaian (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's not too much of a worry for GA; however, if this article was ever to go for FAC it would need expanding slightly. I just popped in to comment as I am interested in helping with taking the article to FAC one day and just wanted to have a look over it. Aaroncrick ^TALK 10:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, progress in South Africa was slower than Mandela had hoped, due to inheriting a country that was virtually bankrupt because the previous government had deliberately caused enormous harm to the nation’s economy. Large loans had been taken out on the eve of the transfer of power and Mandela had no choice but to honour these obligations. This or the flow-on effects aren't even mentioned. Aaroncrick ^TALK 01:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Content is not good enough. His retirement and old age is longer than his presidency and is really a load of fluff given that anyone who gets old and doesn't die suddenly will become frail and physically weak; this is covered more than his domestic policies or whatever changes he made. And his leadership has less info than some charities he set up. His policies can make a lot more difference to economic development, public health etc than raising money for charity. His third wife has more than his presidency. Also, I'm not up to speed with Mugabe, but didn't Mandela strenuously say that Zimbabwe should not get a sporting boycott (unlike apartheid SA) and defend Mugabe? The content is far from even B-class YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Those are definitely comments we can work with. (Much of the imbalance you mention is due to "recentism".) Zaian (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thankyou for understanding. Aaroncrick ^TALK 22:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

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

Result: Delisted - see below. Geometry guy 23:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a few issues with this article and I'm wondering if it should still be listed as a good article:

• There are several dead links among the references.
• Some overlinking issues too. For instance al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Taliban and Pakistan are linked too many times. There are also links to states or cities like Indonesia, Malaysia or Hamburg which I think are not relevant to the article.
• The "Long term effect" section doesn't seem comprehensive - in particular I would expect to see a subsection about the consequences on government policies all around the world regarding terrorism.
• The "FBI investigation" section seems to short (only two sentences).
• The pictures seem a bit random - for instance it's not clear why these two pictures [3][4] are in the "Economic aftermath" section or this one in "International response". It seems they've been put there for decoration only. Also I would have expected to see at least one picture of Osama bin Laden in the section about him.

So overall it's not a bad article but there are quite a few issues in my opinion. Laurent (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Coverage

• Missing:
  • consequences on government policies all around the world regarding terrorism, per Laurent. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Excessive, not relevant:
  • The wikilink to roll is just basic aerodynamics, nothing about the struggle for the doomed plane on 9/11. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No need to name Felicia Dunn-Jones or Leon Heyward, it's enough that longer-term effects killed 2 more. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "According to Jerrold Post, a professor of psychology at George Washington University and former CIA officer, the hijackers were well-educated, mature adults, whose belief systems were fully formed" --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Section "al-Qaeda and blowback" about the origins of al-Qaeda. --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "At that point, Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in a period of transition, having just relocated back to Afghanistan from Sudan.[97] The 1998 African Embassy bombings and Bin Laden's 1998 fatwā marked a turning point, with bin Laden intent on attacking the United States" in section "Planning of the attacks". But the 1st and last sentences should stay. --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In facts it's easier to identify the parts that are relevant. --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It's time for the article's nominator/defender to check the rest of the articles for excessive and irrelevant text. --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Delisted

Given the work needed to bring this article back to GA status and the lack of interest in doing so, I have delisted it. Laurent (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Baraminology

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

Result: Delist per my review below. Geometry guy 19:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Baraminology needs more people who are experts on the topic to contribute. The neutrality of the article is also in question.--Gniniv (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• GA issues. This article seems to present several problems that articles on relatively minor but contentious issues present. In a nut shell, the focus seems to be on NPOV issues in the lead, when the entire structure of the article - which the lead is supposed to summarize - is desperately poorly developed. At present the article fails to meet multiple GA criteria.

The most serious problem is an almost entire lack of reliable secondary sources. Sure, there are plenty of creationist sites referring to Baraminology, but critiques from mainstream science barely mention it, leading to embarrassing footnotes such as

• "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes." (Note that baraminology is a type of creation science.) The National Academies (1999). "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition".

So far, the only non-creationist reference to baraminology I found in the article is

• Williams, J. D. (2007). "Creationist Teaching in School Science: A UK Perspective". Evolution: Education and Outreach 1: 87–88. doi:10.1007/s12052-007-0006-7

This is already a 2a issue.

Can I suggest that those who wish to criticize baraminology might actually write about it first, with reference to reliable secondary sources? A minor topic such as this is not the place to pursue the creation-evolution debate. I'm not going to touch criterion 4 (NPOV), because quite frankly, there isn't much point when the article fails GA in so many other ways.

• The lead does not summarize the article, but is instead a battleground (1b)
• The prose is confused. What kind of article begins "The Bible mentions kinds in several passages"? "Kinds" isn't even quoted. "The word "baramin", which is a compound of the Hebrew words for created and kind, is unintelligible in Hebrew." is uncited and meaningless to the general reader. "Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates lack of common ancestry." combines weasel words with a mismatch between subject and verb. "However, neither cladistics,... nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists." is unsurprising, but "however" provides an inappropriate editorial contrast. (1a, 1b)
• Multiple sentences are not reliably sourced, or not sourced at all, e.g. "Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is."
• The article fails to describe what baraminology claims (3a), while going into unnecessary detail (3b) about mainstream scientific and theological views. Thus it seems to have a purpose to discredit baraminology as pseudoscience (it is obviously so, but that is not Wikipedia's role) without actually presenting decent sources making such comparisons (2a/b). This is also therefore OR by synthesis (2c).

If my imagination is lacking or this article can conceivably be brought to GA status in short order, please comment here! Geometry guy 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am willing to close this discussion if no comments are received by 29 June. Geometry guy 22:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not deserving of GA status until reputable sources (from both perspectives) are included in the article...--Gniniv (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ann Romney

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

Result: The article is now under review by Pyrotec per discussion below. Geometry guy 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has had two GAN reviews, both times by User:TeacherA. The first review was cursory, and while it identified one legitimate article weakness, it should have been a "hold" not a "fail" since I was able to address that weakness in a few hours of research and writing work. The second review is longer, but rambling and to my eyes somewhat incoherent. Some examples:

• The opening argument about the article not establishing notability is silly in my view; the amount of mainstream press exposure that Ann Romney has gotten for all the activities in her life (some related to her husband, some not) should make her notability unquestioned.
• Some of the later comments by TeacherA leave me no way to respond, such as "It is too focused on Planned Parenthood and being mixed." There is only one sentence on Planned Parenthood in the entire article, and I have no idea what "being mixed" means.
• Other comments, such as the one saying the article doesn't cover her educational background, are just plain false; the article talks about her high school, about attending BYU, about attending University of Grenoble, and later about attending Harvard.
• I greatly expanded the "First Lady" section since the first review, but now get the comment "The First Lady section is the key to her notability. If this section is written like a good article, then half the battle is won. So focus on major revamping of this section." That tells me nothing concrete, and I'm not even sure TeacherA reread the article before doing the second review. And so on.

I've brought over 25 articles to GA status and have reviewed more than that, so I know what a normal GAN review looks like. This article should have been given at worse a "hold" this time as well, not another "fail". The community is welcome to look at TeacherA's other GA reviews, which to my eye are all cursory and inept as well.

So I am requesting a) that someone else from the community give this article a review; there's no point in my resubmitting it again, as TeacherA will just see that and fail it again; and b) that sometime other than me give TeacherA some notice about poor GA reviewing practices being unacceptable. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Response. I agree with the concern. This article should be reinserted on the GAN page, with the requirement that a new reviewer (other than TeacherA) is needed. This GAR can be closed on that basis, and linked from the GAN request. Geometry guy 21:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. I shall boldly renominate it on behalf of Wasted Time R. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have done so with a link to this discussion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I will leave this GAR open for a little longer in case there are any other comments or suggestions. Geometry guy 01:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've now signed upto to do this at WP:GAN - /GA3, but it will probably be another couple of days before I make a start. Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Its now a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Netflix

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 21:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was delisted 4 years ago, and since then every single issue the article had has been fixed, and then some. Requesting a long overdue reassessment.

Then you need to renominate the article at WP:GAN. Thanks, Geometry guy 08:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mother Tucker

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

Result: Kept Ωphois 02:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this article is in serious need of an overall copyedit. Its reception section also consists of just two brief reviews (one of which is from a review of the entire season) and the ratings. This flaw was noted in the talk page by another editor more than a year ago, but was neither responded to nor dealt with since. I also feel that this article may not be notable (Wikipedia:Notability) enough, since its entire notability is pretty much based on one review. Everything else is primary sources. A quick look at the talk page shows that the initial review was very superficial, so I would like a community assessment of it. Ωphois 09:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's not that difficult to expand an article. You could have contacted me on my talk page about your concerns, as there is no need for a good article reasssessment. I've expanded the article, copyedited it, and added another review to the reception section. Thanks for the help. Gage (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The production section currently gives information about a "Weenie and the Butt" scene. This is mentioned nowhere else in the article, so anyone not familiar with the episode would have no idea what it is referring. I would suggest an extra sentence explaining what occurs in the scene and why the sound effects mentioned are relevant. Ωphois 01:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Still don't see why a GAR was necessary to address such issues as minor as that one was. Gage (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as myself and others have alerted your project to these issues in the past to no avail, it was necessary. Ωphois 02:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So it constituted no alert whatsoever, and was only brought up because the season was nominated at WP:GT? Gage (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Astronomy in medieval Islam

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

Result: delist Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Full of the WP:POV and WP:Verify issues dealt with at length here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. Much of the material has already been removed elswhere; half of the article consists of unconnected material dropped down with little regard to internal structure or consistency. Having this many and grave issue, the article is far below the standards of other GA. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Concur There are serious problems of verification in this article, as in others dealing with Islamic astronomy. The talk page is full of comments about changes that have been and need to be made. Despite some improvements it is still in need of drastic rewrite by dedicated editors who have the time to do the research. Until then, it should not be recommended to readers by listing it as a good article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Concur, recommended immediate delisting. This is a common issue for articles on Islam and technology on Wikipedia. This article needs to be delisted. From what I can see, anything other than a total rewrite from scratch would be a waste of time. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree to delisting, esp. in light of the issues canvassed at the RfC. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The reassessment has been running for two weeks now and there is agreement that the article in its present form is not up to GA standard. Thus, I am going to delist it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dignity (album)

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

Result: Keep per improvements made and consensus below. Geometry guy 20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the Background section with a description of the Hilary Duff album, including chart positions and a summary of critical reviews for this album; which has nothing to do with the Dignity album.
• The remainder of the Background section is about Hilary Duff's personal life and should be included on the Hilary Duff article; but there is no "background history" on the album itself. The section seems irrelevant to me. I think the editors were trying to tie in Duff's increasing maturity with her personal affairs, which would result in the more mature outcome of her new album, but this connection is never made. Not obviously, at least.
• Writing and Development section has an image of Pink and Composition section has an image of Gwen Stefani. I left a note on the talk page regarding this image (as well as an image of Gwen Stefani). I'm not fully familiar with fair-use laws or guidelines, but the Hilary Duff Dignity article has no images of Hilary Duff, performing or otherwise (excluding album cover), and I don't see how images of Pink and Stefani can be listed as fair-use on a non-Pink and non-Stefani article. The fair use rationales don't indicate any reason for their appearing on the Dignity article. And the captions can be easily included in the prose and the images are not needed, nor would their removal be detrimental to the article or its information. Also, the captions are not cited.
• Also, a quick glance revealed that acharts.us was being used as a reference, a deprecated chart listed on WP:BADCHARTS
• Finally, I was trying to get in touch with the GA reviewer, but he or she has been banned indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I think the article still needs a lot of work to be GA quality, at least in the first half of the article. It just seemed to me this article was passed quickly and without much consideration to the work that still needed to be done. In fact, the GA review has little comments and zero suggestions regarding anything of the sort, as if the article were perfect. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - While I don't think an article promoted by a sock puppet should remain a good article, I don't see much wrong with the article itself. The background section is perfectly justifiable IMO. The information on her previous album is just three lines and gives a good indication of how her previous album fared. The other information about her personal life is important because she wrote songs about them. The "Composition" section wouldn't make much sense without that info. As for the images, aren't they FREE images, which makes them allowable to use wherever? I personally don't think they are needed, but being free images, I believe there's nothing wrong with them being there either. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• As User:Cornucopia said, the Background section gives background as to how the previous album performed on the charts and the images of Pink and Stefani are in the Commons and therefore there is no need for a fair use rationale. Also, the Background section describes events that occurred between the releases of the two albums that shaped Dignity's lyrical content. I had previously consulted User:Kww, an active contributor to WP:BADCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS, who informed me that using acharts.us to source chart trajectories (for charts that GOODCHARTS notes acharts is an approved source for) is fine. The reviewer turning out to be a sock is of little importance to this article being GA. To assume that numerous comments were needed is an insult to my work on the article; I prepared the article for GA review for several months, and not all GANs need extensive comments. I see no reason why this article should be delisted. –Chase (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the captions for the Pink/Stefani images don't need to be cited. The information stated in the caption appears in the images' respective sections. –Chase (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just one more comment (this is it for now). User:Keraunoscopia, your dismissal of the personal information in the Background section when its importance is explained later on in the article, and your failure to see that the content in the Stefani/Pink captions appears in the prose cited makes me feel as if you have not extensively looked through this article. With as much respect as possible saying this, I do not feel you are capable of conducting a proper reassessment. –Chase (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  This is a community reassessment, and all views (with reasoning) on whether the article meets the GA criteria are welcome. Invalid concerns (such as fair use issues for free images) can be ignored. Geometry guy 23:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not saying I don't welcome the comments. But I don't feel it's appropriate for someone who seems to have skimmed through this article to be handling an individual reassessment. It seems to me like someone just wants this article delisted for no apparent reason; I see no violations of the GA criteria. –Chase (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't ask for an individual reassessment, I asked for a community reassessment because I know full well that I could not give a reassessment myself. Requesting a reassessment is never meant to be an insult to anyone; I stated my concerns, and so far it seems I'm entirely in the wrong, and there we have it. I'll consider this a lesson learned. The image use is obviously not a problem according to the few comments above (though I still find it odd, as it were, to find a Hilary Duff-related article with images of anyone but Hilary Duff). I still think the Background section is the weakest link, but if no one else sees any issues with it, then the article I suppose is fine. Why you would feel offended by my requesting a community reassessment, I don't know; if you're the major contributor to the article, I'd think you'd be satisfied and confident enough that it stands well as a GA. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not offended by the fact that this is at GAR. I'm offended by the fact that you implied that since the last GAN had little comments, that it was an invalid review. –Chase (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• And my bad, I failed to realize that this was indeed community reassessment. Silly me! :) –Chase (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• While we're here, I just wanted to clear up a couple more things about the article. Looking at past revisions (here's a random one from August 2008), there seems to be quite a lot of information that was randomly cut out. Yesterday I added a lot of information about the album's chart performance, which I basically took from that old revision. Why was all this taken out? Also, there's a lot of "promotion" information in that old revision that could be used. Some of it is trivial, but as a whole there's some really good stuff. There's also some stuff on production cut out, as well as some of the stuff in the "Style and themes" section, and the MuchMusic award and its corresponding photo. I'm just confused as to why all this information was removed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Did you look at the references used in the promotion section? Most of them were primary sources, unreliable gossip sites, non-permalinks to Duff's website (which itself is also a primary source), etc. I don't even see why this is an issue – this has nothing to do with the GA criteria. –Chase (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well this comment wasn't necessarily about the GAR, just a query in general - so don't take it so personally. It wasn't just the promotion section that I was talking about, but rather the article as a whole. A lot of information was removed, I am just wondering why this occurred. If bad refs are the reason, we could easily find better ones to replace them. Hilary has had a lot of media coverage and I'm sure finding replacement refs wouldn't be that hard. And yes, I do believe it has to do with the GA criteria, because point three is about broad coverage, and it seems like not everything is being covered when the information is out there. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• If it was a general query, it would be better suited for the article talk page, no? Basically, this article - prior to my revamping - consisted of numerous bad refs which included: non-permalinks to Duff's official site, copyright-infringing YouTube videos, etc. A lot of it was removed because it didn't have proper sourcing. Plain and simple. I did try to find some of the information with bad sources and replace them with more reliable ones but that was not always possible. The information may be out there, but it needs reliable sourcing to back it before we can include it in a good article. –Chase (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Very well. My only concern was that some good information was removed just to get it through GAN quicker. I'm not accusing anyone of anything and I'm certainly not trying to create an issue; I merely am looking for what's best for the article. Over the weekend, I'll try to go back and re-add whatever I think can be salvaged. Anyway, nice work on the article. I myself had been planning to revamp it, but you beat me to it, so I guess I'm still stinging ;) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This GAR may be close to closing as keep. On reading through, one lingering concern may be that the "Release" section is rather too detailed. Do other reviewers have a view on this? Geometry guy 21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• It wasn't this detailed when it passed its GAN. Should we go back to this, where release and reception are combined, like the FA Thriller (album)? –Chase (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the "release" section is perfect as it is! In fact, I think the article in general needs to be expanded a bit. I know I said that I would go back over the "promotion" section but I haven't had the time. Hopefully I'll do it some time in the near future. Otherwise, I agree with the keep outcome. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is probably too fine a point for GA and this GAR, so I'm closing as keep. Geometry guy 20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mina (Italian singer)

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

Result: No action. Issues raised have mostly been addressed and the article improved. Geometry guy 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

THis article was recently passed as GA status by User:Rp0211. The article is:

1 Not well written by any stretch of the imagination; e.g. Mina's TV appearances in 1959 presented the first female rock and roll singer in Italy; constant changes of tense; Her ballad "Grande grande grande" was carried to the U.S., U.K. and more English-speaking countries' charts byShirley Bassey in 1973.; n spring 1966, Maurizio Costanzo and Ghigo De Chiara wrote the dark lyrics[neutrality is disputed] of "Se telefonando" ("If Over the Phone") as the theme for the TV program Aria condizionata.[43];After a break of three months, Mina returned by recording and performing the song "Non credere" ("Disbelieve"), composed by Luigi Clausetti and Pietro Soffici, with lyrics by Mogol, in April. are just a few examples.

-- Done--Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

2 Referencing, Two dead links; Youtube and fan sites used as references; several references do not appear to support the stated facts, e.g. ref #57, ref #90; ref #10

-- Done-- Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Several references to online sources lack access dates, also several foreign language references do not state the appropriate language. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

-- Done--Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

3 Depth and detail - OK

4 Neutrality - several POV statements

Can you point out which statements lack neutrality? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Diannaa's copy-editing has removed the PoV statements. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

5 Stability - appears OK

6 Images - Non free imagery should not be used in BLPs, even if there is a non-free use rationale.

Can you point out the policy (if it is not merely your opinion). There are no free images available of the singer, while the article would suffer tremendously from a lack of an image, given that the appearance of the person is of primary importance to this biography and is discussed in detail. The singer makes every possible effort not to be photographed, wherefore it is impossible to create a free image of her. I have tried my best to find a free photo. Do you sincerely think the removal of the image would improve the article? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy.WP:BLP#Images

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. WP:Non-free_content#Images –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, it is impossible to get a free shot of Mina. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand but Wikipedia policy is fairly clear on this and such images are often deleted form BLPs. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The image in question already " was proposed for deletion as a replaceable non-free content. The result was to Keep the file, as no adequate free-licensed file exists or can be created to fulfill the limited role performed by this file at the time deletion was considered." The policy says a replacement "is almost always considered possible". Almost=actually not. This is exactly the kind of exceptional case we have here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:BLPN is you disagree with the policy "Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy." If you examine other BLPs you will find many others that do not have an image, simply beacuse of this policy. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should have been put on hold whilst these issues were addressed. This is the second time in 24 hours that this reviewer has failed to use the on hold possibility. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Discussion here should focus on whether the article meets the GA criteria. Requirements that go beyond those criteria are for discussion elsewhere. Concerning images, the criteria require "valid fair use rationales" (6a). The current rationale is *not* valid, as the image is used as a decorative element in the infobox, not for critical commentary as stated in the rationale. To justify the rationale, the image would need to be moved to the "Musical style and public image" section, where Mina's public image *is* discussed, and equipped with a suitable caption (per criterion 6b) explaining how the image is related to the surrounding text. Wikipedia's requirements for fair use go beyond those required by law. Geometry guy 09:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Her appearance is discussed in the lead so I don't see why it should be removed from there.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this point more precisely. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There is no evidence an effort was undertaken to get an image, taken by someone while she was active, released under a free license -

What would that evidence be? I have run an in-depth search on Google. A few years ago I contacted the minamazzini.com website with the request. They seemed happy to let Wikipedia use her images but I don't think they understood the concept of free license. I can assure no such image exists under any free license. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

the current one should be deleted if it's only for decoration, as it is now.

You are being straightforwardly destructive. Her apperance, image and style are one of the focuses of the article. It would suffer greatly with the removal of the image. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

However, we are talking about Wikipedia policies here, as has been pointed out above. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As I showed above, the inclusion of an image in the purpose of critical commentary where no free equivalent can be created is in accordance with the policy. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As Geometry guy says: "Concerning images, the criteria require "valid fair use rationales" (6a). The current rationale is *not* valid, as the image is used as a decorative element in the infobox, not for critical commentary as stated in the rationale. To justify the rationale, the image would need to be moved to the "Musical style and public image" section, where Mina's public image *is* discussed, and equipped with a suitable caption (per criterion 6b) explaining how the image is related to the surrounding text. Wikipedia's requirements for fair use go beyond those required by law." Please address that. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the sources: madrepennuta.it, hitparadeitalia.it, galleriadellacanzone.it, mon-amie-hardy-rose.nice-topic.com, etc. look like fanpages to me that don't pass as reliable sources. Hekerui (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You can argue about the rest but to call Hit Parade Italia a fan page? It is the most comprehensive chart history around, yearly commentaries, Sanremo statistics. You are way out of line with your trigger-happiness here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. they don't look very reliable to me. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you show that other reliable sources use Hit Parade Italia without comment as a reliable source. Please remember that the burden of proof is on you. Please also assume good faith. No-one here is attacking you. We are trying to get the best quality artciles. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Now that the image of Mina has been moved and captioned, I consider the fair use rationale valid. I wish editors luck with efforts to find a free image, as this would improve the article, but this is no longer a GA issue in my view.

Reliability of sources can be a GA issue, particularly where citations are required per 2b. It is important to consider the material cited as well as the reliability of the source: some claims require more reliable sources than others. In this respect, I note:

1. "The idea for the song "Love can grow at any moment at any place" had come to Paoli while lying on the bed of a brothel and looking at the purple ceiling." is sourced to madrepennuta.it. Since the sentence suggests a living person may have been paying for sex, the reliability of the source should be very high, irrespective of differences between Italian and US social mores.
2. galleriadellacanzone.it is used to source quotations and statistics, both of which require citation to reliable sources in 2b.

Geometry guy 21:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack Swagger

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

Result: Keep per improvements made and no problems outstanding. Geometry guy 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late starting this page up. I just figured out what someone was saying to me when he said start up GAR. I knew what to do on the review when I did it, but when I was going back and forth to the Good Article page, the good article symbols that would say if it passed or failed on the review thing wouldn't show up. Then when I went to hit cancel at the bottom of the sandbox article and to try to start over again, I accidentally hit accept changes button and I couldn't change it back for some reason.--Nascarking (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you're nominating this article for GAR? You have provided no reason anywhere that I can see – you didn't respond to my post on your talk page and you haven't explained here. Why do you feel that this article doesn't meet the criteria? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand why the article was passed without a review in the first place. It probably would have been better to just relist it, but since it's at GAR, here are my thoughts:

Lead:

• Paragraph 2: a wikilink for "pins"
  • Linked.
• Final sentence: comma after "taping"
  • Added.

Amateur wrestling career:

• First sentence is identical to a sentence in the lead. Different phrasing would be nice.
  • Reworded lead sentence.

Developmental territories (2006–2008):

• comma after "on the line"
  • Added.
• comma after "August 18, 2008"
  • Added.
• was he wrestling under his real name at this point?
  • Yes. I've added this.

ECW and Raw:

• wikilink "ring name"
  • Linked.
• "He quickly established himself as a heel (villainous character) by quickly starting a feud" - too many "quickly"s
  • Changed one.
• it discusses his undefeated streak here, but the previous section said that he had a streak and then lost a few matches. Is this a new streak?
  • Yep, he had an undefeated streak in ECW at this point. I've clarified.

World Heavyweight Champion:

• "Following his championship win, Swagger debuted a more serious countenance in contrast to his previous persona, where he was known for doing pushups and beating his chest during his ring entrance." - The phrasing is a little unclear as to whether this more serious attitude included pushups and such, or whether the new attitude was more serious than the pushup attitude.
  • Reworded - hope it's more clear now.

A couple of the unclear parts should be clarified, but I don't see any problems with GA criteria outside of that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Gary. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to reply after the changes. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification request. What does "most pins at 30" mean? Thanks, Geometry guy 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

He holds the record for the most pins in a season, and the record is 30 pins. I agree that the phrasing could use a little fine-tuning. Can you think of another way to say this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded it. Hopefully it's clearer now. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've copyedited the rest and added a couple of wikilinks early on. Please check if I have introduced any errors or inaccuracies. I only know professional wrestling through GA :) Geometry guy 20:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to do that Geometry guy. Looks good. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Let's End This

Alright guys I'm sorry I haven't taken part in this much but I had completely forgotten about this and to be honest, I thought this was resolved. I'd like to apologize to the main contributors of this article that I had this article reassessed only a week after it was passed. But it was do to me botching the review. Can we just assume that the overall consensus is we all think this article is GA good, close this thing for good so we can work on other articles?----Nascar king 21:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize. The article needed work, and has been improved as a consequence of this reassessment. I have a good feeling that this reassessment will end happily, and soon :) Geometry guy 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you all feel like this article still meets Good Article Status now that you all have retaken a GOOD look at the article? Let's end this thing and get back to our lives.----Nascar king 04:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• The sources also look fine, so I'm closing this as keep. There is life beyond Wikipedia. Geometry guy 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Macintosh

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

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This article was listed as a GA yesterday. I am starting a community reassessment because I noticed that there are dead links in the references, one outstanding {{citation needed}} tag, and several portions of uncited text. This kind of article isn't my thing, and I don't feel qualified to make a full individual review, so I am bringing so that others can assess whether or not the article meets the other criteria. This follows discussion at User talk:Usb10 and comments left by another editor at Talk:Macintosh/GA1.--BelovedFreak 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I support delisting the article until the issues are dealt with, as the review did not seem thorough enough. I'd be happy to address any issues.  ℳono  23:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Mono. I am terribly sorry, I just didn't notice those problems in the article. However, I think if we fix the problems we might be able to try nominating it again, this time with the reviewer being more careful ;). Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's a section right above the GA review called "Article Vision" that was a conversation between me and HereToHelp about the focus of the article; he went on wikibreak in the middle of it (real life exists :)). Ryan Norton 09:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist as the major problems as I see it (unsourced sections and lack of focus) are too great to be dealt with now, or, for that matter, in a one-week GAN. I wonder why the nominator nominated it without first addressing these glaring issues. —fetch·comms 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delist - this article has many issues that should have been dealt with before a GAN, which are highlighted in the article's recent FAR, such as the lack of focus and unsourced statements. The nominator also supports delisting, so… Airplaneman ✈ 03:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Look why was it nominated in the first place without someone noticing some of this stuff? I just realized that there was more problems in the article than I thought there were. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the reviewer's responsibility to assess the quality of an article.  ℳono  19:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the nominator should've addressed the issues first anyway; you speak as if you knew there were problems and went ahead with it anyway...? Airplaneman ✈ 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks like this is heading for a close as delist. I would also encourage editors to check the reliability of the sources used: for instance, is folklore.org a reliable source? Geometry guy 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Never heard of folklore.org. We should try to get the references fixed so that they are more reliable (if this "folklore.org" is cited; it doesn't sound too reliable but you can't tell a book by it's cover) and get the dead links fixed somehow. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Folklore.org appears to have at least something to do with Andy Hertzfeld,[5] who apparently was a "key member of the original Apple Macintosh development team". Whether or not he actually owns or runs the site, I don't know. It also looks like pretty much anyone can submit a story,[6] although I don't know what kind of fact checking they do before accepting or rejecting submissions. Having said that, it looks like most (if not all) of the stories used as sources in the article are written by people who have something to do with Apple. It needs to be looked into further, but it may count as a reliable self-published source.--BelovedFreak 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley

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

Result: Delist (with regret) per consensus below that the quality of the article is too patchy for GA status. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• My main concern is that the Legacy section has become a dumping ground. It’s a ton of one sentence listings mostly without sources, adding OR such as saying that his influence can be "clearly heard."
• Large number of dead links.
• Third and fourth paragraphs of “Concert Tours” are unsourced.
• Choppy prose. Many paragraphs are only two sentences long, particularly under Concert Tours section.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Immediate Delist per issues mentioned above, plus additional:
  • disambigs (only one, minor)
  • several dead links

Teancum (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed some dead links, and the dablink is gone, but I agree that the legacy section is a big problem. I've removed some trivia, but I'm not sure that any of that section is hugely relevant to Buckley, most of it is more relevant to the other individuals mentioned, or their albums. I'd say the bit about his demo collection, and the films about him, should be kept, but I'm not sure about the rest.--BelovedFreak 20:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that the extensive and diffuse legacy section, while an understandable response to an early death, is unencyclopedic (1a and 3b). Also there is material requiring citation, such as "Buckley played two concerts at the Paris Olympia, a venue made famous by the French vocalist Édith Piaf, that he considered the finest performances of his career.". Ironically, however, for the most part the article is overcited, with a sea of distracting blue footnotes!

I believe this reassessment can be closed, delisting the article, unless comments to the contrary (or fixes) are made in the next few days. Geometry guy 22:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

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

Result: No action. There is no benefit in bringing the article to community GAR now. Once the dust about the case has settled the article can be renominated at GAN. If further disagreements arise, a new community GAR can be initiated. Geometry guy 01:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Short term vandalism is not a proper reason for rejecting Good article assesment as required by Wikipedia:Good article criteria. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias and it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Let's continue with Good article assesment as over a year owerhelming collective effort on the article deserves. Explanation given by GregJackP does not count since under more serious attack and vandalism are Featured articles such as Evolution or Global warming. Actually, intentional malicious effort of anonymous vandalists undermining effort of good editors is not good excuse to hold off Good article assesment indefinitely. --Destinero (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a mistake. This article is represents a current event. Several weeks or months should transpire before this article is nominated for GA. The quick-fail was the right choice. For the short term vandalism, but more importantly for the fact that it is still ongoing. --Moni3 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Because the GA process is intended to help editors with article improvement, "quick-failing" may not be the best option. Even if an article has obvious shortcomings, the more specific information that the reviewer can provide to help editors meet all six Good article criteria, the more they will help the overall process of article improvement. Therefore, "quick-failing" is discouraged. Just because you are not willing to review an article in-depth after taking a cursory look does not mean it should be removed from consideration. If it is apparent from the article edit history and talk page that the nominator has already put extensive work into the article and is genuinely trying to improve its quality, then generally a quick-fail is inappropriate even if obvious issues still exist. Give someone else a chance to review the article and provide the needed help." Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles

It's still a mistake. There will be nothing harmed of this article to let it wait a few weeks as new source material and analysis of the decision will inevitably be published. --Moni3 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my initial assessment for the reasons outlined by Moni3, but I have no problem with another editor assessing the article, nor to a community reassessment. At the present time, I do not feel that it meets the criteria, although I can see the hard work that has gone into it and applaud the editors that are working on the article. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares

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

Result: Delist. The article does not meet criteria 1(b) and 3. Geometry guy 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has several issues:

• Several sources do not meet the reliable sources guidelines at WP:VG/RS. Examples are refs 3, 29, 46, 50, 65, the second and third sub-refs in ref 66, 69 and 70
  • Ref numbers may change if the text changes. In each instance please specify the text that immediately precedes the text. --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As you have not done this, I'm look at the last version of the article before the GAR. I'm also looking in reverse order, so that the numbers of the earlier refs are not changes. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref now named "MOO2BlogspotDOSBox" is the enthusiast group. The text explicitly says they are an enthusiast group:
    • It's the only way to play the games reliably on modern Windows versions. As the game is still the benchmark for 4X games, some readers will want to try it. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• That's fair enough. The link isn't trying to cite anything that'd require an editorial staff. If there's nothing better, then just leave it be. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • Readers can make their minds, and some may consider that the enthusiast group is more reliable than reviews from magazines, where the reviewers are under time pressure and possibly commercial pressures (very few reviews give so few scores below 80%). For example Tom Chick at PC Retroview: Master of Orion II makes a serious error about some races. --Philcha (talk)

• While true, with something like a review I feel we should be more tightened down to reliable sources. If the IGN review is incorrect, simply find another. Blogs and the like would be okay for things like DOSbox, but if the game is truly the 4X benchmark the article claims then there should be sufficient reliable sources to correctly cite reviews. A compromise would be if there is an external link to a fansite that happens to have a review and lots of other useful information. In that case that could satisfy a reader's need for a "real world perspective" review, plus given them additional information, making the link fall under WP:ELMAYBE. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref now named "Moo2BlogspotMods" is by the enthusiast group and is about improving the balance of the races. Other sources have criticised the balance in the "out of the box" version, e.g. GameSpot - Features - MOO2 - Races and its sub-pages. --Philcha (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • At ref now named "MOO2ComparedWithRecentSpace4X":

• Fair enough. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • The item original 3rd in the list, Galactic Civilizations II - Game Review (PC) Armchair General, looks find to me: Armchair General has its own management, if you look at the web site you see different reviewers so it's not a one-band. Someone complained that to many of my sources are from IGN, then you complain here when I find one that is not part of IGN. --Philcha (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I did see that they have a full editorial staff after further checking. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • For item original 2nd in the list, "Space Empires IV Gold", it's only example one of a list, its content is not impressed and I've removed it. --Philcha (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Master of Orion II (Mac) gave me a surprised. At first I going to discard it and the associated text in the article. Then I found that a link from the dimensionz page redirected to Atari. A far as I can see Atari's mainly interested in squeezing a few $ more out of a fully depreciated asset, but it seems to qualify as having management independent of the author. Ref now named "dimensionzMOO2Mac" --Philcha (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 60 at the last version of the review was saved at the Internet Archive but the Internet Archive now (8 Aug 2010) says it's blocked by robots.text. The magazine, Games Domain Review, had a chequered history, and was last sold in Nov 2003 to Yahoo, which dropped the the brand and web presence in March 2005. Fortunately this ref is used only for a score, and Metacritic gives the score - so I've dropped the Games Domain Review completely. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Dropped the Giovetti ref as 2 others do the job. --Philcha (talk)
  • Ref renamed "MOO2ManualPCStarMap" is the manual, in this case describing the main screen (star map). It is authoritative until someone else very reliable disputes the point. --Philcha (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref by "tacticularcancer" looks WP:SPS but more competent than almost all the "corporate" reviews I've seen - remember the time and commercial pressures of "corporate" reviews. But you seen the stack of citations on the different styles of space travel, so I've dropped "tacticularcancer". --Philcha (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed of Orion II Strategy Guide . --Philcha (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Are there others that concern you? --Philcha (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Several references list the wrong publisher, and many have two different date formats.
  • How many "references list the wrong publisher". --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• If I recall they were GameSpot references - some referenced GameSpot, some CBS Interactive. To me it should just be one or the other. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've gone for "|work=GameSpot| publisher=CBS Interactive Inc." as GameSpot is a "mini-publisher" in its own right. One exception has "|work=GameSpot| publisher=CNET" - looks like CBS Interactive Inc. has too levels of organisation for our citation templates. I first came on something like this in a huge survey of invertebrate paleontology. --Philcha (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Re "many have two different date formats", I see nothing about that in WIAGA - do you? --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not in and of itself, however I thought given the larger issues I would list it as part of the GAR since its easy to fix. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you know a trick I don't know? The only way I can seen it is to eyeball each citation. --Philcha (talk)

• The article uses six non-free images, violating WP:NFCC
  • This was discussed thoroughly at Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA1: the rules of Master of Orion II are at least as complex Chess; and computers can beat Chess World Champions while an average player can beat the AI of Master of Orion II. --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest removing the following images:
    • the lead image, as the game is now only sold online. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • File:Moo2SpaceCombat400.png, as it shows a lot of info that I consider would be superfluous in the text. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would agree with both of these. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rmv lead and space combat images. --Philcha (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unofficial information is listed, such as a DOSbox version listed in the infobox, and a fanpatch listed in the infobox
  • The Master of Orion II Mods - An Overview is clearly described as the work of a "group of enthusiasts". Without the note about DOSbox, the article would be just a museum item with no practical use to readers.--Philcha (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've removed "This economic management system came almost directly from an earlier Simtex game, Master of Magic.[15]" as that's much less important from a reader's point of view. --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say that's a persuasive argument for keeping Master of Orion II Mods - An Overview as a reference, however given that it's still unofficial I would remove DOSbox and the unofficial patch from the infobox and keep prose in the Post-Publication section. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done! --Philcha (talk)

• There is one disambig link (minor point)
  • I've fixed the one dab page I could see. --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• There are dead links
  • webchecklinks.py lists 1 dead link, fixed at Best Fantasy or Science Fiction Computer Game of 1996 Master of Orion II --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• The following three links give a 404. [7], [8], [9] --Teancum (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right:

• Atari now has a link for MOO2 sales page, and I've made a new citation for this. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• It seems that Atari no longer provides support - the only active page I could find was the sales page - so I'm removing the support from the article now. -Philcha (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• [10] is at Internet Archive date Nov 14, 2006, so I'll update the citation. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Internet Archive finally delivered for the awards page. --Philcha (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• And url=http://www.netjak.com/review.php/1089%7Ctitle=Master of Orion 3|last=Hammond|first=B.|date=January 09, 2006|publisher=netjak|accessdate=2009-05-11 | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080505005204/http://www.netjak.com/review.php/1089 | archivedate=May 05, 2008
• I'll run the dead link checker to see if there any other problems:
  • Status 200 is ordinary good links. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Status 0 are saved by Internet Archive, they're good. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Status 301 ("permanent redirect") can sometimes be good (site may have re-organised but kept the content) and sometimes replace the content with e.g. a general sales page:
    • Master of Orion 2 - PC is OK. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar is OK. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, Checklinks confirms all links are now working. This point is resolved. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are grammar and spelling issues in the article, using plural forms when not needed, and the opposite
  • Restructured section "Reception". I'll see if other sections need restructuring and then look at grammar and spelling, as grammar and spelling maybe changed by a restructure. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Just checked spelling.
    • I use "gamer" to refer a human player while "player" can be human or AI. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd leave "Without food, a colony will starve to death. If an empire as a whole has a food surplus ... blockading a whole system" as is, since the combinations colony in surplus and deficit vary depend on where the blockade. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've changed "Players can change a colony's output by moving colonists between farming, industry and research .. " to "Players can change their colonies' output by moving colonists between farming, industry and research ... but not to increase agricultural or research output" to Each player can change each of its colony's output by moving colonists between farming, industry and research,<ref name="ManualPCColonyJobs">[[#refMOO2ManualPC|MOO II Manual (PC)]], p. 57-58</ref> except that natives can only farm.<ref name="ManualPCPlanetFeatures" /> All normal colonists pay a standard tax to the imperial treasury and in emergencies one can set a higher tax rate, but this reduces industrial output.<ref>[[#refMOO2ManualPC|MOO II Manual (PC)]], p. 137</ref> A player can use surplus money to accelerate industrial production at specified colonies, but not to increase agricultural or research output.<ref name="ManualPCColonyList">[[#refMOO2ManualPC|MOO II Manual (PC)]], pp. 35-38</ref>. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "which otherwise is a serious constraint on industrial output in the early game". --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "miniaturization" instead of "miniaturisation" - MOO2 is a US product, the article should use US-compatible spelling. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Could you please tell me if there an issues of US idiom. Then we can have some fun (!?) with internationalization. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've re-structured section "Spaceship design" to (I think) clarify what techs are free / require refit - does that work for you? --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In section "Combat and invasion", start 2nd para "In Master of Orion II, space combat occurs ..." as last part of 1st para is about other games. --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "the gamer chooses whether all space combat should be ..." --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "group of enthusiasts regard race design as a crucial element of strategy" --Philcha (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • add wikilink morale. It gives a rough idea of the place of morale in MOO2, without doubling the space using on morale in the game. --Philcha (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In section "User interface": clarify friendly and enemy ship movements; use "gamer". --Philcha (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Section "Development": "For Master of Orion they provided..." --Philcha (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Use ref name="ChickMoo2Retroview" in a few more places. --Philcha (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "Store the artwork on their hard drives" --Philcha (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• The article does not follow the Wikiproject Video games subset of WP:MOS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are several sub-headings that can be combined, one sub-heading has only one line of text, and there are bulleted section that should be converted to prose. There may be a few lines or even subheadings that may fall under WP:GAMEGUIDE, but as I'm not familiar with 4X games, this may be necessary for the reader. Regardless so many subheadings can be trimmed to simply a few subheadings.
  • WP:WIAGA restricts the MOS subset allowed, and therefore disallows WP Project extensions. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists) does not forbid lists. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Usability On The Web Isn't A Luxury by Jakob Nielsen and Donald A. Norman says, "Studies of user behavior on the Web find a low tolerance for difficult designs or slow sites. People don't want to wait. And they don't want to learn how to use a home page. There's no such thing as a training class or a manual for a Web site. People have to be able to grasp the functioning of the site immediately after scanning the home page--for a few seconds at most." --22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Kathy Henning's Writing for Readers Who Scan advises only "Include one idea per paragraph", "Subheads allow scanners to skip over chunks of copy that don't appear to have a direct relationship to their needs," "Bullet-point parallel words, phrases, or clauses". --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In Web Style Guide, section Editorial Style explains why making scanning must be easy and what is the physical explanation for this, "many users find reading on-screen uncomfortable". --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • While working on WP internally, e.g. in this GAR, we all use these techniques to make it easier to present our ideas. --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I won't hold the short sections against the GAR. I disagree a bit in that my idea of a short paragraph is 4-7 lines, but readability is definitely not affected as you've stated. --Teancum (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• The external links listed at the bottom have multiple links that should be removed per WP:ELNO, though a few might be able to stay under WP:ELMAYBE
  • Removed all, IMO none helps the reader. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation - immediate delist to C-Class and place the article under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review to help it to comply with both Wikipedia's and Wikiproject Video Games' standards. --Teancum (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. WikiProject guidelines, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and WP:VG/RS, are not and have never been part of the good article criteria. However, they may and often do advise reviewers in the interpretation of the criteria (e.g. broadness, verifiability) for particular types of article. Geometry guy 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - pending discussion and changes per my last comment it looks like Philca has/will either make changes necessary or be able to justify the things that remain unchanged. Not throwing in my final opinion yet, but given Philca's focus on updating the article I see no reason as of now that this won't remain GA class. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  Improvement to the article (and hence the encyclopedia) is a good outcome in itself. Geometry guy 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep GA listing - article issues have been sufficiently resolved. --Teancum (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist, with regret. I wanted to close this reassessment as keep, but am unable to do so, as the huge imbalance between the long Backstory-Gameplay-UserInterface part (primary sourced material on how to play the game) and the short Development-Reception-PostPublication part (secondary sourced material on responses to the game) suggests to me that the article fails criterion 3, and indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews. Geometry guy 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The game had a GAR and passed, by Teancum on 11:51, 11 August 2010
  • The game was released 1996, so the retroviews are any there are. --Philcha (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've already provided pages from the game manual, and I found a 1996 review and a 2000 (retro)review. Would that address your concern about "primary sourced material on how to play the game"? I think it will take 1-2 days, as I also need to deal some RL. --Philcha (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Commander (song)

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

Result: No action. The article has now received the attention of several reviewers, and has been copyedited, with no subsequent case made to delist. Geometry guy 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This article was passed just a few days ago, and while the subject is extensively covered, the quality of the prose is not good enough. Even the first sentence has grammatical errors, and here are just a few examples:

• "Commander" is a song by American recording artist, Kelly Rowland taken from her self-titled, third studio album.

• granted that is an error.

• In 2009 just prior to following Rowland's collaboration with David Guetta on "When Love Takes Over" she announced her departure from Columbia Records which was said to be by mutual agreement. However in an interview with Entertainment Weekly she revealed that the decision to leave was not hers and was more down to the records from the previous album, Ms. Kelly not being commercially successful.

• I don't see this as an issue

In 2009, just prior to following Rowland's collaboration with David Guetta on "When Love Takes Over", she announced her departure from Columbia Records which was said to be by mutual agreement. However in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, she revealed that the decision to leave was not hers' and was due to records from the previous album, Ms. Kelly not being commercially successful.

There was no comma usage at all, which the editor may have been talking that. And hers needed an apostrophe, and "due to" seems clearer to read than "more down to". The article may indeed need a bit of copyediting. Candyo32 16:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The song was well received by critics who noted Rowland and Guetta as a winning formula.

• I don't see this as an issue --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

These are just a few examples I found within a few seconds. The article really needs a good copyedit if it is to remain a good article. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I have some time to copy edit this please? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, copy edited. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would lean towards delist. The grammar remains poor, with punctuation all over the place. The quality of prose is average, and i saw at least one spelling mistake in an early section. The composition section is weak, with material under "themes" that does not actually appear to be about the themes of the song. It also needs people other than the song's writer and performer talking about the themes. On the other hand, the article represents an impressive assembly of info about a song and is closely referenced. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. This is poorly written throughout, and should never have been listed. Someone who cares about the subject needs to go through the whole thing again and fix nonsense like this: "Currently in Belgium it sits at number three on the Flanders Tip Chart, five on the Wallonia Tip Chart whilst in Sweden it sits at number thirty-seven." Malleus Fatuorum 12:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with the sentence you pointed out. It is an on-going charting song. I'd say Keep it meets GA standards and most of the problems being brought up seem to be FA stuff. Candyo32 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the person currently 'looking after' updating the article I don't see that many issues with it. I am working to improve on it as more comments are left. It is important that users provide details or explainations of improvements that could be made to the article rather than just say things like de-list because x-y-z sentance. Also note in line with the comments about this is only a good article not a featured one and per the classification system it is not expected to be perfect. I will have a go at re doing the article if you give me chance --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article's prose doesn't have to be brilliant, but it still has to be of a good standard. Here are a few other examples:

• "It serves as the project's international lead single and her debut release with Universal Motown after the recording of the single caught the attention record label boss Sylvia Rhone." This sentence is too convoluted and could easily be separated into two. In fact, I don't even see the relevance of mentioning the information about Rhone.
• "It was co-written by American songwriter Rico Love who, described the song". Should be, "songwriter Rico Love, who...". There are many instances of this recurring throughout.
• "French DJ and producer, David Guetta produced". Don't see why the comma is there.
• "The single was debuted at the". Maybe "premiered" is a better word?
• "subsequently garnered universal praise from contemporary critics for reuniting Rowland and Guetta, on a dance track that marries her vocal performance with his production perfectly". "Universal praise" is a very strong term. While I'm not surprised the song was well received, it may be better not to use it unless you have a good source backing up the claim. The part about "marries her vocal... perfectly" is from a single review, and shouldn't be used to generalize the views of all critics. Maybe you could just mention that the vocals and production were praised.
• "Promotion for the release included a number of live performances including BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge and The Graham Norton Show". Makes it sound like those programs are the titles of the performances.

These are all from the lead, and there must be multitudes in the actual body of the article. A serious copyedit is really required. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said if people give constructive criticism I am happy to invest time to rectify the problem, which is why I don't think the article should be delisted when it passess all other aspects. Thanks to all the users for pointing these out including Cornucopia. Perhaps the editor who passed the article should be informed as its not necessarily my fault if the GA was passed with poor prose. I accept that the prose is not of excellent quality. But this is one of my first GA noms and I am still learning. I believe that I have satisfied all of the issues above but I am going to proceed with yet another copy edit right now. Note that only yesterday I copy edited most of the article from the release section downwards. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The prose, especially in the lead, is a lot better now. Since I nominated the article at GAR, I'll leave it up to other editors to decide on the prose quality. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I, the reviewer, have been notified of this reassessment discussion, and I have been watching with interest. I have taken a break reviewing GAs while this process occurs, and I will try to be a bit tougher on the prose quality front in future. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question. What is a "linguistic error" (in contrast to a deliberate grammar error)? Geometry guy 22:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(To clarify, I am referring to the "Music and lyrics" section of the article. I got stuck there when I tried to copyedit.)

I suppose there's not really any difference. Linguistics is the mechanics of the language and it probably wasn't the best term to use so its been removed. ---- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 06:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I have now tried to copyedit as best I could (I am very fallible, and do not know the subject). If I have introduced any errors or misrepresentations, please fix them, or raise queries. Geometry guy 00:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season

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

Result: Delist without prejudice regarding renomination at GAN. The initial review was flawed as the article was far from meeting the criteria when nominated, and therefore should not have been listed. The article has been much improved following reviewer comments here, and the prose content has been substantially expanded. The new content requires a fresh review. No case has been made here to list the article as GA, but the article may now be ready for nomination at GAN. Geometry guy 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This article had been under review at WP:GAN for over a month without any action. After I posted a note[11] on one of the reviewer's talk pages they listed it without comment. Large parts of the article are in list format, there is poor prose and grammar. I am listing it here for other editors to comment. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for listing this here. I hope to see this get some critical review and feedback (and then a proper promotion :-)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. The prose are poor and several sections are little more than embedded lists. Majoreditor (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I feel many of the lists are list content. If you can identify lists that should be prose content, I can address those.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I converted three short lists to prose. Not sure anything else should be converted. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The article needs copyediting. For example, see this sentence:

The 2009–10 season marked the third consecutive year that every Big Ten men’s basketball conference regular-season and tournament game was be nationally televised.

I'll help fix the grammar. Majoreditor (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ping me if there is anything that you can not figure out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This article is still very list-like, even in comparison with 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season. Lists are not eligible for GA status, so if editors wish to make this an article rather than a list, it should be (re)written with that in mind. Geometry guy 22:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this has the same amount if not less list content than last year, but less prose content. Are you requesting adding more prose to make it like the prior year or are you saying it has too much list content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    It seems to me that it would be easier to bring both articles to a high standard as lists. However, it is the choice of editors working on an article whether to write it in a list style or a prose style. In the latter case, tables are like images: supplementary information and detail that the reader needs to be guided through with prose. Geometry guy 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    • That was a pretty convoluted response. Are you saying that if I want to present it in prose style it needs more prose to accomodate the lists or that there are too many lists needing prose guidance?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS says "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs". Some sections, such as "National Invitation Tournament", would be much easier to read if rendered as prose rather than presented entirely in tabular form. Majoreditor (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added prose summaries to some of the tables. I have also updated a few things.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You need some more content in the "Regular season" section. This should be the meat of the article, but it is instead comparitively tiny. I like the overall layout of 2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season better anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I will expand it before the end of the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have started expanding. Do you want me to include all of Turner's awards in this section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey (album)

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

Result: Delisted by principal editor in response to GAR concerns. Geometry guy 21:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there are a number of reasons this is not quite a GA. First of all see comments by the original reviewer, CK Lakeshade) who requested reassessment on the talk page of GA (Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Mariah Carey (album)). I agree with his conclusion.

In the article with just a quick glance I noticed the following (consider how many were in the introduction alone)

• Multiple release dates in the infobox (only 1 should appear).
• No release history
• Poor quality prose...
  • e.g. "spending eleven non-consecutive weeks atop the Billboard 200 and reached top ten in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom" should be reached not reaching.
  • e.g. "Five singles were released from the album, of them four " ... it should be "Five singles were released from the album, four of which" or something similar.
• Vision of Love in the intro should in speech marks.
• "the album experienced moderate success in most European markets, a trend her albums would follow until her 1993 release, "Music Box"." seems at oods with earlier statements about reaching top-ten. Suddenly we're suggesting that top-ten is moderately successful?
• the intro focusses to much on sales and how succeful the album was instead of giving an accurate summary of the album/article as a whole.
• lauded? perhaps you meant "acclaimed"?
• This sentance, "Only seven made the final cut, but Carey was involved in the songwriting process throughout the writing and production of the following songs." as it leads nowhere but ends in a way suggesting that it does in fact lead somewhere.
• carey and margulies → Carey and Marguilies (capitals for names)
• "Originally, carey and margulies planned to produce the entire album as well, a decision that was turned away by her label." is not a good sentance try something like → The duo were planning to product the entire album however, a decision to which Carey's label was not satisfied.
• Believed to be the next worldwide phenomenon, Sony Music executives hired a range of top of the line producers to ensure Carey's current and future songs would become hits. → Sony Music believe that she was the next worldwide phenomenon and subsequently hired a range of top producers to ensure that Carey's current and future songs had hit potential.
• What defined Vision of Love as a worldwide phenomenon? was it charts? critical acclaim? both? not very clear.

See I've give several examples from the introduction to the end of the writing and development section which show a clear lack of understanding in what makes good reading. Many of the sentances start in the same way e.g. with a subphrase followed by a comma, and then more information. It reads like a series of direct quotes taken from the various book sources used. Sometimes songs are given in speech marks other times they aren't. A song should ALWAYS appear in "speech marks". The critical reception section seems bias. Every review usually mentions at least one negative thing but the critical reception section clearly side steps any negative comments. Bill Lamb from about.com said negative things included "Somewhat formulaic mix of uptempo tracks and ballads and A few weak songs pull down the overall album" though none of this is mentioned because the section has been clumsily written to omitt any critism. It also focuses way too much on Vision of Love. Statements like "Mariah Carey was moderately successful for a debut album outside the U.S." in the Commericial Performance section unsourced. The article also fails on MOS:NUM in some cases. Numbers less than 100 should be written in words not figures. Not all of the legacy section is relevant and not all of the information is placed in the correct section. (e.g. appearing on best songs of 1990 is not part of the legacy) in fact most of this section is more relevant to the song "Vision of Love" and is the legacy of that song rather than this album. The track listng fails on WP:Albums#Track list which states, avoid redundency by repeating that one person wrote/produced all of or nearly all of an album. Album credits are not sourced. Finally the single discography at the bottom of the page repeats a lot of information already contained in the singles section and does NOT follow the new manual of style for tables shown at WP:Wikitable.

Overall

1. It doesn't follow MoS
2. There isn't enough high quality information, too much is sourced from a biography and appears to be closely copied/paraphrased.
3. Poor quality prose.
4. Lots of fancruft/irrelavancy.
5. Bias... this article reads like an epitaph or promotional poster for "Vision of Love" it suggests that every other single from the album is not notable because "Vision of Love" blasted everything else of of the water.

-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is copied or paraphrased at all, its all original research. This article is not bias, its sourced and true. Also, Vision of Love and the album are what received all the attention, not really the other singles, so that is the way it went.--PeterGriffin • Talk 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I've proven in the reception section that you have been overly bias by deliberately omitting negative comments. Original research is not allowed per WP:OR. It sounds paraphrased because its poorly written. It doens't follow MOS and the article is littered in every section about how good "Vision of Love" is. Half of the legacy section is about the achievements of the song not the album. Peter its beginning to look like you cannot edit anything relative to Mariah Carey with any level of neutrality or objectivity. If that's the case then you may have to cease editing things which are related to Mariah Carey. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

So the page has been worked on by myself and other editors, and it seems to me that it is ready.--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I couldnot help but comment and agree with the initial reviewer LICLIKI. Peter, please get this planted in your head, that "you" and "editors who worked with you" thinking an article is ready is not consensus and is a logical case of wP:NPOV. You made a similar comment at the FLC of MC album, which I really frown upon. As it is, Lil-unique has pointed so many valid comments. I oppose this GA at present as of now, especially since the article is riddled with such unencylopedic and POV statements like "The album received generally positive reviews from music critics, many of them praising it for being a debut-album". I mean, seriously? Do a search of how many "positive" strings are there in the article compared to how many negative strings there are. And as I have said before, the article is about Mariah Carey the album, not "Vision of Love". And whatever legacy I see of the album (2 lines) is already repeated in the reception. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I personally has never nominated or reviewed an article for GA, but I'm surprised that a user, who joined Wikipedia in July 2010 and has nothing to do about GA, passed the article quickly without any concerns. Well for critical response, I believe that, at the time of its release, many music critics compared both the album style and Mariah herself to those of Whitney Houston's. But, I find nothing about such information in this article, only reviews which lauded the album. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where your getting this negativity from Legolas, I only differ in opinion from you, thats all, if you all really don't believe the article to be ready its fine, but don't make this about me. I believed it to be ready, nominated it twice and got it passed, it the Wikipedia community doesn't agree its ready, then that fine, delist it and let me work on these issues some more, and Ill re-nominate it in a few days. And Legolas, so you know when I do the critical reception of an album, I search through as many newspapers and reviews as possible, don't think I only look for the positive, because I would bet you that another review for this album is near impossible to find on the web. Don't think just because you disagree with me that your in for an edit-war, because I respect all of your opinions, I only disagree. Anyway, so I will delist it for now, and re-nominate after the article gets a re-vamp. Thanks everyone for your time!.--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not getting negativity, but please cease such comments as "I think this is the best, so can we close it". These processes take time (GAR, FLC, FAC etc) so please be patient and reflect on the comments that reviewers are making. And comments like this "Don't think just because you disagree with me that your in for an edit-war", seriously doesnot make any sense and make me lose faith in your edits. You should learn that keeping an article balanced is integral to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, you cannot ignore that. Again, let the community decide whether it can be delisted or not. Mariah Carey has all the ingredients to be a GA, just that they haven't been cooked properly. You get what I mean? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do, so okay, well just wait and see what people have to say.--PeterGriffin • Talk 06:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Unless someone sorts out the POV, this is a delist. I just read two online reviews - about.com and Slant - and they have been sanitised for the WP article, particularly in the "Legacy" section. There is a real mix of comment in those reivews - words like formulaic get used. She raps "badly". But this is not getting picked up properly. The article is not neutral as it stands. Whether reviews like that at about.com are reliable I have no idea - this isn't my field, but I'd like to hear some comment on that at some stage too. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm de-listing the article now. I am tired of this discussion, it is obvious more than a few editors don't feel the article is quite ready, so i will make the move and de-list it. I will fix up a few things when I get the chance and then re-nominate it. Thanks to all who participated in this discussion.--PeterGriffin • Talk 10:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Great Moravia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist per unresolved concerns below and similar. (I would further suggest that to make progress, editors of the article should remind themselves that this is an encyclopedia, and articles should be written in a collaborative spirit for the benefit of readers, not editors. Wikipedia is not the place to resolve historical disagreements.) Geometry guy 21:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

At present status, the article Great Moravia seems to contain OR, in many cases the sources of its statements cannot be chequed in lack of proper citations, the lead section of the article does not summarize properly the main text, many sources were written in the 1980s and does not represent latest views of the history of Great Moravia. Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delist; there is a lot to work to be done on this article. There are many unsupported attributions, {{citation needed}} tags, missing page numbers, POV statements like "an exquisite noble tomb" and the prose is not great in parts (eg. "Inhabitants of Great Moravia even had better teeth than people today"). There seems to be a recent content dispute which, although it's been quiet for a few weeks, doesn't seem to have been resolved.--BelovedFreak 09:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC).
• Delist; It is a great article but at present status the article doesn't meets the good article criteria (per users: Borsoka & BelovedFreak). Kebeta (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment; I would suggest Wikipedia spotlight for the article, so the sources written in the 1980s and the latest views of the history of Great Moravia can be both represented, to avoid the possible edit-war over the article in the future and to make it a certain GA article. Kebeta (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Warcraft II

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

Result: No action. There is no consensus to list this article, and there remain unresolved concerns. Geometry guy 21:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 has several defects, and I'm reluctant to insert Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 as this would be it more for GAR reviewers to make their comments easy to see. However I will insert the whole of Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 is required.

A few of the problems with Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1:

• The first GA reviewer's first statement was so poorly structured that I restructured it so I could understanding. None of the reviewers object to the result.
• The complain that "Warcraft II is a real time strategy game (RTS),[1] in other words the contenders play at the same time and continuously, so that players have to move quickly" was, in the first reviewer opinion, "Bad, almost game-guide tone, how about just explaining what an RTS is instead of beating around the bush and giving us a really bad explanation before actually cutting to the chase". However, the article gives 2 citations for the explanation of RTS, IMO this is relevant, and hence trying to removed it would be WP:POV.
• WP:WIAGA uses a strict subset of MOS, and WikiProject extensions are also outside WP:WIAGA.
• The story, when present in games, is generally subordinate to the gameplay, for example:
  • Total_Annihilation's story is a concise summary of the gameplay: "What began as a conflict over the transfer of consciousness from flesh to machines escalated into a war which has decimated a million worlds. The Core and the Arm have all but exhausted the resources of a galaxy in their struggle for domination. Both sides now crippled beyond repair, the remnants of their armies continue to battle on ravaged planets, their hatred fueled by over four thousand years of total war. This is a fight to the death. For each side, the only acceptable outcome is the complete elimination of the other.
  • The in-game stories of the Red Alert series simply explain why the western powers are fighting Stalin rather than Hitler.
  • Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares has no story within the game and 1 page in the manual. --Philcha (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• General responses
  • As of noting this GAR I have taken a look at Total Annihilation, which was reassessed as C class due to poor sourcing and WP:GAMEGUIDE material (external links, some material throughout article). I have also placed Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares under GAR here, as there are currently several issues with that article as well. Command & Conquer: Red Alert is also currently C class, and so these may not be the best examples to cite against.
  • The primary editor was encouraged to seek a peer review, and they have done so. It seems premature to seek reassessment prior to completion of peer review.
  • The GAN reviewer requested a 2nd opinion and a total of five other reviewers assessed the article, each feeling that it had too many issues.
  • The initial review cited by Philcha listed issues he could correct in the meantime. And regardless of the structuring of the review itself, the issue is not with how the review is laid out, but whether the article addressed the issues listed in the review itself.
  • On the issue of WP:WIAGA the nominator seems to imply that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines operates outside of the paramaters of WP:WIAGA, and that the Wikiproject to which he assigned the GAN should follow only general WP:WIAGA rules, ignoring the WikiProject's guidelines, which use Template:subcat guideline, stating they are guidelines that must be followed.
• Though I feel that Philcha's contributions and editing are excellent overall and don't want to offend the editor, I felt that I should make a few points in defense of WP:VG. --Teancum (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Responses:

• Wikipedia:Peer review#Warcraft II closed on 21 July 2010.
• Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares passed GA on July 1, 2009. But Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good articles did not list Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares as late as 31 July 2009, perhaps because WikiProject Video games assesses Master of Orion II as Mid-priority.
• I'd have thought getting Total Annihilation and Command & Conquer: Red Alert to GA or even FA would be a better return on the effort.
• Would you want me to do a GA review in the same style as the one for Warcraft II, so that the nominator's first task would need to restucture it and I would give no help in identify issues? I generally use a standard procedure, but could omit:
  • Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per WP:WIAGA.
  • Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
  • (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
  • Check for broken links and DAB pages.
  • Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in tha main text.
  • As a nominator does not know when a GA review may be start, it may be a time when the nominator is busy for other things. I make an allowance for RL if the nominator requests this at the start of the review.
  • If you disagree with any my comments, please say so - I'm not infallible.

More later - RL again --Philcha (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My fault on the peer review. WP:Video Games still had it listed on their to-do list. As far as any disagreements, I only wanted to state the Wikiproject's POV, I personally don't have enough interest in this particular article to have any arguments. --Teancum (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. WikiProject guidelines, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, are not and have never been part of the good article criteria. However, they may and often do advise reviewers in the interpretation of the criteria (e.g. broadness) for particular types of article. Geometry guy 21:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• GA issues. Having reviewed the article, I believe it does not meet the GA criteria at present: problems include 1a (clarity), 1b (lead section and fiction) and 3b (focus). In broad terms, the current structure is unencyclopedic, disjointed, with in-universe and game-play elements dominating.

The first disjunction is the third paragraph of the lead ("Players must collect resources...") The reader is obliged to be drawn into the game-play without a clear understanding of what this game-play entails. "The more advanced combat units are produced at the same buildings as the basic units but also need the assistance of other buildings, or must be produced at buildings that have prerequisite buildings." illustrates the poor prose and in-universe trend: buildings are not regarded as assistants in real life. Here also is the first of many wikilinks to the fog of war.

In the first section, the article gradually draws the reader in-universe. What is it with the capitalization of "Farms", "Oil Tankers", "Oil Platforms" or even "Humans"? Then, in the "user-interface" section, the level of detail in the article and image caption makes the article seem like a gaming guide, which Wikipedia is not.

The next disjunction was the "Predecessor and sequels" section. I might have expected something about sequels, but I thought predecessors had already been discussed. The level of detail here is excessive.

The final disjunction was the the most disconcerting of all. Having read through the sequels, I figured that I must be at the end of the article, but no, there is a whole new in-universe section on the storyline. Never mind moving the section, deleting it would be an improvement. Short of that, please use the narrative present for plot summaries, and keep them short!

Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but that can lead to a lack of objectivity. I recommend stepping back and taking in the reactions of no less that 6 reviewers to the article, and rethinking how to do justice (in this encyclopedia) to a very significant game of the 1990s. Geometry guy 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Geometry guy. Your comments made me think:

• So far all the participants are gamers and assume their conventions. I'd be grateful for non-gamer(s) to help on the prose. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Farms", "Oil Tankers", etc. are capitalised in the game. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  Such capitalizations are in-universe descriptions: there are several ways to take them out of universe, including quotation. Geometry guy 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  In all RTS' that I remember, all units and buildings are capitalized. Zoology has its own convention - the "species" part of a species is lower case, all other names are capitalized. --Philcha (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  See below. Geometry guy 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I regard "buildings are not regarded as assistants in real life" as a travesty of "also need the assistance of other buildings". In real life one craftsman may need the assistance of another, e.g. a sawyer needs a toolmaker. In the Warcraft II manual the section is "Unit Dependencies" and consists of a diagram. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • G-guy, I apologise for the harsh term "travesty". --Philcha (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

    No offense taken, though apologies are always happily received. My wording was colourful, but this is still an in-universe description of the way the universe of the game works. Geometry guy 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    As far as know Blizzard introduced the Unit Dependencies, starting with the Warcraft: Orcs & Humans manual and also used in Starcraft, and I know of no other series that has one.

    I've produced a few zoology GAs, mainly of phyla, and in all of these the description is the main part of the article, while e.g. phylogeny can be simple or complex or debated, and interaction with humans is a relatively small part of the article although in some cases enormously important - e.g. in Arthropod.

    In both phyla and RTSs, I think the reader needs a good mental picture as a base for other parts of the analysis. --Philcha (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    The comparisons you make are interesting, but invalid: one usage is real world, backed up by RSS, the other isn't. Wikipedia cannot be what you want it to be; it is what it is, an encyclopedia, based (ideally) on the best information available in reliable secondary sources. Geometry guy 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Where do you think the article does not use "the best information available in reliable secondary sources"? --Philcha (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  Can you rephrase the question? I am not saying that the sources used are not the best available for the information they provide (they may or may not be). I am saying that the article as a whole is not based upon the best information available in reliable secondary sources. The basis instead includes a lot of primary source material, more than is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and, perhaps as a consequence, some of the presentation is in-universe. Geometry guy 23:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• As a reader I want to make my own mind, in this case about whether the game is good and whether it's the type I like. A lecture may be informative but should not try to make my mind for me. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Blizzard Entertainment has a unique place in the history of games. The company's competition with Westwood Studios which fueled the late-1970 Real-time strategy boom, although Westwood easily out-sold Blizzard. Then Blizzard released Starcraft, which easily out-sold any early RTS game and introduced 3 races that were very different but well-balanced, a feat not previously achieved. Some years later Blizzard released Warcraft III, which also produced races that were very different but well-balanced and which easily out-sold any early RTS game including Starcraft. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Both Blizzard and reviewers have said that the story is part of the company's approach to game design, and IMO to omit this would be slightly WP:NPOV. Some reviewers: Retronauts Presents: Blizzard vs. Westwood from 1UP.com, IGN Presents the History of Warcraft - Retro Feature at IGN --Philcha (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The article cannot be listed as GA unless an independent reviewer endorses the article as meeting the GA criteria. It seems to me that it is best to close this GAR as "No action" so that renomination at GAN can take place once article editors believe that there is a chance to obtain such an independent endorsement. Comments made here may help editors and reviewers approach that challenge with realism. Geometry guy 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell Comes to Quahog

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • First GAN • Second GAN

Result: Delist per unresolved GA concerns below. The prose is still poor and the article is packed with unencyclopedic trivia. Geometry guy 11:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is in heavy need of a copyedit (most of the cultural reference section repeats "When this happened... When this happened..."), with a lot of grammar problems throughout. The reception section is merely the Nielsen rating and a couple lines from one review. Someone brought up the reception issue on the talk page over a year ago, but it was neither responded to nor dealt with. I'm surprised this was passed in the first place, and feel it should be delisted if the article is not improved to meet GA standards. Ωphois 09:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Resoveled the Cr issue. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 12:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Still needs copyedit throughout, and an expansion of the reception section. Ωphois 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Am aware, i am not retared. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• More copyediting needed. For example: "TV Squad gave the episode a positive review calling the installment much better then previous ones, but he critczed the story comparing the story with a South Park èpisode titled Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes, which had a simaler plot. He also comented negatively towards puting Peter to work at the store." ->five errors. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• I mean no offence at all by this, but it'd better to have the article copyedited by someone who has quite a high standard of English (that's not a dig at Pedro, I'm just going off comments made by him elsewhere). I'm also spotting minor errors in WP:MOS (eg. use of italics and quotation marks) and there's a link to a disambiguation page. The prose is not great, for example; "Much of the music throughout the episode was written by Walter Murphy, who was selected to perform the 1970s song, "A Fifth of Beethoven", which was played at the roller rink scene, as well as other music played in the episode which follows the style of Elmer Bernstein's theme to Stripes when Brian and Stewie are destroying the store." and "Several variations were made to "the ice man" scene, who was originally meant to be fighting with his wife, but was changed for legality reasons." I'll have another look, but it may need to be addressed by someone more familiar with the show/episode.--BelovedFreak 18:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment, I have copyedited the plot (having viewed the episode). I may have introduced errors: please check. Geometry guy 22:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• GA issues. I've copyedited the Reception section as well, but it is rather lacking in material and the description of the two reviews as "positive" is rather bland. I find it hard to believe that "TV Squad" is a reliable source: it looks like a group blog to me, and the evidence of editorial oversight in the review is approximately nil ("Coloring, plunger nipples, and hiding in the clothes racks were just meh for me" and "While not necessarily a critique of this episode, I am a little concerned with the direction of Stewie" illustrate the abysmal prose in the review).

I would have copyedited the production and cultural references sections, where the prose is very weak (as noted by other reviewers), but both sections are almost entirely sourced to DVD commentary (a primary source). Such extensive reliance on primary source material is inappropriate in general, but as a source for what is essentially trivia, it is particularly unencylopedic.

It seems to me that the article fails 1a, 1b (fiction), 2 (lack of reliable sources), 3a (inadequate reception) and 3b (extensive primary source material). In the long term, I suggest finding more reliable sources, and absorbing the cultural references into the reception, where reviewers note them. In the short term, delisting looks like the best way to go. Geometry guy 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, there are several other Family Guy GAs that suffer from the same shortcomings. Hopefully they will also be reviewed at some point and be brought up to GA standards. Sasata (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I'd like to reiterate my statement from another recent GAR of a different Family Guy episode. You know, it's not that difficult to expand an article. I've expanded the article, and copyedited it, and it should now be up to GA standards. I would like to thank Ophois for withdrawing his other GAR nomination, after I was able to address their concerns about the article, and I hope the same will be done here. Thanks. Gage (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for improving the prose, but in your expansion you have added only primary sourced and unreliably sourced information. The article is now 95% primarily sourced, and fails criteria 1b and 3b even more extensively than it did before, while 3a remains unaddressed. I will check whether Mother Tucker has similar outstanding problems: thanks for drawing attention to it. Geometry guy 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, please. And your questionabilty of TV Squad as a reliable source is unfounded. The website is owned and operated by AOL, Incorporated. Gage (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  How does that make it a reliable source? Geometry guy 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  How does your questioning of its reliabilty have any merit whatsoever? Gage (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  To be fair to Geometry guy, the onus is on editors to prove the reliability of sources, not other editors to disprove reliability. I personally don't know how reliable TV squad is although it seems to have been accepted at recent FAC discussions ([12] [13]). It would be good to have some more information on how much fact checking or editorial oversight there is. As I've recently started an individual reassessment of another Family Guy article, I have to say that I too am a little concerned about the FG GAs as a group. It seems that too many are slipping through the net that actually fall short of the criteria.--BelovedFreak 16:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  I've looked into this further, and it is a difficult question. Being owned by AOL is not per se a reason to call a source reliable: Facebook is also owned by a significant international company, but that does not mean every page on Facebook is a reliable source. The problem with TV Squad is that it is a group blog, and per WP:RS, blogs are not reliable secondary sources. The concern is that such sources are self-published. However, in defense of TV Squad, it does have a core of regular contributors and an editorial staff, so despite its claim to be a blog (part of Weblogs, Inc., an AOL subsidiary) it has some features in common with an online newspaper. The site has been discussed once at WP:RSN, but without substantial input.

  My concern is that there does not appear to be editorial oversight across the entire blog, but instead, contributing reviewers are encouraged that their words will be published unedited. The format aims to guarantee the independence of the reviews, but not their quality. Hence my view is that reviews from TV Squad should be judged on a case-by-case basis. In this case, as noted above, the quality of the review (or lack of it) speaks for itself, and I would not accept it as a reliable source if I were reviewing this article as a GAN. Geometry guy 21:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  The quality of that review seems perfectly fine to me. That, combined with the aforementioned editorial team, makes TV Squad a reliable source in my opinion. Ωphois 16:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Do you believe that someone from the editorial team read the review before it was posted in its current form? Geometry guy 20:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  If they are doing their job, then yes. Ωphois 20:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  It would be their job in a newspaper or magazine, online or otherwise, but in a group blog, they may not consider it so. It is a question of scale. A newspaper or magazine only publishes a reasonable number of reviews per day/week/month, but with a group blog, it isn't reasonable to expect an editorial team of 7 to read every review of every TV show posted by every blogger accepted by the site.

  The point about editorial control is that you sack or do not further consult contributors who write atrociously. This is not so clear with a blog. In the case of this review, it has clearly not been read by anyone with a modicum of English language proficiency. The first half of the review is weak.

  • "It did serve as a good backdrop for some funny stuff though. And really, any time someone wants to put the boots to Wal-Mart, I'm ok with it." And really? Ok with it, in what way?

  • He's okay with the series making fun of Walmart. Ωphois 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  • "Things started out on a good note with Red Dawn the musical and the who's that kind of drunk bit... Pepperidge Farms remembers, the Ice Man's trail to the gay club, and Hummer guy were all good." Good? Why isn't "Who's that kind of drunk" in quotes?
  • "And it's worth mentioning that American Dad was solid again. That really wasn't the focus here though." Why is it worth mentioning? Just to prove how lame is this review?
  • "What was great to see was that the jokes were good and so fast." Desperately bad prose.

  The second half is even worse.

  • "For me, it's a fine line when they go retarded with Peter. Sometimes it plays really funny, and sometimes it just gets annoying. Coloring, plunger nipples, and hiding in the clothes racks were just meh for me. They did pay off well when it led to Meg not firing Peter, and then Peter refusing to acknowledge her at the end of the show." Who went retarded? What fine line? What does "meh" mean out of quotes? What does the sentence mean in general? Who paid off well? Was it the coloring, the plunger nipples or the clothes racks which benefited? Or none of the above?

  • Peter went retarded, and I assume the "fine line" is that it is either a stupid joke or a really funny jokes with no in-between. Ωphois 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  • "While not necessarily a critique of this episode, I am a little concerned with the direction of Stewie." This is one of the most damning sentences of the review. It isn't about style or being cool: the reviewer is simply incapable of constructing a sentence, and any editorial control would address that. The first clause is a modifier for the first noun "I", so it reads that "I am not necessarily a critique of this episode", which is clear since a critique is a text, not a person. It is followed by a concern about the direction of Stewie: does he face too far north, perhaps? Or is he a sentient being who could do better with the right direction? A simple copyedit would clarify the intended meaning: none was made.
  • "And that will do it for a while. Once again, baseball will rear it's ugly head and there will be no more new Family Guy until the beginning of November." Do it for what? What head?

  • "rear it's ugly head" is a phrase. I assume he is saying that the start of baseball season means that there won't be new episodes for a while. Ωphois 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  This material does not indicate any effort to establish or maintain a reputation for reliability. Geometry guy 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that there were some grammar issues, but they were more nitpicks IMO than any glaring issues. I've seen other reviews from newspaper websites that are also written in this style, though. I still feel it is a reliable source. Ωphois 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    It is far worse than grammar issues. Of course the intended meaning can be intuited by editors such as yourself and myself who have watched the episode, but would you employ someone this incompetent? I notice you have not responded to the worst abuses in your threaded reply and in others you "assume" the likely meaning. What is the poor hapless reader to conclude? (This is a global encyclopedia.) The prose is of a nature that would be crucified in 7th grade English. "Yes dear, I know what you meant, well done in expressing yourself" is something for grades 5 and below. Geometry guy 23:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    • From my experience, television reviews are generally targeted at fans who have already watched the episodes, and are usually in a blog-like format. They are much different than movie reviews. Ωphois 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

      The IGN review makes a useful comparison. I'm unconvinced that IGN (originally a games network) is a good source for TV reviews, and the prose in the review is arguably even worse than in the TV Squad review. Is it by chance that the analysis is slightly more insightful? What makes IGN a reliable source for TV episode reviews? These are both questions, and being owned by a large corporation is not an answer. Geometry guy 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist per review by Belovedfreak. JJ98 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delist per concerns re sourcing and comments of Geometry guy. This may also be a broader issue for other articles, but I'm just responding to this particular GAR. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Per Gage, the article looks great CTJF83 chat 06:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know if this matters or not (possible conflict of interest?), but all votes for "keep" are from members of the Family Guy project. Ωphois 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

  It is not a conflict of interest, because GAR is not a vote, and all contributions as to whether the article meets the criteria are welcome. However, for the same reason, comments which are little more than "I like it" or "I don't like it" play a negligible role in determining consensus. GA concerns have been raised by several reviewers, and have remained unaddressed for some time, so this GAR is ready to close as "delist" anytime soon. Geometry guy 13:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming Disaster

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

Result: Delist per unresolved concerns and comments below. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting community reassessment because after the article passed GAR, within hours an individual reassessment was started. The individual reassessment is applying the wrong criteria to the article and is treating as a peer review process of the underlying science treated in the book that is the subject of the GAR. The reassessment reviewer has been sanctioned in the past for editing WP:FRINGE and I feel that the reviewer is now once again attempting to misapply WP:FRINGE and use it as good article criteria. The article treats all critiques of the book in a neutral way; there are no notable critiques omitted, and no non-notable critiques included. The synopsis follows WP:BOOK, and the Good Article criteria are met. I would like the community to look at this so that the article is not delisted based on one editor's opinion that may be a bit too biased against the underlying content of the book. Minor4th 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an idiot when it comes to this subject matter, but I am going to give my view on the other critrria. There has been protection and edit wars in the past 2 weeks, so without your addition of the POV tags, I still believe the article might not be quite stable yet for GA. Try again in about a month or so. Images, they all are freely licensed except for the book cover. I think there is too many images in the second part, mostly of things that are not remotely related to the book, such as a shot of Copenhagen. I would remove those, but keep the graphs. If we need to see what the guys look like, just click the links to their bios. Other than that, it passes the other criteria. To me, it is honestly 50/50 when it comes to having it stay at GA or not, but if those slight improvements are made, then I will be happy to see the article remain as GA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think too much should be read into the NPOV tagging. Nor do I think waiting a month is necessarily needful in any case. No comment on the substantive issues raised, as I stay out of all Global Warming content areas, but it is interesting that a review was raised so quickly after the article passed. Perhaps someone who has no dog in the fight would have been a far better choice to do the initial assessment, and certainly to do a reassessment. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How does one know whether one has a dog in the fight? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Delist The article fails to be neutral because it gives undue weight to a fringe theory inappropriately. I have explained in the individual reassessment how to fix that. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Do Not Delist SA should not be trying to assess this article given his obvious bias and POV mark nutley (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - reasons stated in request for community reassessment. Hoping some editors who are totally uninvolved in the global warming topic can weigh in . Minor4th 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Do not delist" - The delisting proposal is an attempt to push fringe Wikipedia SPOV policy by bashing a NPOV article. The article is sufficient for "Good" criteria rating. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: In order for this entire good-article process to mean anything, it will be necessary to get the opinions of people outside the climate-change arena. All the more so since several of the above comments are personal commentary and attacks, and do not address the merits of the article as they apply to good article criteria. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: It seems to me that ScienceApologist's reassessment was flawed as it appears to be a review of the book rather than a review of the article about the book. The individual reassessment is also incomplete as no decision to keep or delist was made and the reassessment is incomplete, not having been closed. Hence the article should be kept at GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: as the initial reviewer that passed the article for GA status, just hours before SA began his individual reassessment. I believe that outside editors (of the CC/GW area) should be involved in the process and that their opinions should be given more weight than those of us that have been involved in the area. I would recommend that those editors look both the initial assessment, the individual reassessment, the block log for myself and the block log for SA. The last two items are due to the fact that SA is asking us to believe that since he believes the article to be written about a fringe subject instead of the review of a book, he basically believes that the book should be peer-reviewed before it can get to GA status. This is not supported by policy, and it is possible that this policy area is honestly misunderstood by SA (which is shown in the last entry above). I concur with Jezhotwells comment above. GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Good articles can indeed, be written about non-peer-reviewed books. Democracy_(Judge_Dredd_storyline) is, quite likely, not a peer-reviewed book. Werner_Erhard_(book) quite likely is not very scientific. The criterion for "good article" is that the article meets WP GA standards, and nothing more. This is a matter of process - if the person demurring about what "GA" means wishes to change the process, he is surely welcome to seek consensus for the change in the process. Collect (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Initial comments. I agree with the chorus so far that the individual reassessment begun by ScienceApologist conflated criticism of the content of the book with criticism of the article about the book. In terms of process, the article is thus currently correctly listed as a GA. However, I'd like to remind everyone that the purpose of GAR is not to criticize individuals or the reviewing process to date, but to decide whether an article meets the GA criteria or not.

In this case, there are some GA issues that editors might like to consider - hopefully of a nature that can be agreed upon and fixed within the timescale of this community reassessment.

1. First it seems to me that the lead does not stand alone as an adequate summary of the article (1b). The first paragraph appears to summarize the argument made in the book, rather than the synopsis given in the article. For example, the events leading up to Copenhagen conference are not covered. (As an aside, the timing of the publication of the book is likely significant and may be worth addressing.)
2. Second, also unmentioned so far I think, there are some word usage issues to consider (1b). The lead invokes many synonyms for "says", and some editorializing, such as "consistently criticises". Word's need to be chosen with great care in the synopsis too, in order to present a neutral summary ("Booker then identifies..." may suggest insight to the reader).
3. One of ScienceApologist's points is that the synopsis is rather long in relation to the whole article. Given the agreement above that the article is about the book rather than the argument made in the book, it follows that primary source material should be minimized as much as it is in a plot summary of a work of fiction. This is a 3a issue: the article is not part of the debate on global warming, it is about a book. (There is also a minor 3b issue: the book apparently has an epilogue - is this covered?)
4. The most substantial issue raised by ScienceApologist is that the Reception section has problems with regard to neutrality and due weight (4). One of the really difficult things to do in a Reception section is select appropriate reviews, and to represent these reviews fairly, with due weight and suitable quotes. For example, the language selected from Philip Ball's review is colourful: "queer", "polemic", "bunk". In contrast, Peter Hitchen's review is represented with authoritative and balanced language. Yet his review ends, "This particular frenzy, if not checked, could end by bankrupting the West... while China and India surge on to growth and prosperity because they have had the sense to ignore the whole stupid thing."

I hope discussion of such concerns will lead to article improvement, so that the listing of the article as a GA is endorsed enthusiastically for meeting the GA criteria. Geometry guy 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have left the following talkback message on the article creator's talkpage - I'm unsure if he was aware of this discussion.

"Jprw, you may want to look at this page, with an interest in addressing concerns that neutral, uninvolved editors are bringing up. I would invite your attention specifically to the comments of Zscout370 and Geometry guy especially, as both offer concrete examples of how to improve the article and retain GA status." Hopefully he will address the issues raised. GregJackP Boomer! 16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Some confusion in this discussion. Minor4th and GregJackP are acknowledged IRL friends, but neither is the primary author of the article and so the initial review was legitimate.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question Is it not true that the two of you are friends in RL per the comments made during the SPI? If so, then yes this needs to be done by someone totally unrelated to any of the above and also should not be done by a friend. I can put up a dif for the SPI case but since it was blanked as a courtesy I think it would be rude of me to supply the dif at this time. Comments please, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, Minor4th and I know each other in RL. We have not discussed this, nor did I ask him to put this up for community reassessment. We generally have the same views on the lack of neutrality by a certain group in this area, and their efforts to silence anything that does not toe the CC/GW line. The reassessment is about the article, as Geometry guy noted. If you object, please state your objections. If you don't like the fact that I have friends in RL that are also on Wiki, I would suggest that you get over it, unless you want to propose a rule that all friendships or acquaintances of editors be disclosed. You may do so at the Village Pump, and to set a good example, perhaps list all the editors on Wiki that you've either corresponded with off-Wiki or otherwise know. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Just to understand your position: Previous actions by SA are highly relevant, but when your relationship with Minor4th is brought up we should concentrate on the article only? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Please show me where there is a Wikipedia policy being violated by having a RL friend. SA's previous actions deal with the fact that he does not understand WP:FRINGE - and he inappropriately tries to apply that here. I have no problem stating that Minor4th is a RL friend, and have done so on a number of occasions. It's not a secret. GregJackP Boomer! 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) You are welcome to have as many friends as you want, online and offline. However, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a concern. It's certainly less drama-prone to let uninvolved editors perform things like GA reviews in contentious areas. But what I am primarily concerned with is your shift in argument. It's always just the the article that should matter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Stephan, I probably wasn't very clear on what my concern was initally, but it has always been about the article in my opinion. The point about SA was that he was applying an incorrect standard to the article, and I believe that he honestly believes that he is correct. The point is that the area of WP:FRINGE has been difficult for him to get a handle on, thus the sanctions. It's not that I feel that he is acting maliciously, or is not acting in good faith - it is that fairness to the article requires that we apply the correct standards, and this article is about the book, not the science. On the WP:COI issue, it is not applicable. I don't have any of the listed conflicts with the article, and I'm pretty sure that Minor4th doesn't either. GregJackP Boomer! 15:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (ec)::I'm sorry but there is a big difference in having a RL friend promote an article of yours than me disclosing my friendships of editors I email with. You both disclosed your were RL friends that edit article of common interest. I have no problem with that at all. But taking your article instead of letting someone more neurtral do it, is wrong in my opinion. If I had a RL friend editing here I would not allow that person to judge my work in this manner, just for the record, as far as I'm aware none of my friends are editors. I'd like to hear from others about this, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC) What article of mine? Are you talking about John S. Loisel? Or United States v. Lara? Or Bryan v. Itasca County? Or Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe? I did not create nor edit this article. It is not "my" article. I had not even seen the article until I reviewed it for GA status. Please retract that misinformation, and an apology would be warranted also. GregJackP Boomer! 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) User:Jprw was the writer and requester of the GA. GregJackP was the second reviewer. I did the individual reassessment which was challenged by Minor4th. There doesn't seem to be anything untoward about this. The community review is ongoing and Geometry Guy has put forth some very important points which need addressing for the GA status to remain. This discussion, however, is irrelevant to this matter. Therefore, I've archived it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(Thanks for closing the tangent: I would have removed it to the talk page if I had been online.)

• Further comments. I have had more time to read the article again, and it looks good thanks to improvements made. I have a few further comments on the level of detail:

  The book and the article play a bit fast and loose with the credentials of the scientists involved. I hope we can rise above the discourse of creationists who use non-biologists questions about evolution to throw the science into doubt. In this case, Paul Ehrlich is an entomologist, so he should not be represented as the state of the art climate science at the time. Similarly, Frederick Seitz is a solid-state physicist.

  I have now read the review of Philip Ball, and am unconvinced that the article represents it fairly. It is a meme that those who support the scientific consensus ridicule those who do not, and selective quotation can propagate that meme. However, Wikipedia should not do so. The latter parts of the review provide specific criticisms of specific claims made in the book. Wikipedia should present the reader with such views. It is then up to the reader to decide. Geometry guy 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a bit concerned by how the listing in The Scotsman is handled. The review itself seems to me to be rather throwaway as it's really a discussion of a year's worth of books, but its quoted almost in its entirety at Wikipedia. I'm not sure why we're doing that. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The article could leave it as Sir John Lister-Kaye chose the book as one of his "books of the year" but that would be a little misleading since the review actually includes a criticism of the book's credibility. What do you think? Minor4th 21:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, The Scotsman asked him what was "the most engrossing reads of 2009", it seems. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. GJP should not have assessed this article in the first place, due to bias - he is heavily involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and this article is part of that case. The article itself is not good - it is far too "in Universe" - far too much of it essentially goes along with the book; it is not really an article about the book William M. Connolley (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Can you explain more specifically why/where/how the article does not meet the GA criteria, in your opinion? GAR is not a vote. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  I believe William is talking about the synopsis which is an assessment with which I agree. However, proposing specific edits may be seen to be in violation of temporary measures that are in place to try to calm disputes in this area. I think sticking to your specific actions are good for the time being, Geometry Guy. I'll make some suggestions here below through to the first section of the synopsis. After changes are made to help address the "in universe issues" described below, I'll continue with the rest of the article:

1. The phrase Booker interweaves the science of the subject with its political consequences in the lead is problematic. Booker's discussion of the "science" is criticized by reliable sources and so simply stating that he interweaves the "science of the subject with its political consequences" is not WP:NPOV since there is a legitimate claim to be made that Booker actually does not really handle the science of the subject properly. Rewording this phrase may alleviate the problem.
2. The phrase in the lead Booker also postulates that global warming is not supported by a significant number of the world's climate scientists is somewhat artful, but needs some further work to avoid the obvious WP:COATRACK. The statement being made is akin to "Mary postulates that most people do not speak any language." In his book, Booker clearly states that this "postulate" he makes is contrary to the prevailing understanding of the situation. This needs to be much more clear.
3. In the first section of the synopsis, the sentence, "Drawing from Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's Unstoppable Global Warming, Booker presents a graph[8] showing changes in temperature and carbon dioxide concentration over the last 11,000 years." needs work. There is no context provided for the reader as to why Booker chose Singer and Avery and why 11,000 years was what Booker chose. However, it's unclear as to whether this is a useful synopsis anyway. Why not just say that Booker borrows heavily from Singer and Avery, identify their ideology (which Booker explicitly discusses) and leave it at that?
4. The next sentence, "In his analysis, rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the 1970s led scientists such as Paul Ehrlich to postulate that the earth, as a result of the greenhouse effect, may have been heating up or cooling down, either of which could have potentially disastrous consequences." is entirely equivocal and confusing. Basically, it's claiming that Booker made an "analysis" that concentrations led scientists to postulate warming or cooling. Really? That does not follow from my reading of the book. First of all, I don't see an "analysis", but rather a story of how scientists were confused. That's it. The claim Booker makes in this part of the book is that the scientists didn't have their acts together, but certain scientists that he doesn't like, such as Paul Ehrlich, jumped to conclusions. He's trying to make a claim that the environmental movement skewed the science by yelling loudly about preliminary findings. Fine. But that sentence doesn't illustrate this at all.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is a serious question to ScienceApologist -- do you really not see how your proposed edits are advancing a POV against the content of the book? Once again, it is not the place of this article to critique the content of the book or comment on the reliability of Booker's conclusions or analyze the content in any way other than to report what third party reliable sources have said about the book. Minor4th 05:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm criticizing specific wordings in the article which are not NPOV because they implicitly or explicitly advance claims which certain reviewers dispute or, worse, summarize the book in a way that does not follow the text. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then that is dealt with in the reception and reviews sections, not in the synopsis. The synopsis is just a summary of what's in the book, right or wrong, good or bad, whether you like it or don't. Whatever criticism of the underlying content there may be can be included in the reviews section so long as it's coverage from a reliable source. You cannot discount the content of the book in the synopsis though. Minor4th 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read below. Synopses can be non-neutral. For example, "The Creationist Truth is a book which describes how evil, atheistic scientists have been under the power of Satan for 150 years and have caused most major world wars and genocides through a propagation of the demonic theory of evolution." Not a neutral synopsis, but rather an in-universe synopsis. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no "in universe" issues in this article. Minor4th 05:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply asserting this will not make it so. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And simply declaring an "in universe" issue does not create such an issue. If there's an issue, please state it specifically so that it can be dealt with rather than throwing out blanket characterizations without identifying anything specific. I have no idea what the "in universe" issue would be, but I'm open to correction if you identify something I've overlooked. Minor4th 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read above. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- mostly @ ScienceApologist and William Connolley -- I think these issues are more along the lines of content questions that can be dealt with on the talk page of the article, and they are not really issues with the good article criteria. I understand that NPOV is part of the good article criteria, but no one is suggesting that criticism of the book should not be included or that all notable views should not be represented. I think the only issue in that regard is keeping the criticism in the proper area of the article rather than rewriting the book by including critique in the synopsis. Minor4th 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:Criticism sections are not meant to be ghettos where you trap all the neutrality while the rest of the article coatracks. That, to me, is what it seems like you're suggesting. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not. Please take this discussion about content to the talk page. Minor4th 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I showed above how it is. And unless it's fixed, the article should be delisted. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. NPOV is not achieved merely by letting each viewpoint have its say. The neutral point of view is a point of view, the one Wikipedia adopts in its articles. It is crucial to this viewpoint that primary source material is both clearly attributed to the primary source, and not implicitly endorsed or refuted by choice of language, but only with explicit reference to secondary sources. Getting the synopsis right is crucial to NPOV: it does not suffice to have counterbalancing sections on support or criticism (indeed such sections are often discouraged as inappropriate).

There is no problem in this article with primary source attribution, but the wording needs careful consideration. The specific concerns made by ScienceApologist above need to be addressed by specific responses. In some cases a tweak in the wording is all that may be needed. Changes to the synopsis which make Wikipedia dismiss the book are just as unacceptable as sentences in the synopsis which appear to support its worldview. Geometry guy 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Addressing ScienceApologist's specific points -- I am not the article creator and have not actually edited this article, but I do not believe that anything ScienceApologist has raised is sufficient to kick this from the GA list. He has not actually specified anything that is not worded neutrally, and that is the GA criteria he is relying on. I also believe that he is still trying to review the content of the book within the synopsis, just as he was when he did an individual reassessment that wound up here. Anyway, here's my quick take on SA's specific points about the synopsis (and I do actually think it's a bad idea to legitimize him by responding to his points that are still applying the wrong GA criteria, which is why I thought these issues are better addressed elsewhere. This could go on forever).

1. Booker is talking about the science. Whether you and your favorite scientists think Booker handles the science properly does not diminish the fact that it is indeed science that he's talking about. Are you saying the book is not about science?
2. This is not COATRACK, it is the major premise/conclusion of the book and is sourced to the book. I think the problem is you don't agree with Booker's conclusions and you want to make sure readers of this article do not have an opportunity to agree with his conclusions either. Whether Booker is right or wrong, it's what he says in the book and that is what is being reported here.
3. The specific conclusion that Booker draws is of course relevant and necessary in the synopsis. I'm not understanding why you think the synopsis should include the details you suggest regarding the number of years or why you think it's necessary to identify the ideologies of other scientists unless of course you wish to discredit the other scientists and by proxy discredit Booker. Again, that is not the purview of a good article review.
4. The word analysis may be confusing in this context -- I suggest the article creator and nominator tighten up the language a bit in this section. I do not, however, agree that it somehow violates NPOV, nor do any of the other sections.

In short, although you have stated that these are NPOV concerns within GAR criteria, you have not stated or made any explication about how any of these sections are not neutral or are worded in a biased way (other than you don't agree with the underlying conclusions). The book synopsis is not the place to give contrasting opinions outside the scope of the book; it is a summary of what is actually in the book. Minor4th 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick responses:

1. Booker is talking about his perspective on the science. This is not clear in that wording which may indicate to the reader that Booker is trying to present the science as it might appear in a climate science text, for example. I.e., not NPOV.
2. The coatrack is there because it incorrectly assumes as fact a statement which is an opinion. Linking to the relevant article doesn't quite resolve the issue. I.e., not NPOV.
3. I'm suggesting the specific conclusion is arbitrary to the reason Booker wrote the book. The specific conclusion, however, is a talking point elsewhere. It's easy for this to be seen as a propaganda insertion coatrack for that reason, even if it wasn't intended that way. I.e., not NPOV.
4. The wording indicates that Booker analyzes when certain reviewers don't think he does this. I.e., not NPOV.

In short, not NPOV.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist

• The lead is not an adequate summary of the article. Instead, the lead goes into detail describing the contents of the book. This level of detail belongs to the body of the article, not the lead.
• In the body, too much room is still spent describing the contents of the book. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article about a book, not a collection of quotations from the book. Example: A quote of a quote:

Booker writes that the SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report—the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate—were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text".

Is the quote of the quote a fact, or is it simply what Booker claims to be a fact?

• Too little room is spent to give the reader background information about the subject of the book, i.e. man-made global warming. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment

@WMC: I assume this means that you won't be participating in any manner in GAN or GAR's because you are "heavily involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change?" Otherwise I "reject" your comment as being obviously inappropriate and unsupported by policy.

@SA: Quicker re-responses:

1. True, that is what his book is about, his perspective. That is what the article is also about in part, his book. Whether his science is accurate or not is not relevant, it is about his book, not the science.
2. Assert the facts about the book - not the science. Your comment completely mis-states WP:ASF. The fact is that Booker states particular items in his book. The article reports those facts as stated in the book, therefore it is NPOV.
3. LOL. Article is on book, not science.
4. Ditto.

In short, argue about the book, not the science. Where in the article does it state something about the book that is not accurate? GregJackP Boomer! 18:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Quickest responses:

1. The text right now can be read that it is not just his perspective.
2. There is a reading of that sentence which would assume it is a fact that most scientists don't believe the consensus about AGW.
3. LOLOL. Article is stating a choice of presentation by making the presentation. Not needed.
4. "Analyzed" is simply not NPOV.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment for article nominator -- i do think the synopsis is a bit lengthy and overly detailed. I would trim the synopsis and make it read more like a summary. I still think there are too many graphics as well. Minor4th 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Section break

• It's been two weeks and movement is not happening on Geometry Guy's recommendations or my recommendations. Recommend delisting until someone wants to take on the project. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Sufficient unto the day The default would be to "keep listed" absent any consensus otherwise, despite the eagerness of the proponent of delisting otherwise. Almost all those for delisting argue that they do not like the book, which is not a strong reason to delist an article about the book. Collect (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's not how WP:GAR works. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Amidst all the sound and fury, there were several cogent content-based concerns raised by Geometry guy and ScienceApologist. Ideally, those concerns would be addressed, but there seems to be a discrepancy between people interested in arguing about the article and people interested in improving it. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• GAR process. As the workings of community GAR have been raised, let me take a moment to clarify. GAR aims to determine, after discussion (during which article improvement may also take place), whether an article meets the good article criteria or not. The outcome is that an article which meets the criteria is listed as a GA and one which does not is not. Only when it remains unclear whether an article meets all of the GA criteria is the GAR closed without action, in which case the pre-existing GA status is retained: this isn't the default outcome, and is most commonly used not to list articles when their GA status is in doubt. Keeping articles listed which may not meet the criteria is not a desirable outcome of GAR, but is more like a stay of execution, giving the article the benefit of the doubt in the hope that further improvement will occur: any failure to meet any GA criterion is a reason to close as "delist", and if the article meets all of the criteria, it is preferable to close as "keep". Geometry guy 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. If I were closing this reassessment now, I could clearly close it as "delist" on the grounds that the lead is still not a summary of the article (1b). I would not even have to express an opinion on whether it is neutral (4), broad (3a) or focused (3b) to do so. Manifestly failing one criterion suffices to delist an article. The reassessment remains open out of politeness and hopefulness that with many editors contributing, GA concerns will be addressed, and the encyclopedia will be improved. Geometry guy 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note The lede has been appreciably shortened/tightened. Collect (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that didn't really address the issues above, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The issue about the lede, which I regard as a valid possible issue, has been addressed. The issue that no book which someone considers "fringe" can ever be a GA topic is not what I consider a valid argument here. YMMV. There are, in fact, many GAs about books which represent odd thinking, but no one suggests we purge the GA list of them that I can find. Collect (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The lead has improved. It now adequately summarizes the article, including the book's critical reception. Majoreditor (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you (noting your emendations as well). Collect (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question. Are there any other noteworthy reviews or critical reaction to the book which aren't mentioned in the article? Majoreditor (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• When I did the initial GA assessment, I checked, and all of the reviews shown on a Google search were included in the article at that time. That is dated though, and I can't state for sure that other reviews had not subsequently written, or that Google did not pick them all up. GregJackP Boomer! 04:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how noteworthy these are, but here are a couple that are not mentioned in the article:

1. National Review Book Service: [14]
2. Ruth Dudley Edwards/Salisbury Review: [15],[16]
3. Scottish Field Magazine: [17]

Minor4th 06:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I also looked for reviews. The Daily Express covered the book with predictable results (Climate change - The most costly scientific blunder in history); quotes include "Last year, our politicians were even debating the Climate Change Bill during the worst October snowfall London had seen for years." Still it could be used to indicate what the UK right wing tabloid press made of the book (e.g. "With the pace and intrigue of an espionage thriller, he analyses the political and scientific shenanigans...") This may be preferable to Salisbury Review, at least.

The NRBS review ends with "add to cart", which is not particularly inspiring, and the Scottish Field review is 5 lines long.

It is a pity that there seem to be almost no reviews by science journals and magazines, as that would help the article a lot. I only found a review by "Chemistry World" (as quoted by Continuum) but it is somewhat short and superficial, concluding "The only quibble is that the author doesn't make clear that consensus is not a scientific concept, but a political one." Geometry guy 19:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Further comments. Many thanks to Collect for tightening the lead. I continue to have reservations, but am hopeful that good will to improve the article will continue. Let me then make some more detailed comments.
  • The background section is entirely primary source material. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I believe that Booker wrote the book with good intentions, but it would be really nice to have a secondary source supporting those good intentions, rather than his own words. Instead we have a block quote from Booker's own Telegraph article. Even with my proposed shortening of the infobox (which I believe is sensible, but is not part of the GA criteria), the block quote still spills over into the Synopsis section on a moderately wide browser window, giving the impression that it is from the book. There is too much weight given here to the author's own preview of his book. If no secondary sources are forthcoming, I suggest trimming it back to prose and inline quotations, making clear that this is the author's own statement of the background and intentions.
  • In part one, the text is sandwiched between two images. This is generally discouraged and could be resolved by a paragraph break before "Booker contends that 1988 was a key year..." Also the reconstructed temperature graph starts before the subsection title: I used to prefer this style myself, but have been advised it is contrary to WP:ACCESS. This is not a GA criterion, but I have suggested a possible organization of the images in the edit history.
  • The Further Reading section doesn't seem justified: Booker's own previous book could be cited in the Background, and Montfort's book doesn't seem to me to be an encyclopedic recommendation. "See also"s could be trimmed as well: articles previously linked need not appear. See WP:LAYOUT for advice.
  • In this contentious area, stating that someone is a "scientist" can suggest expertise in an area where expertise may be lacking. Paul Ehrlich is an entomologist and Frederick Seitz is a solid state physicist. On the other hand Bert Bolin is a meteorologist and Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist. These scientists have differing views, but some have more specific expertise than others and they should not be presented as an amorphous view of "scientists". (Note that the experts are not necessarily those who support climate change: I am not trying to make a political point here.)
  • It may be premature to list prose concerns if more significant changes are necessary, but I think we are at the point where such specific details may be helpful.
    1. "Booker combines the science of the subject with its political consequences to contend that..." This suggests that Booker's analysis of the science is objective, which is contended.
    2. "The book's claims were dismissed by science writer Philip Ball,[3] but was praised by several columnists." This is bad prose: "claims" does not match "was". However, it probably needs to be restructured anyway: the review by Philip Ball should not be dismissed as a minority one, as this seems to be the only substantial review by a scientist that we have, and the discussion of reviews in the lead should be more than one sentence.
    3. "The book opens with an erroneous quotation..." downplays a significant issue: a famous alleged quotation was found to be incorrect, and the author accepted this. Wikipedia should not endorse phrases such as "fabricated" (thanks to Collect again for fixing this) as there is no evidence for the source of this quotation, but neither should we brush it aside as a misunderstanding.
    4. "Drawing from Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's Unstoppable Global Warming, Booker presents a graph..." Which graph?
    5. "Booker writes that the SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report—the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate—were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text"[n]" This suggests that the quote is directly from Seitz, whereas the footnote is to Booker. If it is from Seitz, then a more direct quotation would be stronger; if not, it should not be implied.
    6. "...this problem was dealt with by a 1999 graph..." presumably deals with the Hockey Stick, and this should be stated.
    7. "He then asserts that the IPCC's methods, and in particular the draft summary of its next report, came in for serious criticism from scientists such as Richard Lindzen." The prose here is loose: "came in for serious criticism from" should be "was criticized by", but then is there a list of scientists, or is there really only a list of one significant critic?

Well that's all the detail I can manage for now, and I've not yet got to the handling of reviews.

Much as I respect Majoreditor as an excellent long term contributor to GAR, I disagree that the lead now summarizes the article. Instead the first paragraph summarizes the thesis of the book, rather than the synopsis of the article, and there are two lines to summarize other aspects. The background section is not summarized: if well sourced, this is an opportunity to demonstrate the good intentions behind the book. The reviews should not be summarized in one sentence, and the Houghton quote controversy deserves a slightly less terse treatment.

I hope article improvements will continue. Geometry guy 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I trust the furher emendations meet your approval (including a stray image removal which has little to bear on the topic) (I did not try to tackle some of the trivial wording changes we are now left with - I have seen zero GAs which would not benefit from my own blue pencil <g>. Collect (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes. You removed two images while intending to remove one. Which one did you want to remove? Geometry guy 00:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest that neither was essential <g>. Add one if you think it helps. Collect (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Article improvement appears to have run out of steam for the time being, and at least one improvement to the lead has been undone. I made a couple of small (hopefully uncontroversial) copyedits, but there remain content issues raised by Frederico1234, ScienceApologist and myself that indicate that the article does not yet quite meet the GA criteria, in particular with regard to the lead (1b) and coverage (3), with possible further concerns about wording (1a/b) and neutrality (4). I am disappointed that nothing has been done about the background section and the promotional quote, and also about the quote of a quote. Still the article has been improved during its time at GAR. Hopefully the desire to renominate and relist will spur further improvement, and editors will encounter a reviewer who challenges the balance of content without pushing a point of view. Meanwhile, with regret, I close this reassessment as delist. Geometry guy 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)