← ( Page 55) |
![]() |
( Page 53) → |
I am nominating this article for delisting due to GA criteria 1A "the prose is clear and concise". The article was created as a student project and was then promoted to GA by the student's supervisor. I think this is procedurally problematic. Two other editors made comments during the GAN which do not appear to have been addressed. The article has subsequently been copyedited by GOCE. The copyeditor has left a long list of unaddessed comments on the talk page which make it clear that the article is still full of unexplained jargon. Spinning Spark 09:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article became a good article in 2007. I have recently expanded the article significantly, but I would like to know if it was for the better, and how I can improve it further. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The GA passed 5 years ago, and I'm surprised that it did.
First of all, it is very lacking in secondary sources. Nearly every source is to the strip itself. And of the sources that aren't:
The other sources are the artist's VCL gallery, and listings from the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and Ursa Major awards. While I don't think it's even notable (there is years of consensus saying that Ursa Major and Web Cartoonists' Choice are not enough for
WP:WEB), one thing at a time. See among others,
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award,
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_and_Mab's_Furry_Adventures,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination) — these discussions have all shown a well established consensus that WCCA is not enough to meet
WP:WEB. And the fact that Ursa Major Awards' article was AFD'd 2 years ago, I'd say it's not a notable award either.
Even back in 2007, the nomination was called into question ("I'm unsure how this has got to GA - it is completely lacking in reliable sources and the referencing is thin - largely references to awards sites and the comic itself. This is particularly noticeable in the themes and reception sections which should be heavily referenced to reliable third party sources and they aren't."), but nothing ever came of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article fails to meet the first two GA criteria.
1a. Many sentences are unclear and wordy. Passive voice is used throughout, either unnecessarily or to gloss over the lack of a clear source. ("...had previously been described as...", "said to have been", "thought to be..." "have been used to argue the existence of..."). Other examples:
INTRODUCTION
"There is an association with the distribution of brochs, place names beginning 'Pit-', for instance Pitlochry, and Pictish stones." Vague. What association? And what is being associated with this distribution? A region or a time period? And how?
"...had been subsumed ... amalgamation" -- passive voice; also subsumption and almagamation (subsume/amalgamate) are redundant.
"Archaeology gives some impression of the society of the Picts." What impression? How? The next sentences are about written history, so the issue of archaeology is left dangling.
HISTORY
"The means by which...although there is speculation that" There are many examples, like this, of unnecessarily wordy constructions.
"The change from Pictland to Alba may not have been noticeable at first; indeed, as we do not know the Pictish name for their land, it may not have been a change at all"
Noticeable by whom? And why does it matter whether name-changes are noticeable if they might not even be a change? Many sentences like this that add nothing to the substance of the article, as the lack of knowledge of Pictish names has already been established.
KINGS and KINGDOMS
"The early history of Pictland is unclear. In later periods multiple kings existed, ruling over separate kingdoms, with one king, sometimes two, more or less dominating their lesser neighbours." What are examples of "two kings" "more or less dominating"? And what are "lesser neighbours" in this context, if we are talking about "separate kingdoms"? Separate Pictish kingdoms or Picts separate from kingdoms of another kind? And why does that matter if the word "Pict" is applied from outside, and perceived (esp. in later eras) to be blurred with Gaels? The late history of Pictland is also unclear, as the article itself attests. If little is known about how kings and kingdoms were divided, or passed from one to the other, why is there a section called "Kings and kingdoms?" Again, nothing of substance is being said here.
The examples above are just a few; other paragraphs in the article contain similar problems in abundance.
2a & b. Factual accuracy / verifiability: there are some mismatches between statements and the sources cited in support of those statements. For example, the Woolf Conversions does not demonstrate that the kingdom of Fortriu was "centered around Moray." Adomnán's "Life of Columba" is not a text that presents academic evidence, though the text of the article cites that source regarding evidence of "a Pictish kingdom...existed in Orkney." (And again, what does it mean to be a Pictish kingdom far from the Pictish homeland, if the Picts didn't call themselves Picts and their distinctions from their neighbors are unclear?)
"the evidence of place names suggests a wide area of Ionan influence in Pictland"
-- the source cited here contains the place names which the author takes to be evidence, but does not lay out an argument of that kind. The author uses etymology and place-name to "suggest" or "speculate" on a number of issues, but does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective.
The Talk page for this article shows numerous concerns about verifiability voiced by other readers. Some of these concerns may be resolved, but for now the article leaves many readers feeling less than confident.
2c. The article seems to contain original research.
Statements like "Although the popular impression of the Picts may be one of an obscure, mysterious people, this is far from being the case" (INTRODUCTION) are left un-cited, so there is a strong impression of didactism stemming from the author's opinion.
"the evidence of place names suggests a wide area of Ionan influence in Pictland"
-- the source cited here contains the place names which the author takes to be evidence, but does not lay out an argument of that kind. The author uses etymology and place-name to "suggest" or "speculate" on a number of issues, but does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective.
In the secton RELIGION: "The importance of monastic centres in Pictland was not, perhaps, as great as in Ireland." "The cult of Saints was, as throughout Christian lands, of great importance in later Pictland." The author cites sources that offer speculation and detail about religion, but none of them offers the comparative views of "importance" that this article ventures.
The section on ART has very few citations; the citations in LANGUAGE are disputed handily on the talk page.
Efraimkeller ( talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I have not had time to give this a proper look, but my initial impression that the shortcomings of the article are somewhat exaggerated and that even if the original GA was achieved in an era prior to our current obsession with in-line citations it should not take much effort to sort it out. For example " the popular impression of the Picts may be one of an obscure, mysterious people" is indeed uncited but as the subject is addressed on page 1 of Tim Clarkson's 2008 The Picts: A History we might reasonably assume it's not a very controversial statement. The talk page does show "numerous concerns about verifiability" but no few of them seem to be about fringe theories regarding the language, which seems to be less controversial in academic circles. I am far from being an expert but I will give it a further look when I can. Ben Mac Dui 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
From EfraimKeller:, I'm new to wikipedia, so I accept the possibility that I'm applying the wrong standard. But this article struck me as a hack job; highly evasive and fanciful. I urge a deeper look at this. To convey my problems with the article more succinctly, I will just say that the article is slick, wordy, and presents the idea that something might be known, more than it presents any knowledge. It seems to have been written by someone with fantasies of ancient peoples, and a desire to cobble together vague research in order to present a picture isn't actually supported. The worst examples of this is the constant obsession with nomenclature for obscure categories of Celtic peoples, that, by the author's own admission, are mixtures of fiction and vagueness.
Comment 4. Catfish Jim asked: "Are you suggesting we reject information that is reliably sourced and which represents current, mainstream academic consensus as "original research" because you don't like the way the source was written?" NO. I'm suggesting that citations can not support a claim unless the cited source reports authoritative research on a claim. For example, if you argue that baboon populations diverged into two subspecies due to an ecological niche, you need a source which *presents* research on that topic, not just a source that *mentions* research on that topic.
Comment 5. My comment about passive voice was not merely a complaint about passive voice, but specifically, the *use* of passive voice "to gloss over the lack of a clear source."
Sorry if I'm wasting anyone's time... Efraimkeller ( talk) 11:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged with "Expand from French". Is that an insta-fail? Also needs a major copy edit; nearly every sentence begins with "the". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is probably a speedy candidate for delisting, but I'm kinda confused about delisting myself. This article has so many issues.
Secret account 00:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
To continue, more issues I found in the article is.
I stopped right there, I see more errors and tone issues, but it will get kinda lengthy. I'll mention it if anyone is willing to work on the article. Currently this is a huge mess, and most of the article needs to be rewritten. I already created an reassesment page, so I guess I'll leave it alone. There's a few other athlete articles I don't think they should be GAs so I'll do a talk page listing.
Secret account 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: I only just noticed but there was no GAR link added to the articles talk page (added now). It will probably not affect this nomination too much, but should probably be take into account by the closer. AIRcorn (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It been six weeks and none of the concerns were fixed, only very minor edits/vandalism reverts. Can I delist it? Thanks Secret account 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No information on the pre-civil war history of the district as if the area did not exist on the face of the earth prior to the event. No images from the pre-Enduring Freedom era. Fails GA criteria 3 and 6.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
How is this going? It sounds like an agreement is being reached. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I am inclined to a weak keep here. Still pretty low on pre-modern history, but it probably just scrapes by the broadness category to mine mind. AIRcorn (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has multiple issues, i am listing some :
So i want a through revision and review of the article. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As one may see by viewing the article and its talk page, as well as external media coverage, Haymarket affair fails to integrate current research regarding the matter. Start would be a more appropriate classification. Considerable work is needed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC) All of the questions raised in Timothy Messer-Kruse's blog http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ need to be addressed at a minimum, regardless of whether the sweeping assertions he claims to have proved, page 8 of his book, are accepted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that some major changes have occurred since this was initiated [1]. They appear to be addressing the issue that the nominator raised. Does this re-assessment need to continue? AIRcorn (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I feel that, following the renaming of the article in March and the subsequent merge of the Taiwan (island) article into it, this article no longer meets all of the GA criteria. The current version of this article differs significantly from the version that passed a GA review:
I hope that a reviewer can look over the article and reassess its quality. Thanks. -- Peter Talk page 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My belief is that this article was delisted for political reasons unrelated to its quality but rather to its subject. This is a biography article, and not a critical assessment of Margaret Thatcher as a politician; other linked articles do that, and in accordance with summary style this article simply summarises them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflictI say the Legacy section is biased. Indeed, many of the citations contain negative content which was simply edited out when they were used. You seemingly disagree. However, you cannot try to claim that making bald assertions - not justified by the citations given - is GA level, so I can't see how you justify it. If you want citations, there are obvious ones. From Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, we could easily fix the problems in the resignation section - "A Gallup poll in October 1990 showed that while Thatcher remained personally respected there was overwhelming opposition towards her final initiatives — 83% disapproved of the government's management of the National Health Service, 83% were against water privatisation, and 64% were against the Community Charge, while various polls suggested the party was trailing Labour by between 6 and 11 points" cited to Gilbert A. Lewthwaite, 'Conservatives meet, reassess Thatcher', Baltimore Sun (9 October 1989), p. A8. Or we fcould uyse the citations in the article to balance out the legacy section, by not only using them for positive material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7593554.stm says she is "reviled in many areas for dividing the country into "us" and "them" and abandoning communities struggling with huge economic changes to their fate." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681973.stm has a description of the harm she did to Scotland. Or are these sources only good enough to praise Thatcher, and cannot be used for criticising her? 86.** IP ( talk) 09:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good example, from Margaret Thatcher#Legacy:
In 2011, Labour leader Ed Miliband praised some of Thatcher's key policies, stating: "Some of what happened in the 1980s was right. It was right to let people buy their council houses. It was right to cut tax rates of 60, 70, 80 per cent. And it was right to change the rules on the closed shop, on strikes before ballots. These changes were right, and we were wrong to oppose it at the time."
First of all, that's original research.
Secondly, the next line is "But while some of it was right, too much of what happened was based on the wrong values."
This gives the impression Milliband is a Thatcherite, but depends on original research and quotemining; the whole Legacy section has major balance issues, where extreme weight is given to her supporters. 86.** IP ( talk) 06:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some concerted POV editing going on in the article, and I have flagged a number of issues in connection with this here. The issues mainly relate to WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP; on top of this there is irrelevant / trivial material being included and numerous instances of weasley language. I would say that the article is some way from GA status, another concern (though this should be easier to get agreement on) is that the lead does not adequately summarise the article's contents. Jprw ( talk) 06:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was recently passed by He to Hecuba ( talk · contribs). The review was later deleted by an admin per WP:Deny as He to Hecuba was discovered to be a sock. It was decided to conduct individual reassessments on the articles passed by Hecuba at the GAN talk page. This is one outstanding from that list. I am initiating a community GAR instead of an individual one because I have also previously failed articles from the GA nominator due to prose issues and would probably do the same here if I conducted an individual re-assessment. However, other reviewers (some who are quite experienced with the process) have found the level of prose acceptable in similar articles, so I feel it is only fair to make this a community re-assessment. AIRcorn (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
In this community reassessment, voting is not allowed because this discussion is not a vote. In other words, "delist", "keep", or any other is not allowed here; moreover, (non-)administrator is allowed to close as either "kept" or "delisted" with rationale. If you make one vote, try to either strike or take it out. You are welcome to give your opinions about this article's Good Article status and GA qualifications. As for this article, FA nomination was attempted but failed. Also, this article is nominated for deletion. As I am reading this article, there are too many references that are not easy to read, and there are too many numbers. I sense recentism weighing in on this article, and excessive material of what may already have been included in
Justin Bieber article prevails. Per
WP:IINFO, this article lacks any significant viewpoint on Bieber and his Twitter activities. --
George Ho (
talk)
07:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the point of bringing this here while the AFD is still ongoing. If it gets deleted or merged then a reassessment is not needed. I would suggest that participants wait for the result of the AFD before deciding on what this article should be assessed as. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned about the stability of the article at the moment, which may be exacerbated by public interest in the article's editorial process. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So how about we close this discussion now, and then reconsider after any AFD closure, or rewriting has completed. As it stands this discussion will achieve nothing much. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are comments from just reading the article, I didn't go in depth, just checked it quickly against WP:WIAGA. Hope it helps! – Plarem ( User talk) 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Result: Delisted Article merged into
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters.
AIRcorn
(talk)
00:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is sorely lacking in worthwhile content. The "Role in Ed, Edd n Eddy" section is a mostly unsourced "say what you see" account at best, and original research at worst. The short "Creation" section includes the most real content, but is entirely sourced to primary sources. The "Personality" section is more of the same as is in the "Role" section- again, say-what-you-see or original research, sourced directly to the show. The "Reception, appearances in other media and merchandising" section contains nothing about this character in particular; instead, everything is about all three characters or the show generally. I'm not convinced that this character even needs their own article, but, aside from that, this is certainly not ready for good article status. J Milburn ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is extremely long, and needs to be reduced in size. Editors come here, add material that belongs on pages covering more specialized topics, and the excess material remains while continuing to build up. Specifically, the article is not in compliance with Good Article criteria 3b (it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail). An article like this cannot be regarded as a Good Article. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 21:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My concern is that this article has not been kept up to date with the unfolding controversies over the Silver Line -- debates over Virginia's funding, the Loudon County Board of Supervisors' issues over whether to support the line's extension, issue of project labor agreements, etc., etc.
Rather than having the Good Article rating withdrawn, I would be much happier if other users who are better informed than me would undertake the editing needed to update this article and again make it a useful refernce for anyone wanting to have an up to date guide to the key issues involved with this project. Nandt1 ( talk) 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that this has severe sourcing and neutrality issues. I also do not believe that the article has enough substance for a good article to begin with. Something which was overlooked in the previous GAN was the issue of sourcing. The main source seems to be a resource named Xolo TV. The only Xolo TV I could find seems to be a internet blog with no official credentials, and no reliability. The interview itself seems to exist somewhere on youtube as part of a series of interviews from an individuals blog. I alsodon't think a television/film article should have to cite the credits of the opening titles for production information if the episode/film in question is notable.
As for the reception of the short, some of it comes from a website that quotes entirely from a press release from Cartoon Network and doesn't seem to be objective. That it featured in a book and DVD from the film festival who debuted the short isn't really an example of it being well received either. The only useful information in the article that comes from a verified reliable source seems to be the Eric Fogle comments. Eshlare ( talk) 13:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Update: Here is the original Xolo TV posting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEQED4A4Tc&list=PL98570C4F58DFE0BC&index=28&feature=plpp_video Eshlare ( talk) 13:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
← ( Page 55) |
![]() |
( Page 53) → |
I am nominating this article for delisting due to GA criteria 1A "the prose is clear and concise". The article was created as a student project and was then promoted to GA by the student's supervisor. I think this is procedurally problematic. Two other editors made comments during the GAN which do not appear to have been addressed. The article has subsequently been copyedited by GOCE. The copyeditor has left a long list of unaddessed comments on the talk page which make it clear that the article is still full of unexplained jargon. Spinning Spark 09:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article became a good article in 2007. I have recently expanded the article significantly, but I would like to know if it was for the better, and how I can improve it further. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The GA passed 5 years ago, and I'm surprised that it did.
First of all, it is very lacking in secondary sources. Nearly every source is to the strip itself. And of the sources that aren't:
The other sources are the artist's VCL gallery, and listings from the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and Ursa Major awards. While I don't think it's even notable (there is years of consensus saying that Ursa Major and Web Cartoonists' Choice are not enough for
WP:WEB), one thing at a time. See among others,
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award,
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_and_Mab's_Furry_Adventures,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination) — these discussions have all shown a well established consensus that WCCA is not enough to meet
WP:WEB. And the fact that Ursa Major Awards' article was AFD'd 2 years ago, I'd say it's not a notable award either.
Even back in 2007, the nomination was called into question ("I'm unsure how this has got to GA - it is completely lacking in reliable sources and the referencing is thin - largely references to awards sites and the comic itself. This is particularly noticeable in the themes and reception sections which should be heavily referenced to reliable third party sources and they aren't."), but nothing ever came of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article fails to meet the first two GA criteria.
1a. Many sentences are unclear and wordy. Passive voice is used throughout, either unnecessarily or to gloss over the lack of a clear source. ("...had previously been described as...", "said to have been", "thought to be..." "have been used to argue the existence of..."). Other examples:
INTRODUCTION
"There is an association with the distribution of brochs, place names beginning 'Pit-', for instance Pitlochry, and Pictish stones." Vague. What association? And what is being associated with this distribution? A region or a time period? And how?
"...had been subsumed ... amalgamation" -- passive voice; also subsumption and almagamation (subsume/amalgamate) are redundant.
"Archaeology gives some impression of the society of the Picts." What impression? How? The next sentences are about written history, so the issue of archaeology is left dangling.
HISTORY
"The means by which...although there is speculation that" There are many examples, like this, of unnecessarily wordy constructions.
"The change from Pictland to Alba may not have been noticeable at first; indeed, as we do not know the Pictish name for their land, it may not have been a change at all"
Noticeable by whom? And why does it matter whether name-changes are noticeable if they might not even be a change? Many sentences like this that add nothing to the substance of the article, as the lack of knowledge of Pictish names has already been established.
KINGS and KINGDOMS
"The early history of Pictland is unclear. In later periods multiple kings existed, ruling over separate kingdoms, with one king, sometimes two, more or less dominating their lesser neighbours." What are examples of "two kings" "more or less dominating"? And what are "lesser neighbours" in this context, if we are talking about "separate kingdoms"? Separate Pictish kingdoms or Picts separate from kingdoms of another kind? And why does that matter if the word "Pict" is applied from outside, and perceived (esp. in later eras) to be blurred with Gaels? The late history of Pictland is also unclear, as the article itself attests. If little is known about how kings and kingdoms were divided, or passed from one to the other, why is there a section called "Kings and kingdoms?" Again, nothing of substance is being said here.
The examples above are just a few; other paragraphs in the article contain similar problems in abundance.
2a & b. Factual accuracy / verifiability: there are some mismatches between statements and the sources cited in support of those statements. For example, the Woolf Conversions does not demonstrate that the kingdom of Fortriu was "centered around Moray." Adomnán's "Life of Columba" is not a text that presents academic evidence, though the text of the article cites that source regarding evidence of "a Pictish kingdom...existed in Orkney." (And again, what does it mean to be a Pictish kingdom far from the Pictish homeland, if the Picts didn't call themselves Picts and their distinctions from their neighbors are unclear?)
"the evidence of place names suggests a wide area of Ionan influence in Pictland"
-- the source cited here contains the place names which the author takes to be evidence, but does not lay out an argument of that kind. The author uses etymology and place-name to "suggest" or "speculate" on a number of issues, but does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective.
The Talk page for this article shows numerous concerns about verifiability voiced by other readers. Some of these concerns may be resolved, but for now the article leaves many readers feeling less than confident.
2c. The article seems to contain original research.
Statements like "Although the popular impression of the Picts may be one of an obscure, mysterious people, this is far from being the case" (INTRODUCTION) are left un-cited, so there is a strong impression of didactism stemming from the author's opinion.
"the evidence of place names suggests a wide area of Ionan influence in Pictland"
-- the source cited here contains the place names which the author takes to be evidence, but does not lay out an argument of that kind. The author uses etymology and place-name to "suggest" or "speculate" on a number of issues, but does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective.
In the secton RELIGION: "The importance of monastic centres in Pictland was not, perhaps, as great as in Ireland." "The cult of Saints was, as throughout Christian lands, of great importance in later Pictland." The author cites sources that offer speculation and detail about religion, but none of them offers the comparative views of "importance" that this article ventures.
The section on ART has very few citations; the citations in LANGUAGE are disputed handily on the talk page.
Efraimkeller ( talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I have not had time to give this a proper look, but my initial impression that the shortcomings of the article are somewhat exaggerated and that even if the original GA was achieved in an era prior to our current obsession with in-line citations it should not take much effort to sort it out. For example " the popular impression of the Picts may be one of an obscure, mysterious people" is indeed uncited but as the subject is addressed on page 1 of Tim Clarkson's 2008 The Picts: A History we might reasonably assume it's not a very controversial statement. The talk page does show "numerous concerns about verifiability" but no few of them seem to be about fringe theories regarding the language, which seems to be less controversial in academic circles. I am far from being an expert but I will give it a further look when I can. Ben Mac Dui 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
From EfraimKeller:, I'm new to wikipedia, so I accept the possibility that I'm applying the wrong standard. But this article struck me as a hack job; highly evasive and fanciful. I urge a deeper look at this. To convey my problems with the article more succinctly, I will just say that the article is slick, wordy, and presents the idea that something might be known, more than it presents any knowledge. It seems to have been written by someone with fantasies of ancient peoples, and a desire to cobble together vague research in order to present a picture isn't actually supported. The worst examples of this is the constant obsession with nomenclature for obscure categories of Celtic peoples, that, by the author's own admission, are mixtures of fiction and vagueness.
Comment 4. Catfish Jim asked: "Are you suggesting we reject information that is reliably sourced and which represents current, mainstream academic consensus as "original research" because you don't like the way the source was written?" NO. I'm suggesting that citations can not support a claim unless the cited source reports authoritative research on a claim. For example, if you argue that baboon populations diverged into two subspecies due to an ecological niche, you need a source which *presents* research on that topic, not just a source that *mentions* research on that topic.
Comment 5. My comment about passive voice was not merely a complaint about passive voice, but specifically, the *use* of passive voice "to gloss over the lack of a clear source."
Sorry if I'm wasting anyone's time... Efraimkeller ( talk) 11:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged with "Expand from French". Is that an insta-fail? Also needs a major copy edit; nearly every sentence begins with "the". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is probably a speedy candidate for delisting, but I'm kinda confused about delisting myself. This article has so many issues.
Secret account 00:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
To continue, more issues I found in the article is.
I stopped right there, I see more errors and tone issues, but it will get kinda lengthy. I'll mention it if anyone is willing to work on the article. Currently this is a huge mess, and most of the article needs to be rewritten. I already created an reassesment page, so I guess I'll leave it alone. There's a few other athlete articles I don't think they should be GAs so I'll do a talk page listing.
Secret account 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: I only just noticed but there was no GAR link added to the articles talk page (added now). It will probably not affect this nomination too much, but should probably be take into account by the closer. AIRcorn (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It been six weeks and none of the concerns were fixed, only very minor edits/vandalism reverts. Can I delist it? Thanks Secret account 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No information on the pre-civil war history of the district as if the area did not exist on the face of the earth prior to the event. No images from the pre-Enduring Freedom era. Fails GA criteria 3 and 6.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
How is this going? It sounds like an agreement is being reached. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I am inclined to a weak keep here. Still pretty low on pre-modern history, but it probably just scrapes by the broadness category to mine mind. AIRcorn (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has multiple issues, i am listing some :
So i want a through revision and review of the article. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As one may see by viewing the article and its talk page, as well as external media coverage, Haymarket affair fails to integrate current research regarding the matter. Start would be a more appropriate classification. Considerable work is needed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC) All of the questions raised in Timothy Messer-Kruse's blog http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ need to be addressed at a minimum, regardless of whether the sweeping assertions he claims to have proved, page 8 of his book, are accepted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that some major changes have occurred since this was initiated [1]. They appear to be addressing the issue that the nominator raised. Does this re-assessment need to continue? AIRcorn (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I feel that, following the renaming of the article in March and the subsequent merge of the Taiwan (island) article into it, this article no longer meets all of the GA criteria. The current version of this article differs significantly from the version that passed a GA review:
I hope that a reviewer can look over the article and reassess its quality. Thanks. -- Peter Talk page 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My belief is that this article was delisted for political reasons unrelated to its quality but rather to its subject. This is a biography article, and not a critical assessment of Margaret Thatcher as a politician; other linked articles do that, and in accordance with summary style this article simply summarises them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflictI say the Legacy section is biased. Indeed, many of the citations contain negative content which was simply edited out when they were used. You seemingly disagree. However, you cannot try to claim that making bald assertions - not justified by the citations given - is GA level, so I can't see how you justify it. If you want citations, there are obvious ones. From Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, we could easily fix the problems in the resignation section - "A Gallup poll in October 1990 showed that while Thatcher remained personally respected there was overwhelming opposition towards her final initiatives — 83% disapproved of the government's management of the National Health Service, 83% were against water privatisation, and 64% were against the Community Charge, while various polls suggested the party was trailing Labour by between 6 and 11 points" cited to Gilbert A. Lewthwaite, 'Conservatives meet, reassess Thatcher', Baltimore Sun (9 October 1989), p. A8. Or we fcould uyse the citations in the article to balance out the legacy section, by not only using them for positive material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7593554.stm says she is "reviled in many areas for dividing the country into "us" and "them" and abandoning communities struggling with huge economic changes to their fate." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681973.stm has a description of the harm she did to Scotland. Or are these sources only good enough to praise Thatcher, and cannot be used for criticising her? 86.** IP ( talk) 09:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good example, from Margaret Thatcher#Legacy:
In 2011, Labour leader Ed Miliband praised some of Thatcher's key policies, stating: "Some of what happened in the 1980s was right. It was right to let people buy their council houses. It was right to cut tax rates of 60, 70, 80 per cent. And it was right to change the rules on the closed shop, on strikes before ballots. These changes were right, and we were wrong to oppose it at the time."
First of all, that's original research.
Secondly, the next line is "But while some of it was right, too much of what happened was based on the wrong values."
This gives the impression Milliband is a Thatcherite, but depends on original research and quotemining; the whole Legacy section has major balance issues, where extreme weight is given to her supporters. 86.** IP ( talk) 06:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some concerted POV editing going on in the article, and I have flagged a number of issues in connection with this here. The issues mainly relate to WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP; on top of this there is irrelevant / trivial material being included and numerous instances of weasley language. I would say that the article is some way from GA status, another concern (though this should be easier to get agreement on) is that the lead does not adequately summarise the article's contents. Jprw ( talk) 06:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was recently passed by He to Hecuba ( talk · contribs). The review was later deleted by an admin per WP:Deny as He to Hecuba was discovered to be a sock. It was decided to conduct individual reassessments on the articles passed by Hecuba at the GAN talk page. This is one outstanding from that list. I am initiating a community GAR instead of an individual one because I have also previously failed articles from the GA nominator due to prose issues and would probably do the same here if I conducted an individual re-assessment. However, other reviewers (some who are quite experienced with the process) have found the level of prose acceptable in similar articles, so I feel it is only fair to make this a community re-assessment. AIRcorn (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
In this community reassessment, voting is not allowed because this discussion is not a vote. In other words, "delist", "keep", or any other is not allowed here; moreover, (non-)administrator is allowed to close as either "kept" or "delisted" with rationale. If you make one vote, try to either strike or take it out. You are welcome to give your opinions about this article's Good Article status and GA qualifications. As for this article, FA nomination was attempted but failed. Also, this article is nominated for deletion. As I am reading this article, there are too many references that are not easy to read, and there are too many numbers. I sense recentism weighing in on this article, and excessive material of what may already have been included in
Justin Bieber article prevails. Per
WP:IINFO, this article lacks any significant viewpoint on Bieber and his Twitter activities. --
George Ho (
talk)
07:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the point of bringing this here while the AFD is still ongoing. If it gets deleted or merged then a reassessment is not needed. I would suggest that participants wait for the result of the AFD before deciding on what this article should be assessed as. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned about the stability of the article at the moment, which may be exacerbated by public interest in the article's editorial process. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So how about we close this discussion now, and then reconsider after any AFD closure, or rewriting has completed. As it stands this discussion will achieve nothing much. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are comments from just reading the article, I didn't go in depth, just checked it quickly against WP:WIAGA. Hope it helps! – Plarem ( User talk) 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Result: Delisted Article merged into
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters.
AIRcorn
(talk)
00:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is sorely lacking in worthwhile content. The "Role in Ed, Edd n Eddy" section is a mostly unsourced "say what you see" account at best, and original research at worst. The short "Creation" section includes the most real content, but is entirely sourced to primary sources. The "Personality" section is more of the same as is in the "Role" section- again, say-what-you-see or original research, sourced directly to the show. The "Reception, appearances in other media and merchandising" section contains nothing about this character in particular; instead, everything is about all three characters or the show generally. I'm not convinced that this character even needs their own article, but, aside from that, this is certainly not ready for good article status. J Milburn ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is extremely long, and needs to be reduced in size. Editors come here, add material that belongs on pages covering more specialized topics, and the excess material remains while continuing to build up. Specifically, the article is not in compliance with Good Article criteria 3b (it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail). An article like this cannot be regarded as a Good Article. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 21:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My concern is that this article has not been kept up to date with the unfolding controversies over the Silver Line -- debates over Virginia's funding, the Loudon County Board of Supervisors' issues over whether to support the line's extension, issue of project labor agreements, etc., etc.
Rather than having the Good Article rating withdrawn, I would be much happier if other users who are better informed than me would undertake the editing needed to update this article and again make it a useful refernce for anyone wanting to have an up to date guide to the key issues involved with this project. Nandt1 ( talk) 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that this has severe sourcing and neutrality issues. I also do not believe that the article has enough substance for a good article to begin with. Something which was overlooked in the previous GAN was the issue of sourcing. The main source seems to be a resource named Xolo TV. The only Xolo TV I could find seems to be a internet blog with no official credentials, and no reliability. The interview itself seems to exist somewhere on youtube as part of a series of interviews from an individuals blog. I alsodon't think a television/film article should have to cite the credits of the opening titles for production information if the episode/film in question is notable.
As for the reception of the short, some of it comes from a website that quotes entirely from a press release from Cartoon Network and doesn't seem to be objective. That it featured in a book and DVD from the film festival who debuted the short isn't really an example of it being well received either. The only useful information in the article that comes from a verified reliable source seems to be the Eric Fogle comments. Eshlare ( talk) 13:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Update: Here is the original Xolo TV posting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEQED4A4Tc&list=PL98570C4F58DFE0BC&index=28&feature=plpp_video Eshlare ( talk) 13:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)