← ( Page 65) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 63) → |
Has been tagged with neutrality concerns since December 2016. The talk page is a mess to follow, but looking at the article I noticed some Red Flags. I detailed them at the talk page a month ago, but have got no responses. Hence I am bringing it here for reassessment.
From the talk page
The above is a mess to read and follow, in part due to the strange formatting, in part due to the length and in part due to the off topic nature. RFC is mentioned multiple times, but I can't find any correctly formatted or closed one. I would like to resolve the tag or delist the article. I do think there are issues with using Belgian scholars to source information on the Congo. This may be resolved by attributing this. The
Much of the violence perpetrated in the Congo was inflicted on Africans by other Africans
being the obvious one, but there are other occasions where there seems to be a softening of the blame (i.e. where it says The practice was comparatively common in colonial Africa
). Then you have sentences like Some have argued that the atrocities in the Free State qualify as a genocide although the term's use is disputed by most academics
which are a red flag for original research. I don't think the article is particularly unsalvageable, but for a article on a topic like this it needs to be very careful on how information is presented, especially if we are calling it
Good.
I feel it needs more than just myself to judge the neutrality hence the community review instead of an individual one
AIRcorn
(talk)
08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
A reduction of the population of the Congo is noted by all who have compared the country at the beginning of Leopold's control with the beginning of Belgian state rule in 1908, but estimates of the death toll vary considerably.which is meant as a summary of the section to come but is a statement bold enough that it needs reworking) and think the LEAD is need of revision. This beyond the sort of detailed examination of sources that is beyond my capacity to do tat this time. I still do not feel that it meets criteria. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I saw Ocean's 8 on a plane this weekend. It's a major Hollywood picture based largely on the Met Gala, and it's not mentioned in this article. This is a short article for such a publicized event. There's a one paragraph lead that doesn't sum up the article and three paragraphs of it are "controversy" (see WP:CSECTION). The article is a third as long as the Ocean 8 article and hasn't been updated since it was promoted to GA four years ago. Also, the red carpet is a big deal, and we have no pictures of the event? This article fails WP:GAC #s 3 and 6. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
100% agree, this page needs a lot of work. It's not broad enough in its coverage and doesn't properly convey just how major an event this is. Ohwowchow ( talk) 02:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The article has been tagged with a maintenance template thus I don't think it qualifies for a WP:GA. I'd love a neutral party to reassess it. Was first given GA status in 2005 and reassessed in 2007. Think it is time to re-check. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 07:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m proposing delisting this article, Emily Ratajkowski, from Good Article status until further notice because I see a lot of issues here: original research, promotional tone, and citation overkill are chief among them. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Prose is definitely subpar. Here are some examples of tone I found that come off as promotional:
Feel free to list any other problematic instances you spot. That's not even delving far into sheer quality of writing. I also feel including File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg is borderline promoting Treats! and the caption for File:Emily Ratajkowski.jpg doesn't really need to talk about what the photo shoot was for, simply a year is sufficient. Do we REALLY need to advertise her bags with File:20180220 Emily Bags at Bloomies at 900 North Michigan Avenue.jpg? Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I know this article clearly has a feminist agenda (on the neutrality front) but I struggle to understand how over 20 mentions about nudity and over 20 mentions about sexuality are encyclopedic. Many fashion models pose nude just as often as her without an eyelash batted. As an editor, my niche is fashion model articles and I can’t recall seeing nudity even mentioned once in any other model’s Wikipedia article. Ratajkowski is not a human sexuality scholar, expert, or doctor, so why are her views on the subject taken as such in this article? She has more citations about her sexuality views than actual professionals who have written medical journals on it! (Look at pages in the Sex educators category to see what I mean) Trillfendi ( talk) 15:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The article definitely does not meet GA standards; to be frank, it resembles an obsessive fan page rather than an encyclopedia article. For one, it's way too long and detailed. It seems to list every single thing that this person has ever done, without any consideration for what is relevant. Furthermore, one gets the impression that Ratajkowski is a major figure in Western culture, instead of a model/social media influencer/starlet that has garnered some media attention in the previous five years and is mostly remembered as the girl in the "Blurred Lines" video. The language of the article is weasel-y and nowhere near neutral. Looking at TonyTheTiger's previous interactions regarding this article and his replies here, it does not seem that he handles criticism well. My suggestion would be to not only downgrade the article, but for TonyTheTiger to take a break from editing it and allow neutral editors to heavily edit it to meet encyclopedic standards. Quality, not quantity is the key word here. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 17:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
As a outside observer and one who does not wish to engage in anything further then this comment; it seems like the problem people have is with the subject themselves and their personal opinion that her status in culture does not require a full biography. People have to face the fact that "social media" people are the "it group" of this century. It's all just nitpicking. The nom even reveals bias in their obsession with her feminist views; it's frankly insulting to suggest that her views or work should not deserve adequate information. Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin's articles can be nitpicked in the same exact way. How are you supposed to build a adequate article on a 21st century figure with these types of critiques? Are they supposed to be stubs until the 23rd century? How was Marilyn's playboy photoshoot included in her article for some time without the controversy that the Treats photoshoot got? Oh yeah, perceived historicity by the reflection of time; it's not ludicrous to treat modern subjects with the same detail as long dead people. People like PewDiePie, Kim Kardashian, Jenna Jameson, Miranda Kerr, Conor McGregor, Avicii, and Nicki Minaj and their respective fields are going to be the seen as representative of this century and it's reductive to say participants of such are not allowed to be anything other then a stub while "neutral" editors can fix it. You could nitpick anything; let's use Monroe; without the hyper sensationalism and tabloid coverage of her; she's only a popular actress who worked for a decade as top billing; why is her article so detailed? All because Bündchens article sucks should not mean anything either. To call this page a obsessive fanpage is flat out insulting to the editors who have tried their best with what they had. GuzzyG ( talk) 22:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Just so it is crystal clear to anyone who comes across this reassessment and/or decides to join: please understand this article is being proposed for demotion primarily because of original research, citation overkill, promotional prose, and neutrality. Before the cereal guy decided to turn it into a personal indictment on his life's work, that's what we were discussing. I have given numerous examples on those subjects. This need for reassessment is not about what I, or any of us, think about Emily Ratajkowski, her looks, her career, her family, her political beliefs, etc. It's not about who has a master's degree in Emily studies. It's certainly not about which publication writes about her. It's about the current quality of the article, nothing more and nothing less. (And maybe if this page had a protection level most of these problems wouldn't be here.) Trillfendi ( talk) 01:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I just want to make it clear that i sympathize with both sides to this. I can see the hard work Tony has put in only to be discredited as an obsessive fan (could be said about any FA editor) but also i do agree with the fact that most of the biographical details in the article are obscure in nature and not widely reported. To be clear i was not diminishing Susie's work either, i think the Chaplin and Monroe articles are very good work and so is the work done on the Frida Kahlo page. I want to make it clear i am also not an editor of this page. My interest is in the question of how are we going to accurately create articles on current pop culture figures or figures associated with social media/reality television or any field i have listed above and make them FA quality when they lack the historical lens ala people like Monroe. The PewDiePie article is another one with GA status that someone might view as overly detailed. The biggest thing wrong with this article is the "media image" section, we don't have to include every journalists name and the section is way too focused on unimportant media beauty lists. The problem here is there's no academic assessment or proper biographical coverage of Em Rata and so this article does seem to grab at anything just to have something to have in it. This page does come across as moving rapidly between "she did this, now she did this" which does come across as more of a fan page then encyclopedic prose; i think this page could be written as more of a general overview rather as listing specific instances as has been said above. Regarding the Monroe article; it is over the top that Em Rata's page is 170,643 bytes and the FA Monroe article is 122,766 bytes which makes it clear this article probably should be edited down a bit. Articles like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Taylor Swift have the same type of problem though; it's just impossible to get a well written biography of someone who has not been extensively researched and who has a active career and in that case this article is not that unlike others of it's kind. GuzzyG ( talk) 16:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Now that a decision has been made we can finally fix the useless fat of this article and hopefully it will stay that way. Start with these unreliable sources. Trillfendi ( talk) 03:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I've recently read a translated version of this article, which is much better than the article here, and I've also heard some individuals said that this article is too problematic for GA. To prove it, I've just read the article once. As what I can see, the article meets most of the GA criteria, but not "the prose is clear and concise": the article is too brief that the content is unclear, or in other words, it is too consice. I am sorry to have a doubt on whether it meets all criteria of GA, but I also hope that there will be Wikipedians who will improve this article, so that the content will be both clear and consice, to meet all criteria. Thank you for your consideration. Sæn mō sàI will find a way or make one. 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The structure of the "Attack" section appears incomplete. The strike lasted one and a half days, yet activities on second day Feb 18th is totally ignored. Also unmentioned is the experimental night raid conducted by USS Enterprise, the first of its kind. Compared to paragraphs about the surface action by Adm. Spruance, words depicting aerial attacks against Japanese shipping, which contributed to the vast majority of ships sunk in Truk, is disproportionately few and fragmentary, focusing on only two of the thirty merchant ships (The editor might have developed tunnel vision from relying too much on primary sources like action reports). Certainly there were more dramatic actions deserving a few words, such as those of light cruiser Naka or destroyer Oite. I would say the descriptive style of Attack on Pearl Harbor, a similar topic, is much richer in context.-- Medalofdead ( talk) 17:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This article gained Good Article status in 2006. It was briefly reassessed in 2007. I think it should be reassessed again now. I do want to note that the criteria in 2007 are pretty much the same as the current six criteria criteria. However, I believe that the thoroughness by which it was applied in 2007, and it is applied now, is different. Besides the history of assessments, I believe that at present this article needs to be re-assessed:
Don't get me wrong, what is written, is well written, and is very informative-- great job so far by those who have contributed! I just think that the classification as Good Article is maybe not the most suitable at this time (unless the article is expanded and citations added). This is my first time initiating the reassessment of an article's quality, so I very much would like to see what the community thinks.
I would like to invite @ CatherineMunro: who was the largest contributor to this article, as well as any other interested editors, to respond. Thank you ( talk) user:Al83tito 5:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
This article does not give sufficient weight to the Moose Lodge's history of racial and gender discrimination. A search of Google scholar and Newspapers.com shows that reliable sources give great weight to the discrimination issue, but this is barely reflected in the article. Until the discrimation section is substantially expanded, the article fails the WP:NPOV requirements in WP:GACR#4 — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 19:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
‘Sex discrimination’ is not an issue here. This is a men’s club. What needs expanding is the info on their racial policies. The intro states that they gave up segregation in the 1980’s but there is no citing of any source for this. The last mention of race issues is the Supreme Court upholding their right to do it. More needed. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:6976:E4A:B105:6F61 ( talk) 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I was the GA reviewer. The relevant GA criteria is "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." This criteria is about bias, not that the article is 100% complete in covering all appropriate areas. Similar to my comment in the review...another area for expansion would be coverage of what happens at their facilities and activities. But again, did not see areas that could use expansion as a reason to deny GA. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
11:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I did a search and didn't find much. It appears that they just followed the evolution of US society.....discrimination that faded out as the civil rights act took hold. One notable instance of an exclusion in 1972 that was covered in the article and another instance in 1994 where they made no claim to exclude or be able to exclude based on race, but where such was suspected. North8000 ( talk) 15:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Quite frankly it’s beyond me how this qualifies as a “good article”. I’m trying to even find the good article reviews of this page from 2007, to no avail. For years, people have questioned the not-inherited notability of these two people yet Beatles stans have taken personal offense to it. For one, I question the notability myself. Mrs. Mary McCartney died a decade before “Let it Be” was written and it’s not as if she gets writing credit for it; the inspiration behind it is beautiful and all, but being the parent of a famous person isn’t WP:GNG. And Mr. Jim McCartney doesn’t have a music career to speak of, he was an amateur, so how is this a good article in the music category? Secondly, just about all these links are dead, not reliable sources, or fan blogs are used as sources (unacceptable). This article is really just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool, where the notability stands on Paul McCartney. And it clearly relies on primary Beatles sources. I won’t go so far as to say some original research was done, but a lot of this info isn’t even verifiable. Trillfendi ( talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Aircorn: if you really consider “magicbeatlestours”, “rockandpopshop”, and “beatlesireland” to be “reliable” sources (see for yourself) then I guess that’s that on that.
Trillfendi (
talk)
03:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpoolor an obvious delist. My decision was made from what was written here and unfortunately a lot wasn't relevant. If you disagree with the close I am fine with you seeking a second opinion from someone else. I am not sure what the protocol here is, I would assume asking at the talk page here or at WT:GAN would be your best options. AIRcorn (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Its been almost 6 months now since the article listed as GA and end of their fourth season.And they already started their fifth season few days ago But still have no section about their fourth season and their fifth season.I informed them at the PR page two month ago, but have got no responses. Hence I am bringing it here for reassessment and recommending community review instead of an individual one. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 14:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Large sections of this article are severely lacking in sources, meaning that it fails GA criteria 2: Verifiable with no original research. If this article were being nominated right now for a GA review, I believe it would be quick failed for severely lacking in sources. Was GA nominated in 2007, and the unsourced content was added later, but right now it's nowhere near acceptable as a GA. For example:
All in all, this doesn't meet the standards of verified text required for GA, as there's far too much original research. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Article was promoted 10 years ago. Since then the article has not been properly updated and the prose is in bad shape. Specifically the article fails:
I don't believe this lives up to the criteria anymore. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it would probably be a good idea for this article's GA status to be reassed based upon the discussion at
User talk:Fhsig13#Despacito, in particular
this comment left by
Tbhotch. Although I believe the GA review was carried out in good faith, the statement I'm not going to check 400+ citations in depth, however the vast majority seemed to standard when I gave the list a once-over.
left by the reviewer for item 2b as well as the statement No copyright status given on most images.
given for item 6a since
the version which was reviewed make it seem that the review was hastily carried out. There were only six files (three
non-free ones and three Commons files) and checking their respective pages for their licensing shouldn't have been to difficult to do. Out of the seven parts of a GA review, it seems that making sure copyright files are properly licensed and being used correctly would be quite important. Finally, no reference was made to
earlier failed GA review or how the issues raised therein were fixed; this makes me wonder whether the GA reviewer was aware of the previous review. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I have sourced those "candidates" to a couple of newspaper articles and rewritten that sentence. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 15:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I have rewritten the sentence regarding the Blitz. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 09:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is mainly based upon two sources by:
According to this review of the sources, the article also fails criterion #4 as being non-neutral MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There has been continual edit-warring between pro-Pakistan and pro-India editors following the recent 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. Editors are routinely blindly reverting to keep their preferred version, removing any edits that are made by anybody else. The edit warring has not been stopped by spells of semi-protection, it has just been continued by auto-confirmed editors. As this has continued for over two weeks now, it is clear that the article is not stable, thus failing criteria 5: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." and criteria 4: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." It should therefore be delisted. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really seem as if this article can measure up to good article status. For example, the maps for the partition are too small to view properly, and the article just doesn't seem to provide good enough organization or provide concise, essential facts (see the Partition treaty section).
The "Plot" and "Cast" sections are currently completely unreferenced, and I have therefore placed the {{ unreferenced section}} templates on them. This brings it under the "Immediate failure" criterion of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, so the issue either needs to be resolved or the article needs to be delisted as a GA. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
An orphan who looks towards Ichabod as a father figure after his own father is murdered by the Horsemanand extra info like
Tim Burton and Michael Gough had previously worked together on Batman and Batman Returns, with Michael Gough portraying Alfred Pennyworthwhich really need sourcing. I might see what I can find. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Race Terms I've noticed there seem to have been some concern over the neutrality of this article and more recently some concern over the improper distinction between "Indian Americans", "American Indians" and "Native Americans". And on occasion the use of black rather than African American.
Race or ethnicity The sidebar calls this the ethnic wage gap, the title says racial wage gap
Suspicious Statements I feel like some weasel words may have snuck in since this article was granted good article status
General Formatting
Grammatical/fliw and context problems
Illustration The PNG
is of insufficient resolution to adequately distinguish its elements at thumbnail size. Specifically which pattern corresponds to which bar is unclear, and the text is fuzzy.
is of similarily low quality, but of sufficient quality to make out the patterns, just the text is fuzzy. Ethanpet113 ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
such barriers such as language show that such large dominance of immigrant population in such sectors only breed competition between lower-earning groups, further lowering average wages for such familieslinked above is just cringeworthy. One citation needed, but otherwise it is pretty well sourced. Given the time it has been under reassessment, the lack of response and the complicated nature of the topic I am leaning Delist on this one. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Despite the improvement in wages made by educational attainment, less educated Hispanic men still have less return to education than non-Hispanic men that are statistically comparable."less return to education"? Not sure what this is saying.
...where many modern causes of racial wage inequity, such as educational disparities and discrimination, stem from were even more prevalent.
Public state records from the 1930s indicate white owned schools in the south spent approximately $61 dollars per student, or $1,074.14 in 2018 dollars when adjusted for inflation, compared to just $9 per student, or $158.48 in 2018 dollars.Compared to $9 per student for... which schools?
As the United States joined the global market economy, three outcomes occurred. Those who possessed financial and human capital, such as education, succeeded in the new economy because the money and skills they had to offer were in short supply. Those who possessed only labor did not fare well because cheap, physical labor was in oversupply in the global market.That's only two outcomes?
However, Native Americans are the poorest ethnic group when measured by per capita income. < /info/en/?search=List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income#>
As of 1995, Hispanic women of all education levels, except for those without high school diplomas or associate degrees, had parity in earnings with white women. While this information is positive, a broader examination of Hispanic women's wages reveals that inequality still exists.While I'm sure the overwhelming majority of readers would agree with it, describing the change as "positive" is making a value judgement, and so I think technically a WP:NPOV violation.
There have been recent edit controversies surrounding this article. There is information without sources. I have also been finding fabricated information in the article not supported by sources. I think this warrants a review of the article overall.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Cunard: @ Aircorn: please let us know what is going on with this reassessment. As of today 17 June 2019, the template at the top of the article says "The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)" That links here. MPS1992 ( talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this is a reliable article. Some of the sections have missing citations, and the writing at times comes off as an essay:
"All the colors you see on your computer screen are made by mixing them in different intensities." "Unfortunately for those who wanted or were required to wear green..." "Green laser pointers outputting at 532 nm (563.5 THz) are relatively inexpensive..." "although the price remains relatively prohibitive for widespread public use." "Green animals include, especially, amphibians, reptiles, and some fish, birds and insects."
Just to name a few. 100cellsman ( talk) 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Based on my comments at Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I realize this is a somewhat unusual request. This article was promoted to GA in April 2016 based on a version I wrote. With better developed Wiki skills and with additional sources I just did a total rewrite, with which the version assessed as GA has little in common. Thus the GA star the old version received might not carry over to the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the current version to the one that last passed good article review. The sourcing and writing are certainly of a high quality. I can't imagine why we would delist it. Martinthewriter ( talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
GAs cannot contain OR. Both the reviewed version and the present version include the text One page of the report has a form with boxes to check as to whether the death was accidental, natural, homicide, suicide or undetermined, in large type and a sufficient distance from each other. The "accident" box is dated June 15; however three days later the "undetermined" box was checked instead. This was at some point in the three days before the report's release noted as an error and crossed out and initialed.
, attributed directly to a scan of the autopsy report itself. The review did not address this, and seems to have completely missed that there was such textbook OR in the article.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
14:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Hijiri88: I'm not reverting the edit, but can you do more to explain your complaint than say "textbook OR"? All the now-deleted sentences said was merely descriptive of what the primary source said. I'll grant that the wording needed a little work, but I don't find the verifiable description of what the autopsy report showed to be problematic. I think the cited source may even have discussed that detail. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Second, if we took out "in large type and a sufficient distance from each other" and left the rest in, would you still call it "OR"?
Third, just how does the text speculate on why? The mere juxtaposition of these details might lead readers to speculate, but they do not manipulate them into doing so, properly worded. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
. As for the description of that part of the autopsy report, I've been thinking about that that maybe we could just take a screenshot of that part of the page and put it in there; that would speak for itself and end any need to describe it. Such an image wouldn't create any copyright issues, either, as just words and incomplete phrases. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC) (signed belatedly)
Is Lila Stangard inspired by Elisa Lam?. I don't know how a stray seven word thought from a reviewer deserves a paragraph and it overplays the source in suggesting that it is actually inspired by Lam.
I am not a fan of Hijiri88's hit and run approach to these reassessmentsUmm ... what? That's a ... pretty bizarre accusation, given my history at GAR. Can you back it up with something? I've almost always been told that I should be less involved with these kinda things, and leave them for the community to decide, the one exception being a disastrous occasion on which I accidentally opened an individual assessment when I meant to open a community one. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Under current US law copyright attaches to the video even though it was produced automatically by the hotel's security cameras. No, I don't think the Cecil would sue, but the fair use policy doesn't take the likelihood of a rightsholder suing into account. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess I should make a more formal review section.
It drew worldwide interest in the caseis not supported
She walks to it again and stands in the doorway, leaning on the side. Suddenly she steps out into the hall, then to her side, back in, looking to the side, then back out. She then steps sideways again, and for a few seconds she is mostly invisible behind the wall she has her back to just outside. The door remains open.paragraph. You would be much better off using a secondary soure that says she acted strangely than trying to convey that by describing stage prompts. Descriptive enough not to be original research, but very dry. There must be secondary sources describing the video, otherwise why would we include a full section on it
A lot of secondary sources simply embedded the video, making it unnecessary for them to describe it, so there's a paucity of that. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It took the Los Angeles County Coroner's office four months, after repeated delays, to release the autopsy report,This is in the lead and the four month can be supported by the dates in the body. There is no mention of repeated delays however in the body.
Some argued that she was attempting to hide from a pursuer, perhaps someone ultimately responsible for her death, while others said she was merely frustrated with the elevator's apparent malfunction. I would be tempted to tag the "somes" with a {{ who}} as it is important to identify armchair detetives from real ones. At the least it needs to make clear at the start of the paragraph that these are armature theories. It reads a bit like some reddit thread on conspiracy theories, which is understandable since a part of the notability of this case is the releasing of the video, something the police only really have themselves to blame. I think we need to be clearer though on this and not give too much weight to the conspiracies over the actual police conclusions.
The tank was drained and cut open since its maintenance hatch was too small to accommodate equipment needed to remove Lam's bodyNot seeing this in the autopsy report cited
Toxicology tests – incomplete because not enough of her blood was preserved – showed traces consistent with prescription medication found among her belongings, plus nonprescription drugs such as Sinutab and ibuprofenThis is cited to five pages of the report. It is doing my head in because they are scanned sideways and everytime I click on next a pop-up appears. I am really not liking how this source is presented (I am getting banner ads flashing at me). I will take your word on the drugs, but can you confirm where it says that it was "incomplete because not enough of her blood was preserved".
It also records subcutaneous pooling of blood in Lam's anal area,[34] which some observers suggested was a sign of sexual abuse; however one pathologist has noted it could also have resulted from bloating in the course of the body's decomposition,[3] and her rectum was also prolapsed.Some observers really needs more info as there is a big difference between a doctor, pathologist or coroner compared to a layperson.
Overall I personally don't like the use of primary sources in this article, and many of them should be pretty easily replaced with secondary sources. Some of the points above are important for a GA, while others are not. I really would like to know how you came across the autopsy report as it seems a strange site to be hosting it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep I don’t view this as being original research at all. It's just a straightforward description of what the document says, and it clearly wasn't meant to imply anything. Maybe there is some misunderstanding here, but a careful inspection of the article and the sources definitely shows no original research. Granted, it's already been removed, so this observation doesn't really matter anymore. The only issues worth discussing are those that haven't already been addressed. Looking over the original good article review, I can see that it was very thorough, so if the misunderstanding over original research is the only issue here, then of course I have to vote to keep. My recommendation is that further misunderstandings be discussed on the talk page, rather than through good article reassessment. ErinRC ( talk) 16:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Whether other people have persuaded you to shorten intros to other articles during the GA process really isn't relevant to that, IMO. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Lots of conflicts are cited but not supported by sources. Some users, such as the Philippines, are also unsourced.-- Le Petit Chat ( talk) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@ AustralianRupert: since you are not involved on this discussion but did review Talk:M3 half-track/GA3, could you close this GAR with delist. I think there is a consensus.-- Le Petit Chat ( talk) 10:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
As what I've just found, there are original researches for the contents citing the source "Greenhill, Blust & Gray 2008", and the article may not meet the second good article criterion: "Verifiable with no original research" (Criterion 2c. "It contains no original research…"). Σαν μο σαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 02:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Has had a verification tag since July 2017 and multiple parts clearly read like a bunch of bullet points thrown together. The "in popular culture" section is bulleted and has numerous that don't qualify WP:SONGCOVER. This should've been delisted years ago. – zmbro ( talk) 02:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
However, in other instances Martin has claimed that "Fix You" is influenced by(the "However" doesn't coherently connect with the text that came before)
The message throughout the song, in which Martin sings, is words of encouragement: "Lights will guide you home[...]
Marginal authors and their works: Singleton, Berend, Ash, Hoare, Meier, Dizdar, Glenny, Segel instead expert authors like: Aralica, Bulajić and Vujasinović et al
-- Bocin kolega ( talk) 19:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The page has been tagged {{ POV}} since Sept. 2014. I am not sure if the tag is still appropriate, but if it is, this article needs to be delisted per WP:GAFAIL #3. -- MrClog ( talk) 09:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The GA status of this article strikes me as fishy- it was initiated by CorporateM ( talk · contribs), a wikipedian who admits to running a business that "contributed more than 50 Good Article-ranked pages about businesses and individuals", and completed by Samtar ( talk · contribs), who I wasn't able to find much on.
As for the article itself, it's decently NPOV and does an okay job of talking about the company and the product, but there's not a lot of content. If GA is supposed to identify articles that are better than average, but not at FA status, I wouldn't argue that this page meets that criteria. Given my inexperience as an editor, I'm nominating it for community reassessment. Rivselis ( talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Would love some help in trying to bring this back up to GA standards and perhaps FA in the process. I am asking for help by way of a review because it's an article with a contentious history and I think multiple editors should be involved. We have a few problems that have arisen since this was look at in 2015.....we have ref needed tags, update tags, when tags, whole paragraphs missing sources , and a religious section that looks like it was copy and pasted from the main articles bloating the article.-- Moxy 🍁 22:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how this passed GA before, the current article is not up to current GA standards.
I really feel the article needs to be reassessed and the current GA be dropped. Govvy ( talk) 11:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Govvy, are you looking to make improvements to the article yourself or simply want it downgraded? Kosack ( talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
There are several reasons this article's status as a Good Article needs to be reviewed.
The following points address short comings concerning content & coverage.
What I would do with this section is to begin with the ambiguity of the meaning of "Lao Tzu", then note that Sima Qian provides several names of people who were identified with him from different sources. As for the legendary names (e.g. "Supreme Old Lord"), while they could be mentioned here -- along with Huang-Lao -- I feel they would fit better in the section "Influence", for reasons I provide below.
I would rewrite myself this article entirely, but I doubt the final product would meet GA standards. For one thing, I admit I don't know enough about Chinese intellectual tradition to explain Lao Tzu's role in it adequately. But perhaps there is someone who is able to make the necessary changes to get this article on an important subject to GA or even FA status. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking through this page, I have noticed that their are certain sections of the article that doesn't have any references in it at all which in my eyes would fail if it was done today. There is also the fact that in the section, "Future lines discussed", there isn't enough prose in this section to have this bit of the article. Add to the fact that their are sections which needs a reference and it's probably worth a shot at maybe reassessing this article. HawkAussie ( talk) 04:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Passed as a GA by an editor making only their 95th edit. Talk:Golden State Killer/GA1 was brief, to say the least. Although not unprecedented, I'd say it's unusual for an article of this length to pass without any changes being needed, no matter how small.
The article is a strange hybrid of information about an uncaught serial killer, and biography of the suspect. Yes I'm aware he's innocent until proven guilty per WP:BLP, but you have to look at things such as this pre-arrest section which still largely exists at Golden State Killer#Suspect profile and Golden State Killer#Suspects. Removing information about exonerated suspects, redundant lines of inquiry about construction work near 1979 Goleta murder etc. does't violate BLP, it keeps the article up to date and on-topic.
The lead doesn't summarise the article properly. To give just two examples, the claim about Virginia's DNA database being seen as the most effective and that Michelle McNamara coined the term Golden State Killer. While both are true, neither of these appears in the main body of the article.
The book source in footnote #2 is frequently cited without an accompanying page number. Footnote #9 appears to be a television show that is no longer available on the A&E Networks website, therefore unverifiable and needing to be replaced. Footnote #24 is hosted on googlepages and does not appear to be reliable. Footnotes #30, #34 and #38 s a podcast on Soundcloud hosted by "12-26-75". Simillarly Casefile podcast is used repeatedly. I listen to casefile, it's won awards, but it hasn't won them for its reporting and accuracy but for being entertaining. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable sources about podcasts being reliable, although you could easily make a case for the LA Time's "Man In The Window" podcast about the Golden State Killer being reliable for example. Footnotes #36 and #37 are for what appears to be a self-published website about the Visalia Ransacker, the website's contact form makes it clear by the use of "don't hesitate to contact them [law enforcement]" makes it clear the publisher is independent of law enforcement. Why are we citing the opinions of random website creators about whether the Visalia Ransacker case was linked the Golden State Killer, when we should really be citing law enforcement and/or other reliable sources? Footnote #119 is a website titled "The Quester Files" containing all sorts of information about Bigfoot, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, the occult and cold cases. His about page makes lots of grandiose claims such as he is the "controversial and highest profiled independent investigator of the East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker. His work as presented on the Q Files and in books has inspired the reopening of cases, national press conferences, and various news reports." Given the many reliable sources covering the case, do we really need to scrape the barrel with sources like this? This shouldn't be considering an exhaustive list of problematic sources, just ones that jumped off the page at me. The whole sourcing needs to be properly checked, and the many self-published ones replaced with more reliable sources. On the subject of sources the table of East Area Rapist attacks at Golden State Killer#East Area Rapist (June 1976–July 1979) contains many entries lacking a citation.
The above shouldn't be taken as a complete list of the problems with the article, hopefully other editors will be able to bring up any issues they see as well. Rising5554 ( talk) 12:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Made GA more than 10 years ago. It has a complete lack of sources, with whole paragraphs without a single source. Skjoldbro ( talk) 20:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I admit the review that was done three years ago was weak and did not review the aspects raised above. Here are some points that I have: MWright96 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The latter two sources are particularly helpful for expanding the production section. That is all I have for now. MWright96 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Result: Not Listed The article is clear to not have references. Illustration and up-to-date information is also lacking. Major contributors and nominatees are also inactive. FredModulars ( talk) 01:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
This article was rewarded its status back in January of 2009. Since then it has barely been updated other than new products and minor edits and has been extremely less active than it used to. Only one image is included in this article and has only minor importance to the article displaying only 3 products. References are extremely lacking, with over half of the products and features of this article being unsourced and most likely based off of original research. No references are mentioned in these product descriptions or explanation sections. Also, the two sections, "Challenges" and "Reception" lack up-to-date information and are very old source material. FredModulars ( talk) 23:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Delist: I agree, there are missing sources all over the article. The information here cannot be verified - that is enough to fail a GA! Lizzy ( talk) 15:52, 30 October 2019 (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.
There are long chunks of unreferenced sentences. I have identified and tagged, removed or corrected some OR and inaccuracies from time to time, [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] but problems persist. IMHO it does a poor job particularly of differentiating what is the official, canonical IPA as set out by the International Phonetic Association and what are applications of the IPA; for example, [brackets] and /slashes/ are the only enclosing symbols recognized by the IPA, but the article only distinguishes them and other conventions as "principal" and "less common", with hardly any citation.
It may have deserved GA in 2006 when it became one, but I don't think it meets the standards we now expect from GAs. Nardog ( talk) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This was reasonably promoted to GA status ten years ago. Since then, however, I believe the article has suffered sufficiently that it is no longer GA. There are numerous reasons for this, however, for brevity I note the following three, specifically:
Chetsford ( talk) 07:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. There were a few citation needed tags on the article, which generally implies they are challenged so I fixed them up. Otherwise this meets our definition of a Good Article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
1. The lede of the article has a number of references, which should be avoided. A lede should summarise the article, and references there are unnecessary.
2. The article lacks references.
3. There is a problem with the references. The footnotes aren't uniformed. While some just use the author's name, title and page number, other use author's name, book title, publisher, place of publishing, etc. Sometimes, only a link is used. -- Governor Sheng ( talk) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that this article was considered GA quality. (I looked for the discussion that promoted this article, but it wasn't linked to this page.) While it is well-written, & I believe it explains its subject for the most part accurately, its sources are problematic. First, it appears to rely on the work of J.J. Norwich, although a decent historian, is more of a popularizer than standard references like Ostrogorsky & Vasiliev -- although mentioning Runciman helps. Another thing this article needs is a discussion of the primary sources: looking at the account in Vryonis' The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: and the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century (another standard reference), primary sources for this battle include Niketas Choniates, & Michael the Syrian, & a letter by Manuel to the English king Henry II written shortly after the battle; except for a passing quotation from Anna Komnenos, the existence of these sources are completely ignored -- which hampers any reader who wants to go beyond the secondary sources. Lastly, although I wouldn't use this even as a reason to deny this article FA status, it would be very nice if Turkish sources were used in this article; I believe Turkish academics have written an article or more on this event, & may express some opinions or conclusions that would surprise even citizens of that country.
This article has suffered significant POV damage since it was promoted to GA. Now that the subject no longer serves a very public role. It is a good time for a reassessment to bring this article to GA quality again or delist. --- Coffeeand crumbs 13:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is overall very short for a GA, and is missing an awful lot of key points found in other GA-class shopping mall articles. For instance:
Compare other GA-class mall articles such as Meridian Mall and Lansing Mall, or even Merle Hay Mall which was promoted in 2008 and still holds up reasonably well, and it's clear that this article falls woefully short. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
AmericanAir88( talk) 19:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Overall the article seems considerably less complete than other country music GAs; compare Trisha Yearwood, Tracy Lawrence, even Lonestar or McBride & the Ride which are broader in scope.
Last major editor left in 2013, GA nominator left in 2014. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC) •Delisted as per above. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This recently-passed GAN fails to fulfill criteria 3(a) (addressing the main aspects of the topic), as there are large gaps in content that were not mentioned in the review. The history section is top-heavy, with paragraphs given to a certain period (1880–1910), but a similar 30-year span (1980–2010) given a single sentence. Much of the information in the section is not backed up with enough detail or information, such as the "suffering during the Great Depression" (no hardships were mentioned) or the appreciation of the area's "rural lifestyle" (which reads straight out of a realtor's listing). The Geography section only has a single sentence for a neighboring border and another with the original, bot-generated area statistic; no mention is made of the area's topography, the town's layout and neighborhoods, or any nearby natural features. The Demographics section includes unnecessary table entries for Florida and U.S. statistics; the government section lacks information on the day-to-day administration of city affairs; and there is no Economy section, which is fundamental to a city entry. Having experience with writing town articles myself (for similar settlements in the sub-2,500 range), it's entirely possible to wring out enough information to fill these sections with more thorough research. Sounder Bruce 00:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Faisal's sons received exceptional education compared to other princes born to Saudi monarchs., which seemed too peacocky (I toned it down). I then read the rest of the article thinking I would agree with the nominators view. Apart from the first paragraph in "Religious inclusiveness" (whose source I can't access) it struck me as positive but not overly praising. There are also a few negative sections. Without a presentation of sources showing more criticisms that have been missed there is nothing here that we can really use to judge the non-neutrality of the article. I commend the original reviewer for looking up other sources in this regard and read through this one myself and am seeing nothing negative not presented. There is agreement here that the presented quotes from the article are fine and given the absence of other red flags this appears neutral enough to meet the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The article should have a {{POV|date=August 2019}} tag added and be entirely rewritten in a neutral POV. The article reads like an extended resume from a fan, especially the "Early experience" section (which is not even a real section title for biographies). The sentence "In 1962 Prince Faisal helped found the Muslim World League, a worldwide charity to which the Saudi royal family has reportedly since donated more than a billion dollars," is exceptionally braggy.
Sentences similar to "King Faisal seemed to hold the pluralist view," should be entirely rewritten; they are both puffery and biased. The article is also written like a dramatic play, with struggles and winners and losers. There are countless run-on sentences.
This is not a good article. It is poorly written, with unclear and unconcise prose (1a). The article is full of peacock language, and should be entirely rewritten to address the facts (1b). As well, it is not neutral, as the article alternates between a praise piece or governmental propaganda (4).
tldr; This is frankly the worst article I have ever read that qualified as a GA. The status should be removed. Zkidwiki ( talk) 01:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This article was listed back in 2007, when Order of the Phoenix was brand new. 12 years later, it's had a ref tag for two & a half years and every piece of info added since 2007 in is its own paragraph, on top of an awards table that's completely unsourced. Clearly needs to be delisted. – zmbro ( talk) 22:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear @ BlueMoonset: I apologize, of course, and defer to your considered judgment. (I'm assuming you have some position of authority in the GA process.)
I do understand your point about reassessment and agree with what you have stated, and also with your calling out my error. But, with respect, the previous reviewer said not a peep about criteria 2 c, d, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Not a peep, in return, was heard from anyone before its promotion, nor after. That is, other than me. I do understand that going around monitoring every GA is not any part of your charge, but you have to understand my concern. All too often reviews are only about grammar, or about perfunctorily affixing the green cross six times against the GA criteria. How often do reviewers explain their choices? Anyway, now that I'm reassured you are watching, I will step away. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. — ♠Vami _IV†♠ 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Update: As per Fowler&fowler's comment(s) above, I'll (mostly) keep my review to GA criterion 3 & 4 (Broadness and Neutrality, respectively). The nominee, other reviewers, and readers should note that I know little about the topic at hand but am an experienced editor. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bengal famine of 1943 [...] was a major famine of the Bengal province in British India during World War II.I have a suggestion and an error to point out. The latter first. The use of "of" and "in" are erroneous here. The subject matter, an event concerning a locality, happens in that locality. Next, it is correct to say that the Bengal province was in British India, but it's a piece of that body, like how an arm is a limb of the human body. Thus, The Bengal famine happens in the Bengal province of British India during World War II. Now the suggestion: replace this non-current text (Bengal province of British India) with the current information in Footnote B (
The area now constitutes [...]), thereby reducing it. Let the rest of the article explain that this used to be a British possession – the lead is for brevity.
The Bengal famine of 1943 (Bengali: পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর pônchasher mônnôntôr) was a major famine in modern-day Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, and Orissa.Footnote B should be deleted once this is affected; the cyclone mentioned on 10 April 1943 does not occur again in the article.
three diverse economic and social groups:or at the end of the sentence to which it is attached.
The flooding of fallow fieldsIs this flooding during the crisis or from regular monsoons?
one million IndiansMy understanding of India, though minimal, is that it is a country of many ethnicities, not to mention two or three major religions. I am therefore confused by the use of "Indians" here.
[...], even as the beginning of a food crisis began to become apparent.This could be reduced;
even as a food crisis began.
As a second prong, a "boat denial" policyHow about The second prong?
Why are footnotes containing the content of a cited passage present in the article? Are the existing citations and the prose they support not reliable enough without them? –
♠Vami
_IV†♠
09:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
{{{sfn}}}
. ♦
Lingzhi2
(talk)
15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Government of India 1945citation is broken.
( ←) That footnote is already a named footnote. It is used in the lede and used in the infobox. So you wanna use it three times? Fine with me... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
A better name for this section would be "Historiography", as "Background" and "Pre-famine shocks and distress" already give the causes while this section discusses what historians thought the cause was. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠
12:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This review, though it will be slow in coming, is in progress.
Good Article review progress box
|
"The Bengal Famine of 1943 stands out as a great calamity even in an age all too familiar with human suffering and death on a tragic scale."
— The opening sentence of Famine Inquiry Commission (1945), Report on Bengal, Government of India Press, quoted in W. R. Aykroyd (1974), The Conquest of Famine, London: Chatto&Windus.
( ←) This is Triple Crown material if I ever saw it. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 08:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Now that
Vami_IV is satisfied that the article now meets the GA criteria, as this is a community reassessment, other editors need to weigh in as to whether they think the article meets the criteria and retains its GA listing, or if it doesn't and should be delisted: During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it
. It should not be unilaterally closed by any involved editor, even Vami_IV, though they have done excellent work in reviewing the article on the basis of the criteria, and merit great thanks. I have reopened the GAR so it can continue and conclude in the prescribed manner. Thanks to anyone who weighs in going forward.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I believe this article should be stripped of being listed as a Good article due to the fact that there are multiple additional citations tags in a lot of the article's sections, which IMMEDIATELY disqualifies it according to the third GA criteria. It was listed over a decade ago, in 2007, so I don't know if the rules were extremely lenient back then? Because though I haven't checked a lot of the sources, I know that it needs a lot of fixing up with updating prose with reliable citations.
There is also an issue with people simply adding free-use pictures of their labradors for the heck of it rather than with an image matching commentary reflecting the section's information. Doubt that's a GA issue though, just something I should mention. - NowIsntItTime( chats)( doings) 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@ NowIsntItTime, TenPoundHammer, Moxy, William Harris, and Cavalryman: I am speedy delisting . I guess if you want to start a reclamation drive, the article's talk page would be a good place to do it. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The prose is choppy and basically a list of his accomplishments (which admittedly, are many). Each section is relatively short and only contains positive information. Many of the references are statistics, lists, or record books. None 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the criteria for a GA are not met in my opinion. -
Mnnlaxer |
talk |
stalk
04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GAFAIL 3. Pinging @ Drmies: who added the tags and pruned content, and also @ Nerd271: who also pruned some content. FoxyGrampa75 ( talk) 01:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
← ( Page 65) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 63) → |
Has been tagged with neutrality concerns since December 2016. The talk page is a mess to follow, but looking at the article I noticed some Red Flags. I detailed them at the talk page a month ago, but have got no responses. Hence I am bringing it here for reassessment.
From the talk page
The above is a mess to read and follow, in part due to the strange formatting, in part due to the length and in part due to the off topic nature. RFC is mentioned multiple times, but I can't find any correctly formatted or closed one. I would like to resolve the tag or delist the article. I do think there are issues with using Belgian scholars to source information on the Congo. This may be resolved by attributing this. The
Much of the violence perpetrated in the Congo was inflicted on Africans by other Africans
being the obvious one, but there are other occasions where there seems to be a softening of the blame (i.e. where it says The practice was comparatively common in colonial Africa
). Then you have sentences like Some have argued that the atrocities in the Free State qualify as a genocide although the term's use is disputed by most academics
which are a red flag for original research. I don't think the article is particularly unsalvageable, but for a article on a topic like this it needs to be very careful on how information is presented, especially if we are calling it
Good.
I feel it needs more than just myself to judge the neutrality hence the community review instead of an individual one
AIRcorn
(talk)
08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
A reduction of the population of the Congo is noted by all who have compared the country at the beginning of Leopold's control with the beginning of Belgian state rule in 1908, but estimates of the death toll vary considerably.which is meant as a summary of the section to come but is a statement bold enough that it needs reworking) and think the LEAD is need of revision. This beyond the sort of detailed examination of sources that is beyond my capacity to do tat this time. I still do not feel that it meets criteria. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I saw Ocean's 8 on a plane this weekend. It's a major Hollywood picture based largely on the Met Gala, and it's not mentioned in this article. This is a short article for such a publicized event. There's a one paragraph lead that doesn't sum up the article and three paragraphs of it are "controversy" (see WP:CSECTION). The article is a third as long as the Ocean 8 article and hasn't been updated since it was promoted to GA four years ago. Also, the red carpet is a big deal, and we have no pictures of the event? This article fails WP:GAC #s 3 and 6. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
100% agree, this page needs a lot of work. It's not broad enough in its coverage and doesn't properly convey just how major an event this is. Ohwowchow ( talk) 02:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The article has been tagged with a maintenance template thus I don't think it qualifies for a WP:GA. I'd love a neutral party to reassess it. Was first given GA status in 2005 and reassessed in 2007. Think it is time to re-check. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 07:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m proposing delisting this article, Emily Ratajkowski, from Good Article status until further notice because I see a lot of issues here: original research, promotional tone, and citation overkill are chief among them. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Prose is definitely subpar. Here are some examples of tone I found that come off as promotional:
Feel free to list any other problematic instances you spot. That's not even delving far into sheer quality of writing. I also feel including File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg is borderline promoting Treats! and the caption for File:Emily Ratajkowski.jpg doesn't really need to talk about what the photo shoot was for, simply a year is sufficient. Do we REALLY need to advertise her bags with File:20180220 Emily Bags at Bloomies at 900 North Michigan Avenue.jpg? Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I know this article clearly has a feminist agenda (on the neutrality front) but I struggle to understand how over 20 mentions about nudity and over 20 mentions about sexuality are encyclopedic. Many fashion models pose nude just as often as her without an eyelash batted. As an editor, my niche is fashion model articles and I can’t recall seeing nudity even mentioned once in any other model’s Wikipedia article. Ratajkowski is not a human sexuality scholar, expert, or doctor, so why are her views on the subject taken as such in this article? She has more citations about her sexuality views than actual professionals who have written medical journals on it! (Look at pages in the Sex educators category to see what I mean) Trillfendi ( talk) 15:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The article definitely does not meet GA standards; to be frank, it resembles an obsessive fan page rather than an encyclopedia article. For one, it's way too long and detailed. It seems to list every single thing that this person has ever done, without any consideration for what is relevant. Furthermore, one gets the impression that Ratajkowski is a major figure in Western culture, instead of a model/social media influencer/starlet that has garnered some media attention in the previous five years and is mostly remembered as the girl in the "Blurred Lines" video. The language of the article is weasel-y and nowhere near neutral. Looking at TonyTheTiger's previous interactions regarding this article and his replies here, it does not seem that he handles criticism well. My suggestion would be to not only downgrade the article, but for TonyTheTiger to take a break from editing it and allow neutral editors to heavily edit it to meet encyclopedic standards. Quality, not quantity is the key word here. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 17:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
As a outside observer and one who does not wish to engage in anything further then this comment; it seems like the problem people have is with the subject themselves and their personal opinion that her status in culture does not require a full biography. People have to face the fact that "social media" people are the "it group" of this century. It's all just nitpicking. The nom even reveals bias in their obsession with her feminist views; it's frankly insulting to suggest that her views or work should not deserve adequate information. Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin's articles can be nitpicked in the same exact way. How are you supposed to build a adequate article on a 21st century figure with these types of critiques? Are they supposed to be stubs until the 23rd century? How was Marilyn's playboy photoshoot included in her article for some time without the controversy that the Treats photoshoot got? Oh yeah, perceived historicity by the reflection of time; it's not ludicrous to treat modern subjects with the same detail as long dead people. People like PewDiePie, Kim Kardashian, Jenna Jameson, Miranda Kerr, Conor McGregor, Avicii, and Nicki Minaj and their respective fields are going to be the seen as representative of this century and it's reductive to say participants of such are not allowed to be anything other then a stub while "neutral" editors can fix it. You could nitpick anything; let's use Monroe; without the hyper sensationalism and tabloid coverage of her; she's only a popular actress who worked for a decade as top billing; why is her article so detailed? All because Bündchens article sucks should not mean anything either. To call this page a obsessive fanpage is flat out insulting to the editors who have tried their best with what they had. GuzzyG ( talk) 22:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Just so it is crystal clear to anyone who comes across this reassessment and/or decides to join: please understand this article is being proposed for demotion primarily because of original research, citation overkill, promotional prose, and neutrality. Before the cereal guy decided to turn it into a personal indictment on his life's work, that's what we were discussing. I have given numerous examples on those subjects. This need for reassessment is not about what I, or any of us, think about Emily Ratajkowski, her looks, her career, her family, her political beliefs, etc. It's not about who has a master's degree in Emily studies. It's certainly not about which publication writes about her. It's about the current quality of the article, nothing more and nothing less. (And maybe if this page had a protection level most of these problems wouldn't be here.) Trillfendi ( talk) 01:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I just want to make it clear that i sympathize with both sides to this. I can see the hard work Tony has put in only to be discredited as an obsessive fan (could be said about any FA editor) but also i do agree with the fact that most of the biographical details in the article are obscure in nature and not widely reported. To be clear i was not diminishing Susie's work either, i think the Chaplin and Monroe articles are very good work and so is the work done on the Frida Kahlo page. I want to make it clear i am also not an editor of this page. My interest is in the question of how are we going to accurately create articles on current pop culture figures or figures associated with social media/reality television or any field i have listed above and make them FA quality when they lack the historical lens ala people like Monroe. The PewDiePie article is another one with GA status that someone might view as overly detailed. The biggest thing wrong with this article is the "media image" section, we don't have to include every journalists name and the section is way too focused on unimportant media beauty lists. The problem here is there's no academic assessment or proper biographical coverage of Em Rata and so this article does seem to grab at anything just to have something to have in it. This page does come across as moving rapidly between "she did this, now she did this" which does come across as more of a fan page then encyclopedic prose; i think this page could be written as more of a general overview rather as listing specific instances as has been said above. Regarding the Monroe article; it is over the top that Em Rata's page is 170,643 bytes and the FA Monroe article is 122,766 bytes which makes it clear this article probably should be edited down a bit. Articles like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Taylor Swift have the same type of problem though; it's just impossible to get a well written biography of someone who has not been extensively researched and who has a active career and in that case this article is not that unlike others of it's kind. GuzzyG ( talk) 16:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Now that a decision has been made we can finally fix the useless fat of this article and hopefully it will stay that way. Start with these unreliable sources. Trillfendi ( talk) 03:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I've recently read a translated version of this article, which is much better than the article here, and I've also heard some individuals said that this article is too problematic for GA. To prove it, I've just read the article once. As what I can see, the article meets most of the GA criteria, but not "the prose is clear and concise": the article is too brief that the content is unclear, or in other words, it is too consice. I am sorry to have a doubt on whether it meets all criteria of GA, but I also hope that there will be Wikipedians who will improve this article, so that the content will be both clear and consice, to meet all criteria. Thank you for your consideration. Sæn mō sàI will find a way or make one. 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The structure of the "Attack" section appears incomplete. The strike lasted one and a half days, yet activities on second day Feb 18th is totally ignored. Also unmentioned is the experimental night raid conducted by USS Enterprise, the first of its kind. Compared to paragraphs about the surface action by Adm. Spruance, words depicting aerial attacks against Japanese shipping, which contributed to the vast majority of ships sunk in Truk, is disproportionately few and fragmentary, focusing on only two of the thirty merchant ships (The editor might have developed tunnel vision from relying too much on primary sources like action reports). Certainly there were more dramatic actions deserving a few words, such as those of light cruiser Naka or destroyer Oite. I would say the descriptive style of Attack on Pearl Harbor, a similar topic, is much richer in context.-- Medalofdead ( talk) 17:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This article gained Good Article status in 2006. It was briefly reassessed in 2007. I think it should be reassessed again now. I do want to note that the criteria in 2007 are pretty much the same as the current six criteria criteria. However, I believe that the thoroughness by which it was applied in 2007, and it is applied now, is different. Besides the history of assessments, I believe that at present this article needs to be re-assessed:
Don't get me wrong, what is written, is well written, and is very informative-- great job so far by those who have contributed! I just think that the classification as Good Article is maybe not the most suitable at this time (unless the article is expanded and citations added). This is my first time initiating the reassessment of an article's quality, so I very much would like to see what the community thinks.
I would like to invite @ CatherineMunro: who was the largest contributor to this article, as well as any other interested editors, to respond. Thank you ( talk) user:Al83tito 5:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
This article does not give sufficient weight to the Moose Lodge's history of racial and gender discrimination. A search of Google scholar and Newspapers.com shows that reliable sources give great weight to the discrimination issue, but this is barely reflected in the article. Until the discrimation section is substantially expanded, the article fails the WP:NPOV requirements in WP:GACR#4 — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 19:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
‘Sex discrimination’ is not an issue here. This is a men’s club. What needs expanding is the info on their racial policies. The intro states that they gave up segregation in the 1980’s but there is no citing of any source for this. The last mention of race issues is the Supreme Court upholding their right to do it. More needed. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:6976:E4A:B105:6F61 ( talk) 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I was the GA reviewer. The relevant GA criteria is "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." This criteria is about bias, not that the article is 100% complete in covering all appropriate areas. Similar to my comment in the review...another area for expansion would be coverage of what happens at their facilities and activities. But again, did not see areas that could use expansion as a reason to deny GA. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
11:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I did a search and didn't find much. It appears that they just followed the evolution of US society.....discrimination that faded out as the civil rights act took hold. One notable instance of an exclusion in 1972 that was covered in the article and another instance in 1994 where they made no claim to exclude or be able to exclude based on race, but where such was suspected. North8000 ( talk) 15:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Quite frankly it’s beyond me how this qualifies as a “good article”. I’m trying to even find the good article reviews of this page from 2007, to no avail. For years, people have questioned the not-inherited notability of these two people yet Beatles stans have taken personal offense to it. For one, I question the notability myself. Mrs. Mary McCartney died a decade before “Let it Be” was written and it’s not as if she gets writing credit for it; the inspiration behind it is beautiful and all, but being the parent of a famous person isn’t WP:GNG. And Mr. Jim McCartney doesn’t have a music career to speak of, he was an amateur, so how is this a good article in the music category? Secondly, just about all these links are dead, not reliable sources, or fan blogs are used as sources (unacceptable). This article is really just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool, where the notability stands on Paul McCartney. And it clearly relies on primary Beatles sources. I won’t go so far as to say some original research was done, but a lot of this info isn’t even verifiable. Trillfendi ( talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Aircorn: if you really consider “magicbeatlestours”, “rockandpopshop”, and “beatlesireland” to be “reliable” sources (see for yourself) then I guess that’s that on that.
Trillfendi (
talk)
03:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpoolor an obvious delist. My decision was made from what was written here and unfortunately a lot wasn't relevant. If you disagree with the close I am fine with you seeking a second opinion from someone else. I am not sure what the protocol here is, I would assume asking at the talk page here or at WT:GAN would be your best options. AIRcorn (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Its been almost 6 months now since the article listed as GA and end of their fourth season.And they already started their fifth season few days ago But still have no section about their fourth season and their fifth season.I informed them at the PR page two month ago, but have got no responses. Hence I am bringing it here for reassessment and recommending community review instead of an individual one. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 14:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Large sections of this article are severely lacking in sources, meaning that it fails GA criteria 2: Verifiable with no original research. If this article were being nominated right now for a GA review, I believe it would be quick failed for severely lacking in sources. Was GA nominated in 2007, and the unsourced content was added later, but right now it's nowhere near acceptable as a GA. For example:
All in all, this doesn't meet the standards of verified text required for GA, as there's far too much original research. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Article was promoted 10 years ago. Since then the article has not been properly updated and the prose is in bad shape. Specifically the article fails:
I don't believe this lives up to the criteria anymore. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it would probably be a good idea for this article's GA status to be reassed based upon the discussion at
User talk:Fhsig13#Despacito, in particular
this comment left by
Tbhotch. Although I believe the GA review was carried out in good faith, the statement I'm not going to check 400+ citations in depth, however the vast majority seemed to standard when I gave the list a once-over.
left by the reviewer for item 2b as well as the statement No copyright status given on most images.
given for item 6a since
the version which was reviewed make it seem that the review was hastily carried out. There were only six files (three
non-free ones and three Commons files) and checking their respective pages for their licensing shouldn't have been to difficult to do. Out of the seven parts of a GA review, it seems that making sure copyright files are properly licensed and being used correctly would be quite important. Finally, no reference was made to
earlier failed GA review or how the issues raised therein were fixed; this makes me wonder whether the GA reviewer was aware of the previous review. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I have sourced those "candidates" to a couple of newspaper articles and rewritten that sentence. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 15:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I have rewritten the sentence regarding the Blitz. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 09:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is mainly based upon two sources by:
According to this review of the sources, the article also fails criterion #4 as being non-neutral MisterBee1966 ( talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There has been continual edit-warring between pro-Pakistan and pro-India editors following the recent 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. Editors are routinely blindly reverting to keep their preferred version, removing any edits that are made by anybody else. The edit warring has not been stopped by spells of semi-protection, it has just been continued by auto-confirmed editors. As this has continued for over two weeks now, it is clear that the article is not stable, thus failing criteria 5: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." and criteria 4: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." It should therefore be delisted. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really seem as if this article can measure up to good article status. For example, the maps for the partition are too small to view properly, and the article just doesn't seem to provide good enough organization or provide concise, essential facts (see the Partition treaty section).
The "Plot" and "Cast" sections are currently completely unreferenced, and I have therefore placed the {{ unreferenced section}} templates on them. This brings it under the "Immediate failure" criterion of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, so the issue either needs to be resolved or the article needs to be delisted as a GA. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
An orphan who looks towards Ichabod as a father figure after his own father is murdered by the Horsemanand extra info like
Tim Burton and Michael Gough had previously worked together on Batman and Batman Returns, with Michael Gough portraying Alfred Pennyworthwhich really need sourcing. I might see what I can find. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Race Terms I've noticed there seem to have been some concern over the neutrality of this article and more recently some concern over the improper distinction between "Indian Americans", "American Indians" and "Native Americans". And on occasion the use of black rather than African American.
Race or ethnicity The sidebar calls this the ethnic wage gap, the title says racial wage gap
Suspicious Statements I feel like some weasel words may have snuck in since this article was granted good article status
General Formatting
Grammatical/fliw and context problems
Illustration The PNG
is of insufficient resolution to adequately distinguish its elements at thumbnail size. Specifically which pattern corresponds to which bar is unclear, and the text is fuzzy.
is of similarily low quality, but of sufficient quality to make out the patterns, just the text is fuzzy. Ethanpet113 ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
such barriers such as language show that such large dominance of immigrant population in such sectors only breed competition between lower-earning groups, further lowering average wages for such familieslinked above is just cringeworthy. One citation needed, but otherwise it is pretty well sourced. Given the time it has been under reassessment, the lack of response and the complicated nature of the topic I am leaning Delist on this one. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Despite the improvement in wages made by educational attainment, less educated Hispanic men still have less return to education than non-Hispanic men that are statistically comparable."less return to education"? Not sure what this is saying.
...where many modern causes of racial wage inequity, such as educational disparities and discrimination, stem from were even more prevalent.
Public state records from the 1930s indicate white owned schools in the south spent approximately $61 dollars per student, or $1,074.14 in 2018 dollars when adjusted for inflation, compared to just $9 per student, or $158.48 in 2018 dollars.Compared to $9 per student for... which schools?
As the United States joined the global market economy, three outcomes occurred. Those who possessed financial and human capital, such as education, succeeded in the new economy because the money and skills they had to offer were in short supply. Those who possessed only labor did not fare well because cheap, physical labor was in oversupply in the global market.That's only two outcomes?
However, Native Americans are the poorest ethnic group when measured by per capita income. < /info/en/?search=List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income#>
As of 1995, Hispanic women of all education levels, except for those without high school diplomas or associate degrees, had parity in earnings with white women. While this information is positive, a broader examination of Hispanic women's wages reveals that inequality still exists.While I'm sure the overwhelming majority of readers would agree with it, describing the change as "positive" is making a value judgement, and so I think technically a WP:NPOV violation.
There have been recent edit controversies surrounding this article. There is information without sources. I have also been finding fabricated information in the article not supported by sources. I think this warrants a review of the article overall.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Cunard: @ Aircorn: please let us know what is going on with this reassessment. As of today 17 June 2019, the template at the top of the article says "The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)" That links here. MPS1992 ( talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this is a reliable article. Some of the sections have missing citations, and the writing at times comes off as an essay:
"All the colors you see on your computer screen are made by mixing them in different intensities." "Unfortunately for those who wanted or were required to wear green..." "Green laser pointers outputting at 532 nm (563.5 THz) are relatively inexpensive..." "although the price remains relatively prohibitive for widespread public use." "Green animals include, especially, amphibians, reptiles, and some fish, birds and insects."
Just to name a few. 100cellsman ( talk) 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Based on my comments at Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I realize this is a somewhat unusual request. This article was promoted to GA in April 2016 based on a version I wrote. With better developed Wiki skills and with additional sources I just did a total rewrite, with which the version assessed as GA has little in common. Thus the GA star the old version received might not carry over to the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the current version to the one that last passed good article review. The sourcing and writing are certainly of a high quality. I can't imagine why we would delist it. Martinthewriter ( talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
GAs cannot contain OR. Both the reviewed version and the present version include the text One page of the report has a form with boxes to check as to whether the death was accidental, natural, homicide, suicide or undetermined, in large type and a sufficient distance from each other. The "accident" box is dated June 15; however three days later the "undetermined" box was checked instead. This was at some point in the three days before the report's release noted as an error and crossed out and initialed.
, attributed directly to a scan of the autopsy report itself. The review did not address this, and seems to have completely missed that there was such textbook OR in the article.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
14:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Hijiri88: I'm not reverting the edit, but can you do more to explain your complaint than say "textbook OR"? All the now-deleted sentences said was merely descriptive of what the primary source said. I'll grant that the wording needed a little work, but I don't find the verifiable description of what the autopsy report showed to be problematic. I think the cited source may even have discussed that detail. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Second, if we took out "in large type and a sufficient distance from each other" and left the rest in, would you still call it "OR"?
Third, just how does the text speculate on why? The mere juxtaposition of these details might lead readers to speculate, but they do not manipulate them into doing so, properly worded. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
. As for the description of that part of the autopsy report, I've been thinking about that that maybe we could just take a screenshot of that part of the page and put it in there; that would speak for itself and end any need to describe it. Such an image wouldn't create any copyright issues, either, as just words and incomplete phrases. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC) (signed belatedly)
Is Lila Stangard inspired by Elisa Lam?. I don't know how a stray seven word thought from a reviewer deserves a paragraph and it overplays the source in suggesting that it is actually inspired by Lam.
I am not a fan of Hijiri88's hit and run approach to these reassessmentsUmm ... what? That's a ... pretty bizarre accusation, given my history at GAR. Can you back it up with something? I've almost always been told that I should be less involved with these kinda things, and leave them for the community to decide, the one exception being a disastrous occasion on which I accidentally opened an individual assessment when I meant to open a community one. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Under current US law copyright attaches to the video even though it was produced automatically by the hotel's security cameras. No, I don't think the Cecil would sue, but the fair use policy doesn't take the likelihood of a rightsholder suing into account. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess I should make a more formal review section.
It drew worldwide interest in the caseis not supported
She walks to it again and stands in the doorway, leaning on the side. Suddenly she steps out into the hall, then to her side, back in, looking to the side, then back out. She then steps sideways again, and for a few seconds she is mostly invisible behind the wall she has her back to just outside. The door remains open.paragraph. You would be much better off using a secondary soure that says she acted strangely than trying to convey that by describing stage prompts. Descriptive enough not to be original research, but very dry. There must be secondary sources describing the video, otherwise why would we include a full section on it
A lot of secondary sources simply embedded the video, making it unnecessary for them to describe it, so there's a paucity of that. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It took the Los Angeles County Coroner's office four months, after repeated delays, to release the autopsy report,This is in the lead and the four month can be supported by the dates in the body. There is no mention of repeated delays however in the body.
Some argued that she was attempting to hide from a pursuer, perhaps someone ultimately responsible for her death, while others said she was merely frustrated with the elevator's apparent malfunction. I would be tempted to tag the "somes" with a {{ who}} as it is important to identify armchair detetives from real ones. At the least it needs to make clear at the start of the paragraph that these are armature theories. It reads a bit like some reddit thread on conspiracy theories, which is understandable since a part of the notability of this case is the releasing of the video, something the police only really have themselves to blame. I think we need to be clearer though on this and not give too much weight to the conspiracies over the actual police conclusions.
The tank was drained and cut open since its maintenance hatch was too small to accommodate equipment needed to remove Lam's bodyNot seeing this in the autopsy report cited
Toxicology tests – incomplete because not enough of her blood was preserved – showed traces consistent with prescription medication found among her belongings, plus nonprescription drugs such as Sinutab and ibuprofenThis is cited to five pages of the report. It is doing my head in because they are scanned sideways and everytime I click on next a pop-up appears. I am really not liking how this source is presented (I am getting banner ads flashing at me). I will take your word on the drugs, but can you confirm where it says that it was "incomplete because not enough of her blood was preserved".
It also records subcutaneous pooling of blood in Lam's anal area,[34] which some observers suggested was a sign of sexual abuse; however one pathologist has noted it could also have resulted from bloating in the course of the body's decomposition,[3] and her rectum was also prolapsed.Some observers really needs more info as there is a big difference between a doctor, pathologist or coroner compared to a layperson.
Overall I personally don't like the use of primary sources in this article, and many of them should be pretty easily replaced with secondary sources. Some of the points above are important for a GA, while others are not. I really would like to know how you came across the autopsy report as it seems a strange site to be hosting it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep I don’t view this as being original research at all. It's just a straightforward description of what the document says, and it clearly wasn't meant to imply anything. Maybe there is some misunderstanding here, but a careful inspection of the article and the sources definitely shows no original research. Granted, it's already been removed, so this observation doesn't really matter anymore. The only issues worth discussing are those that haven't already been addressed. Looking over the original good article review, I can see that it was very thorough, so if the misunderstanding over original research is the only issue here, then of course I have to vote to keep. My recommendation is that further misunderstandings be discussed on the talk page, rather than through good article reassessment. ErinRC ( talk) 16:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Whether other people have persuaded you to shorten intros to other articles during the GA process really isn't relevant to that, IMO. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Lots of conflicts are cited but not supported by sources. Some users, such as the Philippines, are also unsourced.-- Le Petit Chat ( talk) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@ AustralianRupert: since you are not involved on this discussion but did review Talk:M3 half-track/GA3, could you close this GAR with delist. I think there is a consensus.-- Le Petit Chat ( talk) 10:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
As what I've just found, there are original researches for the contents citing the source "Greenhill, Blust & Gray 2008", and the article may not meet the second good article criterion: "Verifiable with no original research" (Criterion 2c. "It contains no original research…"). Σαν μο σαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 02:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Has had a verification tag since July 2017 and multiple parts clearly read like a bunch of bullet points thrown together. The "in popular culture" section is bulleted and has numerous that don't qualify WP:SONGCOVER. This should've been delisted years ago. – zmbro ( talk) 02:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
However, in other instances Martin has claimed that "Fix You" is influenced by(the "However" doesn't coherently connect with the text that came before)
The message throughout the song, in which Martin sings, is words of encouragement: "Lights will guide you home[...]
Marginal authors and their works: Singleton, Berend, Ash, Hoare, Meier, Dizdar, Glenny, Segel instead expert authors like: Aralica, Bulajić and Vujasinović et al
-- Bocin kolega ( talk) 19:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The page has been tagged {{ POV}} since Sept. 2014. I am not sure if the tag is still appropriate, but if it is, this article needs to be delisted per WP:GAFAIL #3. -- MrClog ( talk) 09:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The GA status of this article strikes me as fishy- it was initiated by CorporateM ( talk · contribs), a wikipedian who admits to running a business that "contributed more than 50 Good Article-ranked pages about businesses and individuals", and completed by Samtar ( talk · contribs), who I wasn't able to find much on.
As for the article itself, it's decently NPOV and does an okay job of talking about the company and the product, but there's not a lot of content. If GA is supposed to identify articles that are better than average, but not at FA status, I wouldn't argue that this page meets that criteria. Given my inexperience as an editor, I'm nominating it for community reassessment. Rivselis ( talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Would love some help in trying to bring this back up to GA standards and perhaps FA in the process. I am asking for help by way of a review because it's an article with a contentious history and I think multiple editors should be involved. We have a few problems that have arisen since this was look at in 2015.....we have ref needed tags, update tags, when tags, whole paragraphs missing sources , and a religious section that looks like it was copy and pasted from the main articles bloating the article.-- Moxy 🍁 22:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how this passed GA before, the current article is not up to current GA standards.
I really feel the article needs to be reassessed and the current GA be dropped. Govvy ( talk) 11:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Govvy, are you looking to make improvements to the article yourself or simply want it downgraded? Kosack ( talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
There are several reasons this article's status as a Good Article needs to be reviewed.
The following points address short comings concerning content & coverage.
What I would do with this section is to begin with the ambiguity of the meaning of "Lao Tzu", then note that Sima Qian provides several names of people who were identified with him from different sources. As for the legendary names (e.g. "Supreme Old Lord"), while they could be mentioned here -- along with Huang-Lao -- I feel they would fit better in the section "Influence", for reasons I provide below.
I would rewrite myself this article entirely, but I doubt the final product would meet GA standards. For one thing, I admit I don't know enough about Chinese intellectual tradition to explain Lao Tzu's role in it adequately. But perhaps there is someone who is able to make the necessary changes to get this article on an important subject to GA or even FA status. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking through this page, I have noticed that their are certain sections of the article that doesn't have any references in it at all which in my eyes would fail if it was done today. There is also the fact that in the section, "Future lines discussed", there isn't enough prose in this section to have this bit of the article. Add to the fact that their are sections which needs a reference and it's probably worth a shot at maybe reassessing this article. HawkAussie ( talk) 04:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Passed as a GA by an editor making only their 95th edit. Talk:Golden State Killer/GA1 was brief, to say the least. Although not unprecedented, I'd say it's unusual for an article of this length to pass without any changes being needed, no matter how small.
The article is a strange hybrid of information about an uncaught serial killer, and biography of the suspect. Yes I'm aware he's innocent until proven guilty per WP:BLP, but you have to look at things such as this pre-arrest section which still largely exists at Golden State Killer#Suspect profile and Golden State Killer#Suspects. Removing information about exonerated suspects, redundant lines of inquiry about construction work near 1979 Goleta murder etc. does't violate BLP, it keeps the article up to date and on-topic.
The lead doesn't summarise the article properly. To give just two examples, the claim about Virginia's DNA database being seen as the most effective and that Michelle McNamara coined the term Golden State Killer. While both are true, neither of these appears in the main body of the article.
The book source in footnote #2 is frequently cited without an accompanying page number. Footnote #9 appears to be a television show that is no longer available on the A&E Networks website, therefore unverifiable and needing to be replaced. Footnote #24 is hosted on googlepages and does not appear to be reliable. Footnotes #30, #34 and #38 s a podcast on Soundcloud hosted by "12-26-75". Simillarly Casefile podcast is used repeatedly. I listen to casefile, it's won awards, but it hasn't won them for its reporting and accuracy but for being entertaining. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable sources about podcasts being reliable, although you could easily make a case for the LA Time's "Man In The Window" podcast about the Golden State Killer being reliable for example. Footnotes #36 and #37 are for what appears to be a self-published website about the Visalia Ransacker, the website's contact form makes it clear by the use of "don't hesitate to contact them [law enforcement]" makes it clear the publisher is independent of law enforcement. Why are we citing the opinions of random website creators about whether the Visalia Ransacker case was linked the Golden State Killer, when we should really be citing law enforcement and/or other reliable sources? Footnote #119 is a website titled "The Quester Files" containing all sorts of information about Bigfoot, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, the occult and cold cases. His about page makes lots of grandiose claims such as he is the "controversial and highest profiled independent investigator of the East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker. His work as presented on the Q Files and in books has inspired the reopening of cases, national press conferences, and various news reports." Given the many reliable sources covering the case, do we really need to scrape the barrel with sources like this? This shouldn't be considering an exhaustive list of problematic sources, just ones that jumped off the page at me. The whole sourcing needs to be properly checked, and the many self-published ones replaced with more reliable sources. On the subject of sources the table of East Area Rapist attacks at Golden State Killer#East Area Rapist (June 1976–July 1979) contains many entries lacking a citation.
The above shouldn't be taken as a complete list of the problems with the article, hopefully other editors will be able to bring up any issues they see as well. Rising5554 ( talk) 12:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Made GA more than 10 years ago. It has a complete lack of sources, with whole paragraphs without a single source. Skjoldbro ( talk) 20:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I admit the review that was done three years ago was weak and did not review the aspects raised above. Here are some points that I have: MWright96 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The latter two sources are particularly helpful for expanding the production section. That is all I have for now. MWright96 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Result: Not Listed The article is clear to not have references. Illustration and up-to-date information is also lacking. Major contributors and nominatees are also inactive. FredModulars ( talk) 01:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
This article was rewarded its status back in January of 2009. Since then it has barely been updated other than new products and minor edits and has been extremely less active than it used to. Only one image is included in this article and has only minor importance to the article displaying only 3 products. References are extremely lacking, with over half of the products and features of this article being unsourced and most likely based off of original research. No references are mentioned in these product descriptions or explanation sections. Also, the two sections, "Challenges" and "Reception" lack up-to-date information and are very old source material. FredModulars ( talk) 23:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Delist: I agree, there are missing sources all over the article. The information here cannot be verified - that is enough to fail a GA! Lizzy ( talk) 15:52, 30 October 2019 (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.
There are long chunks of unreferenced sentences. I have identified and tagged, removed or corrected some OR and inaccuracies from time to time, [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] but problems persist. IMHO it does a poor job particularly of differentiating what is the official, canonical IPA as set out by the International Phonetic Association and what are applications of the IPA; for example, [brackets] and /slashes/ are the only enclosing symbols recognized by the IPA, but the article only distinguishes them and other conventions as "principal" and "less common", with hardly any citation.
It may have deserved GA in 2006 when it became one, but I don't think it meets the standards we now expect from GAs. Nardog ( talk) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This was reasonably promoted to GA status ten years ago. Since then, however, I believe the article has suffered sufficiently that it is no longer GA. There are numerous reasons for this, however, for brevity I note the following three, specifically:
Chetsford ( talk) 07:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. There were a few citation needed tags on the article, which generally implies they are challenged so I fixed them up. Otherwise this meets our definition of a Good Article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
1. The lede of the article has a number of references, which should be avoided. A lede should summarise the article, and references there are unnecessary.
2. The article lacks references.
3. There is a problem with the references. The footnotes aren't uniformed. While some just use the author's name, title and page number, other use author's name, book title, publisher, place of publishing, etc. Sometimes, only a link is used. -- Governor Sheng ( talk) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that this article was considered GA quality. (I looked for the discussion that promoted this article, but it wasn't linked to this page.) While it is well-written, & I believe it explains its subject for the most part accurately, its sources are problematic. First, it appears to rely on the work of J.J. Norwich, although a decent historian, is more of a popularizer than standard references like Ostrogorsky & Vasiliev -- although mentioning Runciman helps. Another thing this article needs is a discussion of the primary sources: looking at the account in Vryonis' The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: and the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century (another standard reference), primary sources for this battle include Niketas Choniates, & Michael the Syrian, & a letter by Manuel to the English king Henry II written shortly after the battle; except for a passing quotation from Anna Komnenos, the existence of these sources are completely ignored -- which hampers any reader who wants to go beyond the secondary sources. Lastly, although I wouldn't use this even as a reason to deny this article FA status, it would be very nice if Turkish sources were used in this article; I believe Turkish academics have written an article or more on this event, & may express some opinions or conclusions that would surprise even citizens of that country.
This article has suffered significant POV damage since it was promoted to GA. Now that the subject no longer serves a very public role. It is a good time for a reassessment to bring this article to GA quality again or delist. --- Coffeeand crumbs 13:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is overall very short for a GA, and is missing an awful lot of key points found in other GA-class shopping mall articles. For instance:
Compare other GA-class mall articles such as Meridian Mall and Lansing Mall, or even Merle Hay Mall which was promoted in 2008 and still holds up reasonably well, and it's clear that this article falls woefully short. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
AmericanAir88( talk) 19:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Overall the article seems considerably less complete than other country music GAs; compare Trisha Yearwood, Tracy Lawrence, even Lonestar or McBride & the Ride which are broader in scope.
Last major editor left in 2013, GA nominator left in 2014. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC) •Delisted as per above. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This recently-passed GAN fails to fulfill criteria 3(a) (addressing the main aspects of the topic), as there are large gaps in content that were not mentioned in the review. The history section is top-heavy, with paragraphs given to a certain period (1880–1910), but a similar 30-year span (1980–2010) given a single sentence. Much of the information in the section is not backed up with enough detail or information, such as the "suffering during the Great Depression" (no hardships were mentioned) or the appreciation of the area's "rural lifestyle" (which reads straight out of a realtor's listing). The Geography section only has a single sentence for a neighboring border and another with the original, bot-generated area statistic; no mention is made of the area's topography, the town's layout and neighborhoods, or any nearby natural features. The Demographics section includes unnecessary table entries for Florida and U.S. statistics; the government section lacks information on the day-to-day administration of city affairs; and there is no Economy section, which is fundamental to a city entry. Having experience with writing town articles myself (for similar settlements in the sub-2,500 range), it's entirely possible to wring out enough information to fill these sections with more thorough research. Sounder Bruce 00:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Faisal's sons received exceptional education compared to other princes born to Saudi monarchs., which seemed too peacocky (I toned it down). I then read the rest of the article thinking I would agree with the nominators view. Apart from the first paragraph in "Religious inclusiveness" (whose source I can't access) it struck me as positive but not overly praising. There are also a few negative sections. Without a presentation of sources showing more criticisms that have been missed there is nothing here that we can really use to judge the non-neutrality of the article. I commend the original reviewer for looking up other sources in this regard and read through this one myself and am seeing nothing negative not presented. There is agreement here that the presented quotes from the article are fine and given the absence of other red flags this appears neutral enough to meet the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The article should have a {{POV|date=August 2019}} tag added and be entirely rewritten in a neutral POV. The article reads like an extended resume from a fan, especially the "Early experience" section (which is not even a real section title for biographies). The sentence "In 1962 Prince Faisal helped found the Muslim World League, a worldwide charity to which the Saudi royal family has reportedly since donated more than a billion dollars," is exceptionally braggy.
Sentences similar to "King Faisal seemed to hold the pluralist view," should be entirely rewritten; they are both puffery and biased. The article is also written like a dramatic play, with struggles and winners and losers. There are countless run-on sentences.
This is not a good article. It is poorly written, with unclear and unconcise prose (1a). The article is full of peacock language, and should be entirely rewritten to address the facts (1b). As well, it is not neutral, as the article alternates between a praise piece or governmental propaganda (4).
tldr; This is frankly the worst article I have ever read that qualified as a GA. The status should be removed. Zkidwiki ( talk) 01:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This article was listed back in 2007, when Order of the Phoenix was brand new. 12 years later, it's had a ref tag for two & a half years and every piece of info added since 2007 in is its own paragraph, on top of an awards table that's completely unsourced. Clearly needs to be delisted. – zmbro ( talk) 22:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear @ BlueMoonset: I apologize, of course, and defer to your considered judgment. (I'm assuming you have some position of authority in the GA process.)
I do understand your point about reassessment and agree with what you have stated, and also with your calling out my error. But, with respect, the previous reviewer said not a peep about criteria 2 c, d, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Not a peep, in return, was heard from anyone before its promotion, nor after. That is, other than me. I do understand that going around monitoring every GA is not any part of your charge, but you have to understand my concern. All too often reviews are only about grammar, or about perfunctorily affixing the green cross six times against the GA criteria. How often do reviewers explain their choices? Anyway, now that I'm reassured you are watching, I will step away. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. — ♠Vami _IV†♠ 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Update: As per Fowler&fowler's comment(s) above, I'll (mostly) keep my review to GA criterion 3 & 4 (Broadness and Neutrality, respectively). The nominee, other reviewers, and readers should note that I know little about the topic at hand but am an experienced editor. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bengal famine of 1943 [...] was a major famine of the Bengal province in British India during World War II.I have a suggestion and an error to point out. The latter first. The use of "of" and "in" are erroneous here. The subject matter, an event concerning a locality, happens in that locality. Next, it is correct to say that the Bengal province was in British India, but it's a piece of that body, like how an arm is a limb of the human body. Thus, The Bengal famine happens in the Bengal province of British India during World War II. Now the suggestion: replace this non-current text (Bengal province of British India) with the current information in Footnote B (
The area now constitutes [...]), thereby reducing it. Let the rest of the article explain that this used to be a British possession – the lead is for brevity.
The Bengal famine of 1943 (Bengali: পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর pônchasher mônnôntôr) was a major famine in modern-day Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, and Orissa.Footnote B should be deleted once this is affected; the cyclone mentioned on 10 April 1943 does not occur again in the article.
three diverse economic and social groups:or at the end of the sentence to which it is attached.
The flooding of fallow fieldsIs this flooding during the crisis or from regular monsoons?
one million IndiansMy understanding of India, though minimal, is that it is a country of many ethnicities, not to mention two or three major religions. I am therefore confused by the use of "Indians" here.
[...], even as the beginning of a food crisis began to become apparent.This could be reduced;
even as a food crisis began.
As a second prong, a "boat denial" policyHow about The second prong?
Why are footnotes containing the content of a cited passage present in the article? Are the existing citations and the prose they support not reliable enough without them? –
♠Vami
_IV†♠
09:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
{{{sfn}}}
. ♦
Lingzhi2
(talk)
15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Government of India 1945citation is broken.
( ←) That footnote is already a named footnote. It is used in the lede and used in the infobox. So you wanna use it three times? Fine with me... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
A better name for this section would be "Historiography", as "Background" and "Pre-famine shocks and distress" already give the causes while this section discusses what historians thought the cause was. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠
12:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This review, though it will be slow in coming, is in progress.
Good Article review progress box
|
"The Bengal Famine of 1943 stands out as a great calamity even in an age all too familiar with human suffering and death on a tragic scale."
— The opening sentence of Famine Inquiry Commission (1945), Report on Bengal, Government of India Press, quoted in W. R. Aykroyd (1974), The Conquest of Famine, London: Chatto&Windus.
( ←) This is Triple Crown material if I ever saw it. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 08:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Now that
Vami_IV is satisfied that the article now meets the GA criteria, as this is a community reassessment, other editors need to weigh in as to whether they think the article meets the criteria and retains its GA listing, or if it doesn't and should be delisted: During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it
. It should not be unilaterally closed by any involved editor, even Vami_IV, though they have done excellent work in reviewing the article on the basis of the criteria, and merit great thanks. I have reopened the GAR so it can continue and conclude in the prescribed manner. Thanks to anyone who weighs in going forward.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I believe this article should be stripped of being listed as a Good article due to the fact that there are multiple additional citations tags in a lot of the article's sections, which IMMEDIATELY disqualifies it according to the third GA criteria. It was listed over a decade ago, in 2007, so I don't know if the rules were extremely lenient back then? Because though I haven't checked a lot of the sources, I know that it needs a lot of fixing up with updating prose with reliable citations.
There is also an issue with people simply adding free-use pictures of their labradors for the heck of it rather than with an image matching commentary reflecting the section's information. Doubt that's a GA issue though, just something I should mention. - NowIsntItTime( chats)( doings) 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@ NowIsntItTime, TenPoundHammer, Moxy, William Harris, and Cavalryman: I am speedy delisting . I guess if you want to start a reclamation drive, the article's talk page would be a good place to do it. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The prose is choppy and basically a list of his accomplishments (which admittedly, are many). Each section is relatively short and only contains positive information. Many of the references are statistics, lists, or record books. None 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the criteria for a GA are not met in my opinion. -
Mnnlaxer |
talk |
stalk
04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GAFAIL 3. Pinging @ Drmies: who added the tags and pruned content, and also @ Nerd271: who also pruned some content. FoxyGrampa75 ( talk) 01:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)