← ( Page 64) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 66) → |
When this article was given a GA review by
Mgasparin back on 16 May 2019 and listed, the article's creator,
SounderBruce, wrote have concerns with how fast and drive-by this review is, especially for a subject with quite a bit of political controversy surrounding it.
Mgasparin stood by their review, but expressed willingness to consider a second opinion, at which point
Trillfendi, who had nominated the article for GA earlier in May, added a GA nominee template asking for a second opinion, though the GA template was also left on the talk page. Unfortunately, the GA nominee template was badly malformed, so the nomination never appeared at
WP:GAN.
What this article actually needs, since the review was not reopened at the time and the article has been listed as a GA for three and a half months, is a community reassessment. This allows everyone to comment on the article, including all three editors mentioned above, to assess whether it meets or fails to meet any of the GA criteria, and if it is lacking anywhere, for the article to be improved to the point that it meets the criteria, or to be delisted if sufficient improvement is not made.
I will notify the appropriate WikiProjects and finish cleaning up the article talk page. Best of luck to all concerned. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Those are my main issues. Nominator left in 2014. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
It is evident to me that this article does not meet the good article criteria because very considerable amounts of it are unsourced. There are two "citation needed" tags, but there are many other things in the article which do not have citations. Here is one peculiar sentence: "The friary was rebuilt for a second time, but seems never to have regained its earlier reputation; it seems to disappear from the records." If the friary seemed to disappear from the records, how do we know that it was rebuilt? The whole sentence is, by the way, unsourced. There is a section entitled "Notes," which lists five separate items. None of these are sourced. The notes are also so clearly tainted with WP:Editorializing that they would need revision even if there were citations.
I am choosing community reassessment because I previously failed a good article nomination made by the same editor who nominated this article and do not want to be accused of not having enough objectivity to make the final decision myself. But I do think that it quite clearly fails part 2 of the GA criteria, which mandates that the articles be verifiable. Looking at the version that was reviewed, the article seems to have been in even worse shape then, so I'm not sure how it managed to get passed. Display name 99 ( talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, a claim in the "History section" about a particular narrative concerning the origins of the painting being "largely the one accepted by the Dominican Order today" is not supported by the source. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article was never properly reviewed having a flyby note by a new editor on their 12th edit who's not even sure who the nominator or reviewer is. Surprise this "flu" under the radar lol.-- Moxy 🍁 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
This article was listed as GA just over 10 years ago. However, since then we've got a few issues:
Update from me - I've been cleaning up the article myself so this should hopefully be recovered. Phew! Just Lizzy( talk) 12:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's safe to remove this reassessment. Article is in better shape and can be brought back to GA. Thanks. Just Lizzy( talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This article was promoted in 2010 and has not been reviewed since. It is in better shape than Scotland when it was delisted earlier this year, but there are significant problems with the GA criteria. The biggest issue is verifiability: just look at the cleanup tags on the article and unsourced statements. Lesser concerns are that the lede does not meet MOS:LEDE, and the overreliance on official sources for things like the economy may be an issue with neutrality. I am willing to work on improving the article, but it's a monumental task and without a lot of work this article will not meet the GA criteria. Fiamh ( talk, contribs) 08:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Recently the prose criteria was expanded
[1] to include understandable to an appropriately broad audience
(see
Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Understandability criterion for discussion). Penrose tiling seems like a good case study to test the practicability of this on old Good Articles as it has had a tag specific to this on it since August 2019 and some discussion on the talk page regarding the technical aspects of the article.
I have read it and did find much of it difficult to follow. I think it could probably be written much clearer (for example I don't know what the difference between a non-periodic tiling and a Penrose tiling is). The lead at least should be clearer. We have things like Thus, the tiling can be obtained through "inflation" (or "deflation") and every finite patch from the tiling occurs infinitely many times.
and It is a quasicrystal: implemented as a physical structure a Penrose tiling will produce Bragg diffraction and its diffractogram reveals both the fivefold symmetry and the underlying long range order.
The lead at least should provide a relatively easy entry into the topic. Personally, I don't mind having overly technical details in the body as long as there is enough basic information before we get to that level.
I am opening this as a community GAR as to my knowledge it is the first GAR since the criteria was updated and could benefit from a deeper discussion. I have come across other articles with similar issues and would like to get a feel for what the community feels is the level of technical language that is acceptable here before I start any individual GARs.
AIRcorn
(talk)
06:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
A Penrose tiling is a scheme for covering a flat plane with an arrangement of shapes that leaves no gaps and never repeats. In more precise terms, Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings generated by aperiodic sets of prototiles.) But that's a matter of making a good thing better. There exists a level of expertise such that this article is clear and helpful for readers at that level. Moreover, that level is reasonably consistent with the broadest population likely to need this article: it's not an article about a topic of pop-math interest that is only accessible to professional mathematicians. (Like, say, E8 lattice is, IMO.) XOR'easter ( talk) 03:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Penrose tilings are one type of.... Something like that. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
A Penrose tiling is an example of a scheme for covering a flat plane with an arrangement of shapes that leaves no gaps and never repeats. In more precise terms, Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings generated by aperiodic sets of prototiles. These tilings, a special case of the more general concept of non-periodic tilings, are named after mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose, who investigated them in the 1970s.I'm not convinced the current opening needs revision, but I don't think it hurts to contemplate how we might go about it. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
a way to coverinstead of
a scheme for coveringand
a pattern of shapesinstead of
an arrangement of shapes... the curse of writing about a subject where every ordinary word has a technical meaning, from category to pencil. But this whole exercise of crafting a "pop" sentence to precede the moderately technical one seems vaguely pointless without further input. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)userbako
21:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
userbako
”»
22:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)userbako
”»
23:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)(sigh) I hate to have to do this but... I am requesting a GA reassessment because this article has numerous citation needed tags, many that I, or any other user, can't just fix in minutes, which immediately fails it as a good article according to the second criteria and WP:V. The reception section is dedicated to a paragraph that only says "In recent years the series has been criticized due to its all-white cast and absence of positive depictions of minorities." and NOTHING else explaining that sentence or other instances of people's response to the show. - NowIsntItTime( chats)( doings) 01:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The article is a complete mess, I don't even see how it was promoted to GA in the first place. To describe the article as C class would be generous. The titular "Rove Formation" is never defined or explained. Most of the article discusses orogenies and other formations, before veering wildly off course into the Fur Trade and Endangered Flora. It is completely unfocused and overbloated. The sole contributor, @ Bettymnz4: hasn't been active in half a decade. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The Template:update maintenance tag puts into question the stability of the article (GA criterion 5)?. — Nemoschool ( talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The tag says that the article has needed to be updated (true) since 2014: 2 years after it passed GA nomination and 6 years ago, respectively, which is a criteria 3 issue. During this reassessment process, someone or some people should take up the mantle. Otherwise, it must be demoted. ⌚️ ( talk) 15:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed contents that appear to be original research as well as cited references that aren't quite what we call reliable sources in Wikipedia standard such as self published materials from enthusiasts, such as contributed materials posted on QSL.net and home made YouTube video used as a reference. I have also looked at the way it looked when it was assessed in 2008 and I didn't think the article quite satisfied the requirement #2 " Verifiable with no original research". Specifically the parts: "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged..." "it contains no original research" The assessor wrote "2. Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." Checking to see if the article looks factually correct to what the assessor knows doesn't satisfy the requirements that contents are directly supported by reliable sources. so I think the assessment for #2 wasn't done using the correct criteria. Graywalls ( talk) 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
12:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@ LuckyLouie:, As tagged as verification failure in Special:Diff/928132458. The cited reference failed to support the claim. I also investigated page 275 as mentioned in an edit summary. The two channels did appear, within a large list in an appendix, but fails to support the main point which is the claim that those two are popular with glow bugs. It would be like saying popular residential streets are 5th and 9th avenues and referencing a long list of streets that have houses on it. Even rephrasing it "there are occupied houses on 5th and 9th avenue" wouldn't cut it as a justification to include purportedly popular streets for affluent people which doesn't have reliable sources. This is just an example of one of many verification failures in the article. Some have been corrected, and more may be revealed down the road. Graywalls ( talk) 01:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC). If a reliable source could be locatedt that picks out 3560 and 3579 from the table, I believe that would show some significance and justify inclusion. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't "with glow bugs" indicate that channels used, specifically, people using vacuum tube type amateur radios instead of home made radios in general? " Graywalls ( talk) 01:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
set aside for discussion: "Arland notes that calling frequencies for QRP contacts include 3560 kHz and also 3579 kHz, which corresponds with the Colorburst frequency of crystals typically found in older color TV sets. [1]
References
Extended copy and paste of policy
|
---|
Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs WP:UGC. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions. And even though a self-published source might be acceptable, a non-self-published source is usually preferred, if available. Examples of acceptable sourcing of self-published works: A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself. (See #For claims by self-published authors about themselves) Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[5] A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published. WP:USESPS, WP:SPS It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. It is a third-party or independent source. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes. A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one. " A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. " WP:PRIMARY " I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough." Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources copied and pasted to help with discussion. Graywalls ( talk) 23:40, 26 November 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 personsalthough likely to be challenged is very broad. Basically if the information it is citing is WP:BLUE then there is not as much concern on the quality of the source. AIRcorn (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll be integrating these and others as time allows. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Archive is here
No archive, but I can email page images if needed. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
PDF available
@ LuckyLouie:, are a lot of those QST articles that have author name, location and FCC registration numbers newsletters? Are they published as submitted by the membership? What is their editorial policy and where do they publish their editorial policy? They're used as a source an awful a lot and I would like to know where they stand in reliable sources criteria. Graywalls ( talk) 18:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
In the process of reviewing the inline tags, I see a citation need tag was placed on the text: "A majority of "AM'ers" stations consist of vintage transmitters and receivers housed in separate cabinets. Some operators have even obtained old AM broadcast transmitters from radio stations that have upgraded their equipment". A citation was given here. By reading the entire article, which is about AM-operating hams using separate transmitters and receivers, this is not a controversial statement. Re the second sentence, the source says: "A retired broadcast transmitter often gets pushed to a dusty, dark back corner of the technical room at a radio station. Increasingly, ham radio operators are giving a second life to these graceful old beauties, donated or sold cheaply to hobbyists by stations with no further need". So I am not sure why the citation needed tag was applied. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If there is any potential for confusion about what a "cabinet" means in this context I would suggest linking to the more technical term equipment rack, which is also used in the reference cited above. A curious reader will discover how common these are for mounting electronic equipment such as telecommunication gear. A footnote for a trivial detail about the number of cabinets falls into the category of {{ Excessive citations}}. -- mikeu talk 23:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, so while others agree that local/regional amateur radio organizations are reasonable sources for uncontroversial facts regarding their interests, activities, and practices, I've removed the text cited to these that listed AM frequencies in countries other than the USA. I believe these were gradually added to the article over the last ten years by well-meaning passersby, but IMO they’re not worth holding up ongoing progress in improving the article. Same goes for virhistory.com as an acceptable source for uncontroversial statements, but since we have many other sources supplying much the same material, I removed that citation rather than let it be a roadblock to the process of improving the article. I also did some copyediting to better conform to sources and reformatting to tidy up the text and citations. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Yet another questionable tag was placed on the article by Graywalls, this time in the lead: "time frame uncertain. 40 years old according to what source that was published in what year?". The fact that the entire article is about amateurs using radio equipment that is more than 40 years old is not "uncertain" by any stretch of the imagination. It's self evident to anyone who can read the article and the image captions of 1950s and 1960s gear contained in the article. The age range of the radio gear is explicitly stated in the article body ("Amateur radio equipment of past eras like the 1940s, 50s, and 60s...") and cited to a reliable source. I've added an additional source to make it crystal clear: CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, December 2003, page 14, Vol. 59, No. 12. Title: There Once Was an Ocean Hopper, When Radios Had Names. Author: Scott Freeberg. Quote: “Because of this interest, you can now hear many of the old classic radios on the air again. This is radio gear that is often 40 to 50 years old…” I don't get the impression this ongoing tagging has anything to do with article improvement. It appears to be a continued pattern of impeding, pettifogging, and asking for citations for obvious minor details. This type of behavior could be interpreted as an issue of WP:COMPETENCE or WP:DISRUPTION. If there are details you legitimately need clarification for, I suggest you bring them up on the Talk page, and I'll do my best to resolve them for you. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The article was reviewed in 2008 and elevated to GA. There has been substantial expansion since then. By summer 2019 it had attracted a content issue banner which was subsequently removed because due process had not been followed (see article talk page), but certain cleanup banners then became necessary and they remain in place.
The main problem is use of what may be unreliable sources, especially one self-published website. There is massive overuse of quotations and many if not most of those haven't been cited. The 2008 GA version did not include the huge matchlist which was added later and may have come from a dedicated list article (needs further investigation). It is proposed that the matchlist and first mentions section are shifted into a list article, or restored to their old one if such can be identified. The use of quotations must be moderated and all must be sourced. Content taken from self-published or unreliable sources must be challenged for other sources to be cited or the content to be removed.
To summarise the problems per the GA criteria:
I'd be willing to take this on as an individual reassessment but, realistically, it needs community involvement especially anyone with access to relevant sources. The only source I have is More Than A Game by John Major which discusses this period in its early chapters and will be useful up to a point. Apart from possibly ESPN, I'm unaware of any online sources that might be useful. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I have put this off for a long time because I found it daunting but I've now worked through it and made a heap of changes. I've left several citation requests in the article but I don't think anyone will be able to supply them because I strongly suspect original research. This means that the article should be delisted, in my opinion, because OR and unverified content both contravene the GA criteria. I'll leave the review open for a period to see if other editors wish to contribute. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
All citation needed tags have been addressed. Some of the content can be sourced to John Major, one piece is well sourced within a linked article and a couple of useful internet sources were found. A small amount of content could not be sourced, despite searches, and has been deleted. The cleanup banners have all been removed so perhaps this can now remain a GA? It would be good if another reviewer could decide. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Jhall1: Hello again and thank you for the notification which has just flagged up. This GAR is open for consensus and you'd be welcome to comment here if you wish. Thanks very much for your help. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a long time since there was any movement on this and, with all cleanup banners gone, I propose to close the GAR. It's appropriate to do that now as a GA backlog campaign has just begun. If anyone has any belated objections to closure and retention of the article as a GA, please raise your concerns at the GAR talk page. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"Eve, the Apple of My Eye" soon established itself as a fan favourite, and would become a staple of first dances at weddings as well as an inspiration for the naming of new-born daughters.again sourced to the bands website. I don't know if this is paid editing or just fan service, but it is enough to delist. I will also remove all suspicious facts sourced to bellx1.com AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Although the article is neutral, stable, illustrated and largely well written, I don't think the coverage is broad enough to warrant good article status (the history section, for example, seems underdeveloped – compare and contrast with the one for Hatfield College, Durham) and some sections do not have enough references, while a number of the reference links are dead and have been for some time, and other references are lazily written. Overall it has the appearance of an article that once had high potential but has since been badly neglected -- Fat Larry's Ghost ( talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I've never requested reassessment of an article GA's status, so hopefully I'm doing this correctly. I feel that the 1,163-word plot summary in the article Elements (miniseries) is excessively lengthy and does not comply with manual of style guidelines, therefore violating one of the GA criteria (additionally, long synopses can also be found in the articles Stakes (miniseries) and Islands (miniseries), both of which also cover Adventure Time miniseries). While we're at this, I also think that the citations in this article should be double-checked for reliability, just in case. — Matthew - ( talk) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The article fails to consistently use reliable sources and also contanins uncited content. I have flagged some of the unreliable sources in the article. b uidh e 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's another source. Can this be used to demonstrate more certainty of the quotes? https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm Jbermudes ( talk) 06:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The article was a GA in 2007. 13 years later, doesn't meet the criteria. Huge parts are unsourced, like WWC. A lot of excesive detail of in-universe storylines (like OVW and WWC). Some sources are unreliable, like Online World of Wrestling and others, like PRWrestling or notiluchas doesn' appear in the WP:PW/RS -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have just done a large rewrite of Cerro Blanco (volcano), to give it pagenumbers and installing the most recent literature. As the new text has almost nothing in common with the old one beyond the lead section, I'd like to get input on whether the new text still qualifies as a Good Article under the criteria. In particular, the paragraphing and the comments I've placed in the source need reviewing. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The calderawhile the next section says
Cerro Blanco ... consists of four nested calderas. So which is the caldera mentioned in the first section? If my understanding is correct I think it would be better to just say volcano or use its name.
They are formedBut only one is mentioned so not sure how they fits in.
A site southeast of the Robledo caldera is known as Robledo.This seems vague to me. What is meant by site?
One of the most spectacular aeolian landscapes of Earth is found at Cerro BlancoOf Earth seems a bit unnecessary and makes this appear quite peacocky.
where a field of large ripples covers an area of 8 square kilometresthis lost me
while a role of the bedrock structure or the size of the material is controversialThis is sort of left hanging. Does it need some further
have been recorded in JulyWhat year?
which only crops out close tois that right grammatically?
and is also known as the first cycle ignimbrite.Don't quite follow. Is this what this was called, is it a common name for am event or is it something else. It doesn't seem to tie in with the start of the sentence
there is no agreement whether the Robledo Caldera is the source and the volcano-tectonic depression northeast of Cerro Blanco has been proposed as a sourceThese clauses don't quite fit as worded
A major future eruption would put local communities to the south at risk.The body almost says the opposite, that the area is sparsely populated.
Also, pyroclastic flows could through narrow valleys reach the Bolsón de Fiambalá valley 50 kilometres (31 mi) south of Cerro Blanco, where many people live.Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I have never performed a good article review, nor a good article reassessment, so not confident in doing this as an individual reassessment.
I see a number of issues disqualifying this article from been a good article, including:
I would like to hear what other think. Thanks. ― Hebsen ( talk) 23:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The article has several uncited sections, such as Trails and Highways, a lot of references are incomplete, some citations are not inline, and overall, this article seems to be a summary of sections of other articles instead of being a comprehensive overview of transportation in Omaha. There are also outdated statements like Beginning in fall 2007 there will be more than 30 traffic cameras operating on Omaha area freeways
. The way the article is designed, it is hard to gauge what the current status of transportation in the city.--
Kew Gardens 613 (
talk)
12:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"Well-written" violations: There is some puffery (i.e. "single-handedly" in Interim Developments) and editorialization (i.e. "really" in "continues to believe that he shot down a spy plane, when he really shot down a passenger aircraft"). Often, quotes are included as standalone sentences in jarring manners (i.e. "The border guards. What ships do we now have near Moneron Island, if they are civilians, send [them] there immediately.").
-- BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 22:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The inability to establish direct radio communications to be able to transmit their position directly did not alert the pilots of KAL 007 of their ever-increasing divergenceis just poorly written whatever the technical standpoint. We have so much detail that as well as making it a chore to read we are heading pretty close into focus trerritory. The transcripts are not clearly formatted, we have details on all the damage to different parts of the plane under their own headings and other formatting and overdetail issues that bring down the quality. Sourcing doesn't seem up to standard, there is a lot of uncited content especially in the popular culture section. AIRcorn (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has been significantly modified since its GA promotion almost nine years ago, with influx of new information as well as changes in the lead, major tuning of the prose, and rearrangement of certain sections. I believe the substantial changes warrant a reassessment of the article, although as a major contributor I don't feel that I should conduct an individual reassessment. Steve7c8 ( talk) 22:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
A very large part of the article is cited to the subject himself, or groups that he works with. Given he is a well-known author, there is little independent sourcing or review of his activities, books etc and their impact. Does not appear comprehensive and sourcing quality is inadequate. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 05:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
One of my main focuses here is the reassessment process, and I am the main contributor in this area. My attention was drawn to this article following a post on the Good Article Reassessment talk page. I am not happy with how that individual reassessment process was conducted and feel that it needs to be reexamined through a community one. My main concerns are.
I don't know, or really care, if this article is kept or delisted. What I do care about is that it is given a chance. I do not feel that was the case in the recently conducted reassessment. I know there was a lot of delist !votes there, but this is not decided by a show of hands. What is needed is a break down of the failings which allows any interested editors the chance to resolve them. Also since this is likely to attract editors not that familiar with Good Articles it probably bears mentioning that the requirements are not as strict as many think (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not). AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Joe Biden is an active politician and a presumptive nominee for perhaps the most contentious political contest in the United States—as more information about his candidacy becomes known, so too must the article change, and since more information is coming out day-by-day, so too is his article changing day-by-day, with more than 50 edits in the last week alone. New content disputes are being contended every day on the article's talk page, many of which involve neutrality and quality of sources, which are also central aspects of a good article. I would reject the argument that because the article was fully protected at the time of reassessment, the article "technically" met the stability criterion—the article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to do so. I agree that if the content dispute was just a one-off thing that resolved itself in a month or so, there is no need to start a good article reassessment, and I sympathize with the complaint about good article reassessments being used as tools during content disputes. However, when the content of an article is subject to dispute after dispute, lasting several months, I think that should raise doubt as to whether the article is truly stable. We do not necessarily need to wait until the article is stable before reassessing whether it is in fact stable. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical perspective: Barack Obama was FA through both his 2008 and 2012 presidential elections and throughout his presidency; John McCain was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2008; Mitt Romney was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2012; and Hillary Rodham Clinton was GA throughout her presidential campaign in 2008 and then FA throughout her presidential campaign in 2016. The same kinds of things that you have seen, and will see, with the Biden article this year – edit-warring, RfCs, claims of NPOV violations, momentary lacks of stability – are the same kinds of things that all these articles saw back then. But it did not prevent those articles from gaining and keeping their reviewed status, nor should it automatically cause this article to lose its reviewed status. This GAR should be about specific, detailed, concrete issues identified with this article – this fact here is wrong; that source there is weak; the prose in such-and-such section has inappropriate tone; this important topic has insufficient coverage; that not-so-important topic has too much coverage; etc. – and whether they can be remedied. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical perspective II. Here is an example of a GAR being done for an article about a candidate in a presidential race, in this case Martin O'Malley during the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign – Talk:Martin O'Malley/GA2. (It's one I remember because I'm the one who did it.) The GAR does not rely on general claims of edit-warring or instability or NPOV or article growth over time. Instead it lists a number of very specific faults, omissions, and other issues with the article. When there were no responses after a couple of weeks, the GA was removed. Had somebody done work to remedy the listed problems, the GA could have been retained. This is the approach that makes sense to me. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Further clarity for the reasons given to delist per GAR procedure: Also see Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 for the initial delist discussion.
The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction" — the article falls under the scope of WP:ARBAPDS. That includes FA article Hillary Clinton — which has the same restrictions. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
plagued by edit warring". I would be curious to see if they are in relation to the BLP matters which resulted in full-PP. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It took some time for the cautious Obama and the blunt, rambling Biden to work out ways of dealing with each other.[204]This is placed right after a maintenance tag. Username 6892 03:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I would say that the above did provide clarity, though perhaps not in the way
Atsme intended. Much as I dislike bolding in this manner—it's effectively shouting—I think it's important to point out a basic fact of GAR that is being overlooked: there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR. There just isn't. At GAN, there is (the
WP:GAFAIL, cited by many people, though in context it's clear the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations when article issues are so severe that there is no point in embarking on a full review), but as is evident throughout the description of how GAR works at
WP:GAR, the goal of a GAR is to attempt to deal with the article's shortcomings in terms of the GA criteria: Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
GAR is a deliberative process, and reading the individual GAR ( Talk:Joe Biden/GA3), it's clear that the guidelines were not followed. There was no attempt to note any issues with the GA criteria aside from instability, and requests that this be done were ignored. The end result seems to have been decided from the moment it was opened: there had been edit warring, therefore GA status had to be removed, regardless of what anyone said. Never mind that the edit warring had subsided, according to more than one editor. It is a weakness of the individual GAR—as indeed with individual GAN reviews—that the opening editor has the final say, because sometimes the reassessor or reviewer gets it wrong, and that's why the community GAR is available, so that the community at large can have its say.
Going over the five points above:
under PP, DS with a 1RR restrictionare imposed to bring stability to an article that has suffered edit warring and other problems. If they have succeeded in bringing a reasonable degree of stability to the article, then the GA criteria are met.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)), those should be enumerated so they can be addressed.
My hope is that this community GAR can proceed per the guidelines at WP:GAR, particularly that the article be fully assessed against the GA criteria in terms of where it falls short today, and that those who are interested in doing so work at editing the article so that it no longer falls short of the criteria in those areas.
If the article does come to meet the criteria in a reasonable timeframe, then I trust that the consensus will reflect that fact and the article will qualify for listing. If it doesn't meet the criteria at that point, then consensus will reflect that. Either way, the reassessment can at that point be closed, and the result reflected on the article's talk page. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
cheat the system,
make a mockery of the GA process, and even
Imposing false stability on an unstable, challenged article is not how the GA process worksdon't reflect how the GAN and GAR processes do work. Even now, the
challenged neutralityissues have not been identified with any specifics—flouting the very process supposedly being cheated. I just hope that when an independent closer appears for this page, they will look at the actions and arguments and actual GAR guidelines and GA criteria, and if the article meets the criteria on that date, close this GAR as relisted. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
GAR is not the same thing as FARC, where an article is reexamined by numerous folks and time is allowed for appropriate changes to perhaps keep it listed as FA.. As it says at the top of the reassessment page
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it..
I left a note at WT:GA when I opened this– you opened this at 23:22, 22 April 2020; the last edit at Wikipedia talk:Good articles was on April 14 (a week earlier). The only note I'm finding is at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Joe Biden: "
make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point." It's hard for me to see how we can avoid addressing the issue now, as this strikes me as the crux of the matter. Do you mean that you want to make sure the comments align with the GA criteria, or the GA review criteria? At Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria I see six good article criteria, including "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", but Wikipedia:Good article reassessment says, paraphrasing, "don't use this process if you see any ongoing content dispute or edit war". Despite this advice not to use this process, this process has been used twice (both individual and community) for the Biden article where there have been recent content disputes. If the GA criteria, including the "immediate failure" criteria, does not apply to GA reviews, then what are the reassessment criteria? WP:GAR doesn't clearly say what the GAR criteria are, and how they differ from the GA criteria. – wbm1058 ( talk) 14:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Major copy edit. Tried to bring consistency to the instructions for both types of reassessment. Did not change any guidelines, only improved formatting and clarity in the wording of the existing guidelines.is not truthful. Removal of the longstanding advice that after waiting two weeks, reassessment on the grounds of instability could be considered, was an (apparently bold and undiscussed) change in this guideline that put it in conflict with the "GA six". This change should have been, and still should be, reverted. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.That pretty unambiguously says that there are no separate reassessment criteria. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
elaborated by providing examples of material that was not presented in a dispassionate tone, I kindly request that you direct me to where you provided such examples. I have tried to stay up-to-date on this discussion but I missed your examples.
Joe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.This is a perfectly valid community reassessment of an earlier individual reassessment. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I was reading through the
WP:GAR page, and came across the following in both the Individual and Community "When to use this process" sections: You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
. If it's true that GARs should only be used when there aren't ongoing disputes/wars, why are we even here, and how was the original reassessment allowed to proceed at all?
It turns out that the basic idea comes down from a May/June 2009 RfC on the subject of stability reassessments. The discussion can be seen at
Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4#RfC: Reassessment of an "Unstable" Article. Consensus that something should be added to the GAR guidelines on their advisability resulted in
this addition to the Community section (the feeling I get from the RfC is that individual assessments weren't appropriate, but it wasn't discussed enough for consensus): Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.
The reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target
phrase was removed by Aircorn in October 2012, and the current wording and expansion to all reassessments dates from
March 2016. These last edits strike me as overreach, but it's interesting how many GAR nominators ignore this and many other portions of the GAR guidelines.
To answer my own question, and absent a new consensus, I'd say generally not, and delisting for stability reasons is a controversial enough practice that it should be only done as a community reassessment. Otherwise, you have editors who, as in this case, have decided the article needs to be delisted immediately, and GAR is the tailor-made process to do so. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
there is edit warring and controversy surrounding it. If it ever settles down, it can be renominated., and on this page, your second reason for delisting the article is, in bold,
This article is plagued by edit warring. Your argument in this thread is that
When I delisted that article, there was not an ongoing content dispute or edit war, but it seems like that is directly contradicted by your previous comment here and elsewhere. Not only are these arguments internally inconsistent, they provide no direction for how to improve an article. We have tools to resolve stability concerns, but when we use those tools that is also brought up as a reason to delist the article (argument 1:
The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction which is a clear indication that it is a locus of chaos). Stability concerns are set up like a catch-22; if the article is unstable, delist it, if administrators try to stabilize an article, that's evidence of instability and we should delist it. How is the GAR process supposed to work when the discussion is structured to force a particular outcome? I don't really care whether Joe Biden, or any article, has a green circle; I do care that the GAR process is used to build an encyclopedia and that our policies and standards reflect that goal. — Wug· a·po·des 07:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix itby saying
don't attempt to improve the article here? People have asked you for specifics; you provided a list of points; other editors responded to those points; in 5 days you haven't responded to any of those comments. Your only comments since then have been to argue with people who question whether this is a good use of our time or within the spirit of the process. You're free to not participate in the community reassessment, but as the one who undertook the individual reassessment, you are not immune from having your decision and reasoning scrutinized. — Wug· a·po·des 20:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"You do not get to ignore it though"said with such confidence! I must say that is quite funny considering how those arguing to delist have "ignored" simple questions asking for specifics. Like examples of the supposed NPOV breaches. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
As a formality - upon the thoughtful suggestion of Vanamonde93 yesterday, I concluded the independent reassessment Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 by providing a more formal close. It appears a few editors were confused or lacked a clear understanding of the reason behind the independent reassessment; therefore, the formal close brings further clarity without anyone having to spend a great deal of time actually reading the more detailed explanations in the lengthy discussions. I am dismayed by some of the allegations in the GAR and in this community reassessment that were used as part of the basis for challenging the first GAR, such as political motivation and a bit of back and forth regarding a lack of experience with the GA process by some of the participants. Of the 6 editors who have supported the delist (MONGO, Mz7, CaptainEek, DGG, PackMecEng, and myself), all but PME are experienced reviewers in either the GA or FA process and/or as qualified reviewers per WP:GOOD, including a few with experience in the reassessment process, so I'm not quite sure what the OP is referring to when he calls out inexperience. Furthermore, the allegation that the delist action was politically motivated is absurd, the absurdity of which is evidenced in some of the oppose statements, not to mention that the primary purpose of a reassessment is to improve an article. I see no correlation with politics unless there is a motive to use GA status as a means of assuring readers that everything in the article is factually accurate and represents a NPOV which is what an article's stability represents and why we attach a GA symbol. Granted, the AP topic area can be rather toxic which helps explain why so few editors want to spend any time there, and why I don't edit those articles. My main focus on WP has always been to promote/review and participate in article improvement and to help build the encyclopedia by attending WikiConferences, and becoming a member of several WikiProjects, including the Lead Improvement Team. I am also a qualified reviewer at NPP/AfC, and have 17 GAs and 8 FAs to my credit as either a nom or reviewer. The one editor of the 6 who supported delisting qualifies as a GA reviewer but I am not aware if their qualifications have yet been put to use, except for this reassessment. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Experienced GA reviewers have already provided the information. I was pointing out the relative experiences of the reviewers as it seemed to be being used as a reason to delist the article without actually providing any substance. The lack of experience is not really the issue anyway, it is the lack of listening to editors with the experience. You have been involved in three community reassessments including this one. In the other two you display the same battleground behaviour you are displaying here. When editors that have been involved in many times more try and explain how Good Article reassessments should be conducted it is generally a good idea to listen to them instead of doubling down that you are right. Myself and BlueMoonset are probably the two most active editors here and we have both tried to explain how things work. Vandemonde and Wugapodes (each with over 50 reviews to their name) have also questioned the way the process was used to conduct your reassessment. By contrast the six you mention as being experienced reviewers have 0,8,3,0,0, and 10 reviews to there names respectively (as recorded by User:GA bot/Stats, which while not perfect is the best we have at keeping track of such things). Their input is more than welcome and can be valuable, but lets keep it in context. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Aircorn:, I just came across this. You say you have much experience with GA, is it normal for an editor who initiates a review saying this fails GA is also the same editor to perform an Independent close of the review? I'm quite shocked. starship .paint ( talk) 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Aircorn and Atsme: It's been 3 weeks since the last comment here. Should this discussion be closed? Username 6892 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1537 days ago on 25 April 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done.— S Marshall T/ C 15:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1531 days ago on 1 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1523 days ago on 8 May 2020)
Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I have read through this discussion and have formulated a rough closure in my head. I'm working on getting the close keyboarded and expect to post my close later today. This will be my first-ever close of a Good article (re-)assessment. Normally I would defer to a more experienced closer for such a high-profile case as this, but I see that the most active GAR participants are involved in the discussion and this project doesn't have that many active administrators closing discussions – hence I am stepping up. I have posted three comments to this discussion, but this can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.)
I did not contribute to
Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 except in the
post-close comments. More than four weeks have passed since the reassessment was opened on 22 April 2020.
First things to look for: "Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check that the article does not have cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{ cleanup}}, {{ POV}}, {{ unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{ citation needed}}, {{ clarify}}, or similar inline tags." Given this, after two (individual and community) reviews, I was surprised to find some of these unaddressed issues:
Remaining are a few dated statement categorizations, as old as "Articles containing potentially dated statements from September 2015". I'll assume it isn't expected to try to update these for GA status to be maintained. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria. Most GARs don't include this ({{ subst:GATable}}), but, as a first-time reviewer/closer I thought it would be a useful exercise:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I've just finished reading the article and have clarified the prose and corrected grammar in a few places. Apparently this was not done by earlier reviewers in this community review. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead section was reviewed for compliance in this discussion. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs; the lead now has five, so it's pushing the length limits, but not yet so far as to cause a fail here (this issue wasn't raised in the discussion). While assertions were made about trivia in the body, I didn't see any suggestions for removal of specific text from the lead. The lead should summarize any prominent controversies. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The article appears to be well referenced. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The sources appear to be reliable. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No evidence of OR has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No evidence has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The Wikipedia:Out of scope essay says "Use the most general scope for each article you can. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's supposed to summarise essentially all knowledge. Hence accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible.", which appears to discourage exclusion of "trivia", which seems counter to the advice of the next requirement (3b) to not go into unnecessary detail. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Hey! "focused on the topic" links to Wikipedia:Article size – and Wikipedia:Summary style is all about splitting to subtopics. So, not so fast about that stuff being out-of-scope for GA reviews. A split was proposed on 24 April 2020 which quickly gained consensus in support. Vice presidency of Joe Biden was created on 30 April 2020 and United States Senate career of Joe Biden was created on 1 May 2020, but as discussed on 18 May this work has yet to be finished. In contrast with the longish lead of this article (1b above) the leads of Vice presidency of Joe Biden and United States Senate career of Joe Biden are each just one short paragraph, making it difficult to summarize those sections here. This article cannot be recertified as a Good Article until after this work is done. wbm1058 ( talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This is such a subjective criterion that I feel that it can only be determined by consensus in a community discussion. What I mostly see in this discussion is an assertion that the article is not neutral responded to by mostly unanswered requests for specifics, and some acknowledgement(s) of "good faith claims that the article lacks neutrality". This criterion feels somewhat redundant to me. I think an article that passes all other criteria, particularly stability, is unlikely to fail on just this one. In any event the discussion hasn't sufficiently specifically addressed this criterion for me to make a call. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC) | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | As indicated above 9 !voters were leaning to delist based on instability. This was a borderline "no consensus" discussion, but regardless the outcome is the same. See additional comments below. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All 39 images in the article are tagged; most as public domain or creative commons. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All 39 images in the article are relevant and captioned. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Items 4 and 5 are the "elephant in the room" around which this GAR revolves. I view these criteria as very much connected because the crux of the stability issues revolve around disputes over neutrality. Indeed § Are stability-based GARs appropriate? discusses this.
I noticed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, " List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles?" and volunteered to work on producing such a list (after I finish closing this). I think such a list for the "content creators" would nicely balance out the " gnomes list". Based on the algorithm for producing that list, I see that Wasted Time R would get credit for this GA. Indeed this seems to be a good measure based on the XTools report which gives them a significant margin over other editors in authorship, number of edits, and added text.
A point of contention in this GAR is whether an article can be delisted based on the Immediate failures criteria. It was asserted that "there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR" and the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations. But GAR determines whether an article that is listed as good article still merits its GA status according to the good article criteria. There are no separate "review criteria", so I find that the "immediate" part does apply. However, the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment "When to use this process" guideline says "Use the individual reassessment process if You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war and "Requesting (community) reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." So, following the guideline, a GAR may only fail based on the "immediate" part after waiting at least two weeks to confirm persistent instability and obtaining a very clear consensus for an immediate fail from at least five editors in a community discussion. In fairness to Atsme, until I made this uncontested reversion, the guidelines were contradictory on stability-based reviews, so I can't fault her for starting an individual GAR. Editors are advised that in the future stability-based reassessments should only be done by the community process. This is to ensure fairness to editors like Wasted Time R who've put in a lot of work to get the article up to the GA standard. In any event, this review has gone on long enough that it is way past being able to be called an "immediate" review. - wbm1058 ( talk) 21:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Precedents. Criterion 5 is open to interpretation: "it does not change significantly from day to day". The footnote to that provides some clarification: "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold." The key word open to interpretation is " significant". This word may be ambiguous in some situations. "Having a noticeable or major effect." "Reasonably large in number or amount." An article "undergoing rapid expansion or being rewritten" is undergoing significant change, but what about the addition of a single sentence to an already lengthy article? If that single sentence mentions allegations of sexual misconduct not previously mentioned in the article, that single sentence arguably has a noticeable or major effect. Edit-warring over the addition of that sentence may reasonably be interpreted as evidence that the addition had a noticeable effect; if it didn't, in my view an edit war is much less likely to develop.
I have heard the appeals to precedents. Wikipedia doesn't have any policies or guidelines on this. Although precedents are not required to be followed, I am sympathetic with the Wikipedia:Precedents essay. With that in mind, I searched the archives and found a nearly 14-year old discussion titled " Dealing with Bad Faith objections on controversial topics". While the debate that led to this was over religion, it seems relevant given the separation of church and state, but can religion and politics really be separated?
The dispute was over the Creation-evolution controversy article, which has since moved to Rejection of evolution by religious groups. The article was delisted per this GAR as explained by the reviewer HERE and on the revewer's talk. The {{ Article history}} on Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups shows that the article was listed on January 22, 2006, delisted on October 4, 2006, and apparently no attempts have been made to relist it after that.
I noticed that Result: 6 delist to 4 keep, no consensus was added by another editor (not the reviewer) when they archived the discussion. I'm not sure whether the reviewer counted votes, but this edit demonstrates the view that no consensus in a GAR results in delisting rather than maintaining the status quo, which is counter to the view expressed by some in this GAR. I think that's right; Good Article Reviews simply confirm that an article still passes the criteria. If a first time assessment would fail criterion 5 if there was no consensus, then I don't see how a reassessment should have a different outcome with no consensus. I haven't seen anything in the instructions supporting that view.
I'll make a quick search now for more, confirming precedents. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I just confirmed that the stability criterion hasn't substantially changed since March 2006 so the above precedent still seems relevant.
Another point of contention in the discussion revolves around the Wikipedia:Stable version supplement to the page protection policy. An argument was made that you can not get more stable than a fully protected article, which was rejected by another participant with the rationale that if an article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to be stable, then it isn't truly stable. I concur with this latter view. If one should wait at least two weeks to confirm an article's instability, arguably most high-profile articles will always pass the criterion because administrators will not allow instability to persist for that long before protecting the article. It makes no sense to have a criterion that can never fail. The rationale for protection should be examined. If it's protected due to vandalism, then it's still stable for GAR purposes. But if it's protected due to edit warring, then it's not. Per Wikipedia:Stable version § Inappropriate usage it is inappropriate usage to invoke this argument to avoid a delisting for instability. An open request for comment over a proposed "significant" change in content, i.e. a change that will have a "noticeable or major effect" on the article, should be viewed as a sign of instability for as long as the RfC remains open.
I realize this is problematic for articles of this type. A possible solution might be to introduce the concept of a "last good version" or a new indicator showing that the good article "may be outdated and is currently undergoing review of possible content changes". wbm1058 ( talk) 20:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
I suppose the sections below may be considered as equivalent to the workshop page of an Arbitration Committee case. LOL wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
For 3b, I'd like to point out that I did propose a split which ended up happening, but discussion about the prose to keep in the article went nowhere. It's been brought up again, but that discussion also went nowhere. As much as I want to help, I realize that I have almost no splitting/summarizing experience and I'm terrible at summarizing things. Username 6892 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead now has five paragraphs; the manual of style suggests reducing this to four. What would you remove? Feel free to either strike through words to omit using <s>...</s> tags or rewrite it below. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Username6892's opinion for removals, Removals Username6892 is less sure about, Username6892's opinion for additions
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ( /ˌrɒbɪˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; [1] born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017 and represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee [nb 1] for president of the United States in the 2020 election. [2] This is Biden’s third run for president after he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 2008.
Biden was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and New Castle County, Delaware. He studied at the University of Delaware before receiving his law degree from Syracuse University. [3] He became a lawyer in 1969 and was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from Delaware in 1972 when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history. Biden was reelected six times and was the fourth-most senior senator when he resigned to assume the vice presidency in 2009. [4]
As a senator, Biden was a longtime member and eventually chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He opposed the Gulf War in 1991 but advocated for U.S. and NATO intervention in the Bosnian War in 1994 and 1995, expanding NATO in the 1990s, and the 1999 bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo War. He argued and voted for the resolution authorizing the Iraq War in 2002 but opposed the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. He has also served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dealing with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties, as well as the contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden led the efforts to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
In 2008, Biden was the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. As vice president, he oversaw infrastructure spending to counteract the Great Recession and helped formulate U.S. policy toward Iraq through the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. His negotiations with congressional Republicans helped the Obama administration pass legislation including the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which resolved a taxation deadlock; the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resolved that year's debt ceiling crisis; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which addressed the impending fiscal cliff [6892 1]. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Biden led the Gun Violence Task Force, created to address the causes of gun violence in the United States. [5] Obama and Biden were reelected in 2012.
In October 2015, after months of speculation, Biden announced he would not seek the presidency in the 2016 election. In January 2017, Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. [6] After completing his second term as vice president, Biden joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was named the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice. [7] He announced his 2020 candidacy for president on April 25, 2019, joining a large field of Democratic candidates pursuing the party nomination. [8] Throughout 2019, he was widely regarded as the party's frontrunner. After briefly falling behind Bernie Sanders after poor showings in the first three state contests, Biden won the South Carolina primary decisively, and, several center-left moderate candidates dropped out of the race and endorsed him before Super Tuesday. Biden went on to win 18 of the next 26 contests. With the suspension of Sanders's campaign on April 8, 2020, Biden became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the presidential election. [9] On June 9, 2020, Biden met the 1,991-delegate threshold needed in order to secure the party's nomination. [10]
References
References
References
What specific controversies should be mentioned in the lead? These should be controversies that are already covered in the article body.
There is no consensus for including a specific statement in the lead of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. If attempts to add controversies to the lead of this article have been reverted, a similar discussion should be initiated to get a consensus to include them. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes - Throughout his decades of public service, the former Senator and current Vice President has earned a reputation for often saying the wrong thing at the wrong time;
I emphasize that I have not thoroughly reviewed the article. I only quickly read it and found the following issues:
I again emphasize that the above findings are results of a quick review. Borsoka ( talk) 03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, Iazyges—You took this through a CE and the first GAR respectively. Do you have a view on this, please? Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 08:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
References
I've only read through the lede and some of the early sections. There's too much detail in the lede and I don't think that it's well written. There's massive overlinking and there are lots of style problems like inconsistent capitalizations, etc. I do not agree with all of Borsoka's comments, in particular his demand for daily life/lifestyle of the inhabitants, as I think that's outside of the scope of an article at this level, but I don't think that this is GA quality yet.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking at this article, it's clear that this article would look very different if it were rewritten in 2020 with reliable secondary sources. This is so much so the case that anyone looking at this article after 2016 with familiarity with be quite confused—or mistake it as another piece from one of the organization's many propaganda arms. Here's some recent coverage of the activities of the new religious group exterior to mainland China:
This article discusses a shift that occured in 2017, and, indeed, from that time the vast majority of sources start popping up. It appears coverage has only snowballed since, a risk the organization seems willing to take to continue to wield political influence. Let's continue digging through media coverage:
Hmm, alright. Let's take a look at the NBC article that this entry mentions:
And more straightforward discussion from MSNBC, reporting on an NBC article discussed below:
The NBC article refers to an article by The New Yorker:
And a few years back, here in Germany, referring to the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):
There are many, many, many more sources out there discussing these topics—thousands—and in fact we can and should dig further into these topics. Additionally, this does not take into account the various other extensions of the organization, such as the Society of Classical Poets, which fly a little further under the radar but with aligned goals.
This article needs reassessment and, frankly, a total rewrite. I've tagging it for NPOV and a total rewrite in the mean time. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My rationale is that this article doesn't meet criteria of good article criteria:
The whole my point is not to remove the Article itself, but to:
Unfortunately, without these 3 steps process there is no way to fix Article to satisfy GA criteria as editors affiliated with AVEN are using GA status argument to circumvent Wikipedia rules and policies on Verifiable sources. AceRebel ( talk) 23:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
strongly affiliated with AVEN website? Adam9007 ( talk) 01:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Article is strongly affiliated with AVEN websitemakes no sense whatsoever. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
officially attached or connected to an organization. No Wikipedia article is officially associated with another entity. The fact that this Wikipedia article happens to mention AVEN a lot doesn't make it associated with AVEN. Adam9007 ( talk) 02:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Rather poorly sourced, doesn't seem to be comprehensive. A google search returns many papers and analysis that aren't incorporated into this article and should be. I'm willing to conduct a more full review if a user indicates a willingness to respond to them. Otherwise, as it stands this article should be de-listed. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This article has extensive citation needed and other maintenance tags. There's a lot of discussion about quality on the talk page, but work on the article itself has largely ceased since 8 April. Until the tags can be resolved, this article should not be listed as a GA, as it fails criteria #2. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Somehow a great Electronic music pioneer deserved to have a good article. Jean-Michel Jarre has done several inventive and innovative things as an electronic musician, and he even earned a Guinness World Record for largest concert attendance ever. I'm an electronic music fan, I really love Jean-Michel Jarre. Parrot of Doom has done a great job at this article. However, someone else requested a GAR on this thing because it's becoming less fresh as of now. I read this article recently and found that currently, this article has gained issues. The quality is degrading, I want to upgrade it. The prose isn't in a decent shape like in the past, some of the references are dead links and/or not using "cite" templates or something like that, the sections could've been rearranged more, at least it seems like it from this point. Also, some red links are present (some of them have links to foreign-language versions of Wikipedia articles), I am suspicious that some parts need citation integrity, and some refs are unreliable... Well, the current version of the Jean-Michel Jarre article as of writing has to be rewritten entirely to comply with the current GA criteria. Potentially, this must remain a GA in the future. ias: postb□x 12:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Article has not been reassessed for GA status since 2009. In the decade since, there's been a lot of unsourced information added. Some if it may be true, but qualifies as Original Research, while other bits and pieces are flat-out incorrect. Article needs a lot of cleanup to regain GA status, in my opinion. However, since I have edited the article a bit recently, I think others should do the reassessment so there's no conflict. JimKaatFan ( talk) 01:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
"In April 2014, diggers hired to investigate the claim confirmed that the Alamogordo landfill contained many E.T. cartridges, among other games.[3][4][5] James Heller, the former Atari manager who was in charge of the burial, was at the excavation and admitted to the Associated Press that 728,000 cartridges of various games were buried.[6]"
"Warshaw intended the game to be an innovative adaptation of the film, and Atari thought it would achieve high sales figures based on the international box office success of the film. Negotiations to secure the rights to make the game ended in late July 1982, giving Warshaw five and a half weeks to develop the game in time for the 1982 Christmas season.[2]"
Considering there are two issues:
I would like to re-asses the good article status, because those issues violates 1a and 3b of the good article criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streepjescode ( talk • contribs)
Just a repost of Talk:United States/GA4. Please comment there. Therapyisgood ( talk) 20:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think this article meets the good article criteria. Some sections and paragraphs are only a single sentence long, the article contains some vaguely promotional content (like the "by the numbers" section), the article cites sources which don't seem to be reliable or particularly reputable (KontentPort, Eye on Windows, Ubergizmo, etc.), and even the lead is a bit too short for my liking. This article feels more like a C class to me, not a GA. I've never brought an article to reassessment before, so apologies if I've done something wrong. TheAwesome Hwyh 16:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
21:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)The article has several problems. One, has huge parts unsourced, like both Independent Circuit section or the TNA final feuds. Some titles are unsourced to. Needs an uptade about his NWA work. Also, the prose can be improved, it's like "on Day 1, he had a match. On day 2, he had a match." Lead can be improved. No mention of his work as box announcer. Missing style and persona(not obligatory, buy helpful) Also, minor In-Universe problems ("he put Shaw into a van heading for a psychiatric facility for intervention.") -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I am concerned that the article does not meet the GA criteria. In particular, not all the content is verifiable to "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", as required by WP:NOR, and the article contains excessive material on tangentially related aspects that are not extensively treated on reliable sources on the subject, failing GA criteria 3 (focus). See talk page for further discussion. b uidh e 01:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This article was promoted back in 2009 and now there are multiple
citation needed tags on the page.
Thatoneweirdwikier |
Say hi
19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Panzer Aces/1]]
Greenlandic language is a good article with several noticeable problems:
Overall, this good article fails the GA criteria of verifiability. Therefore, I suggest to delist this article. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Two major maintenance tags outstanding. I'm not too familiar with the content, but those issues should be resolved before the article can stay as a GA.
I am bringing this article to GAR because:
This is my first GAR, so I apologize if I made any mistakes here. There may also be some problems I have not mentioned (I think the Facilities section may have an unnecessary detail (3b) problem, but I'm not sure). Username 6892 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll add comments when I see things. Something to consider is that this is a short article, and how does it compare to similar ones. Not every station in North America is going to have or warrant the level of coverage of Grand Central Terminal, but it's currently comparable size-wise with the English Moncloa (Madrid Metro) article, something you'd expect to have far less. Without being an expert, I would do some research on the Chester station myself to see if the level of coverage reflected media coverage (and will do if nobody beats me to it!) Kingsif ( talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Here are some things I noticed.
This is the only station in Toronto with no TTC bus service during the day.- This seems to be trivia, particularly the first part. epicgenius ( talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
This article is primarily authored by a single editor, who is now ex-communicated for POV-pushing, edit-warring, socking, incivility, etc.
The article is marred by its insistence to always let the CCP have the final word, only allowing for the most superficial criticism of the party. There is next to nothing about its draconian anti-insurgency measures or violent crackdown on political dissidents, let alone its Orwellian surveillance apparatuses and concentration camps in Xinjiang. We don't have the luxury to allow such an important article to completely lose its track and spiral away in abstract MLM-theory and bureaucratic jargon. Nutez ( talk) 05:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
spiral away in abstract MLM-theory and bureaucratic jargon, considering the article necessarily must use both, by nature of its subject. Jargon can certainly be explained and minimised, but to criticise an article for too much MLM theory when it is about a MLM party is absurd. One last question: when you say
The article is marred by its insistence to always let the CCP have the final word, only allowing for the most superficial criticism of the party, could you give some examples? This is an important criticism and I would be grateful to hear it in detail. Danke. Acalycine ( talk) 07:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Officially, it seemed quite biased. However, I don't think that the 'theoretical ideology' of the Party is too central in the article. We do have Ideology of the Communist Party of China, but this does not mean this article should not include a smaller summary of the ideology, which it does. Regarding Shuanggui, I would agree that it should be included here, but I wouldn't necessarily say this precludes the article from meeting 3a - I don't see how a party disciplinary process is core in this sense. We should include it in Governance/Organisation. Regarding the weight of 'concrete applications' and 'consequences', what are some subject areas that we think should have greater weight? Using the same reasoning as Horse Eye Jack's criticisms of ideology being central, I would say that we already have articles on subjects such as Mao's Cultural Revolution and other policies. In saying that, the History section does seem heavily focused on the post-Mao period, which is a drawback. Also, in reference to
CCP actions that don't follow propaganda points, can you provide some examples? This would definitely be a cause of concern. Can we have some more references to the original review's criteria and how the current content of the article differs from it? Thanks. Acalycine ( talk) 08:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This has been a GA since 2008, and has not been assessed since then, but I'm not sure it meets the 2020 standards. When I just came across it, it was entirely missing Beghe's college education apart from the category. It also has a very short lead, and I'm guessing there may be other issues. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Article with outdated statements. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{ cleanup}}, {{ POV}}, {{ unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{ citation needed}}, {{ clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{ QF}}). I suggest delisting this article. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I am bringing this article to GAR because:
This is my first GAR, so I apologize if I made any mistakes here. There may also be some problems I have not mentioned (I think the Facilities section may have an unnecessary detail (3b) problem, but I'm not sure). Username 6892 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll add comments when I see things. Something to consider is that this is a short article, and how does it compare to similar ones. Not every station in North America is going to have or warrant the level of coverage of Grand Central Terminal, but it's currently comparable size-wise with the English Moncloa (Madrid Metro) article, something you'd expect to have far less. Without being an expert, I would do some research on the Chester station myself to see if the level of coverage reflected media coverage (and will do if nobody beats me to it!) Kingsif ( talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Here are some things I noticed.
This is the only station in Toronto with no TTC bus service during the day.- This seems to be trivia, particularly the first part. epicgenius ( talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
It is nearly five years since this became a GA and its history since then indicates a considerable input of trivial, unsourced information with consequent impact upon quality and sourcing. It was wrongly presented to FAC in April this year and effectively rubbished there because of, in the main, poor sourcing. In essence, the problem is the amount of attention the article has received from the subject's "fans" in recent times.
In terms of WP:GACR, I think #1 is okay on the whole although a reviewer would certainly list numerous points for quick resolution. It would fail on #2, especially #2b and with the possibility of #2c arising. It is generally okay on #3 though, again, a reviewer would almost certainly raise queries and require removal of trivia like non-noteworthy awards. GACR #4 is frequently compromised by the fan inputs but, to be fair, the cricket project seem to be reverting those in good time. The fan inputs don't really constitute a threat to stability so #5 is okay, and I'd be happy with #6 as there don't seem to be any imagery issues.
I think the article would probably fail a GAR, subject to anyone being able to quickly resolve its problems if put on hold for a week. I recommend that it is delisted so that necessary work can be done to restore quality and ensure good sourcing throughout. It could then be renominated at GAN. No Great Shaker ( talk) 05:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:V, I have concerns about the unsourced text in this article. About a quarter of the text is without citations. Furthermore, the sources that do exist include very little real scholarship. It relies pretty heavily on a small number of unpublished websites. I ask the community to determine if this article is still a GA. Tikisim ( talk) 02:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
It is clear that since it was accepted as a Good Article in 2009, Wikipedia standards have changed. The article is full of fictional cruft, with "The World" section being largely in-universe. Much of the "History" section is also just a timeline of releases rather than putting things in context. It strikes me as C-class at most and would need a significant amount of work to reach modern Good Article standards. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I had a careful read of the article last night and it satisfies the good article criteria in that it is:
If an editor is going to call for a reassessment then one would think it would be incumbent on that editor to specify which criteria the article does not meet, and why. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 09:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Some work has gone into the article over the past month. Does anyone have any suggestions on what else needs to be done as far as improvements? BOZ ( talk) 22:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The article failed it's most recent FAC, with one of the detractors ( Laser brain) saying he would reject it for GA status, proving how terrible the article is. While there will never be another FAC attempt at this article by me, I will nevertheless be satisfied if it at least maintains GA status. Because factual accuracy and coherence matter more. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll leave notes here as I go through the article; if I make any copyedits you disagree with please feel free to revert them.
Krishnamurthy's acquaintance Ramanathan persuades him to drink alcohol: it's apparent from the rest of the plot that it Krishnamurthy's later consumption of alcohol that's the problem, so does Ramanathan persuade Krishnamurthy that he should no longer abstain from alcohol? So that he starts to drink from that point on?
Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector."Collaborator" doesn't have the right connotations for a partner in crime. "Accomplice" might work, but it would help to know why we're using the word. Does Rangiah do anything at the party to help persuade Krishnamurthy? Or is this only a reference to the later plot elements? Does Krishnamurthy's infatuation with Mohanangi start at the party? Is it because of his drinking, or is it instigated by Ramanathan or Rangiah?
sinking Krishnamurthy deeper in debt: we haven't said he was in debt; presumably he doesn't have the money he promises to Mohanangi? Or he goes into debt to get it?
More later. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
More:
Pathi Bhakthi, a Tamil play dealing with alcohol abuse and its effects on family life, was written by Te. Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar during the early 1930s: the source for this says "It was in the early 1930s that a play titled Pathi Bhakti enjoyed a long run on the stage. A play about the evils of drinking, it had been written by a well-known playwright, Te.Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar." which only says the play was successful in the early 1930s, not that that's when it was written. Per this source it was published in March 1931, though I'm relying on Google Translate there and may be misinterpreting.
Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar: I don't have access to Guy (1997), so can you just confirm that it says Mudaliar rewrote the play for MOBC? The other source seems to imply it was the original play.
The film was Dungan's directorial debut, and was later listed in the Limca Book of Records as the first Indian film to be directed by a foreigner: I copyedited this slightly, but on reflection I think it might be better to just make it "The film was Dungan's directorial debut, and was the first Indian film to be directed by a foreigner". I take it the Limca Book of Records is a reliable source? If so we can just cite the statement to it.
The case was resolved when Vasan testified that both Pathi Bhakthi and the novel Sathi Leelavathi were based on Ellen Wood's 1860 novel Danesbury House, therefore neither party could claim originality.: I've copyedited this a bit but I an wondering if the last clause would be worth expanding. It's an interesting point because perhaps one could say that both Pathi Bhakthi and Vasan's novel were plagiarized, if neither is original. Does the source give more details about Vasan's testimony or the reasoning of the court in dismissing the case?
in particular the plight of Tamil Nadu labourers in Ceylon's tea estates: I'm not sure about this, but just a suggestion: the plot summary only mentions this in passing, but it appears that some commentary on the film regards this as an important aspect of the film. Would it be worth expanding the brief mention of this in the plot a little?
Ramachandran appeared in Pathi Bhakthi as the antagonist's henchman Veeramuthu: might be worth making it clear this is the MOBC stage version we're talking about, since the reader might well assume it's the film version until the second half of the sentence.
He later approached Mudaliar for a role in Sathi Leelavathi because he felt his role in Pathi Bhakthi offered him "no room to shine".I don't see the connection here; perhaps understanding the timing better would help. I assumed that the stage run of Pathi Bhakthi was over by the time the film was being made; were both going on at the same time? I see from another source that the timing was pretty quick -- Vasan's novel comes out in early 1934 and shooting on both it and the film version of Pathi Bhakthi starts in 1934. The delay in release till 1936 is just because of the lawsuit, I gather. So was Ramachandran acting in both at the same time? It's a minor point if the sources don't say but it wasn't till I looked closely at it that I realized how quickly it was all happening.
More later, probably tonight or tomorrow morning. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Continuing:
With this film, Dungan introduced many features to Tamil cinema such as a lack of on-screen stage influences, the "cabaret dance" or the "club dance", strict discipline, filming by schedule and camera mobility.Could this sentence be expanded a little to give more details? I've no idea what a cabaret dance or club dance is, for example, or what is meant by "strict discipline". Some of these sound like significant points in the evolution of Tamil cinema and a bit more space would be worth it.
The melody of "Theyila Thottathle" (also spelt "Theyilai Thottatile") is based on Subramania Bharati's poem "Karumbu Thottathile".I don't follow this; how do you base a melody on a poem? Did "Karumbu Thottathile" have a melody associated with it?
While the poem is about the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji, the songs's lyrics follow the problems of tea-plantation workers in Ceylon.Did Bhagavathar adapt the lyrics -- that is, just change a few words to make them refer to Ceylon -- or did he write completely new lyrics?
Sathi Leelavathi had a "trade show" debut in Madras on 1 February 1936, and was theatrically released on 28 March that year.A trade show is a showing of a film to people in the trade, usually so reviewers and critics can get an early look. I think we could write this more naturally as "Sathi Leelavathi had a trade screening [with a footnote if you think it needs explanation] in Madras on 1 February 1936...". We'd need a source for the definition and a quick look doesn't find one in Google Books, so if you want to make this change I'll look a little further. Also, I see that this source, which you cite for the trade showing, says the picture was release on February 1; the trade show must have been the day before, or earlier, and I think we should mention, perhaps in a footnote, that a contemporary source says it went on release on February 1, not March 28.
At the time of its initial release, critics praised most aspects of the production, including the direction, photography, sound design, and writing.This doesn't seem well-sourced. One source is the press book; the other just says "The photography and recording are sound and the acting is generally satisfactory"; this is hardly "praise". (The same comment applies to the source for "The acting performances also received generally positive response from critics."). The press book does include positive comments, and I don't think we have any reason to doubt that they're accurate transcriptions, but the press book would exclude any negative comments so we can't use it to say the response was positive -- that would have to come from a source like Guy. Would any of the original sources be available from a library? It would be great to obtain the original reviews of any of these, though I imagine that's unlikely to be possible.
Stopping there for now; should be able to finish this pass later today. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Kailash29792, I've been reflexively reviewing this article with the same rigour that I would at FAC -- probably because that's where I started looking at the article. However, this is GAR, not FAC, and I should let you know what I think the status is according to the GAR requirements. The only remaining point that I think needs to be addressed for GA is to make it clear to the reader that the press opinions are taken from PR material and so cannot be assumed to be representative.
I think this is only the second of your articles I've reviewed at FAC; I hadn't realized you were working on early Tamil cinema. It's an interesting topic. If you plan to bring any other articles to FAC, and would like me to comment before the FAC, let me know and I'll try to find time. I think this article could easily make it to FA too, though it sounds like you're no longer interested in pursuing that. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Kailash29792, I decided to go ahead with a slightly modified version of the suggested sentence, and will go ahead and close the GAR. I have a couple of other reviewing obligations but if you're still interested in taking this back to FAC I would be willing to work with you on it when I get time. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Passing GAR; article retains GA status. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
There are several issues with the article which impacts its GA status, and its FT status by extension. Just by reading through WP:GAFAIL, the article immediately fails criteria 3, which contains a cleanup banner for a single WP:USERGEN source which has not been addressed in over 2 years. According to WP:GACR, there are a significant number of requirements which had not been thoroughly addressed in the previous review while skimming through the article:
"Sorry" received positive reviews from contemporary critics, who declared the track the strongest song on Confessions on a Dance Floor, which is only supported by a single source. Are there no mixed to negative reviews about the song?
Overall, there are far too many issues with the article which would take over a week to address, considering the original user is indefinitely blocked. In addition, after looking at several articles at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Confessions on a Dance Floor, there are several unsourced track listing sections in each song article. I am asking for a community reassessment, as I have only briefly skimmed the article without checking every source's validity, considering the main editor was blocked for fabricating information. As much as I would like the FT to remain, the majority of articles need to be reassessed. — Angryjoe1111 ( talk) 08:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Musically, "Sorry" is an uptempo dance song containing layers of beats and strong vocal on the chorus,
The song talks about personal empowerment and self-sufficiency, and
Alexis Petridis from The Guardian called the song as triumphant. Kitty Empire from the same publication said that "'Sorry' sees Madonna taking a lover to task over an insistent dance-pop rush."could be reworded. The last sentence in particular could be combined into one sentence, considering that both authors write for the same publication, which would be easier to understand. I have not thoroughly gone through the article in great detail in comparison to other GA reviewers, so they may have more feedback to address that I have not caught on to. I am aware that articles do not need to go through WP:GOCE to become a GA, but it is expected that
the prose is clear, concise. In response to GA3a, the lead section contains information about the personnel and release date which is not acknowledged in the Background section. The 2005 recording date in the infobox is also not acknowledged anywhere in the article, considering that she could have recorded it prior to that year. Maybe it is best to remove it, as it may be considered WP:OR. In regards to GA2b, the first Madonna source is acceptable as long as there are no other reliable secondary sources that could be used instead, while the second source has been addressed. For GA2c, I am perfectly content with the synopsis following WP:PLOT, but not with each sentence being directly cited by the MTV source, considering that the link is broken and is WP:REPCITE. If possible, I recommend that the section be split into two subsections; Background and Synopsis, so that it would be easier to navigate for readers. GA4 was just a question regarding whether the song has received any criticism, as I have only seen one mixed review in the critical reception section. The lead sentence,
"Sorry" received positive reviews from contemporary critics, who declared the track the strongest song on Confessions on a Dance Floor.has only been attributed to the MTV News article, and may be considered WP:SYNTH. Discogs is a WP:USERGEN source that should not be cited for any track listing. Preferably use Template:Cite AV media to find appropriate listings and add any missing formats to the infobox parameter "formats", which I have not seen for the 12-inch vinyl. CD promos are also not used in the section, as they are not "commercial releases" of the song. Finally, both the sample and screenshot should be removed unless there is thorough information that cannot be supported by text alone. Neither explain why both mediums should be included in the article, considering the former does not refer specifically to "synthesized" beats. While some of my above points may barely pass GAC, the articles displayed in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Confessions on a Dance Floor at first glance seem to not be GA worthy, especially Get Together (Madonna song), where the GA review was essentially barren, given that there are more problems there that are glaringly noticeable while scrolling the article, particularly in the music video section which the majority of information sourced is from a fansite, as well as the unsourced track listing and personnel section. Considering that every article was GA'd in four months before being made a FT, and the reason for the nominator's indefinite block makes me doubt the integrity of some sources. While my comments may seem harsh for a GA reassessment, other reviewers at WP:GAN#SONG have made thorough reviews to ensure that each citation style and information in each section is sourced properly. As stated earlier, I have not searched any sources to check WP:INTEGRITY or fix citation parameter improvements, so this article was deliberately placed in community reassessment for other reviewers to discuss. — Angryjoe1111 ( talk) 12:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The
Jesper Fast article lacks details about Fast's career after the 2014-15 NHL season.
As I stated on the talk page a week ago, "There's a considerable amount of unsourced text (fails WP:V), MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and needs significant trimming per summary style as it nearly 100K readable prose (focus)." b uidh e 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
“probably should be divided threshold”? Not getting what you mean there. KJP1 ( talk) 14:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry, on re-reading, I think you’re saying it’s 40% over the threshold at which it should probably be divided. Don’t think I’d agree that it should be trimmed by 40%, nor do I think it infringes the GA criteria by not being. An article on an entire country will likely be longer than an article on a rather more circumscribed topic. As for sourcing, I think you’re probably closer to FA criteria requirements than GA. As a comparison, the USA, another country GA, is a third as long again, with about a third more sources. But there are clearly areas that can be tightened, and more strongly sourced, so we’ll crack on with those. KJP1 ( talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Tony Holkham - Not entirely clear as to how community consensus is reached in GAR but wanted to note that there doesn't appear to be consensus here. The criticism had two limbs - uncited material and length. In my view, the first has been addressed, certainly to GA standards. The second is a matter of opinion, but I think it is clear that two editors, Tony and myself, both of whom contribute extensively to Welsh topics, are not of the view that it is overlong. I've pinged Tony in case I'm not representing his view accurately. KJP1 ( talk) 07:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
This article lacks referencing and makes unvalidated statements, for example that Alfred Dunhill married his mistress on the death of his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenoaks27 ( talk • contribs)
This article does not have adequate sources to qualify as a GA, it's infobox can be majorly expanded, it's last section fails
WP:SURVIVEDBY. Not all statements are reliable, with certain paragraphs only having 1 or 2 sources. The article has violations of
WP:TEXTBOOK and
WP:OR (Sources variously credit Motora or his student, Matatarō Matsumoto, with setting up the lab. At the very least, Motora consulted with Matsumoto on the setup of the lab.
). Some sources credit him as having set up the first psychological laboratory in Japan
,
WP:SYNTH and
MOS:WEASEL. A practitioner of Zen meditation, Motora contributed ideas on the subject that influenced psychological thought in Japan
, seems to start veering to break
WP:NPOV, putting him in good light; perhaps
WP:FANPOV. At the very least, Motora consulted with Matsumoto on the setup of the lab
breaks
WP:SYNTH. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Berrely (
talk •
contribs)
Even as a child, Motora was interested.... I think with some work it can be up to GA standard, and I'll take a look at the prose again after/if changes have been made. Sincerely, Ovinus ( talk) 20:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by No Great Shaker
Retain GA status. I carried out the GA review and, other than the need for a few minor amendments, I considered it to be a good article and promoted it accordingly. In my opinion, the complaints raised here are unsubstantiated. The worst of it is the accusation of WP:OR which is unfounded and out of order. The author, Larry Hockett, has written a good article and it is unacceptable that he has been subjected to an accusation of OR, especially as no adequate rationale has been provided. I'll deal with each of the points raised in turn.
First, apart from anything else, the request for reassessment needs to be presented in a readable form with paragraph breaks and indentation. This request is a mess, not even signed, and it does not in any way provide the full rationale which the edit instructions desire.
There is no requirement for any images in an article. GACR#6 is concerned with images that are present. It says: "Illustrated, if possible, by media...", not "Illustrated by media..." This point has already been challenged and removed from the above but the fact that it was ever included in the first place as a key reason for GA failure shows a lack of understanding of the GA criteria and process. The one image in the article is public domain, it is relevant and its caption is appropriate. Therefore, the article complies with GACR#6.
Where in GACR does it even mention an infobox? As with the entire article, the infobox could presumably be expanded if and when more information about the subject comes to light. Saying that the article is not GA because its infobox contains seven parameters is frankly absurd. It does not need to have an infobox. Like images, tables and lists, the infobox is a useful but optional aid to the reader. GA is essentially concerned with lead and narrative. Of course, if there is an infobox, it must be correct and tidy. This one is.
WP:SURVIVEDBY is given as a major reason for GA failure. This is not a policy like WP:V or even a rule. It is advisory and its intention is to prevent a single sentence "obituary" piece which says nothing more than: "He was survived by his wife and their five children". The death section in this article goes further by explaining that Motora died as a result of erysipelas. Yes, the "survived by" sentence could be reworded if another editor wished to do that and I see Larry has now amended it to "He and his wife had five children" which says exactly the same thing but addresses the pedantry implicit in WP:SURVIVEDBY.
"Not all statements are reliable". That is just an unsubtantiated throwaway opinion. Which statements and why? Can we have some specifics?
"Certain paragraphs only having 1 or 2 sources". Where in WP:GACR does it say that a paragraph must have more than one inline citation? GACR#2 says in practically generic terms that the content of the article (as a whole) must be verifiable with no original research. Part 2b is more precise by specifying: "all inline citations are from reliable sources", but it says nothing whatsoever about application of inline citations. For that, you need to look at WP:CITE itself: "An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote" (my italics).
You could, of course, place the same citation after all six sentences in a given paragraph but that would be both messy and unnecessary. You must, however, be aware of any quotations or opinions in the paragraph per WP:INTEXT. So, if there are six sentences and they are all derived from the same page of the same source, then only one citation is needed and placed after sentence six, the end of the paragraph. Suppose, though, that sentence two is a quotation. In that case, the citation must be placed twice – once after sentence two and again at the end of the paragraph.
"The article has violations of WP:TEXTBOOK". This is a component of WP:NOT and it rightly declares that: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples". Using specific examples, please explain how on Earth this article violates any part of WP:NOT. Where, for example, is there a leading question or a problem solution or an instruction or a definition?
WP:OR is "any statement for which no reliable, published sources exist". Which statement in this article lacks a citation (bearing in mind that some citations cover whole paragraphs) and can possibly be considered OR? It is very easy to throw an OR accusation at an author without substantiation. It is also irresponsible. Everything in the article is adequately referenced to a reliable source. I think Larry deserves a full and formal apology for this accusation which is insulting and completely out of order.
"Sources variously credit Motora or his student, Matataro Matsumoto, with setting up the lab. At the very least, Motora consulted with Matsumoto on the setup of the lab". Two sources verify the first sentence and the second is verified by one of those sources which also covers the rest of the paragraph. There is obviously a difference of opinion among the sources about who set up the lab and so, as Larry has done, it is best to say that it is an either... or... scenario. What exactly is the issue here?
"Some sources credit him as having set up the first psychological laboratory in Japan". This is in the lead and it summarises the lab source statements in the narrative per MOS:LEAD. The complaint about it seems to be " WP:SYNTH and MOS:WEASEL" without further explanation. Presumably it is contended that "some sources credit him" breaches MOS:WEASEL, but it doesn't because it is in the lead and it summarises sourced information in the narrative which expressly states that there is a difference of opinion between sources. The key point is that the sources are cited so this is not the same as "some people say" without referencing. As for WP:SYNTH, this states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". What conclusion has been reached that is not explicitly stated by one of the two relevant cited sources? Again, as with OR above, this is a case of throwing rules and guidelines around without any clear understanding of their purpose.
The essential rule that applies to difference of opinion between sources is WP:NPOV which is both a key policy and GACR#4 where it is summarised: "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each". Please explain exactly how the "some sources" statement breaches WP:NPOV and fails GACR#4.
"A practitioner of Zen meditation, Motora contributed ideas on the subject that influenced psychological thought in Japan". The complaint is that this "seems to start veering to break NPOV, putting him in good like; perhaps WP:FANPOV". What does "putting him in good like" even mean? If you are going to criticise someone's work, please do so in a way that people can understand what you are talking about. The sentence is in the lead so it must summarise something in the narrative and it does not need a citation in the lead as long as it does that. In fact, the sentence summarises the second paragraph of the academic career section and that paragraph is sourced to Hiroki Kato so there is no breach of NPOV. In the narrative, Motora's "ideas on the subject that influenced psychological thought in Japan" are explained in terms of his theory "that Zen should be understood through personal interpretation rather than through a Zen master, and this became an influential thought in early Japanese psychology", which is referenced to Hiroki Kato, who is an authority on Zen. There is no POV there and no subjectivity to remotely suggest FANPOV.
Larry has said on his talk page that he expected to have to deal with some feedback before the article was promoted to GA, but I found that it only needed a few tweaks and, to save time, I did those myself. I admit that I could have made more amendments to the text but I was aware that Larry writes in AE style and I respect that as otherwise the article would have ended up a mixture of AE and BE. As long as a narrative makes sense, there is no need to alter something like "as well as the nation's first psychology textbook". Americans like to say "the nation" and it's fine, although the British would never say it (we might say "the country"). Ovinus has removed "the nation's" but it doesn't matter as the sentence still makes sense.
The complaints about this article are unsubstantiated and, insofar as accusations of OR and POV are concerned, completely out of order. The article is by no means a finished product because it could obviously be expanded if more information about Motora should be found. While the recent amendments by Larry and Ovinus are okay, nothing substantial has been done. I don't think it could be nominated at FAC as it stands, but it does meet the GA criteria and it is a good article. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Berrely, could you let me know if there are any outstanding concerns about how this entry squares with the GA criteria? Thank you. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Good article with unsourced statements. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{ cleanup}}, {{ POV}}, {{ unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{ citation needed}}, {{ clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{ QF}}). I suggest delisting this article. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
While discussing notability of Mr. Game and Watch, I used Vivian as an example of what defines a fictional character as notable. Bringing this up, however, it got a couple of people to think whether or not Vivian is notable. Not in a "delete the article" way, but rather "re-asses and probably C-class" way.
The following discussion comes from the Wikiproject Video Games talk page.
=== Mr. Game and Watch and Notability (cont.) ===
So we've agreed (me too, don't worry) that Mr. Game and Watch is not notable enough for an individual article. But what about other fictional characters of the same premise? One of the best pieces of notability for him was the racial criticism, which a couple of you guys think is worthy being important to mention. Exhibit A: Vivian. So you wouldn't think an ally is notable enough for a second article, but due to the LGBT+ representation of her (she's transgender), its got an article (good job vivian, now olivia). What is the difference between these two? Mr. Game and Watch: A (kinda) notable character who's gotten criticism for racial stereotypes and existing in Smash Bros. in general. Vivian: A (kinda) notable character who's gotten praise from the LGBT community. She's also good article status, so what's the exact definition for fictional characters? Le Panini (Talk tome?) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no exact definition or line in the sand Panini. Generally, the more significant coverage a character has received, and the more depth and breadth in that coverage, you can make a better case for a standalone article. Looking at the two articles, Vivian has received a healthy amount of critical discussion from various journalists saying different things, and it would be undue to keep all that at Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. I'm not seeing this problem on the G&W page. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 19:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I thought the section in G&W was unwieldy, but the additional content you removed kept it to a minimum. Thanks for your opinion! It would be weird if she had a big section on TTYD, even though she's just an ally.
- I would like to make a comment about the game-guidy stuff that was cut. The stuff wasn't there to necessarily show his moveset, it was there to show the references to other games in his fighting style. Can we add something along the lines of "His moveset correlates to Game & Watch titles, such as (insert some example). Le Panini (Talk tome?) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is a rule/line in the sand: If the topic's article depends upon "Top X" listicles, the subject matter is likely best covered within an existing article. If you have to cobble together brief mentions from sources, its Reception section will verge on trivia because the topic is on the outer cusp of independent notability. The Vivian article exemplifies this and would be a strong candidate for merger. czar 02:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- While I’m not particularly pushing of a merge of the Vivian article, I do wholeheartedly agree that it’s not exactly a “home run” when it comes to demonstrating notability. It’s more of a “C+” case or something. There’s much better examples out there. I’d look to WP:GA/ WP:FA articles, or even ones that have survived AFD or merger discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think an article like Vivian is questionable why its good article status, but its still fine nonetheless. Unless someone is willing to re-evaluate, its a good article. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 10:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I definitely think it needs a WP:GAR. Its notability is entirely dependent on listicles, which is a red flag in my book. I try to find at least a couple articles directly about the subject before making any fictional character/item article and Vivian doesn't seem to have any of that, only trivial mentions. It's unclear if it's standalone notable at all, but at most it's C class as Sergecross stated. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 10:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well then, should we begin Re-assessment, or is this conversation just a thought? If anything, it should be a community re-assessment, as we have our opinions and the contributors to the article have theirs. I don't think I can list it, as I'm not a main editor on the article. @ TarkusAB: I want to hear what Tarkus thinks if he stops by. He was the original reviewer, after all. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 11:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- So I have taken another look at Vivian and well there are some listicles, there are some actual articles about the character. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 12:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I made this list of references, for, well, reference.
Articles that are lists - (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, possible 16, but I can't access it. 8 out of 16/50 %)
Articles with small mentions of the character - (9, 14, 15, possible 16, but I can't access it. 4 out of 16/25%)
Articles with Trivial mentions/comes from the game itself - (7, 8. 2 out of 16/12.5%)
Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The reason I'm creating this page is for these users to state a fleshed out opinion on the re-assessing of this article. Also, main contributors that oppose of this re-assessment to state their case as well.
Keep. I do not really agree with that at all, that it lacks "indepth explanations." Two authors go in depth into her physical design and how they enhance her femininity (both in mannerisms and clothing); another author discusses how her role in the Shadow Sirens made an impact due to her being a younger sibling herself; a source discussing how Vivian's role in the game would make her relatable to children (these latter two having nothing to do with her being transgender); an author discussing how her role could help people better understand LGBT people. I do not agree that the discussion of her character is limited to her role in the game. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet with the "Verifiable with no original research:" criteria. I have encountered the Muslim women in sports article while I was reading the Islamic feminism page. A citation I've found on IF page caught my attention and later I've realized that athletes listed on the source, which Muslim women in sport nearly entirely relies on, was deeply flawed. I'd like to present my comment that I've left on IF talk page.
Thus I don't think that it should in its current form be a good article under any circumstances. The article claims to be Muslim women in sport, not Women from Muslim majority countries in sport . Are all Europeans Christians, and being Turkish or Arabic is synonyms with being Muslim? Same concerns had been voiced years ago by an anonymous user on its talk page, yet got little to no attention. Also, the article contains quite a lot of synth material. Just because a nation is a member of OIC does not make its national team Muslim, for example. -- Gogolplex ( talk) 08:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead of the article has no references. The first 2 paragraphs of the Crimes section break WP:PARAGRAPH, as they are both large enough to be broken into multiple paragraphs for easier readability. WP:TONE is frequently broken, and the article reads more like a collection of anecdotes from various people than it does an encyclopedic entry. A single Guardian article is used to cite 13 different portions of the article when there should be more information cited from varied sources. There are only 2 pictures throughout the whole article (excluding the one in the infobox).
In my opinion, this article shouldn't be listed as a Good Article, and may require extensive cleanup in order to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanD100 ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this up to GA standards. For the record, this is what the article looked like when first promoted in 2008. What I'm looking at now is unsurprisingly quite different. Details to follow. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
When going through the WP:Good article criteria, here's my assessment based on the latter diff:
The above is not an exhaustive list of the article's problems. Given the vast amount of content present along with over 500 citations, I don't feel confident in my abilities to conduct an individual reassessment, so I opted for a community one so more sets of eyes can view the page and perhaps list other things to address. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 02:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, where is the consensus for delisting this article? Because I'm not seeing it. What we have above is criticism by one editor and two comments by two others that don't state, "Yeah, delist." So this might as well have not even been a community review. I'm thinking of taking this to WP:Close review. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 23:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This article seriously inherently lacks the required quality to still be listed as a GA. I had worked on this article last in 2012 and since then not only has vital information being altered with (or is missing) but good reliable sources are missing (murshidabad.net in my opinion is not a good RS). The formatting is also very sloppy. I had helped make this a GA but, as it stands now, I have no confidence in its quality for it to be continued to be listed as a GA. Tamravidhir ( talk) 18:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Following the decision to remove Confessions on a Dancefloor as a featured topic here, there was consensus for "Get Together" to be re-evaluated following concerns that it contained unreliable and unsourced information, which fails GA2a and GA2b of the WP:GACR. In addition, the song sample and music video screenshot fails GA6a and GA6b, which does not have a valid fair use rationale and improve on the reader's understanding of the topic, failing WP:NFCC#8. The article also fails WP:GNG, with the majority of sources derived from album and concert reviews — Angryjoe1111 ( talk) 04:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I am requesting a community reassessment of the Kesselring article because I wish to challenge the outcome of Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA3, completed 19 October 2020. I believe that the reviewer Lazman321 has failed to consider the points raised in the previous review at Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA2, completed 13 April 2020. Also, I'm not convinced that the reviewer has taken full account of the featured article review in December last year. The main contributor to the article is Hawkeye7 who is of course invited to take part in this GAR.
I am very doubtful about GA3 because the reviewer is a relatively new editor who lacks experience of the site and its review process. The article failed GA2 and I am unconvinced that it has been substantially improved. As I was the GA2 reviewer and am in effect a major contributor to the article, I would like to invite community input to establish a consensus on whether or not this article meets the GA criteria.
GA2 failed for two main reasons. First, a key condition of GACR#1 is "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" and the article was a long way from achieving that because, frankly, it was muddled and lacked narrative flow. Also, it had been written under the assumption that all readers would have a detailed knowledge of the history and terminology of World War II. Second, GACR#2b requires that "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", but there were several controversial statements from an unreliable source used many times throughout and the use of that source meant that most if not all of those statements required citation (additional or replacement) from a reliable secondary source. I might add that the article was not at all well-written in terms of prose, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc. because it had not been proof-read and copyedited properly before being nominated – in the GA2 review, there was a huge stack of these issues but they alone were not a reason for immediate failure.
While GA2 attracted numerous comments, I did not bother to check what had been done to improve the article because I assumed it would be renominated in due course. In fact, it was renominated within a day or so, which led me to think the issues could not have been fully addressed. No matter, as I expected that it would be scrutinised in future by an experienced reviewer who would, as a matter of course, check that the GA2 issues had been addressed. I don't believe that has happened and so I would like a community consensus on the matter.
In GA3, Lazman says he "could read the article and understand what it is saying". It may well be that, like myself, Lazman has an extensive knowledge of WWII but my point was that the article was not understandable to a broad audience and Lazman has apparently not even considered that. By the way, although some people might object to him utilising Grammarly to help him with grammar, spelling and syntax, I do know that the product is considered "okay" within the publishing industry. I don't think that "all the MOS that need to be followed for GA status is followed in this article" is an adequate summary given all of the problems found in GA2. The question of reliable sources has not been adequately explored in the light of the GA2 findings.
I think the essential problem here is the same syndrome that was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good_articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020#Reviews by SurenGrig07 in that an inexperienced editor has bitten off much more than he can chew and has produced a review of insufficient depth and standard. At the time of doing GA3, Lazman321 had made around 250 edits having been a member for six months. As was pointed out to him in this talk page discussion by both Peacemaker67 and Chris Troutman, his lack of experience should have given him cause to think twice about attempting to review such a contentious and complex article. He expressed a willingness to step down if someone else would take over, which is fair enough, but then went ahead because there were no immediate takers. Lazman had already begun the GA3 review by saying that it was part of the backlog drive but that was no reason to assume that there was any urgency because, with 285 unreviewed nominations at the end of that drive, there were plenty more nominations he could have picked up which would have been within his capabilities.
Given the similarity to the SurenGrig case, I would like to invite comments here by those who took part in that discussion: BlueMoonset, Chris Troutman, Eddie891, Harrias, Hog Farm, Kingsif, Lee Vilenski, Mccunicano, Usedtobecool, Venicescapes, Vincent60030, Wasted Time R.
Thank you for your time. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
If the GAR is to continue, I think Hawkeye7 should provide a full rationale for his view that the GA2 review was "conducted in bad faith" because this has a direct bearing on the article and on the subsequent GA3 review. Unless anyone has a question that needs a personal response from me, I am withdrawing from this discussion. Please ping me if I'm needed. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
While it may once have been in the GA class it no longer meets those standards, the biggest issue is the dozens of instances of unsourced text. Needs serious work to get back to GA status, at the moment its probably a C. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments:
CMD ( talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)category, and there's no question that the world's largest country is an exceptionally big topic. So I'd say reducing the size ought to be on our minds when editing the page, but I'm not sure the current size is an argument for delisting. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The more I look at this article, the more citation issues I find, including claims not supported by sources, and sources which predate the claims they purport to support.
For example, the paragraph:
In his retirement... John Cunningham died six days shy of his 85th birthday in July 2002.
had (until I just tagged it) just one citation, placed after its final full stop: {{sfn|Golley|1999|pp=215–216}}
. So that's a 1999 publication which speaks about the subject in the present tense, used to cite his 2002 death.
One 135-word paragraph is cited simply to {{sfn|Golley|1999|pp=171–199}}
- that's 28 pages.
Elsewhere, we had a 23 August 2012 press article, talking about a forthcoming event, falsely cited as having a September 2012 date, and used to support a claim about the auction price paid at a September 2012 event.
Unfortunately not all of the sources cited are online, and the Internet Archive's copy of John 'Cat's Eyes' Cunningham : the aviation legend that is heavily cited is missing several of the pages cited (e.g. page 24).
Though a secondary issue, the article's prose is also clumsy; see recent edits for some fixes, but they do not address all of the issues. For example:
Attempting his usual tactic, the British crew approached from behind and below. Suddenly the Heinkel lurched into a tight left-hand turn allowing the gunners to fire a broad-side.
The listing of every crew member of a German plane shot down by the article subject is also probably not necessary.
On top of all this, attempts to rectify even minor issues have met with edit warring and abuse, as a result of which a block is currently in place.
I leave it to uninvolved editors more familiar with GA criteria to determine how to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
` Comment Nigel Ish I took "Thomas 2013" to be a typo, and changed it to match the other Thomas references. The Gazette issue can be cured by using the correct template ({{ London Gazette}}) instead of {{ sfn}}. The Hooton2010 ref is the one causing the ref error issue raised at WT:MILHIST. Mjroots ( talk) 13:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
References
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Damascus (634)/1]]
This article was much longer when rated GA but much of the content from its 2015 review is now missing or consolidated to the point that it shows how little the article actually has. Virtually no company history, three products mentioned and not described in much detail. Definitely not GA class by a long shot. Honestly, I'm not getting good WP:ORG vibes from this one as is. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The major change seems to be this IP edit which split a lot of material into EyeTV. Spinning Spark 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Although there is a long section on "suppression", there does not seem to be any mention about the harmful effects of suppression. The prevention section also lacks information on the harms of overzealous suppression in terms of leading to fuel buildup -> more and worse fires. I see other issues such as uncited info in places, and lack of MOS compliance (too many images). Overall, I am concerned about referencing and NPOV. ( t · c) buidhe 23:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
← ( Page 64) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 66) → |
When this article was given a GA review by
Mgasparin back on 16 May 2019 and listed, the article's creator,
SounderBruce, wrote have concerns with how fast and drive-by this review is, especially for a subject with quite a bit of political controversy surrounding it.
Mgasparin stood by their review, but expressed willingness to consider a second opinion, at which point
Trillfendi, who had nominated the article for GA earlier in May, added a GA nominee template asking for a second opinion, though the GA template was also left on the talk page. Unfortunately, the GA nominee template was badly malformed, so the nomination never appeared at
WP:GAN.
What this article actually needs, since the review was not reopened at the time and the article has been listed as a GA for three and a half months, is a community reassessment. This allows everyone to comment on the article, including all three editors mentioned above, to assess whether it meets or fails to meet any of the GA criteria, and if it is lacking anywhere, for the article to be improved to the point that it meets the criteria, or to be delisted if sufficient improvement is not made.
I will notify the appropriate WikiProjects and finish cleaning up the article talk page. Best of luck to all concerned. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Those are my main issues. Nominator left in 2014. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
It is evident to me that this article does not meet the good article criteria because very considerable amounts of it are unsourced. There are two "citation needed" tags, but there are many other things in the article which do not have citations. Here is one peculiar sentence: "The friary was rebuilt for a second time, but seems never to have regained its earlier reputation; it seems to disappear from the records." If the friary seemed to disappear from the records, how do we know that it was rebuilt? The whole sentence is, by the way, unsourced. There is a section entitled "Notes," which lists five separate items. None of these are sourced. The notes are also so clearly tainted with WP:Editorializing that they would need revision even if there were citations.
I am choosing community reassessment because I previously failed a good article nomination made by the same editor who nominated this article and do not want to be accused of not having enough objectivity to make the final decision myself. But I do think that it quite clearly fails part 2 of the GA criteria, which mandates that the articles be verifiable. Looking at the version that was reviewed, the article seems to have been in even worse shape then, so I'm not sure how it managed to get passed. Display name 99 ( talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, a claim in the "History section" about a particular narrative concerning the origins of the painting being "largely the one accepted by the Dominican Order today" is not supported by the source. Display name 99 ( talk) 15:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article was never properly reviewed having a flyby note by a new editor on their 12th edit who's not even sure who the nominator or reviewer is. Surprise this "flu" under the radar lol.-- Moxy 🍁 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
This article was listed as GA just over 10 years ago. However, since then we've got a few issues:
Update from me - I've been cleaning up the article myself so this should hopefully be recovered. Phew! Just Lizzy( talk) 12:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's safe to remove this reassessment. Article is in better shape and can be brought back to GA. Thanks. Just Lizzy( talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This article was promoted in 2010 and has not been reviewed since. It is in better shape than Scotland when it was delisted earlier this year, but there are significant problems with the GA criteria. The biggest issue is verifiability: just look at the cleanup tags on the article and unsourced statements. Lesser concerns are that the lede does not meet MOS:LEDE, and the overreliance on official sources for things like the economy may be an issue with neutrality. I am willing to work on improving the article, but it's a monumental task and without a lot of work this article will not meet the GA criteria. Fiamh ( talk, contribs) 08:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Recently the prose criteria was expanded
[1] to include understandable to an appropriately broad audience
(see
Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Understandability criterion for discussion). Penrose tiling seems like a good case study to test the practicability of this on old Good Articles as it has had a tag specific to this on it since August 2019 and some discussion on the talk page regarding the technical aspects of the article.
I have read it and did find much of it difficult to follow. I think it could probably be written much clearer (for example I don't know what the difference between a non-periodic tiling and a Penrose tiling is). The lead at least should be clearer. We have things like Thus, the tiling can be obtained through "inflation" (or "deflation") and every finite patch from the tiling occurs infinitely many times.
and It is a quasicrystal: implemented as a physical structure a Penrose tiling will produce Bragg diffraction and its diffractogram reveals both the fivefold symmetry and the underlying long range order.
The lead at least should provide a relatively easy entry into the topic. Personally, I don't mind having overly technical details in the body as long as there is enough basic information before we get to that level.
I am opening this as a community GAR as to my knowledge it is the first GAR since the criteria was updated and could benefit from a deeper discussion. I have come across other articles with similar issues and would like to get a feel for what the community feels is the level of technical language that is acceptable here before I start any individual GARs.
AIRcorn
(talk)
06:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
A Penrose tiling is a scheme for covering a flat plane with an arrangement of shapes that leaves no gaps and never repeats. In more precise terms, Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings generated by aperiodic sets of prototiles.) But that's a matter of making a good thing better. There exists a level of expertise such that this article is clear and helpful for readers at that level. Moreover, that level is reasonably consistent with the broadest population likely to need this article: it's not an article about a topic of pop-math interest that is only accessible to professional mathematicians. (Like, say, E8 lattice is, IMO.) XOR'easter ( talk) 03:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Penrose tilings are one type of.... Something like that. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
A Penrose tiling is an example of a scheme for covering a flat plane with an arrangement of shapes that leaves no gaps and never repeats. In more precise terms, Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings generated by aperiodic sets of prototiles. These tilings, a special case of the more general concept of non-periodic tilings, are named after mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose, who investigated them in the 1970s.I'm not convinced the current opening needs revision, but I don't think it hurts to contemplate how we might go about it. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
a way to coverinstead of
a scheme for coveringand
a pattern of shapesinstead of
an arrangement of shapes... the curse of writing about a subject where every ordinary word has a technical meaning, from category to pencil. But this whole exercise of crafting a "pop" sentence to precede the moderately technical one seems vaguely pointless without further input. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)userbako
21:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
userbako
”»
22:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)userbako
”»
23:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)(sigh) I hate to have to do this but... I am requesting a GA reassessment because this article has numerous citation needed tags, many that I, or any other user, can't just fix in minutes, which immediately fails it as a good article according to the second criteria and WP:V. The reception section is dedicated to a paragraph that only says "In recent years the series has been criticized due to its all-white cast and absence of positive depictions of minorities." and NOTHING else explaining that sentence or other instances of people's response to the show. - NowIsntItTime( chats)( doings) 01:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The article is a complete mess, I don't even see how it was promoted to GA in the first place. To describe the article as C class would be generous. The titular "Rove Formation" is never defined or explained. Most of the article discusses orogenies and other formations, before veering wildly off course into the Fur Trade and Endangered Flora. It is completely unfocused and overbloated. The sole contributor, @ Bettymnz4: hasn't been active in half a decade. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The Template:update maintenance tag puts into question the stability of the article (GA criterion 5)?. — Nemoschool ( talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The tag says that the article has needed to be updated (true) since 2014: 2 years after it passed GA nomination and 6 years ago, respectively, which is a criteria 3 issue. During this reassessment process, someone or some people should take up the mantle. Otherwise, it must be demoted. ⌚️ ( talk) 15:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed contents that appear to be original research as well as cited references that aren't quite what we call reliable sources in Wikipedia standard such as self published materials from enthusiasts, such as contributed materials posted on QSL.net and home made YouTube video used as a reference. I have also looked at the way it looked when it was assessed in 2008 and I didn't think the article quite satisfied the requirement #2 " Verifiable with no original research". Specifically the parts: "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged..." "it contains no original research" The assessor wrote "2. Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." Checking to see if the article looks factually correct to what the assessor knows doesn't satisfy the requirements that contents are directly supported by reliable sources. so I think the assessment for #2 wasn't done using the correct criteria. Graywalls ( talk) 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
12:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@ LuckyLouie:, As tagged as verification failure in Special:Diff/928132458. The cited reference failed to support the claim. I also investigated page 275 as mentioned in an edit summary. The two channels did appear, within a large list in an appendix, but fails to support the main point which is the claim that those two are popular with glow bugs. It would be like saying popular residential streets are 5th and 9th avenues and referencing a long list of streets that have houses on it. Even rephrasing it "there are occupied houses on 5th and 9th avenue" wouldn't cut it as a justification to include purportedly popular streets for affluent people which doesn't have reliable sources. This is just an example of one of many verification failures in the article. Some have been corrected, and more may be revealed down the road. Graywalls ( talk) 01:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC). If a reliable source could be locatedt that picks out 3560 and 3579 from the table, I believe that would show some significance and justify inclusion. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't "with glow bugs" indicate that channels used, specifically, people using vacuum tube type amateur radios instead of home made radios in general? " Graywalls ( talk) 01:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
set aside for discussion: "Arland notes that calling frequencies for QRP contacts include 3560 kHz and also 3579 kHz, which corresponds with the Colorburst frequency of crystals typically found in older color TV sets. [1]
References
Extended copy and paste of policy
|
---|
Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs WP:UGC. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions. And even though a self-published source might be acceptable, a non-self-published source is usually preferred, if available. Examples of acceptable sourcing of self-published works: A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself. (See #For claims by self-published authors about themselves) Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[5] A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published. WP:USESPS, WP:SPS It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. It is a third-party or independent source. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes. A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one. " A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. " WP:PRIMARY " I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough." Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources copied and pasted to help with discussion. Graywalls ( talk) 23:40, 26 November 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 personsalthough likely to be challenged is very broad. Basically if the information it is citing is WP:BLUE then there is not as much concern on the quality of the source. AIRcorn (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll be integrating these and others as time allows. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Archive is here
No archive, but I can email page images if needed. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
PDF available
@ LuckyLouie:, are a lot of those QST articles that have author name, location and FCC registration numbers newsletters? Are they published as submitted by the membership? What is their editorial policy and where do they publish their editorial policy? They're used as a source an awful a lot and I would like to know where they stand in reliable sources criteria. Graywalls ( talk) 18:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
In the process of reviewing the inline tags, I see a citation need tag was placed on the text: "A majority of "AM'ers" stations consist of vintage transmitters and receivers housed in separate cabinets. Some operators have even obtained old AM broadcast transmitters from radio stations that have upgraded their equipment". A citation was given here. By reading the entire article, which is about AM-operating hams using separate transmitters and receivers, this is not a controversial statement. Re the second sentence, the source says: "A retired broadcast transmitter often gets pushed to a dusty, dark back corner of the technical room at a radio station. Increasingly, ham radio operators are giving a second life to these graceful old beauties, donated or sold cheaply to hobbyists by stations with no further need". So I am not sure why the citation needed tag was applied. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If there is any potential for confusion about what a "cabinet" means in this context I would suggest linking to the more technical term equipment rack, which is also used in the reference cited above. A curious reader will discover how common these are for mounting electronic equipment such as telecommunication gear. A footnote for a trivial detail about the number of cabinets falls into the category of {{ Excessive citations}}. -- mikeu talk 23:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, so while others agree that local/regional amateur radio organizations are reasonable sources for uncontroversial facts regarding their interests, activities, and practices, I've removed the text cited to these that listed AM frequencies in countries other than the USA. I believe these were gradually added to the article over the last ten years by well-meaning passersby, but IMO they’re not worth holding up ongoing progress in improving the article. Same goes for virhistory.com as an acceptable source for uncontroversial statements, but since we have many other sources supplying much the same material, I removed that citation rather than let it be a roadblock to the process of improving the article. I also did some copyediting to better conform to sources and reformatting to tidy up the text and citations. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Yet another questionable tag was placed on the article by Graywalls, this time in the lead: "time frame uncertain. 40 years old according to what source that was published in what year?". The fact that the entire article is about amateurs using radio equipment that is more than 40 years old is not "uncertain" by any stretch of the imagination. It's self evident to anyone who can read the article and the image captions of 1950s and 1960s gear contained in the article. The age range of the radio gear is explicitly stated in the article body ("Amateur radio equipment of past eras like the 1940s, 50s, and 60s...") and cited to a reliable source. I've added an additional source to make it crystal clear: CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, December 2003, page 14, Vol. 59, No. 12. Title: There Once Was an Ocean Hopper, When Radios Had Names. Author: Scott Freeberg. Quote: “Because of this interest, you can now hear many of the old classic radios on the air again. This is radio gear that is often 40 to 50 years old…” I don't get the impression this ongoing tagging has anything to do with article improvement. It appears to be a continued pattern of impeding, pettifogging, and asking for citations for obvious minor details. This type of behavior could be interpreted as an issue of WP:COMPETENCE or WP:DISRUPTION. If there are details you legitimately need clarification for, I suggest you bring them up on the Talk page, and I'll do my best to resolve them for you. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The article was reviewed in 2008 and elevated to GA. There has been substantial expansion since then. By summer 2019 it had attracted a content issue banner which was subsequently removed because due process had not been followed (see article talk page), but certain cleanup banners then became necessary and they remain in place.
The main problem is use of what may be unreliable sources, especially one self-published website. There is massive overuse of quotations and many if not most of those haven't been cited. The 2008 GA version did not include the huge matchlist which was added later and may have come from a dedicated list article (needs further investigation). It is proposed that the matchlist and first mentions section are shifted into a list article, or restored to their old one if such can be identified. The use of quotations must be moderated and all must be sourced. Content taken from self-published or unreliable sources must be challenged for other sources to be cited or the content to be removed.
To summarise the problems per the GA criteria:
I'd be willing to take this on as an individual reassessment but, realistically, it needs community involvement especially anyone with access to relevant sources. The only source I have is More Than A Game by John Major which discusses this period in its early chapters and will be useful up to a point. Apart from possibly ESPN, I'm unaware of any online sources that might be useful. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I have put this off for a long time because I found it daunting but I've now worked through it and made a heap of changes. I've left several citation requests in the article but I don't think anyone will be able to supply them because I strongly suspect original research. This means that the article should be delisted, in my opinion, because OR and unverified content both contravene the GA criteria. I'll leave the review open for a period to see if other editors wish to contribute. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
All citation needed tags have been addressed. Some of the content can be sourced to John Major, one piece is well sourced within a linked article and a couple of useful internet sources were found. A small amount of content could not be sourced, despite searches, and has been deleted. The cleanup banners have all been removed so perhaps this can now remain a GA? It would be good if another reviewer could decide. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Jhall1: Hello again and thank you for the notification which has just flagged up. This GAR is open for consensus and you'd be welcome to comment here if you wish. Thanks very much for your help. No Great Shaker ( talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a long time since there was any movement on this and, with all cleanup banners gone, I propose to close the GAR. It's appropriate to do that now as a GA backlog campaign has just begun. If anyone has any belated objections to closure and retention of the article as a GA, please raise your concerns at the GAR talk page. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"Eve, the Apple of My Eye" soon established itself as a fan favourite, and would become a staple of first dances at weddings as well as an inspiration for the naming of new-born daughters.again sourced to the bands website. I don't know if this is paid editing or just fan service, but it is enough to delist. I will also remove all suspicious facts sourced to bellx1.com AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Although the article is neutral, stable, illustrated and largely well written, I don't think the coverage is broad enough to warrant good article status (the history section, for example, seems underdeveloped – compare and contrast with the one for Hatfield College, Durham) and some sections do not have enough references, while a number of the reference links are dead and have been for some time, and other references are lazily written. Overall it has the appearance of an article that once had high potential but has since been badly neglected -- Fat Larry's Ghost ( talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I've never requested reassessment of an article GA's status, so hopefully I'm doing this correctly. I feel that the 1,163-word plot summary in the article Elements (miniseries) is excessively lengthy and does not comply with manual of style guidelines, therefore violating one of the GA criteria (additionally, long synopses can also be found in the articles Stakes (miniseries) and Islands (miniseries), both of which also cover Adventure Time miniseries). While we're at this, I also think that the citations in this article should be double-checked for reliability, just in case. — Matthew - ( talk) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The article fails to consistently use reliable sources and also contanins uncited content. I have flagged some of the unreliable sources in the article. b uidh e 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's another source. Can this be used to demonstrate more certainty of the quotes? https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm Jbermudes ( talk) 06:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The article was a GA in 2007. 13 years later, doesn't meet the criteria. Huge parts are unsourced, like WWC. A lot of excesive detail of in-universe storylines (like OVW and WWC). Some sources are unreliable, like Online World of Wrestling and others, like PRWrestling or notiluchas doesn' appear in the WP:PW/RS -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have just done a large rewrite of Cerro Blanco (volcano), to give it pagenumbers and installing the most recent literature. As the new text has almost nothing in common with the old one beyond the lead section, I'd like to get input on whether the new text still qualifies as a Good Article under the criteria. In particular, the paragraphing and the comments I've placed in the source need reviewing. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The calderawhile the next section says
Cerro Blanco ... consists of four nested calderas. So which is the caldera mentioned in the first section? If my understanding is correct I think it would be better to just say volcano or use its name.
They are formedBut only one is mentioned so not sure how they fits in.
A site southeast of the Robledo caldera is known as Robledo.This seems vague to me. What is meant by site?
One of the most spectacular aeolian landscapes of Earth is found at Cerro BlancoOf Earth seems a bit unnecessary and makes this appear quite peacocky.
where a field of large ripples covers an area of 8 square kilometresthis lost me
while a role of the bedrock structure or the size of the material is controversialThis is sort of left hanging. Does it need some further
have been recorded in JulyWhat year?
which only crops out close tois that right grammatically?
and is also known as the first cycle ignimbrite.Don't quite follow. Is this what this was called, is it a common name for am event or is it something else. It doesn't seem to tie in with the start of the sentence
there is no agreement whether the Robledo Caldera is the source and the volcano-tectonic depression northeast of Cerro Blanco has been proposed as a sourceThese clauses don't quite fit as worded
A major future eruption would put local communities to the south at risk.The body almost says the opposite, that the area is sparsely populated.
Also, pyroclastic flows could through narrow valleys reach the Bolsón de Fiambalá valley 50 kilometres (31 mi) south of Cerro Blanco, where many people live.Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I have never performed a good article review, nor a good article reassessment, so not confident in doing this as an individual reassessment.
I see a number of issues disqualifying this article from been a good article, including:
I would like to hear what other think. Thanks. ― Hebsen ( talk) 23:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The article has several uncited sections, such as Trails and Highways, a lot of references are incomplete, some citations are not inline, and overall, this article seems to be a summary of sections of other articles instead of being a comprehensive overview of transportation in Omaha. There are also outdated statements like Beginning in fall 2007 there will be more than 30 traffic cameras operating on Omaha area freeways
. The way the article is designed, it is hard to gauge what the current status of transportation in the city.--
Kew Gardens 613 (
talk)
12:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"Well-written" violations: There is some puffery (i.e. "single-handedly" in Interim Developments) and editorialization (i.e. "really" in "continues to believe that he shot down a spy plane, when he really shot down a passenger aircraft"). Often, quotes are included as standalone sentences in jarring manners (i.e. "The border guards. What ships do we now have near Moneron Island, if they are civilians, send [them] there immediately.").
-- BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 22:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The inability to establish direct radio communications to be able to transmit their position directly did not alert the pilots of KAL 007 of their ever-increasing divergenceis just poorly written whatever the technical standpoint. We have so much detail that as well as making it a chore to read we are heading pretty close into focus trerritory. The transcripts are not clearly formatted, we have details on all the damage to different parts of the plane under their own headings and other formatting and overdetail issues that bring down the quality. Sourcing doesn't seem up to standard, there is a lot of uncited content especially in the popular culture section. AIRcorn (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has been significantly modified since its GA promotion almost nine years ago, with influx of new information as well as changes in the lead, major tuning of the prose, and rearrangement of certain sections. I believe the substantial changes warrant a reassessment of the article, although as a major contributor I don't feel that I should conduct an individual reassessment. Steve7c8 ( talk) 22:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
A very large part of the article is cited to the subject himself, or groups that he works with. Given he is a well-known author, there is little independent sourcing or review of his activities, books etc and their impact. Does not appear comprehensive and sourcing quality is inadequate. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 05:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
One of my main focuses here is the reassessment process, and I am the main contributor in this area. My attention was drawn to this article following a post on the Good Article Reassessment talk page. I am not happy with how that individual reassessment process was conducted and feel that it needs to be reexamined through a community one. My main concerns are.
I don't know, or really care, if this article is kept or delisted. What I do care about is that it is given a chance. I do not feel that was the case in the recently conducted reassessment. I know there was a lot of delist !votes there, but this is not decided by a show of hands. What is needed is a break down of the failings which allows any interested editors the chance to resolve them. Also since this is likely to attract editors not that familiar with Good Articles it probably bears mentioning that the requirements are not as strict as many think (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not). AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Joe Biden is an active politician and a presumptive nominee for perhaps the most contentious political contest in the United States—as more information about his candidacy becomes known, so too must the article change, and since more information is coming out day-by-day, so too is his article changing day-by-day, with more than 50 edits in the last week alone. New content disputes are being contended every day on the article's talk page, many of which involve neutrality and quality of sources, which are also central aspects of a good article. I would reject the argument that because the article was fully protected at the time of reassessment, the article "technically" met the stability criterion—the article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to do so. I agree that if the content dispute was just a one-off thing that resolved itself in a month or so, there is no need to start a good article reassessment, and I sympathize with the complaint about good article reassessments being used as tools during content disputes. However, when the content of an article is subject to dispute after dispute, lasting several months, I think that should raise doubt as to whether the article is truly stable. We do not necessarily need to wait until the article is stable before reassessing whether it is in fact stable. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical perspective: Barack Obama was FA through both his 2008 and 2012 presidential elections and throughout his presidency; John McCain was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2008; Mitt Romney was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2012; and Hillary Rodham Clinton was GA throughout her presidential campaign in 2008 and then FA throughout her presidential campaign in 2016. The same kinds of things that you have seen, and will see, with the Biden article this year – edit-warring, RfCs, claims of NPOV violations, momentary lacks of stability – are the same kinds of things that all these articles saw back then. But it did not prevent those articles from gaining and keeping their reviewed status, nor should it automatically cause this article to lose its reviewed status. This GAR should be about specific, detailed, concrete issues identified with this article – this fact here is wrong; that source there is weak; the prose in such-and-such section has inappropriate tone; this important topic has insufficient coverage; that not-so-important topic has too much coverage; etc. – and whether they can be remedied. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical perspective II. Here is an example of a GAR being done for an article about a candidate in a presidential race, in this case Martin O'Malley during the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign – Talk:Martin O'Malley/GA2. (It's one I remember because I'm the one who did it.) The GAR does not rely on general claims of edit-warring or instability or NPOV or article growth over time. Instead it lists a number of very specific faults, omissions, and other issues with the article. When there were no responses after a couple of weeks, the GA was removed. Had somebody done work to remedy the listed problems, the GA could have been retained. This is the approach that makes sense to me. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Further clarity for the reasons given to delist per GAR procedure: Also see Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 for the initial delist discussion.
The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction" — the article falls under the scope of WP:ARBAPDS. That includes FA article Hillary Clinton — which has the same restrictions. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
plagued by edit warring". I would be curious to see if they are in relation to the BLP matters which resulted in full-PP. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It took some time for the cautious Obama and the blunt, rambling Biden to work out ways of dealing with each other.[204]This is placed right after a maintenance tag. Username 6892 03:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I would say that the above did provide clarity, though perhaps not in the way
Atsme intended. Much as I dislike bolding in this manner—it's effectively shouting—I think it's important to point out a basic fact of GAR that is being overlooked: there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR. There just isn't. At GAN, there is (the
WP:GAFAIL, cited by many people, though in context it's clear the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations when article issues are so severe that there is no point in embarking on a full review), but as is evident throughout the description of how GAR works at
WP:GAR, the goal of a GAR is to attempt to deal with the article's shortcomings in terms of the GA criteria: Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
GAR is a deliberative process, and reading the individual GAR ( Talk:Joe Biden/GA3), it's clear that the guidelines were not followed. There was no attempt to note any issues with the GA criteria aside from instability, and requests that this be done were ignored. The end result seems to have been decided from the moment it was opened: there had been edit warring, therefore GA status had to be removed, regardless of what anyone said. Never mind that the edit warring had subsided, according to more than one editor. It is a weakness of the individual GAR—as indeed with individual GAN reviews—that the opening editor has the final say, because sometimes the reassessor or reviewer gets it wrong, and that's why the community GAR is available, so that the community at large can have its say.
Going over the five points above:
under PP, DS with a 1RR restrictionare imposed to bring stability to an article that has suffered edit warring and other problems. If they have succeeded in bringing a reasonable degree of stability to the article, then the GA criteria are met.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)), those should be enumerated so they can be addressed.
My hope is that this community GAR can proceed per the guidelines at WP:GAR, particularly that the article be fully assessed against the GA criteria in terms of where it falls short today, and that those who are interested in doing so work at editing the article so that it no longer falls short of the criteria in those areas.
If the article does come to meet the criteria in a reasonable timeframe, then I trust that the consensus will reflect that fact and the article will qualify for listing. If it doesn't meet the criteria at that point, then consensus will reflect that. Either way, the reassessment can at that point be closed, and the result reflected on the article's talk page. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
cheat the system,
make a mockery of the GA process, and even
Imposing false stability on an unstable, challenged article is not how the GA process worksdon't reflect how the GAN and GAR processes do work. Even now, the
challenged neutralityissues have not been identified with any specifics—flouting the very process supposedly being cheated. I just hope that when an independent closer appears for this page, they will look at the actions and arguments and actual GAR guidelines and GA criteria, and if the article meets the criteria on that date, close this GAR as relisted. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
GAR is not the same thing as FARC, where an article is reexamined by numerous folks and time is allowed for appropriate changes to perhaps keep it listed as FA.. As it says at the top of the reassessment page
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it..
I left a note at WT:GA when I opened this– you opened this at 23:22, 22 April 2020; the last edit at Wikipedia talk:Good articles was on April 14 (a week earlier). The only note I'm finding is at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Joe Biden: "
make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point." It's hard for me to see how we can avoid addressing the issue now, as this strikes me as the crux of the matter. Do you mean that you want to make sure the comments align with the GA criteria, or the GA review criteria? At Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria I see six good article criteria, including "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", but Wikipedia:Good article reassessment says, paraphrasing, "don't use this process if you see any ongoing content dispute or edit war". Despite this advice not to use this process, this process has been used twice (both individual and community) for the Biden article where there have been recent content disputes. If the GA criteria, including the "immediate failure" criteria, does not apply to GA reviews, then what are the reassessment criteria? WP:GAR doesn't clearly say what the GAR criteria are, and how they differ from the GA criteria. – wbm1058 ( talk) 14:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Major copy edit. Tried to bring consistency to the instructions for both types of reassessment. Did not change any guidelines, only improved formatting and clarity in the wording of the existing guidelines.is not truthful. Removal of the longstanding advice that after waiting two weeks, reassessment on the grounds of instability could be considered, was an (apparently bold and undiscussed) change in this guideline that put it in conflict with the "GA six". This change should have been, and still should be, reverted. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.That pretty unambiguously says that there are no separate reassessment criteria. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
elaborated by providing examples of material that was not presented in a dispassionate tone, I kindly request that you direct me to where you provided such examples. I have tried to stay up-to-date on this discussion but I missed your examples.
Joe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.This is a perfectly valid community reassessment of an earlier individual reassessment. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I was reading through the
WP:GAR page, and came across the following in both the Individual and Community "When to use this process" sections: You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
. If it's true that GARs should only be used when there aren't ongoing disputes/wars, why are we even here, and how was the original reassessment allowed to proceed at all?
It turns out that the basic idea comes down from a May/June 2009 RfC on the subject of stability reassessments. The discussion can be seen at
Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4#RfC: Reassessment of an "Unstable" Article. Consensus that something should be added to the GAR guidelines on their advisability resulted in
this addition to the Community section (the feeling I get from the RfC is that individual assessments weren't appropriate, but it wasn't discussed enough for consensus): Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.
The reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target
phrase was removed by Aircorn in October 2012, and the current wording and expansion to all reassessments dates from
March 2016. These last edits strike me as overreach, but it's interesting how many GAR nominators ignore this and many other portions of the GAR guidelines.
To answer my own question, and absent a new consensus, I'd say generally not, and delisting for stability reasons is a controversial enough practice that it should be only done as a community reassessment. Otherwise, you have editors who, as in this case, have decided the article needs to be delisted immediately, and GAR is the tailor-made process to do so. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
there is edit warring and controversy surrounding it. If it ever settles down, it can be renominated., and on this page, your second reason for delisting the article is, in bold,
This article is plagued by edit warring. Your argument in this thread is that
When I delisted that article, there was not an ongoing content dispute or edit war, but it seems like that is directly contradicted by your previous comment here and elsewhere. Not only are these arguments internally inconsistent, they provide no direction for how to improve an article. We have tools to resolve stability concerns, but when we use those tools that is also brought up as a reason to delist the article (argument 1:
The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction which is a clear indication that it is a locus of chaos). Stability concerns are set up like a catch-22; if the article is unstable, delist it, if administrators try to stabilize an article, that's evidence of instability and we should delist it. How is the GAR process supposed to work when the discussion is structured to force a particular outcome? I don't really care whether Joe Biden, or any article, has a green circle; I do care that the GAR process is used to build an encyclopedia and that our policies and standards reflect that goal. — Wug· a·po·des 07:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix itby saying
don't attempt to improve the article here? People have asked you for specifics; you provided a list of points; other editors responded to those points; in 5 days you haven't responded to any of those comments. Your only comments since then have been to argue with people who question whether this is a good use of our time or within the spirit of the process. You're free to not participate in the community reassessment, but as the one who undertook the individual reassessment, you are not immune from having your decision and reasoning scrutinized. — Wug· a·po·des 20:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"You do not get to ignore it though"said with such confidence! I must say that is quite funny considering how those arguing to delist have "ignored" simple questions asking for specifics. Like examples of the supposed NPOV breaches. — MelbourneStar☆ talk 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
As a formality - upon the thoughtful suggestion of Vanamonde93 yesterday, I concluded the independent reassessment Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 by providing a more formal close. It appears a few editors were confused or lacked a clear understanding of the reason behind the independent reassessment; therefore, the formal close brings further clarity without anyone having to spend a great deal of time actually reading the more detailed explanations in the lengthy discussions. I am dismayed by some of the allegations in the GAR and in this community reassessment that were used as part of the basis for challenging the first GAR, such as political motivation and a bit of back and forth regarding a lack of experience with the GA process by some of the participants. Of the 6 editors who have supported the delist (MONGO, Mz7, CaptainEek, DGG, PackMecEng, and myself), all but PME are experienced reviewers in either the GA or FA process and/or as qualified reviewers per WP:GOOD, including a few with experience in the reassessment process, so I'm not quite sure what the OP is referring to when he calls out inexperience. Furthermore, the allegation that the delist action was politically motivated is absurd, the absurdity of which is evidenced in some of the oppose statements, not to mention that the primary purpose of a reassessment is to improve an article. I see no correlation with politics unless there is a motive to use GA status as a means of assuring readers that everything in the article is factually accurate and represents a NPOV which is what an article's stability represents and why we attach a GA symbol. Granted, the AP topic area can be rather toxic which helps explain why so few editors want to spend any time there, and why I don't edit those articles. My main focus on WP has always been to promote/review and participate in article improvement and to help build the encyclopedia by attending WikiConferences, and becoming a member of several WikiProjects, including the Lead Improvement Team. I am also a qualified reviewer at NPP/AfC, and have 17 GAs and 8 FAs to my credit as either a nom or reviewer. The one editor of the 6 who supported delisting qualifies as a GA reviewer but I am not aware if their qualifications have yet been put to use, except for this reassessment. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Experienced GA reviewers have already provided the information. I was pointing out the relative experiences of the reviewers as it seemed to be being used as a reason to delist the article without actually providing any substance. The lack of experience is not really the issue anyway, it is the lack of listening to editors with the experience. You have been involved in three community reassessments including this one. In the other two you display the same battleground behaviour you are displaying here. When editors that have been involved in many times more try and explain how Good Article reassessments should be conducted it is generally a good idea to listen to them instead of doubling down that you are right. Myself and BlueMoonset are probably the two most active editors here and we have both tried to explain how things work. Vandemonde and Wugapodes (each with over 50 reviews to their name) have also questioned the way the process was used to conduct your reassessment. By contrast the six you mention as being experienced reviewers have 0,8,3,0,0, and 10 reviews to there names respectively (as recorded by User:GA bot/Stats, which while not perfect is the best we have at keeping track of such things). Their input is more than welcome and can be valuable, but lets keep it in context. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Aircorn:, I just came across this. You say you have much experience with GA, is it normal for an editor who initiates a review saying this fails GA is also the same editor to perform an Independent close of the review? I'm quite shocked. starship .paint ( talk) 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Aircorn and Atsme: It's been 3 weeks since the last comment here. Should this discussion be closed? Username 6892 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1537 days ago on 25 April 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done.— S Marshall T/ C 15:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1531 days ago on 1 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1523 days ago on 8 May 2020)
Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I have read through this discussion and have formulated a rough closure in my head. I'm working on getting the close keyboarded and expect to post my close later today. This will be my first-ever close of a Good article (re-)assessment. Normally I would defer to a more experienced closer for such a high-profile case as this, but I see that the most active GAR participants are involved in the discussion and this project doesn't have that many active administrators closing discussions – hence I am stepping up. I have posted three comments to this discussion, but this can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.)
I did not contribute to
Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 except in the
post-close comments. More than four weeks have passed since the reassessment was opened on 22 April 2020.
First things to look for: "Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check that the article does not have cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{ cleanup}}, {{ POV}}, {{ unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{ citation needed}}, {{ clarify}}, or similar inline tags." Given this, after two (individual and community) reviews, I was surprised to find some of these unaddressed issues:
Remaining are a few dated statement categorizations, as old as "Articles containing potentially dated statements from September 2015". I'll assume it isn't expected to try to update these for GA status to be maintained. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria. Most GARs don't include this ({{ subst:GATable}}), but, as a first-time reviewer/closer I thought it would be a useful exercise:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I've just finished reading the article and have clarified the prose and corrected grammar in a few places. Apparently this was not done by earlier reviewers in this community review. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead section was reviewed for compliance in this discussion. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs; the lead now has five, so it's pushing the length limits, but not yet so far as to cause a fail here (this issue wasn't raised in the discussion). While assertions were made about trivia in the body, I didn't see any suggestions for removal of specific text from the lead. The lead should summarize any prominent controversies. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The article appears to be well referenced. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The sources appear to be reliable. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No evidence of OR has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No evidence has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The Wikipedia:Out of scope essay says "Use the most general scope for each article you can. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's supposed to summarise essentially all knowledge. Hence accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible.", which appears to discourage exclusion of "trivia", which seems counter to the advice of the next requirement (3b) to not go into unnecessary detail. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Hey! "focused on the topic" links to Wikipedia:Article size – and Wikipedia:Summary style is all about splitting to subtopics. So, not so fast about that stuff being out-of-scope for GA reviews. A split was proposed on 24 April 2020 which quickly gained consensus in support. Vice presidency of Joe Biden was created on 30 April 2020 and United States Senate career of Joe Biden was created on 1 May 2020, but as discussed on 18 May this work has yet to be finished. In contrast with the longish lead of this article (1b above) the leads of Vice presidency of Joe Biden and United States Senate career of Joe Biden are each just one short paragraph, making it difficult to summarize those sections here. This article cannot be recertified as a Good Article until after this work is done. wbm1058 ( talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This is such a subjective criterion that I feel that it can only be determined by consensus in a community discussion. What I mostly see in this discussion is an assertion that the article is not neutral responded to by mostly unanswered requests for specifics, and some acknowledgement(s) of "good faith claims that the article lacks neutrality". This criterion feels somewhat redundant to me. I think an article that passes all other criteria, particularly stability, is unlikely to fail on just this one. In any event the discussion hasn't sufficiently specifically addressed this criterion for me to make a call. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC) | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | As indicated above 9 !voters were leaning to delist based on instability. This was a borderline "no consensus" discussion, but regardless the outcome is the same. See additional comments below. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All 39 images in the article are tagged; most as public domain or creative commons. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All 39 images in the article are relevant and captioned. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC) | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Items 4 and 5 are the "elephant in the room" around which this GAR revolves. I view these criteria as very much connected because the crux of the stability issues revolve around disputes over neutrality. Indeed § Are stability-based GARs appropriate? discusses this.
I noticed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, " List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles?" and volunteered to work on producing such a list (after I finish closing this). I think such a list for the "content creators" would nicely balance out the " gnomes list". Based on the algorithm for producing that list, I see that Wasted Time R would get credit for this GA. Indeed this seems to be a good measure based on the XTools report which gives them a significant margin over other editors in authorship, number of edits, and added text.
A point of contention in this GAR is whether an article can be delisted based on the Immediate failures criteria. It was asserted that "there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR" and the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations. But GAR determines whether an article that is listed as good article still merits its GA status according to the good article criteria. There are no separate "review criteria", so I find that the "immediate" part does apply. However, the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment "When to use this process" guideline says "Use the individual reassessment process if You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war and "Requesting (community) reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." So, following the guideline, a GAR may only fail based on the "immediate" part after waiting at least two weeks to confirm persistent instability and obtaining a very clear consensus for an immediate fail from at least five editors in a community discussion. In fairness to Atsme, until I made this uncontested reversion, the guidelines were contradictory on stability-based reviews, so I can't fault her for starting an individual GAR. Editors are advised that in the future stability-based reassessments should only be done by the community process. This is to ensure fairness to editors like Wasted Time R who've put in a lot of work to get the article up to the GA standard. In any event, this review has gone on long enough that it is way past being able to be called an "immediate" review. - wbm1058 ( talk) 21:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Precedents. Criterion 5 is open to interpretation: "it does not change significantly from day to day". The footnote to that provides some clarification: "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold." The key word open to interpretation is " significant". This word may be ambiguous in some situations. "Having a noticeable or major effect." "Reasonably large in number or amount." An article "undergoing rapid expansion or being rewritten" is undergoing significant change, but what about the addition of a single sentence to an already lengthy article? If that single sentence mentions allegations of sexual misconduct not previously mentioned in the article, that single sentence arguably has a noticeable or major effect. Edit-warring over the addition of that sentence may reasonably be interpreted as evidence that the addition had a noticeable effect; if it didn't, in my view an edit war is much less likely to develop.
I have heard the appeals to precedents. Wikipedia doesn't have any policies or guidelines on this. Although precedents are not required to be followed, I am sympathetic with the Wikipedia:Precedents essay. With that in mind, I searched the archives and found a nearly 14-year old discussion titled " Dealing with Bad Faith objections on controversial topics". While the debate that led to this was over religion, it seems relevant given the separation of church and state, but can religion and politics really be separated?
The dispute was over the Creation-evolution controversy article, which has since moved to Rejection of evolution by religious groups. The article was delisted per this GAR as explained by the reviewer HERE and on the revewer's talk. The {{ Article history}} on Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups shows that the article was listed on January 22, 2006, delisted on October 4, 2006, and apparently no attempts have been made to relist it after that.
I noticed that Result: 6 delist to 4 keep, no consensus was added by another editor (not the reviewer) when they archived the discussion. I'm not sure whether the reviewer counted votes, but this edit demonstrates the view that no consensus in a GAR results in delisting rather than maintaining the status quo, which is counter to the view expressed by some in this GAR. I think that's right; Good Article Reviews simply confirm that an article still passes the criteria. If a first time assessment would fail criterion 5 if there was no consensus, then I don't see how a reassessment should have a different outcome with no consensus. I haven't seen anything in the instructions supporting that view.
I'll make a quick search now for more, confirming precedents. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I just confirmed that the stability criterion hasn't substantially changed since March 2006 so the above precedent still seems relevant.
Another point of contention in the discussion revolves around the Wikipedia:Stable version supplement to the page protection policy. An argument was made that you can not get more stable than a fully protected article, which was rejected by another participant with the rationale that if an article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to be stable, then it isn't truly stable. I concur with this latter view. If one should wait at least two weeks to confirm an article's instability, arguably most high-profile articles will always pass the criterion because administrators will not allow instability to persist for that long before protecting the article. It makes no sense to have a criterion that can never fail. The rationale for protection should be examined. If it's protected due to vandalism, then it's still stable for GAR purposes. But if it's protected due to edit warring, then it's not. Per Wikipedia:Stable version § Inappropriate usage it is inappropriate usage to invoke this argument to avoid a delisting for instability. An open request for comment over a proposed "significant" change in content, i.e. a change that will have a "noticeable or major effect" on the article, should be viewed as a sign of instability for as long as the RfC remains open.
I realize this is problematic for articles of this type. A possible solution might be to introduce the concept of a "last good version" or a new indicator showing that the good article "may be outdated and is currently undergoing review of possible content changes". wbm1058 ( talk) 20:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
I suppose the sections below may be considered as equivalent to the workshop page of an Arbitration Committee case. LOL wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
For 3b, I'd like to point out that I did propose a split which ended up happening, but discussion about the prose to keep in the article went nowhere. It's been brought up again, but that discussion also went nowhere. As much as I want to help, I realize that I have almost no splitting/summarizing experience and I'm terrible at summarizing things. Username 6892 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead now has five paragraphs; the manual of style suggests reducing this to four. What would you remove? Feel free to either strike through words to omit using <s>...</s> tags or rewrite it below. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Username6892's opinion for removals, Removals Username6892 is less sure about, Username6892's opinion for additions
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. ( /ˌrɒbɪˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; [1] born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017 and represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee [nb 1] for president of the United States in the 2020 election. [2] This is Biden’s third run for president after he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 2008.
Biden was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and New Castle County, Delaware. He studied at the University of Delaware before receiving his law degree from Syracuse University. [3] He became a lawyer in 1969 and was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from Delaware in 1972 when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history. Biden was reelected six times and was the fourth-most senior senator when he resigned to assume the vice presidency in 2009. [4]
As a senator, Biden was a longtime member and eventually chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He opposed the Gulf War in 1991 but advocated for U.S. and NATO intervention in the Bosnian War in 1994 and 1995, expanding NATO in the 1990s, and the 1999 bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo War. He argued and voted for the resolution authorizing the Iraq War in 2002 but opposed the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. He has also served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dealing with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties, as well as the contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden led the efforts to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
In 2008, Biden was the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. As vice president, he oversaw infrastructure spending to counteract the Great Recession and helped formulate U.S. policy toward Iraq through the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. His negotiations with congressional Republicans helped the Obama administration pass legislation including the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which resolved a taxation deadlock; the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resolved that year's debt ceiling crisis; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which addressed the impending fiscal cliff [6892 1]. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Biden led the Gun Violence Task Force, created to address the causes of gun violence in the United States. [5] Obama and Biden were reelected in 2012.
In October 2015, after months of speculation, Biden announced he would not seek the presidency in the 2016 election. In January 2017, Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. [6] After completing his second term as vice president, Biden joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was named the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice. [7] He announced his 2020 candidacy for president on April 25, 2019, joining a large field of Democratic candidates pursuing the party nomination. [8] Throughout 2019, he was widely regarded as the party's frontrunner. After briefly falling behind Bernie Sanders after poor showings in the first three state contests, Biden won the South Carolina primary decisively, and, several center-left moderate candidates dropped out of the race and endorsed him before Super Tuesday. Biden went on to win 18 of the next 26 contests. With the suspension of Sanders's campaign on April 8, 2020, Biden became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the presidential election. [9] On June 9, 2020, Biden met the 1,991-delegate threshold needed in order to secure the party's nomination. [10]
References
References
References
What specific controversies should be mentioned in the lead? These should be controversies that are already covered in the article body.
There is no consensus for including a specific statement in the lead of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. If attempts to add controversies to the lead of this article have been reverted, a similar discussion should be initiated to get a consensus to include them. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes - Throughout his decades of public service, the former Senator and current Vice President has earned a reputation for often saying the wrong thing at the wrong time;
I emphasize that I have not thoroughly reviewed the article. I only quickly read it and found the following issues:
I again emphasize that the above findings are results of a quick review. Borsoka ( talk) 03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, Iazyges—You took this through a CE and the first GAR respectively. Do you have a view on this, please? Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 08:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
References
I've only read through the lede and some of the early sections. There's too much detail in the lede and I don't think that it's well written. There's massive overlinking and there are lots of style problems like inconsistent capitalizations, etc. I do not agree with all of Borsoka's comments, in particular his demand for daily life/lifestyle of the inhabitants, as I think that's outside of the scope of an article at this level, but I don't think that this is GA quality yet.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking at this article, it's clear that this article would look very different if it were rewritten in 2020 with reliable secondary sources. This is so much so the case that anyone looking at this article after 2016 with familiarity with be quite confused—or mistake it as another piece from one of the organization's many propaganda arms. Here's some recent coverage of the activities of the new religious group exterior to mainland China:
This article discusses a shift that occured in 2017, and, indeed, from that time the vast majority of sources start popping up. It appears coverage has only snowballed since, a risk the organization seems willing to take to continue to wield political influence. Let's continue digging through media coverage:
Hmm, alright. Let's take a look at the NBC article that this entry mentions:
And more straightforward discussion from MSNBC, reporting on an NBC article discussed below:
The NBC article refers to an article by The New Yorker:
And a few years back, here in Germany, referring to the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):
There are many, many, many more sources out there discussing these topics—thousands—and in fact we can and should dig further into these topics. Additionally, this does not take into account the various other extensions of the organization, such as the Society of Classical Poets, which fly a little further under the radar but with aligned goals.
This article needs reassessment and, frankly, a total rewrite. I've tagging it for NPOV and a total rewrite in the mean time. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My rationale is that this article doesn't meet criteria of good article criteria:
The whole my point is not to remove the Article itself, but to:
Unfortunately, without these 3 steps process there is no way to fix Article to satisfy GA criteria as editors affiliated with AVEN are using GA status argument to circumvent Wikipedia rules and policies on Verifiable sources. AceRebel ( talk) 23:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
strongly affiliated with AVEN website? Adam9007 ( talk) 01:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Article is strongly affiliated with AVEN websitemakes no sense whatsoever. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
officially attached or connected to an organization. No Wikipedia article is officially associated with another entity. The fact that this Wikipedia article happens to mention AVEN a lot doesn't make it associated with AVEN. Adam9007 ( talk) 02:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Rather poorly sourced, doesn't seem to be comprehensive. A google search returns many papers and analysis that aren't incorporated into this article and should be. I'm willing to conduct a more full review if a user indicates a willingness to respond to them. Otherwise, as it stands this article should be de-listed. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This article has extensive citation needed and other maintenance tags. There's a lot of discussion about quality on the talk page, but work on the article itself has largely ceased since 8 April. Until the tags can be resolved, this article should not be listed as a GA, as it fails criteria #2. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Somehow a great Electronic music pioneer deserved to have a good article. Jean-Michel Jarre has done several inventive and innovative things as an electronic musician, and he even earned a Guinness World Record for largest concert attendance ever. I'm an electronic music fan, I really love Jean-Michel Jarre. Parrot of Doom has done a great job at this article. However, someone else requested a GAR on this thing because it's becoming less fresh as of now. I read this article recently and found that currently, this article has gained issues. The quality is degrading, I want to upgrade it. The prose isn't in a decent shape like in the past, some of the references are dead links and/or not using "cite" templates or something like that, the sections could've been rearranged more, at least it seems like it from this point. Also, some red links are present (some of them have links to foreign-language versions of Wikipedia articles), I am suspicious that some parts need citation integrity, and some refs are unreliable... Well, the current version of the Jean-Michel Jarre article as of writing has to be rewritten entirely to comply with the current GA criteria. Potentially, this must remain a GA in the future. ias: postb□x 12:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Article has not been reassessed for GA status since 2009. In the decade since, there's been a lot of unsourced information added. Some if it may be true, but qualifies as Original Research, while other bits and pieces are flat-out incorrect. Article needs a lot of cleanup to regain GA status, in my opinion. However, since I have edited the article a bit recently, I think others should do the reassessment so there's no conflict. JimKaatFan ( talk) 01:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
"In April 2014, diggers hired to investigate the claim confirmed that the Alamogordo landfill contained many E.T. cartridges, among other games.[3][4][5] James Heller, the former Atari manager who was in charge of the burial, was at the excavation and admitted to the Associated Press that 728,000 cartridges of various games were buried.[6]"
"Warshaw intended the game to be an innovative adaptation of the film, and Atari thought it would achieve high sales figures based on the international box office success of the film. Negotiations to secure the rights to make the game ended in late July 1982, giving Warshaw five and a half weeks to develop the game in time for the 1982 Christmas season.[2]"
Considering there are two issues:
I would like to re-asses the good article status, because those issues violates 1a and 3b of the good article criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streepjescode ( talk • contribs)
Just a repost of Talk:United States/GA4. Please comment there. Therapyisgood ( talk) 20:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think this article meets the good article criteria. Some sections and paragraphs are only a single sentence long, the article contains some vaguely promotional content (like the "by the numbers" section), the article cites sources which don't seem to be reliable or particularly reputable (KontentPort, Eye on Windows, Ubergizmo, etc.), and even the lead is a bit too short for my liking. This article feels more like a C class to me, not a GA. I've never brought an article to reassessment before, so apologies if I've done something wrong. TheAwesome Hwyh 16:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
21:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)The article has several problems. One, has huge parts unsourced, like both Independent Circuit section or the TNA final feuds. Some titles are unsourced to. Needs an uptade about his NWA work. Also, the prose can be improved, it's like "on Day 1, he had a match. On day 2, he had a match." Lead can be improved. No mention of his work as box announcer. Missing style and persona(not obligatory, buy helpful) Also, minor In-Universe problems ("he put Shaw into a van heading for a psychiatric facility for intervention.") -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I am concerned that the article does not meet the GA criteria. In particular, not all the content is verifiable to "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", as required by WP:NOR, and the article contains excessive material on tangentially related aspects that are not extensively treated on reliable sources on the subject, failing GA criteria 3 (focus). See talk page for further discussion. b uidh e 01:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This article was promoted back in 2009 and now there are multiple
citation needed tags on the page.
Thatoneweirdwikier |
Say hi
19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Panzer Aces/1]]
Greenlandic language is a good article with several noticeable problems:
Overall, this good article fails the GA criteria of verifiability. Therefore, I suggest to delist this article. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Two major maintenance tags outstanding. I'm not too familiar with the content, but those issues should be resolved before the article can stay as a GA.
I am bringing this article to GAR because:
This is my first GAR, so I apologize if I made any mistakes here. There may also be some problems I have not mentioned (I think the Facilities section may have an unnecessary detail (3b) problem, but I'm not sure). Username 6892 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll add comments when I see things. Something to consider is that this is a short article, and how does it compare to similar ones. Not every station in North America is going to have or warrant the level of coverage of Grand Central Terminal, but it's currently comparable size-wise with the English Moncloa (Madrid Metro) article, something you'd expect to have far less. Without being an expert, I would do some research on the Chester station myself to see if the level of coverage reflected media coverage (and will do if nobody beats me to it!) Kingsif ( talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Here are some things I noticed.
This is the only station in Toronto with no TTC bus service during the day.- This seems to be trivia, particularly the first part. epicgenius ( talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
This article is primarily authored by a single editor, who is now ex-communicated for POV-pushing, edit-warring, socking, incivility, etc.
The article is marred by its insistence to always let the CCP have the final word, only allowing for the most superficial criticism of the party. There is next to nothing about its draconian anti-insurgency measures or violent crackdown on political dissidents, let alone its Orwellian surveillance apparatuses and concentration camps in Xinjiang. We don't have the luxury to allow such an important article to completely lose its track and spiral away in abstract MLM-theory and bureaucratic jargon. Nutez ( talk) 05:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
spiral away in abstract MLM-theory and bureaucratic jargon, considering the article necessarily must use both, by nature of its subject. Jargon can certainly be explained and minimised, but to criticise an article for too much MLM theory when it is about a MLM party is absurd. One last question: when you say
The article is marred by its insistence to always let the CCP have the final word, only allowing for the most superficial criticism of the party, could you give some examples? This is an important criticism and I would be grateful to hear it in detail. Danke. Acalycine ( talk) 07:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Officially, it seemed quite biased. However, I don't think that the 'theoretical ideology' of the Party is too central in the article. We do have Ideology of the Communist Party of China, but this does not mean this article should not include a smaller summary of the ideology, which it does. Regarding Shuanggui, I would agree that it should be included here, but I wouldn't necessarily say this precludes the article from meeting 3a - I don't see how a party disciplinary process is core in this sense. We should include it in Governance/Organisation. Regarding the weight of 'concrete applications' and 'consequences', what are some subject areas that we think should have greater weight? Using the same reasoning as Horse Eye Jack's criticisms of ideology being central, I would say that we already have articles on subjects such as Mao's Cultural Revolution and other policies. In saying that, the History section does seem heavily focused on the post-Mao period, which is a drawback. Also, in reference to
CCP actions that don't follow propaganda points, can you provide some examples? This would definitely be a cause of concern. Can we have some more references to the original review's criteria and how the current content of the article differs from it? Thanks. Acalycine ( talk) 08:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This has been a GA since 2008, and has not been assessed since then, but I'm not sure it meets the 2020 standards. When I just came across it, it was entirely missing Beghe's college education apart from the category. It also has a very short lead, and I'm guessing there may be other issues. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Article with outdated statements. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{ cleanup}}, {{ POV}}, {{ unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{ citation needed}}, {{ clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{ QF}}). I suggest delisting this article. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I am bringing this article to GAR because:
This is my first GAR, so I apologize if I made any mistakes here. There may also be some problems I have not mentioned (I think the Facilities section may have an unnecessary detail (3b) problem, but I'm not sure). Username 6892 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll add comments when I see things. Something to consider is that this is a short article, and how does it compare to similar ones. Not every station in North America is going to have or warrant the level of coverage of Grand Central Terminal, but it's currently comparable size-wise with the English Moncloa (Madrid Metro) article, something you'd expect to have far less. Without being an expert, I would do some research on the Chester station myself to see if the level of coverage reflected media coverage (and will do if nobody beats me to it!) Kingsif ( talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Here are some things I noticed.
This is the only station in Toronto with no TTC bus service during the day.- This seems to be trivia, particularly the first part. epicgenius ( talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
It is nearly five years since this became a GA and its history since then indicates a considerable input of trivial, unsourced information with consequent impact upon quality and sourcing. It was wrongly presented to FAC in April this year and effectively rubbished there because of, in the main, poor sourcing. In essence, the problem is the amount of attention the article has received from the subject's "fans" in recent times.
In terms of WP:GACR, I think #1 is okay on the whole although a reviewer would certainly list numerous points for quick resolution. It would fail on #2, especially #2b and with the possibility of #2c arising. It is generally okay on #3 though, again, a reviewer would almost certainly raise queries and require removal of trivia like non-noteworthy awards. GACR #4 is frequently compromised by the fan inputs but, to be fair, the cricket project seem to be reverting those in good time. The fan inputs don't really constitute a threat to stability so #5 is okay, and I'd be happy with #6 as there don't seem to be any imagery issues.
I think the article would probably fail a GAR, subject to anyone being able to quickly resolve its problems if put on hold for a week. I recommend that it is delisted so that necessary work can be done to restore quality and ensure good sourcing throughout. It could then be renominated at GAN. No Great Shaker ( talk) 05:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:V, I have concerns about the unsourced text in this article. About a quarter of the text is without citations. Furthermore, the sources that do exist include very little real scholarship. It relies pretty heavily on a small number of unpublished websites. I ask the community to determine if this article is still a GA. Tikisim ( talk) 02:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
It is clear that since it was accepted as a Good Article in 2009, Wikipedia standards have changed. The article is full of fictional cruft, with "The World" section being largely in-universe. Much of the "History" section is also just a timeline of releases rather than putting things in context. It strikes me as C-class at most and would need a significant amount of work to reach modern Good Article standards. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I had a careful read of the article last night and it satisfies the good article criteria in that it is:
If an editor is going to call for a reassessment then one would think it would be incumbent on that editor to specify which criteria the article does not meet, and why. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 09:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Some work has gone into the article over the past month. Does anyone have any suggestions on what else needs to be done as far as improvements? BOZ ( talk) 22:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The article failed it's most recent FAC, with one of the detractors ( Laser brain) saying he would reject it for GA status, proving how terrible the article is. While there will never be another FAC attempt at this article by me, I will nevertheless be satisfied if it at least maintains GA status. Because factual accuracy and coherence matter more. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll leave notes here as I go through the article; if I make any copyedits you disagree with please feel free to revert them.
Krishnamurthy's acquaintance Ramanathan persuades him to drink alcohol: it's apparent from the rest of the plot that it Krishnamurthy's later consumption of alcohol that's the problem, so does Ramanathan persuade Krishnamurthy that he should no longer abstain from alcohol? So that he starts to drink from that point on?
Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector."Collaborator" doesn't have the right connotations for a partner in crime. "Accomplice" might work, but it would help to know why we're using the word. Does Rangiah do anything at the party to help persuade Krishnamurthy? Or is this only a reference to the later plot elements? Does Krishnamurthy's infatuation with Mohanangi start at the party? Is it because of his drinking, or is it instigated by Ramanathan or Rangiah?
sinking Krishnamurthy deeper in debt: we haven't said he was in debt; presumably he doesn't have the money he promises to Mohanangi? Or he goes into debt to get it?
More later. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
More:
Pathi Bhakthi, a Tamil play dealing with alcohol abuse and its effects on family life, was written by Te. Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar during the early 1930s: the source for this says "It was in the early 1930s that a play titled Pathi Bhakti enjoyed a long run on the stage. A play about the evils of drinking, it had been written by a well-known playwright, Te.Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar." which only says the play was successful in the early 1930s, not that that's when it was written. Per this source it was published in March 1931, though I'm relying on Google Translate there and may be misinterpreting.
Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar: I don't have access to Guy (1997), so can you just confirm that it says Mudaliar rewrote the play for MOBC? The other source seems to imply it was the original play.
The film was Dungan's directorial debut, and was later listed in the Limca Book of Records as the first Indian film to be directed by a foreigner: I copyedited this slightly, but on reflection I think it might be better to just make it "The film was Dungan's directorial debut, and was the first Indian film to be directed by a foreigner". I take it the Limca Book of Records is a reliable source? If so we can just cite the statement to it.
The case was resolved when Vasan testified that both Pathi Bhakthi and the novel Sathi Leelavathi were based on Ellen Wood's 1860 novel Danesbury House, therefore neither party could claim originality.: I've copyedited this a bit but I an wondering if the last clause would be worth expanding. It's an interesting point because perhaps one could say that both Pathi Bhakthi and Vasan's novel were plagiarized, if neither is original. Does the source give more details about Vasan's testimony or the reasoning of the court in dismissing the case?
in particular the plight of Tamil Nadu labourers in Ceylon's tea estates: I'm not sure about this, but just a suggestion: the plot summary only mentions this in passing, but it appears that some commentary on the film regards this as an important aspect of the film. Would it be worth expanding the brief mention of this in the plot a little?
Ramachandran appeared in Pathi Bhakthi as the antagonist's henchman Veeramuthu: might be worth making it clear this is the MOBC stage version we're talking about, since the reader might well assume it's the film version until the second half of the sentence.
He later approached Mudaliar for a role in Sathi Leelavathi because he felt his role in Pathi Bhakthi offered him "no room to shine".I don't see the connection here; perhaps understanding the timing better would help. I assumed that the stage run of Pathi Bhakthi was over by the time the film was being made; were both going on at the same time? I see from another source that the timing was pretty quick -- Vasan's novel comes out in early 1934 and shooting on both it and the film version of Pathi Bhakthi starts in 1934. The delay in release till 1936 is just because of the lawsuit, I gather. So was Ramachandran acting in both at the same time? It's a minor point if the sources don't say but it wasn't till I looked closely at it that I realized how quickly it was all happening.
More later, probably tonight or tomorrow morning. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Continuing:
With this film, Dungan introduced many features to Tamil cinema such as a lack of on-screen stage influences, the "cabaret dance" or the "club dance", strict discipline, filming by schedule and camera mobility.Could this sentence be expanded a little to give more details? I've no idea what a cabaret dance or club dance is, for example, or what is meant by "strict discipline". Some of these sound like significant points in the evolution of Tamil cinema and a bit more space would be worth it.
The melody of "Theyila Thottathle" (also spelt "Theyilai Thottatile") is based on Subramania Bharati's poem "Karumbu Thottathile".I don't follow this; how do you base a melody on a poem? Did "Karumbu Thottathile" have a melody associated with it?
While the poem is about the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji, the songs's lyrics follow the problems of tea-plantation workers in Ceylon.Did Bhagavathar adapt the lyrics -- that is, just change a few words to make them refer to Ceylon -- or did he write completely new lyrics?
Sathi Leelavathi had a "trade show" debut in Madras on 1 February 1936, and was theatrically released on 28 March that year.A trade show is a showing of a film to people in the trade, usually so reviewers and critics can get an early look. I think we could write this more naturally as "Sathi Leelavathi had a trade screening [with a footnote if you think it needs explanation] in Madras on 1 February 1936...". We'd need a source for the definition and a quick look doesn't find one in Google Books, so if you want to make this change I'll look a little further. Also, I see that this source, which you cite for the trade showing, says the picture was release on February 1; the trade show must have been the day before, or earlier, and I think we should mention, perhaps in a footnote, that a contemporary source says it went on release on February 1, not March 28.
At the time of its initial release, critics praised most aspects of the production, including the direction, photography, sound design, and writing.This doesn't seem well-sourced. One source is the press book; the other just says "The photography and recording are sound and the acting is generally satisfactory"; this is hardly "praise". (The same comment applies to the source for "The acting performances also received generally positive response from critics."). The press book does include positive comments, and I don't think we have any reason to doubt that they're accurate transcriptions, but the press book would exclude any negative comments so we can't use it to say the response was positive -- that would have to come from a source like Guy. Would any of the original sources be available from a library? It would be great to obtain the original reviews of any of these, though I imagine that's unlikely to be possible.
Stopping there for now; should be able to finish this pass later today. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Kailash29792, I've been reflexively reviewing this article with the same rigour that I would at FAC -- probably because that's where I started looking at the article. However, this is GAR, not FAC, and I should let you know what I think the status is according to the GAR requirements. The only remaining point that I think needs to be addressed for GA is to make it clear to the reader that the press opinions are taken from PR material and so cannot be assumed to be representative.
I think this is only the second of your articles I've reviewed at FAC; I hadn't realized you were working on early Tamil cinema. It's an interesting topic. If you plan to bring any other articles to FAC, and would like me to comment before the FAC, let me know and I'll try to find time. I think this article could easily make it to FA too, though it sounds like you're no longer interested in pursuing that. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Kailash29792, I decided to go ahead with a slightly modified version of the suggested sentence, and will go ahead and close the GAR. I have a couple of other reviewing obligations but if you're still interested in taking this back to FAC I would be willing to work with you on it when I get time. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Passing GAR; article retains GA status. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
There are several issues with the article which impacts its GA status, and its FT status by extension. Just by reading through WP:GAFAIL, the article immediately fails criteria 3, which contains a cleanup banner for a single WP:USERGEN source which has not been addressed in over 2 years. According to WP:GACR, there are a significant number of requirements which had not been thoroughly addressed in the previous review while skimming through the article:
"Sorry" received positive reviews from contemporary critics, who declared the track the strongest song on Confessions on a Dance Floor, which is only supported by a single source. Are there no mixed to negative reviews about the song?
Overall, there are far too many issues with the article which would take over a week to address, considering the original user is indefinitely blocked. In addition, after looking at several articles at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Confessions on a Dance Floor, there are several unsourced track listing sections in each song article. I am asking for a community reassessment, as I have only briefly skimmed the article without checking every source's validity, considering the main editor was blocked for fabricating information. As much as I would like the FT to remain, the majority of articles need to be reassessed. — Angryjoe1111 ( talk) 08:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Musically, "Sorry" is an uptempo dance song containing layers of beats and strong vocal on the chorus,
The song talks about personal empowerment and self-sufficiency, and
Alexis Petridis from The Guardian called the song as triumphant. Kitty Empire from the same publication said that "'Sorry' sees Madonna taking a lover to task over an insistent dance-pop rush."could be reworded. The last sentence in particular could be combined into one sentence, considering that both authors write for the same publication, which would be easier to understand. I have not thoroughly gone through the article in great detail in comparison to other GA reviewers, so they may have more feedback to address that I have not caught on to. I am aware that articles do not need to go through WP:GOCE to become a GA, but it is expected that
the prose is clear, concise. In response to GA3a, the lead section contains information about the personnel and release date which is not acknowledged in the Background section. The 2005 recording date in the infobox is also not acknowledged anywhere in the article, considering that she could have recorded it prior to that year. Maybe it is best to remove it, as it may be considered WP:OR. In regards to GA2b, the first Madonna source is acceptable as long as there are no other reliable secondary sources that could be used instead, while the second source has been addressed. For GA2c, I am perfectly content with the synopsis following WP:PLOT, but not with each sentence being directly cited by the MTV source, considering that the link is broken and is WP:REPCITE. If possible, I recommend that the section be split into two subsections; Background and Synopsis, so that it would be easier to navigate for readers. GA4 was just a question regarding whether the song has received any criticism, as I have only seen one mixed review in the critical reception section. The lead sentence,
"Sorry" received positive reviews from contemporary critics, who declared the track the strongest song on Confessions on a Dance Floor.has only been attributed to the MTV News article, and may be considered WP:SYNTH. Discogs is a WP:USERGEN source that should not be cited for any track listing. Preferably use Template:Cite AV media to find appropriate listings and add any missing formats to the infobox parameter "formats", which I have not seen for the 12-inch vinyl. CD promos are also not used in the section, as they are not "commercial releases" of the song. Finally, both the sample and screenshot should be removed unless there is thorough information that cannot be supported by text alone. Neither explain why both mediums should be included in the article, considering the former does not refer specifically to "synthesized" beats. While some of my above points may barely pass GAC, the articles displayed in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Confessions on a Dance Floor at first glance seem to not be GA worthy, especially Get Together (Madonna song), where the GA review was essentially barren, given that there are more problems there that are glaringly noticeable while scrolling the article, particularly in the music video section which the majority of information sourced is from a fansite, as well as the unsourced track listing and personnel section. Considering that every article was GA'd in four months before being made a FT, and the reason for the nominator's indefinite block makes me doubt the integrity of some sources. While my comments may seem harsh for a GA reassessment, other reviewers at WP:GAN#SONG have made thorough reviews to ensure that each citation style and information in each section is sourced properly. As stated earlier, I have not searched any sources to check WP:INTEGRITY or fix citation parameter improvements, so this article was deliberately placed in community reassessment for other reviewers to discuss. — Angryjoe1111 ( talk) 12:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The
Jesper Fast article lacks details about Fast's career after the 2014-15 NHL season.
As I stated on the talk page a week ago, "There's a considerable amount of unsourced text (fails WP:V), MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and needs significant trimming per summary style as it nearly 100K readable prose (focus)." b uidh e 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
“probably should be divided threshold”? Not getting what you mean there. KJP1 ( talk) 14:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry, on re-reading, I think you’re saying it’s 40% over the threshold at which it should probably be divided. Don’t think I’d agree that it should be trimmed by 40%, nor do I think it infringes the GA criteria by not being. An article on an entire country will likely be longer than an article on a rather more circumscribed topic. As for sourcing, I think you’re probably closer to FA criteria requirements than GA. As a comparison, the USA, another country GA, is a third as long again, with about a third more sources. But there are clearly areas that can be tightened, and more strongly sourced, so we’ll crack on with those. KJP1 ( talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Tony Holkham - Not entirely clear as to how community consensus is reached in GAR but wanted to note that there doesn't appear to be consensus here. The criticism had two limbs - uncited material and length. In my view, the first has been addressed, certainly to GA standards. The second is a matter of opinion, but I think it is clear that two editors, Tony and myself, both of whom contribute extensively to Welsh topics, are not of the view that it is overlong. I've pinged Tony in case I'm not representing his view accurately. KJP1 ( talk) 07:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
This article lacks referencing and makes unvalidated statements, for example that Alfred Dunhill married his mistress on the death of his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenoaks27 ( talk • contribs)
This article does not have adequate sources to qualify as a GA, it's infobox can be majorly expanded, it's last section fails
WP:SURVIVEDBY. Not all statements are reliable, with certain paragraphs only having 1 or 2 sources. The article has violations of
WP:TEXTBOOK and
WP:OR (Sources variously credit Motora or his student, Matatarō Matsumoto, with setting up the lab. At the very least, Motora consulted with Matsumoto on the setup of the lab.
). Some sources credit him as having set up the first psychological laboratory in Japan
,
WP:SYNTH and
MOS:WEASEL. A practitioner of Zen meditation, Motora contributed ideas on the subject that influenced psychological thought in Japan
, seems to start veering to break
WP:NPOV, putting him in good light; perhaps
WP:FANPOV. At the very least, Motora consulted with Matsumoto on the setup of the lab
breaks
WP:SYNTH. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Berrely (
talk •
contribs)
Even as a child, Motora was interested.... I think with some work it can be up to GA standard, and I'll take a look at the prose again after/if changes have been made. Sincerely, Ovinus ( talk) 20:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by No Great Shaker
Retain GA status. I carried out the GA review and, other than the need for a few minor amendments, I considered it to be a good article and promoted it accordingly. In my opinion, the complaints raised here are unsubstantiated. The worst of it is the accusation of WP:OR which is unfounded and out of order. The author, Larry Hockett, has written a good article and it is unacceptable that he has been subjected to an accusation of OR, especially as no adequate rationale has been provided. I'll deal with each of the points raised in turn.
First, apart from anything else, the request for reassessment needs to be presented in a readable form with paragraph breaks and indentation. This request is a mess, not even signed, and it does not in any way provide the full rationale which the edit instructions desire.
There is no requirement for any images in an article. GACR#6 is concerned with images that are present. It says: "Illustrated, if possible, by media...", not "Illustrated by media..." This point has already been challenged and removed from the above but the fact that it was ever included in the first place as a key reason for GA failure shows a lack of understanding of the GA criteria and process. The one image in the article is public domain, it is relevant and its caption is appropriate. Therefore, the article complies with GACR#6.
Where in GACR does it even mention an infobox? As with the entire article, the infobox could presumably be expanded if and when more information about the subject comes to light. Saying that the article is not GA because its infobox contains seven parameters is frankly absurd. It does not need to have an infobox. Like images, tables and lists, the infobox is a useful but optional aid to the reader. GA is essentially concerned with lead and narrative. Of course, if there is an infobox, it must be correct and tidy. This one is.
WP:SURVIVEDBY is given as a major reason for GA failure. This is not a policy like WP:V or even a rule. It is advisory and its intention is to prevent a single sentence "obituary" piece which says nothing more than: "He was survived by his wife and their five children". The death section in this article goes further by explaining that Motora died as a result of erysipelas. Yes, the "survived by" sentence could be reworded if another editor wished to do that and I see Larry has now amended it to "He and his wife had five children" which says exactly the same thing but addresses the pedantry implicit in WP:SURVIVEDBY.
"Not all statements are reliable". That is just an unsubtantiated throwaway opinion. Which statements and why? Can we have some specifics?
"Certain paragraphs only having 1 or 2 sources". Where in WP:GACR does it say that a paragraph must have more than one inline citation? GACR#2 says in practically generic terms that the content of the article (as a whole) must be verifiable with no original research. Part 2b is more precise by specifying: "all inline citations are from reliable sources", but it says nothing whatsoever about application of inline citations. For that, you need to look at WP:CITE itself: "An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote" (my italics).
You could, of course, place the same citation after all six sentences in a given paragraph but that would be both messy and unnecessary. You must, however, be aware of any quotations or opinions in the paragraph per WP:INTEXT. So, if there are six sentences and they are all derived from the same page of the same source, then only one citation is needed and placed after sentence six, the end of the paragraph. Suppose, though, that sentence two is a quotation. In that case, the citation must be placed twice – once after sentence two and again at the end of the paragraph.
"The article has violations of WP:TEXTBOOK". This is a component of WP:NOT and it rightly declares that: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples". Using specific examples, please explain how on Earth this article violates any part of WP:NOT. Where, for example, is there a leading question or a problem solution or an instruction or a definition?
WP:OR is "any statement for which no reliable, published sources exist". Which statement in this article lacks a citation (bearing in mind that some citations cover whole paragraphs) and can possibly be considered OR? It is very easy to throw an OR accusation at an author without substantiation. It is also irresponsible. Everything in the article is adequately referenced to a reliable source. I think Larry deserves a full and formal apology for this accusation which is insulting and completely out of order.
"Sources variously credit Motora or his student, Matataro Matsumoto, with setting up the lab. At the very least, Motora consulted with Matsumoto on the setup of the lab". Two sources verify the first sentence and the second is verified by one of those sources which also covers the rest of the paragraph. There is obviously a difference of opinion among the sources about who set up the lab and so, as Larry has done, it is best to say that it is an either... or... scenario. What exactly is the issue here?
"Some sources credit him as having set up the first psychological laboratory in Japan". This is in the lead and it summarises the lab source statements in the narrative per MOS:LEAD. The complaint about it seems to be " WP:SYNTH and MOS:WEASEL" without further explanation. Presumably it is contended that "some sources credit him" breaches MOS:WEASEL, but it doesn't because it is in the lead and it summarises sourced information in the narrative which expressly states that there is a difference of opinion between sources. The key point is that the sources are cited so this is not the same as "some people say" without referencing. As for WP:SYNTH, this states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". What conclusion has been reached that is not explicitly stated by one of the two relevant cited sources? Again, as with OR above, this is a case of throwing rules and guidelines around without any clear understanding of their purpose.
The essential rule that applies to difference of opinion between sources is WP:NPOV which is both a key policy and GACR#4 where it is summarised: "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each". Please explain exactly how the "some sources" statement breaches WP:NPOV and fails GACR#4.
"A practitioner of Zen meditation, Motora contributed ideas on the subject that influenced psychological thought in Japan". The complaint is that this "seems to start veering to break NPOV, putting him in good like; perhaps WP:FANPOV". What does "putting him in good like" even mean? If you are going to criticise someone's work, please do so in a way that people can understand what you are talking about. The sentence is in the lead so it must summarise something in the narrative and it does not need a citation in the lead as long as it does that. In fact, the sentence summarises the second paragraph of the academic career section and that paragraph is sourced to Hiroki Kato so there is no breach of NPOV. In the narrative, Motora's "ideas on the subject that influenced psychological thought in Japan" are explained in terms of his theory "that Zen should be understood through personal interpretation rather than through a Zen master, and this became an influential thought in early Japanese psychology", which is referenced to Hiroki Kato, who is an authority on Zen. There is no POV there and no subjectivity to remotely suggest FANPOV.
Larry has said on his talk page that he expected to have to deal with some feedback before the article was promoted to GA, but I found that it only needed a few tweaks and, to save time, I did those myself. I admit that I could have made more amendments to the text but I was aware that Larry writes in AE style and I respect that as otherwise the article would have ended up a mixture of AE and BE. As long as a narrative makes sense, there is no need to alter something like "as well as the nation's first psychology textbook". Americans like to say "the nation" and it's fine, although the British would never say it (we might say "the country"). Ovinus has removed "the nation's" but it doesn't matter as the sentence still makes sense.
The complaints about this article are unsubstantiated and, insofar as accusations of OR and POV are concerned, completely out of order. The article is by no means a finished product because it could obviously be expanded if more information about Motora should be found. While the recent amendments by Larry and Ovinus are okay, nothing substantial has been done. I don't think it could be nominated at FAC as it stands, but it does meet the GA criteria and it is a good article. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Berrely, could you let me know if there are any outstanding concerns about how this entry squares with the GA criteria? Thank you. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Good article with unsourced statements. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{ cleanup}}, {{ POV}}, {{ unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{ citation needed}}, {{ clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{ QF}}). I suggest delisting this article. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
While discussing notability of Mr. Game and Watch, I used Vivian as an example of what defines a fictional character as notable. Bringing this up, however, it got a couple of people to think whether or not Vivian is notable. Not in a "delete the article" way, but rather "re-asses and probably C-class" way.
The following discussion comes from the Wikiproject Video Games talk page.
=== Mr. Game and Watch and Notability (cont.) ===
So we've agreed (me too, don't worry) that Mr. Game and Watch is not notable enough for an individual article. But what about other fictional characters of the same premise? One of the best pieces of notability for him was the racial criticism, which a couple of you guys think is worthy being important to mention. Exhibit A: Vivian. So you wouldn't think an ally is notable enough for a second article, but due to the LGBT+ representation of her (she's transgender), its got an article (good job vivian, now olivia). What is the difference between these two? Mr. Game and Watch: A (kinda) notable character who's gotten criticism for racial stereotypes and existing in Smash Bros. in general. Vivian: A (kinda) notable character who's gotten praise from the LGBT community. She's also good article status, so what's the exact definition for fictional characters? Le Panini (Talk tome?) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no exact definition or line in the sand Panini. Generally, the more significant coverage a character has received, and the more depth and breadth in that coverage, you can make a better case for a standalone article. Looking at the two articles, Vivian has received a healthy amount of critical discussion from various journalists saying different things, and it would be undue to keep all that at Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. I'm not seeing this problem on the G&W page. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 19:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I thought the section in G&W was unwieldy, but the additional content you removed kept it to a minimum. Thanks for your opinion! It would be weird if she had a big section on TTYD, even though she's just an ally.
- I would like to make a comment about the game-guidy stuff that was cut. The stuff wasn't there to necessarily show his moveset, it was there to show the references to other games in his fighting style. Can we add something along the lines of "His moveset correlates to Game & Watch titles, such as (insert some example). Le Panini (Talk tome?) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is a rule/line in the sand: If the topic's article depends upon "Top X" listicles, the subject matter is likely best covered within an existing article. If you have to cobble together brief mentions from sources, its Reception section will verge on trivia because the topic is on the outer cusp of independent notability. The Vivian article exemplifies this and would be a strong candidate for merger. czar 02:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- While I’m not particularly pushing of a merge of the Vivian article, I do wholeheartedly agree that it’s not exactly a “home run” when it comes to demonstrating notability. It’s more of a “C+” case or something. There’s much better examples out there. I’d look to WP:GA/ WP:FA articles, or even ones that have survived AFD or merger discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think an article like Vivian is questionable why its good article status, but its still fine nonetheless. Unless someone is willing to re-evaluate, its a good article. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 10:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I definitely think it needs a WP:GAR. Its notability is entirely dependent on listicles, which is a red flag in my book. I try to find at least a couple articles directly about the subject before making any fictional character/item article and Vivian doesn't seem to have any of that, only trivial mentions. It's unclear if it's standalone notable at all, but at most it's C class as Sergecross stated. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 10:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well then, should we begin Re-assessment, or is this conversation just a thought? If anything, it should be a community re-assessment, as we have our opinions and the contributors to the article have theirs. I don't think I can list it, as I'm not a main editor on the article. @ TarkusAB: I want to hear what Tarkus thinks if he stops by. He was the original reviewer, after all. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 11:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- So I have taken another look at Vivian and well there are some listicles, there are some actual articles about the character. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 12:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I made this list of references, for, well, reference.
Articles that are lists - (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, possible 16, but I can't access it. 8 out of 16/50 %)
Articles with small mentions of the character - (9, 14, 15, possible 16, but I can't access it. 4 out of 16/25%)
Articles with Trivial mentions/comes from the game itself - (7, 8. 2 out of 16/12.5%)
Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The reason I'm creating this page is for these users to state a fleshed out opinion on the re-assessing of this article. Also, main contributors that oppose of this re-assessment to state their case as well.
Keep. I do not really agree with that at all, that it lacks "indepth explanations." Two authors go in depth into her physical design and how they enhance her femininity (both in mannerisms and clothing); another author discusses how her role in the Shadow Sirens made an impact due to her being a younger sibling herself; a source discussing how Vivian's role in the game would make her relatable to children (these latter two having nothing to do with her being transgender); an author discussing how her role could help people better understand LGBT people. I do not agree that the discussion of her character is limited to her role in the game. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The article does not meet with the "Verifiable with no original research:" criteria. I have encountered the Muslim women in sports article while I was reading the Islamic feminism page. A citation I've found on IF page caught my attention and later I've realized that athletes listed on the source, which Muslim women in sport nearly entirely relies on, was deeply flawed. I'd like to present my comment that I've left on IF talk page.
Thus I don't think that it should in its current form be a good article under any circumstances. The article claims to be Muslim women in sport, not Women from Muslim majority countries in sport . Are all Europeans Christians, and being Turkish or Arabic is synonyms with being Muslim? Same concerns had been voiced years ago by an anonymous user on its talk page, yet got little to no attention. Also, the article contains quite a lot of synth material. Just because a nation is a member of OIC does not make its national team Muslim, for example. -- Gogolplex ( talk) 08:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead of the article has no references. The first 2 paragraphs of the Crimes section break WP:PARAGRAPH, as they are both large enough to be broken into multiple paragraphs for easier readability. WP:TONE is frequently broken, and the article reads more like a collection of anecdotes from various people than it does an encyclopedic entry. A single Guardian article is used to cite 13 different portions of the article when there should be more information cited from varied sources. There are only 2 pictures throughout the whole article (excluding the one in the infobox).
In my opinion, this article shouldn't be listed as a Good Article, and may require extensive cleanup in order to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanD100 ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this up to GA standards. For the record, this is what the article looked like when first promoted in 2008. What I'm looking at now is unsurprisingly quite different. Details to follow. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
When going through the WP:Good article criteria, here's my assessment based on the latter diff:
The above is not an exhaustive list of the article's problems. Given the vast amount of content present along with over 500 citations, I don't feel confident in my abilities to conduct an individual reassessment, so I opted for a community one so more sets of eyes can view the page and perhaps list other things to address. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 02:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, where is the consensus for delisting this article? Because I'm not seeing it. What we have above is criticism by one editor and two comments by two others that don't state, "Yeah, delist." So this might as well have not even been a community review. I'm thinking of taking this to WP:Close review. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 23:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This article seriously inherently lacks the required quality to still be listed as a GA. I had worked on this article last in 2012 and since then not only has vital information being altered with (or is missing) but good reliable sources are missing (murshidabad.net in my opinion is not a good RS). The formatting is also very sloppy. I had helped make this a GA but, as it stands now, I have no confidence in its quality for it to be continued to be listed as a GA. Tamravidhir ( talk) 18:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Following the decision to remove Confessions on a Dancefloor as a featured topic here, there was consensus for "Get Together" to be re-evaluated following concerns that it contained unreliable and unsourced information, which fails GA2a and GA2b of the WP:GACR. In addition, the song sample and music video screenshot fails GA6a and GA6b, which does not have a valid fair use rationale and improve on the reader's understanding of the topic, failing WP:NFCC#8. The article also fails WP:GNG, with the majority of sources derived from album and concert reviews — Angryjoe1111 ( talk) 04:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I am requesting a community reassessment of the Kesselring article because I wish to challenge the outcome of Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA3, completed 19 October 2020. I believe that the reviewer Lazman321 has failed to consider the points raised in the previous review at Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA2, completed 13 April 2020. Also, I'm not convinced that the reviewer has taken full account of the featured article review in December last year. The main contributor to the article is Hawkeye7 who is of course invited to take part in this GAR.
I am very doubtful about GA3 because the reviewer is a relatively new editor who lacks experience of the site and its review process. The article failed GA2 and I am unconvinced that it has been substantially improved. As I was the GA2 reviewer and am in effect a major contributor to the article, I would like to invite community input to establish a consensus on whether or not this article meets the GA criteria.
GA2 failed for two main reasons. First, a key condition of GACR#1 is "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" and the article was a long way from achieving that because, frankly, it was muddled and lacked narrative flow. Also, it had been written under the assumption that all readers would have a detailed knowledge of the history and terminology of World War II. Second, GACR#2b requires that "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", but there were several controversial statements from an unreliable source used many times throughout and the use of that source meant that most if not all of those statements required citation (additional or replacement) from a reliable secondary source. I might add that the article was not at all well-written in terms of prose, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc. because it had not been proof-read and copyedited properly before being nominated – in the GA2 review, there was a huge stack of these issues but they alone were not a reason for immediate failure.
While GA2 attracted numerous comments, I did not bother to check what had been done to improve the article because I assumed it would be renominated in due course. In fact, it was renominated within a day or so, which led me to think the issues could not have been fully addressed. No matter, as I expected that it would be scrutinised in future by an experienced reviewer who would, as a matter of course, check that the GA2 issues had been addressed. I don't believe that has happened and so I would like a community consensus on the matter.
In GA3, Lazman says he "could read the article and understand what it is saying". It may well be that, like myself, Lazman has an extensive knowledge of WWII but my point was that the article was not understandable to a broad audience and Lazman has apparently not even considered that. By the way, although some people might object to him utilising Grammarly to help him with grammar, spelling and syntax, I do know that the product is considered "okay" within the publishing industry. I don't think that "all the MOS that need to be followed for GA status is followed in this article" is an adequate summary given all of the problems found in GA2. The question of reliable sources has not been adequately explored in the light of the GA2 findings.
I think the essential problem here is the same syndrome that was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good_articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020#Reviews by SurenGrig07 in that an inexperienced editor has bitten off much more than he can chew and has produced a review of insufficient depth and standard. At the time of doing GA3, Lazman321 had made around 250 edits having been a member for six months. As was pointed out to him in this talk page discussion by both Peacemaker67 and Chris Troutman, his lack of experience should have given him cause to think twice about attempting to review such a contentious and complex article. He expressed a willingness to step down if someone else would take over, which is fair enough, but then went ahead because there were no immediate takers. Lazman had already begun the GA3 review by saying that it was part of the backlog drive but that was no reason to assume that there was any urgency because, with 285 unreviewed nominations at the end of that drive, there were plenty more nominations he could have picked up which would have been within his capabilities.
Given the similarity to the SurenGrig case, I would like to invite comments here by those who took part in that discussion: BlueMoonset, Chris Troutman, Eddie891, Harrias, Hog Farm, Kingsif, Lee Vilenski, Mccunicano, Usedtobecool, Venicescapes, Vincent60030, Wasted Time R.
Thank you for your time. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
If the GAR is to continue, I think Hawkeye7 should provide a full rationale for his view that the GA2 review was "conducted in bad faith" because this has a direct bearing on the article and on the subsequent GA3 review. Unless anyone has a question that needs a personal response from me, I am withdrawing from this discussion. Please ping me if I'm needed. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
While it may once have been in the GA class it no longer meets those standards, the biggest issue is the dozens of instances of unsourced text. Needs serious work to get back to GA status, at the moment its probably a C. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments:
CMD ( talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)category, and there's no question that the world's largest country is an exceptionally big topic. So I'd say reducing the size ought to be on our minds when editing the page, but I'm not sure the current size is an argument for delisting. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The more I look at this article, the more citation issues I find, including claims not supported by sources, and sources which predate the claims they purport to support.
For example, the paragraph:
In his retirement... John Cunningham died six days shy of his 85th birthday in July 2002.
had (until I just tagged it) just one citation, placed after its final full stop: {{sfn|Golley|1999|pp=215–216}}
. So that's a 1999 publication which speaks about the subject in the present tense, used to cite his 2002 death.
One 135-word paragraph is cited simply to {{sfn|Golley|1999|pp=171–199}}
- that's 28 pages.
Elsewhere, we had a 23 August 2012 press article, talking about a forthcoming event, falsely cited as having a September 2012 date, and used to support a claim about the auction price paid at a September 2012 event.
Unfortunately not all of the sources cited are online, and the Internet Archive's copy of John 'Cat's Eyes' Cunningham : the aviation legend that is heavily cited is missing several of the pages cited (e.g. page 24).
Though a secondary issue, the article's prose is also clumsy; see recent edits for some fixes, but they do not address all of the issues. For example:
Attempting his usual tactic, the British crew approached from behind and below. Suddenly the Heinkel lurched into a tight left-hand turn allowing the gunners to fire a broad-side.
The listing of every crew member of a German plane shot down by the article subject is also probably not necessary.
On top of all this, attempts to rectify even minor issues have met with edit warring and abuse, as a result of which a block is currently in place.
I leave it to uninvolved editors more familiar with GA criteria to determine how to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
` Comment Nigel Ish I took "Thomas 2013" to be a typo, and changed it to match the other Thomas references. The Gazette issue can be cured by using the correct template ({{ London Gazette}}) instead of {{ sfn}}. The Hooton2010 ref is the one causing the ref error issue raised at WT:MILHIST. Mjroots ( talk) 13:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
References
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Damascus (634)/1]]
This article was much longer when rated GA but much of the content from its 2015 review is now missing or consolidated to the point that it shows how little the article actually has. Virtually no company history, three products mentioned and not described in much detail. Definitely not GA class by a long shot. Honestly, I'm not getting good WP:ORG vibes from this one as is. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The major change seems to be this IP edit which split a lot of material into EyeTV. Spinning Spark 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Although there is a long section on "suppression", there does not seem to be any mention about the harmful effects of suppression. The prevention section also lacks information on the harms of overzealous suppression in terms of leading to fuel buildup -> more and worse fires. I see other issues such as uncited info in places, and lack of MOS compliance (too many images). Overall, I am concerned about referencing and NPOV. ( t · c) buidhe 23:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)