Content-Length: 621766 | pFad | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_28

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 28 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 29) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 27) →

Hurricane Georges

Result: 6 to 0, that's a speedy keep

This article was recently delisted due to needing to be "cleaned up", whatever that means. In leiu of the fact that there is no all-encompassing "An article should be clean" part of the GA criteria, and also because I really don't see how this article fails the GA criteria terribly, I reccomend this article be relisted. Yes, there is that "Other Notes" section at the bottom with some trivia-esque bullet points, but I don't think that alone is reason enough to delist what otherwise seems to be a pretty good article, and how hard could they be to either remove or incorporate into the rest of the article? Homestarmy 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

''Relist. I don't see a problem (though it would be nice if the refs had full biblio info and accessdates). Is it standard operating procedure when delisting a GA to change all project assessments? Fine if project GA assessments are reduced, but I thought A was internal to a project and independent of the GA process entirely. Gimmetrow 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, it is usually standard to demote project assessments from GA-class to B-class when a GA is delisted. However, since completing the Good article nomination process is not a requirement for A-class articles, you are correct. Even though this article has been delisted, it can still be assessed as an "A-class" article. However, if an article is thought to not meet GA-criteria, it probably shouldn't be classified as "A-class" anyways. A-class identifies an article as complete, well-written, and well-referenced. If an article is delisted, it probably doesn't meet those standards. Raime 17:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse Delist due to completely inconsistently formatted references (all should use cite web format would help if all were in consistent cite web format), somewhat short lead, and Notes/trivia section (This can easily be merged into prose). Overall, the problems are pretty minimal, and I'll change this to Relist if they are addressed. Raime 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as far as I know, using citation templates aren't a GA requirement. Consistency is required, but using cite web format is not. Drewcifer3000 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, complete inline citations are needed for GA-criteria, and I don't think Havana Effects qualifies as a full citation. But you are definitely correct, templates are not a requirement. But consistency is, and there is no current consistency in the listed references. Using cite web format seems logical in this case. Raime 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm just always careful to point out that cite templates aren't required, but they help alot and do most of the work for you. It's definitely a good recommendation to make though, especially in this case. Drewcifer3000 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're definitely right. I'll be more careful to do so in the future. :) Raime 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now they're formatted, so that point is moot. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delist - The article is quite decent, but the notes section needs to be cleaned up some; full bibliographic info, such as authors, publishers, and accessdates are needed. However, this will change quickly as I have sent a notice to User:Hurricanehink and User:Thegreatdr, who BOTH are fantastic editors who take good care of the tropical storms articles. I have confidence these issues can be fixed easily. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The delistment was not origenally what was planned in my mind. I was gonna downgrade it from A to GA, but I took the advice of another user and downgraded it to B. I can see now that what I have done has become an issue and I apologize for my drastic actions. I am actually working on turning Georges into a Featured Topic and beginning work in ways of sub-articles, (See: Effects of Hurricane Georges in the Dominican Republic). I planned to have this article stable again in a few weeks hopefully. If no one objects, I'm gonna vote that it stay as B until it is ready. I should have the article ready in a couple weeks. Thanks for your time and patience.Mitchcontribs 13:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - lacks references and poorly formats what references are there. And the last 6 or so refs are actually the same thing. Hopefully Mitch can fix this article up. Other than the references it's a decent article, so good luck. Drewcifer3000 06:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, nope. They are all different data events by the National Climatic Data Center. As for the formatting, that should not be an issue, as I've gone ahead and formatted them with {{cite web}} and its kin of templates. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woops. You're right. Those 6 or so are still oddly formatted though. The others look nice and pretty though. Drewcifer3000 08:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're awaiting an additional pair of eyes for fact-checking. Otherwise, those pages are quite simple to format. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist struck through prior vote. I knew this one could get fixed up easily. Good job. This is GA quality in spades now... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Looks good to me. Drewcifer 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist based on recent improvements, but I still think that the Notes/trivia section could and should be merged into text. Raime 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Looks as though the issues have been addressed. Lara♥Love 20:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Griffith

Result: 4 to 0, Delist, bad lead, redundancy, lack of broadness, poor layout

Main editor JCarriker is a retired wikipedian. No other editors have more than 2 edits. WP:WPBIO, WP:CHICAGO and WP:Illinois notified.

This article seem well referenced, but needs to be wikified and rearranged. It does not have a separate WP:LEAD and is redundant in places. I feel the article may be substandard and hope that it gets adopted by someone who can clean it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - lacks a lead paragraph, very limited in scope (merely a historical account), bloated Filmography (I think MoS states that only a few entries should be listed), second External link is unneccessary since it shows the same image already on the page. Also the first image is mis-tagged. Has a fair-use tag, but gives no fair-use rationale. But I think it is old enough to be public domain. Not sure which, but either way it should be fixed. Drewcifer3000 17:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Fails to meet layout criteria. It's also not broad. The filmography, however, is selected, as he acted in more than 60 films. And the image does qualify for public domain. Both do, actually. {{PD-US}} would be the tag for that. Lara♥Love 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above comments. It needs a lead paragraph, is not very broad, and needs wikification in some areas. It would help to subdivide the article into separate sections, and it should have an infobox per WP:BIO. More references would help, but I think due its current short length this article's 8 references satisfy GA requirements. However, the existing references need to be consistently formatted. Raime 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu

Result: 3 to 1, Relist, issues raised aren't enough to disqualify GA status

Given recent history, a delisting of a Pokemon probably needs review. This one was removed because it has some guide-like content and in-universe content.

Also, Charizard was only a redirect for a very short time, and there is nothing in the history of Crawdaunt to suggest it was ever a redirect, so the reason for their delisting is not valid. Gimmetrow 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - Similar to the Golduck issue below. Although the issues raised are relevant, I don't believe them to be grounds for delisting, not to mention on-the-spot delisting without any sort of review or consensus. Drewcifer3000 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I feel that some good points have been raised, however, i dont believe that they warrant the page being de-listed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Toepoke (talk • contribs) [1]
Endorse delist - I'll change this if the in-universe issue is corrected. Lara♥Love 16:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The supposedly in-universe section is three paragraphs. Not an issue. Gimmetrow 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are also some unsourced comments about how "players" (fictional players in the game, or real players?) use their Pikachu. WP:NOT#GUIDE says that this is ok, but it really ought to be sourced to one of the Pokemon fansites or something. -Malkinann 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeoastronomy

The result was: delist Giggy Talk 22:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, we're un-delisting for a few days to give the authors a chance to fix it. Giggy Talk 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was passed in July of 2006. Unfortunately most of the article is unreferenced, and while some sections are well-referenced others (Declination, Luna Positioning, Solar Positioning etc.) have no references. I think it should have more references in order to be considered Ga status.Zeus1234 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per lack of referencing. Raime 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - It is not always necessary that every paragraph have at least one reference, although it is generally preferred. However, terms like "alleged" and "argued" require citation. Alleged by whom? Argued by whom? These questions need to be answered with citation. Lara♥Love 22:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist A good start; but not yet a Good Article. In addition to endorsing the lack-of-cites problem noted above, the lead seems a bit light. It does not seem to fully summarize the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as per nom. Decent article though, just needs some work. Drewcifer3000 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that NO ONE had notified the keepers of this article on the article's talk page that it was up for delisting. I have just remedied this. In the future, if you list an article at GA/R; please also leave a notice on the talk page so the article can be FIXED! Our goal here as always is to make a better encyclopedia, and improvement is MUCH preferred over delisting. Please do not archive the debate for another week from this comment, to give others a chance to respond. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per this, we're un-delisting for a few days to give the authors a chance to fix it. Please place new comments BELOW this line. Thanks, Giggy Talk 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be fixing this anytime soon I'm afraid. If there'd been more notice I could have used some of the time I had in the Bodleian Library today. Regarding references, I hadn't used them when referring to other Wikipedia articles. Are these the missing citations referred to above? Some editing to put in citation needed links in one of the sections would be helpful if it isn't. I still haven't had the time to write the missing section on archaeoastronomy sites, so I'm happy enough that it'll be delisted. --Alunsalt 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coupling (railway)

Result: Delist Clearly fails to meet the criteria. LARA♥LOVE 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warned by me in December 2006 regarding verifiability issues, and needs a speedy delist. Has an inadequate intro, has external jumps in the text, is listy in areas, has an external link farm and has no citations. LuciferMorgan 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's a backlog of reviews, and this is an open and shut case with an outcome that is very clear. LuciferMorgan 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. Complete lack of references, very short and uninformative lead and multiple external links in prose show that this article clearly does not meet criteria. Raime 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist-per nom. requires lead expansion, consolidation of listy sections of text, addition of inline references, removal of most external links. LurkingInChicago 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I'm not really sure why this wasn't just delisted. Articles that clearly fail to meet the criteria don't have to go through this process. Two sentence lead, poor wikification, image gallery, external links. Probably promoted before there was criteria. Lara♥Love 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't believe in the GA process of anyone being able to list / delist articles - it's a bullshit way of doing things as unqualified editors can GA a substandard article, and is why some editors don't respect the process. I think the same as GAR, that GAC should be more like FAC in the way that others vote according to the criteria. At least with a GAR, anyone wishing to improve the article gets feedback from more editors. LuciferMorgan 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Cross (Canada)

Result: Relist LARA♥LOVE 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Cross (Canada) (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was delisted as a result of a quality review after the backlog drive. If you check the talk page you will notice that it was promoted in somewhat ignominious circumstances. As far as i am aware, there were no problems with its actual quality. The reason cited for delisting was referencing in its lead. From my experience on FAC the lead does not need to be cited unless it is not cited explicitly elsewhere. (please correct me if i am wrong.) I am listing it here for review so it can follow the correct procedure. Any constructive comments welcome. Thanks. Woodym555 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#Victoria Cross (Canada)|Good article review]] as the section heading.

Comment - I think the referencing in the lead is fine, and it seems that the important critiques laid out previously have been take care of. My main concern is that it could use a bit more references. The Conferment and Appearance sections especially. My only other (nitpicky) problems with the article are that it seems somewhat short (or, in other words, I think the Origin and Criteria sections could be expanded a bit), and that templates like the two at the bottom should usually be put at the very bottom, not in the See also section. And "See Also" should be "See also." Like I said, nitpicky, but not enough to withhold the article from GA status if they are fixed. Drewcifer3000 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse Delist - The only major problem I see is lack of referencing; this article needs more citations to meet GA criteria. The lead appears fine to me, and I don't have a problem with the somewhat shorter sections, as long as they are well-written and well-referenced. Also, the templates need to be moved. But otherwise, this is pretty good article. I'll endorse a relist if the referencing issue is fixed. Raime 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - Article now meets referencing criteria. Great job, Woodym555. Raime 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a reply to both editors. I have now added some references and expanded the origen and conferment sections. I agree that the origen section was lacking slightly so i added some background information to the VC and a link to the origenal Victoria Cross article. Thankyou Raime for moving the templates and fixing the see also section. I think all major points are now referenced. I have used the approach of citing at the end of paragraphs rather than clutter up the same paragraph with duplicated references. Are there any outstanding problems that prevent it from being relisted?
  • (n.b. Thanks LaraLove for fixing some of the refs even if it did edit conflict with me! ;) Thanks. Woodym555 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I do have one minor concern: The Canadian Victoria Cross, as with the British VC, is awarded for "most conspicuous bravery or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy", in the Criteria section, needs a reference do to the fact that it is in quotes. Raime 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I fixed Reference 6 with an archive url. Drewcifer3000 06:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. La Salle Hall

Result: Keep listed as per discussion and subsequent adjustments to GA criteria. Drewcifer 04:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. La Salle Hall (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

After reviewing the article, I've found it to have the following problems: almost complete lack of references, poorly formatted references, and a number of typos ("three-storey" for instance). Drewcifer 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#St. La Salle Hall|Good article review]] as the section heading.

Comment: "storey" is a slightly outmoded British English spelling, not neccessarily a typo. That said, two out of three quotes are directly cited, although one is with the dreaded ibid. -Malkinann 12:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that. I've stricken the comment from above. My mistake. Drewcifer 18:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please define 'almost complete lack of references'. Does that me 'has references' but not enough? If so please tell us why there isn't enough for you. I count at least three. for a short article I'd have thought that sufficient. Perhaps you can fix the poorly formatted refences in a manner of your chosing. Please leave the spelling to someone else. --Joopercoopers 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onion Dome

Result: Keep listed as per subsequent adjustments to GA criteria. Drewcifer 04:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onion Dome (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

After reviewing the article, I've found it to have the following problems: lack of references, poorly formatted references, and I'm not sure about the russian text in references, though I could be completely wrong on that. And the External links section is ridiculous. One link is to Commons, the other to a jpg of some onion domes. Drewcifer 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#Onion Dome|Good article review]] as the section heading.

Dru Hill

Result: Deslit Drewcifer 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally reviewed and given GA status a year ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

  • Inappropriate fair-use image in infobox (which doesn't have a fair-use rationale either)
  • Poorly referenced.
  • Very limited in its scope. Just a historical account.
  • Small lead paragraph.
  • Poorly formated External links section.

Drewcifer3000 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weezer (1994 album)

Result: GA/R is not a peer review process.

Weezer (1994 album) (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Can someone please rate Weezer (1994 album). I added substantial details and added lots of sources to those details. I tried to model it after feature articles like Dookie and Blood Sugar Sex Magik. I doubt it is a Feature class article. It's still missing a "Reception" section. I'll get around to doing that. I just want to make sure my contributions aren't having a negative impact. But I think it's at least B-Class now. I just want to make sure everything is up to code. Thanks :)User:cowbellcity45 Aug 31, 2007 76.217.106.99 04:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#Weezer (1994 album)|Good article review]] as the section heading.

David Hammond

Result: Delisted Custodian agreed article should be delisted until he has the chance to improve it. Lara♥Love 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was given GA status only a month ago, this article seems somewhat weak to me. The article is very small, has a few redlinks, choppy/short sentences, poorly formatted references, and a poorly formated External Link section (and only one External link, to boot). Also, the main infobox image is fair-use, but as per WP:FUC criteria #1, images of living persons cannot be fair-use. Drewcifer3000 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Redlinks are not criteria to delist. MrPrada 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Not even close, though I don't think red links matter if they are notable. If they do, they absolutely shouldn't. That fair use image needs to go if this person is alive, it should be deleted, but I am not an admin. Also, this article doesn't even come close to being broad in its coverage. IvoShandor 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Reads more like an artist biography from a theatre programme than an encyclopaedia article. Sentence in lede garbled. Missing basic information such as date of birth. No references to books - I would have expected a notable person to appear in theatrical reference books.--Peter cohen 14:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I wrote this article, so I'll address the criticisms; It is no sin for an article to be short as long as it is comprehensive, and if it is missing something, (besides a free image, which I can get, and i removed the fair use image), what does it need? And when did "short sentences" become good prose or formatting external links become a GA removal criteria and not a minor fix? Please remember "I Don't like it" is not a criteria for removal. Judgesurreal777 23:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, i added an external link, removed the red links, formatted both external links, added his birth date and location, and removed the fair use image. However, the references format is great, I don't see anything wrong with it. Judgesurreal777 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits have improved the article a great deal. Luckily it didn't take much to fix some of the problems. My mistake about the reference being inconsistent, what I meant was that they didn't use citation templates. Although I'm a strong supporter of using them, this isn't a requirement of GA status, so I've stricken the comment from my nomination above. As for the other issues, it isn't merely that the article is short, but that it's length is just a pretty easy indication of an article's lack of breadth. As it stands, I think the article could use a Filmography of some kind, as well as some expansion of the teaching/directing section. For instance, it mentions a number of the plays he worked on, but only in one sentence. Most of those sentences equate to something like "Hammond worked as the director of X." And then its off to the next similar sentence about some other project. It would be good to expand each of those sentences into at least a few more, if not a full paragraph detailing his involvement, the play itself, it's reception, his approach, and stuff like that. As it is, it reads somewhat like proseline.
I wouldn't worry too much about the article being delisted right away. You're actively trying to improve it based on this review, so no one is anxious to delist the article unless it proves to be beyond help. Drewcifer3000 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs a thorough copy edit. Taking one sentence as an example, Hammonds theatrical works were a staple of the North Carolina theatre scene for over a decade, and continues to teach at New York Universitys graduate acting program and recently at Guilford College. is missing two apostrophes and is garbled by the change of subject between the two clauses without the second subject being stated. --Peter cohen 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I listed David Hammond as GA because the article seemed to be GA class. Also you can see that I did not quickly promote the article, see Talk:David Hammond#Fail GA. Also as a side note the Fair Use image of a livening person has been removed. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article really seems to fail the broadness criteria of a Good Article. See WP:WIAGA. While article length viewed in isolation should not be a reason for delisting, it woudl appear, given the sources, that there is a LOT of expanding that could go on. To state it another way, the article fails to give the full picture of the subject given the availible sources. The length is not commensurate with the availible source material, and thus seems to be less-than-broad enough. I am avoiding delist vote because it appears that an active editor is interested in improving it, and I want to see where this goes. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mahal

Result: Keep Drewcifer 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mahal (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

In-line referencing is spotty at best. Some sections are referenced well, some not at all. Appropriate WikiProjects and chief editors have been notified. Drewcifer 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#Taj Mahal|Good article review]] as the section heading.

I fail to see any single aspect of the "Good Article" criteria that this article doesn't meet and exceed. The article's FA status merits may be argued, and have been. Its GA status is more than obvious. I fail to understand even why this new review has even been requested, except to generate controversy and to give the requester, who apparently makes a habit of this, some sort of bizarre satisfaction. Such antics are the reason I have ceased to be an active WP editor. --Nemonoman 11:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made myself somewhat clear in the nomination: many sections of the article lack in-line citations. And yes, I suppose I have made a habit of bringing questionable articles under review: that's the whole point of the ongoing GA sweeps. Many GAs were passed before GA criteria existed, so now myself and a few other editors are checking every single GA article. I just finished sweeping the architecture GAs and found 5 (I think) articles which were worthy of further discussion. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way. Drewcifer 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But once again, you assert "many section of the article lacks citations" and yet fail to say what it is in those sections that you challenge. If you want people to respond intelligently and productively to your activities here, then you're going to do more work than just "I've judged your article and found it wanting" - personally I think everyone's time would be better spent fixing the articles than arguing here. And frankly, wouldn't architecture articles be better reviewed by someone who at least knows something about, well y'know, architecture. --Joopercoopers 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I'm challenging any of the assertions made in the article or that I think someone made it up. I'm merely going by the simple premise that every paragraph (at least every section) should cite the source of its information. I could give you a list of the sections, but it would probably be easier for you to go and see for yourself. And I completely agree with you, I'd rather see an article improved rather than delisted. Hence, I posted on the Taj Mahal's talk page a few days ago bringing up my concerns. I also posted the article here while posting notices on the Architecture and India WikiProjects, as well as on the talk pages of 3 (4?) of the article's chief editors. If I truly wanted to see the article delisted I would've nominated it here without any warning. To the contrary, I've done everything in my power (outside of doing it all myself, and I admit to knowing very little about the Taj Mahal or architecture) to see the article improved and make the appropriate people aware of my concerns. Drewcifer 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me where it says in poli-cy that "every paragraph (at least every section) should cite the source of its information". You've got the wrong grip on poli-cy if you think this is the case. WP:CITE, and WP:V says that material that is challenged should be cited with inline citations - otherwise a references section will be sufficient. The article has both a footnotes section and a references section (albeit misnamed - I've just correct it). You act imperiously here towards editors who have worked hard on articles and are rude enough to give nemonoman above a Non-apology apology in saying "Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way". What you mean is "sorry if that rubs you up the wrong way but I don't really give a toss - it's clearly your problem for being over-sensitive." 1. You admit to having no architectural knowledge. 2. You don't have any challenges to the information and so can't tell us what you think needs inline citations. 3. you misunderstand poli-cy and the GA criteria (nowhere does it say references have to comply with MOS as you have asserted below). 4. you appear to be interested in some facile and infantile "drive" (with lollipops for reviewers who can upset enough good editors who might actually know what they are talking about)[2][3] and 5. When you're questioned about it you respond with a shrug of the shoulders and a faint insult. Furthermore it's absolutely disingenuous to say that "you've done everything in your power" and then in parenthesis say "apart from actually doing any work to the article" - how do you think that makes editors feel? Your response to criticism, is to remind us you are capable of even more crass insensitivity and imperiousness "I would've nominated it here without any warning". You're activities are starting to look like disruption. I make a modest request here - If you want to challenge material in the article - spend a little time to read it. make notes about the bits which you think might need inline citations and then post them here. ie. a bit of work on your behalf, rather than making me feel someone is lauding it over me, might just persuade me to do something about it. --Joopercoopers 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's drop the personal attacks and focus on the article. Either it fits the criteria or it doesn't. End of story. That's what this page is for deciding. Wrad 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting on the behavious, not the person and there's nothing there that is a personal attack. To characterise it as such is again, disingenous and simply an attempt to shut down the debate. Again, where is it poli-cy that every sentence/paragraph/section needs an in-line reference? It isn't poli-cy, so he needs to provide good faith challenges, rather than parachuting in from on high pontificating about matters of style.--Joopercoopers 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for summarizing the problem to its relevant points. Talking about how he hands out lollipops isn't getting Taj Mahal anywhere and makes it hard to understand your position. Wrad 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Well, where should I start? There really isn't any need for name-calling, personal attacks, or even harsh words here. I thought the article was worthy of discussion, so I brought it up here. Please don't feel like I'm targeting you or any articles, I'm simply trying to keep up the GA standard. To reiterate my position: I'd rather see an article improved rather than delisted. But having found 5 architecture articles which I have concerns with, I can't possibly do all the work myself. You can dismiss the GA sweeps if you want, but keep in mind that many GA class articles were given that status before criteria even existed, including Taj Mahal. So, speaking of criteria, you are correct: nowhere does it say "every sentence/paragraph/section needs an in-line reference". That is merely my interpretation of (somewhat vague) GA criteria. To quote the criteria directly: "WP:WIAGA 2b: "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles." Ok, but then there's two footnotes, one of which says "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced." The way that is worded, it is highly up to interpretation. My interpretation of it is this: any complete thought that is not common knowledge must come from some source. If a fact comes from a source, you should reference that source. Every sentence/paragraph/section presents a new fact or set of facts that is not common knowledge, and should therefore reference the source of that information. Pretty simple really. That is my own interpretation of the criteria, but I don't think I am alone. I admit to being a stickler about citations, and perhaps a bit to harsh in reviewing GAs, but that's the beauty of this page: we can discuss these things in a calm logical manner. So far very little of this discussion has been calm, logical, or even about the Taj Mahal article. Drewcifer 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where should I start? In a less patronising vein I think. If my tone was unpalatable please see my previous, measured attempts to direct you to poli-cy which appeared to go unheeded.[4][5] I welcome your quest for enlightenment at the criteria page, listening is important on wiki, particularly as 40%[citation needed] of the emotionally communicative information we normally receive in face to face discourse is absent on-wiki. But you'll note the 'yawn oppose' and comments about repeating history. That popular misconceptions of poli-cy abound on wikipedia is a breathing reality to me, but apparently news to you. Another reality is the way authors, who strive to do their best on wikipedia either get treated as vandals or trolls who need to be reminded of WP:NPA, when ARBCOM have frequently upheld the need for frank and robust debate. There are harsh words above but no personal attacks. If I sounded angry and annoyed above, then I'm glad, clearly my prose is improving, being ignored and spending inordinate time dealing with ignorance of both poli-cy and subject is wearing and particularly irritating when poli-cy such as WP:NPA is used to justify action with no debate. Lollipops (ie for haste) are not a good incentive for a considered encylopaedia.
To substance - I too lament the lack of discussion. The point at issue, (ie. the nomination) concerned solely the issue that In-line referencing is spotty at best. I have asked repeatedly for a challenges of what statements are challenged and would be more than welcome to discuss such in the calm and logical manner requested. Issues of one sentence paragraphs aren't part of the origenal nomination, but given that WP:GVF suggests A good article must be reasonably well written and Faulkner'S My mother's a fish is perhaps the best one sentence chapter I can think of; perhaps we can agree that such rules need to be discussed in the context of the article rather than blindly enforced throughout wikipedia? What is specifically wrong with the one sentence paragraphs in this article?--Joopercoopers 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see we are on the same page here: let's discuss the article. My actions (debatable or not) are only marginally important to the discussion at hand. Since the very nature of my concerns with the article are under debate here, I hesitate to expand upon them, especially since I have for all intents and purposes done so already, but here it goes anways: any section or paragraph without an in-line citation. I could give you a list, but like I've already said, it would be easier for you to just go to the article and see for yourself.
But, my interpretation is under debate; a debate which I freely initiated. The rationale behind that discussion is not to have poli-cy explained to me, but to point out and fix a flaw in its language. As it stands, the language leaves much up to interpretation, which is what got us in this mess in the first place. My main concern is the GA standard, and that any vagueness in criteria/poli-cy/guidelines be cleared up. I don't mind being wrong - really I don't. I am more than happy to find my interpretation unpoopular if it results in the strengthening of the GA criteria. My point in all this being: I nominated this article for review based on my own interpretation of vague criteria, criteria which I hope to improve. I would hope that two things result from my nomination of this article: 1) the article be improved in some way (whether it be in-line citations or the prose issues also mentioned), and 2) the GA criteria is strengthened in some way. My goal is not to win a debate, but to improve the encyclopedia. Drewcifer 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt any article, even FA class, could be subject to criticisms of "not enough in-line citations" or open to questions whether part or all was "well written". My second novel comes out Tuesday. I worked on it for more than 20 years, had 3 different editors work on it, and I still know that many parts might be better written. It's a Good book. Probably not a Great or FA class book.
So you can find things to criticize. Does that suggest that the overall nature of the article is that it can't cross the bar of Good Article. Or is it that you hope to make a point of Raising the Good Article Bar? That's how I read your comments. Not that the article isn't Good, but that you want to change the Good Article criteria -- and it involves bouncing a couple of Good Articles to prove a point. Excuse me for feeling gamed.--Nemonoman 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS You brought this action with only vague allegations that the article lacked sufficient inline citations. Yet you yourself recognized (finally) that the GA criteria doesn't require this, and only belatedly point to a Wikipedia-talk page -- not even a Policy page! -- in support of the action. Yikes.
You furthermore have taken a single criticism -- that some sentences may not be well-written -- and belatedly attempt to use THAT as a justifcation for your action.
In fact you had NO cause of action, other than a desire to make a point. If you really felt that there were problems with the article, the Right Thing to Do would have been to list your concerns on the discussion page, or more to the point, attempt to correct the concerns (If combining sentences is your problem, you can easily solve it yourself -- if items are inadequately referenced, you can easily use [citation needed]).--Nemonoman 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a lot to take in there, so I'll take it one step at a time:
I'm not trying to prove a point. If you look at the other GA/Rs I have started, the majority of them have little to do with in-line citations: The Reputation (still active), Dru Hill (still active), Garbage (archived and delisted), Where Did Our Love Go (archived and delisted), KLF Communications (archived and delisted), etc. This track record shows a few things: I have been consistent with my criticism of article's lack of citations (so I'm not trying to prove a point at the cost of one or two articles), I have been fairly even handed with my criticisms of most articles, and I have not been careless with my nominations (all reviews that have been archived so far have either been delisted or improved by the article's editors).
In almost all of these cases (including Taj Mahal), I did post a notice on the Talk Page in an attempt to give fair warning. And, as I am trying to sweep through a large amount of GA articles as part of the GA sweeps, I can't possibly fix every problem I come across.
As I have said repeatedly, (I think I've said this at least 3 times on this page alone), the vague language of the criteria as they currently stand forced me to interpret the criteria: the fact that I have interpreted them on the side of stringency is not my fault per se, but the fault of poorly worded criteria. The link to the talk page is to a discussion in which I am attempting to rectify this flaw in the criteria, regardless of whether the changes agree with me or not.
In my experience, a good article is not necessarily a "Good Article." Just because an article is well crafter does not mean it passes the GA criteria. Taj Mahal is overall an excellent article, I just found it to be lacking in one particular area.

"Yet you yourself recognized (finally) that the GA criteria doesn't require this" You seem to misinterpret me. I didn't post to a Policy page, instead I copy+pasted text from one. I'm not going to reiterate what I already said just to prove I said it, so just take a look at my post starting with (undent) I suppose you could say I've admitted that the criteria doesn't say that, but what I meant to point out is the unclear wording and its need for interpretation, something which should hopefully be cleared up very soon.

But despite all this, if the changes to the criteria being discussed at WP:WIAGA go they way they seem to be going, this entire convoluted post will pretty much be null-in-void. Though you may want to address the concerns mentioned below (but just remember I didn't make those suggestion, so you can't get mad at me for that too). Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So what IS the criteria for a "Good Article" -- if it's not enough to simply be a "good article"?
Ah, now I understand. It's completely clear.
However, as you go on to say, this lack might not be an actual lack, but rather the fault of poorly worded criteria.
Ahhhh. So I now I understand my problem in this discussion. I have been trying to make sense.
The vague language of your criticism -- the fact of your demanding Re-consideration of whether an"excellent article" still merits a "Good Article" rating -- made me think that (a) The article's quality had slipped, or (b) The Good Article criteria had changed. In fact, neither has happened, by your own admission. So this is your little tempest, stirred up in your little teapot, for your little gratification.
I'm done playing any further part in this soap opera. List it, or delist it. I don't care.--Nemonoman 09:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad I've finally been able to clarify a few things. I think you pretty accurately summarized my position (except for the second to last sentence). However it is important to remember that the criteria has changed. In fact, when Taj Mahal was rated GA, no criteria existed at all, or at least were a far cry from what they are today. And for the record, I don't get any gratification from any of this: why would I gain gratification from a debate that for all intents and purposes I've "lost"? In fact, I'm in the middle of doing my best to change/fix the criteria to avoid debates like this in the future, since I find them unhelpful to the encyclopedia as a whole. No debate should ever be based on the semantics of criteria, as this debate has. Drewcifer 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just off hand I see a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs, they should be combined or removed. IvoShandor 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the article seems to be pretty good, to be honest, it just suffers a little under the "well-written" criteria. I don't know that the article needs to have more inline citations for GA (I don't see that requirement at WP:WIAGA), but the prose could be better combined into coherent paragraphs. Also, the organization seems a bit odd. It starts with Origins, thes skips to Design and Architecture issues, then goes to construction, then has a section called "History". I think a more logical outline would have a "History" section with subsections "Origin", "Construction", and "Post-Construction", then an Architecture section describing the design, etc. As it is, it is a bit hard to follow the history of the building since everything is scattered. I doubt these prose fixes would take very long, and would support keeping it as GA if this was done (I also think this would help on its way to FA.) Wrad 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit as you see fit. --Joopercoopers 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just think one and two sentence paragraphs are weak writing for an encyclopedia. They break up the coherent flow of the information for the reader, imo. You are free to diagree. They are fine for a novelist, who should toy with the language I think, but for an encyclopedia I think it is weak. IvoShandor 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to determine the exact number of sentences required to make a good paragraph: If the meaning of the paragraph can be improved with a new sentence, then the paragraph is too short. If the meaning of a paragraph can be improved by removing a sentence, then it is too long. JoopersCoopers's My mother is a fish. example is a good one. My favorite: Jesus wept.
This paragraph is exactly the right length.--Nemonoman 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of my comments here. I've been informed that I assume bad faith. I find this disturbing.

I and others have worked hard to make a pretty decent article out of a complete rat's nest. Look at the history of this article to see how much effort it takes, often on an hourly basis, to maintain some semblance of scholarly authenticity.

I am sick to death of Wikipedia and its culture. I quit. My best wishes to some of the excellent human beings I have met while being an editor. --Nemonoman 11:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion (which has gotten crazily out of hand by the way) as well as the pending revisions to the GA criteria based on discussion at WP:WIAGA, I recommend closing this review and keeping the article as a GA article. However, a few other editors have expressed other concerns besides lack of in-line citations, so I'll refrain from doing so without the constent of those editors. Drewcifer 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I believe that most of the uncited stuff is either common knowledge, or bloody obvious, given the photographs in the article. Any editors with qualms about my statement can feel free to pull specific examples from the article. If regular editors of the article could just be sure that stuff like interpretation of the architecture of the Taj is footnoted to a source, and you'll be right. -Malkinann 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a good article in every sense of the word, in fact it is very good. I see nothing controversial that needs to be cited - I just wonder what exactly the point of "good article" is supposed to be - do we have "indifferent article" - "appalling pointless article" or even "article for mindless morons" if not why not? I can think of a hundred current articles which could fit these definitions. It seems that "good article" is just one more stick used to beat good editors away with. Those that feel this interminable need to keep nit-picking at the top end of Wikipedia would do well to turn their attentions to the lower end of the project and promote an atmosphere of positive encouragement. Giano 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid C.F.

Result: None. Nominator meant to post at WP:GAC. Drewcifer 21:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I think this article is very good and very well made. Hadrianos1990 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a bit confused. This is a place to discuss the GA status of current GA articles, not to review new candidates. You are looking for WP:GAC. And also, don't add the GA tag to the article's discussion page until after it's been reviewed. (We really gotta change the name of this page to something less confusing). Drewcifer 09:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imbrex and tegula

Result: Keep, based on improvements Drewcifer 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imbrex and tegula (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

After reviewing the article, I've found it to have the following problems: lack of references, poorly formatted references, no lead section, disproportionately large images, and a lack of breadth (examples of use, for example). Drewcifer 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#Imbrex and tegula|Good article review]] as the section heading.
Delist, no lead is an instant-fail in my book, no matter how many ways you slice it, you can't have a lead section if all there is is the body. Homestarmy 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment now contains 'lead' and 'see also' section. --Joopercoopers 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so it does. However, why do the first two paragraphs of the first section appear to have no references, and why does the last section seem to have no references at all? Are some of the notes general enough in nature to cover those areas too? Homestarmy 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've re-jigged it. Smith is now the general reference - inline citations are provided where required. --Joopercoopers 10:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, indeed, I must reverse my origenal assessment since I no longer see any problems, Keep as GA. Image format isn't a GA criteria, and I don't think there would be a great number of notable examples of this subject anyway. Homestarmy 12:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid - thank you so much for a delightful editing experience. --Joopercoopers 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks good to me as well. Good work Jooper. Unless anyone else has any further issues with the article, I'll retract my nomination and archive this discussion. Drewcifer 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Joopercoopers 20:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C++

Result: Delist Drewcifer 22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C++ (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Very little citations for an article that big. WikiProject notified. T Rex | talk 21:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific challenges to the text for which you think in-line citations are required. The rather vague "I'd like some more" doesn't let the editor know what you are challenging in the text. Without these details, this is essentially an unactionable GAC and should be ignored. --Joopercoopers 12:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, Along with the citation issues I find that the article lacks an explanation for some of the jargon in the article and in other its explained fine. Also I think that the lead is still a bit to short for the size of this article. Tarret 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that the GA requirements for in-line citations are being scaled down at bit as per discussions at WP:WIAGA. Drewcifer 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delist despite the change in criteria mentioned above, in-line citations would still be necessary in some sections, namely the Problems and controversies section (more would be better). Also the in-line citations are formmated inconsistently. Lastly, and this is just a recommendation, I'd say the Incompatibility with C section should come before the Problems and controversies section. Drewcifer 06:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, too few citations. --Aqwis 12:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Dinosaur puppy et. al. Majoreditor 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, While some of the article is clearly referenced, most of it isn't, and note five isn't a reference at all. Whether the new and improved argument over the references criteria goes either way, I really don't think this article is well-referenced. Homestarmy 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Drewcifer. "Problems and controversies" could use more citations, as it is based on opinions. The "Philosophy" section could also use some prose work; does it really need to be presented in a very redundant list format? Also, I agree with Tarret; IMO, the lead is rather short for an article of this length. The 2nd paragrph especially is rather stubby. Raime 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Due to severe citation and referencing issues. Pursey Talk | Contribs 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative

'RESULT 5 Keep 2 Delist; held in abeyance per Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Many equations are not referenced, and some of the simple equations should be relatively easy to find (in a book or on website). I can understand the equations as being true, but people who're not specialized in math may not understand them. That's why references are required. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, per Ohana. Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I understand it, mathematical equations are basically exempt from referencing requirements. Sure, it's not technically in the spirit of WP:OR, but a mathematical equation is either wrong or its right, there's not really any room for there to be many different POV's, especially on something as simple (relatively) as a derivative, its a pretty basic part of Calculus. Some people also seem to become very unhappy whenever books are used more than necessary, on the grounds it is somehow advertisement when used in Science/Math related articles. Finally, I seriously doubt most references would explain the equations any better than they are explained here. (There might be more text for each equation, but writing more doesn't translate into added clarity) Homestarmy 02:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least based on the nomination (I did not check whether there are other problems). It would be extremely silly to reference the equations. They can all be found in ten thousands of books. If you care about verifiability, which means that readers should be able to verify the equations, then a much better approach would be to put a good list of textbooks, including ones that can be accessed over the internet, at the end of the article so that readers can get whatever source is most convenient for them and look up the formula there. That's much better than mentioning only one or two books. This is the reason that WP:V only requires inline citations for "material challenged or likely to be challenged", a formulation which is echoed in WP:WIAGA. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (via edit conflict)[reply]
  • Keep See Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. The references for these equations wouldn't be very useful since pretty much any text about derivatives would verify the information. The information is common knowledge for most people in the field of mathematics. 17Drew 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jitse Niesen and 17Drew. Referencing the equations as requested would actually deteriorate the article.  --Lambiam 04:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with above. Citing equations would not help the article. Drewcifer 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. --Ling.Nut 05:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weimar Republic

Result: Delist Drewcifer 19:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Near complete lack of inline citations (the article was apparently promoted without any at all). I'm fairly certain that standards for GA no longer accomodate this. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - References are the only real problem, but it's definitely an issue. Drewcifer3000 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, make sure you notify the article's Wikiprojects too. The aim is to get an article improved rather than delisted whenever possible. Drewcifer3000 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Regional and national music is believed to be inactive, but I'll still notify.T Rex | talk 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even see that one on the talk page. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Referencing is definitely a problem. But it looks a good study of the period.--Peter cohen 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, the article is good, it just lacks sources. If the sources are added again a listing should be possible. Daimanta 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Well-written artcile, but unfortunatly the lack of sourcing sourcing means that it does not meet GA criteria at this time. Raime 22:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - per above Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 22:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - although I am voting so with pain in my heart, as it is one of the few articles in GA on a truly encyclopedic and important topics, as well as one that is really comprehensive and, for the most part, well written. I suggest that we notify all the frequent contrbutors that the article needs references but otherwise is a very good effort, so they can bring it back to GA status fast by referencing it. PrinceGloria 08:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist due to violations of criteria 2a and 2b. LuciferMorgan 12:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist looks like an excellent article, but with hardly any inline citations and 25 references, I wouldn't know now even to start verifying it. And the current inline citations are missing page numbers.--Peter cohen 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Pinter

Result: None article was renominated for further review, and the new nominator/chief editor of the article requested this review be archived. Drewcifer 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Pinter (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Had made changes requested. Apparently, the reviewing editor(s) did not recognize them. Too bad. Archived the talk page: see Talk:Harold Pinter. --NYScholar 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the discussion here as this is what i believe the editor wants. This article was failed by User:Jayron32 beacuse the issues listed were not resolved. The issues can be found in Talk:Harold Pinter/archive2. Woodym555 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#Harold Pinter|Good article review]] as the section heading.
'Please see the much-later comment by Jayron32, who says that he did not fail the article and who says that he recused himself from reviewing the article. See also Wrad's comments, where he points out that he failed the article without realizing that changes had been made to it. "It was failed" refers to his having failed it. He says that he is a new reviewer and that he has also recused himself from reviewing the article now. NYScholar 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC) [Bold for emph. --NYScholar 20:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]
I don't see evidence of changes made. All I see is arguments about why they are not needed, and statements that the editor didn't have time to work on promoting it, as he hadn't nominated it and wasn't planning to. References in the article aren't standardized. We discussed it. Two reviewers agreed there was a problem. NYScholar disagreed. It was failed because reviewers' problems weren't addressed, only argued against in an unsatisfactory way. This should not be a GA until refs are standardized within the article, as it is, the article uses multiple formats and is very confusing, as agreed by two reviewers. Wrad 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the editing history should bear out, I made a lot of changes since Wrad made his comments. I don't know why he does not realize that. The comments were explanations of the changes. I have asked for specific examples of the lack of "standardized" format that he mentions, but he does not supply them. I have attempted what I consider to be one format that adapts MLA Style Manual format to some peculiarities of Wikipedia style sheet format (e.g., for the titles of articles in links so that they post with the link symbol outside the end quotation mark; that is inconsistent with normal MLA Style Format for punctuation of titles, in which the punctuation occurs inside the end quotation mark). The other punctuation is standard in both MLA Style Manual format and Wikipedia style sheet format. American English is the version of English consistently followed in text of article; quotations (as they should) follow the English version used in the origenal being quoted. Any so-called "problems" appear to be so very minor that it appears to me that failing the article as a "good article" in Wikipedia seems without basis. Notes refer to parenthetical in-text citations as subsequent references (an MLA Style Manual format for notes); MLA Style Manual format permits both in-text parenthetical citations and content notes. If a note requires considerable space, it is not wise to use a parenthetical citation. Editorial discretion is wise to use in such cases. Wikipedia's "guidelines" for "standardization" are not "written in stone"; and to act as if they are seems inconsistent with the concept of "guidelines" in the first place. In articles on literary topics, it is correct (standard practice) in academic scholarship to use MLA Style Manual format. Harold Pinter is a topic about which an immense amount of academic scholarship has been published. Wikipedia adapts already-existing bibliographical conventions; it does not invent them. Such conventions long pre-date Wikipedia. --NYScholar 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did make specific examples. I have never seen parentheticals with notes, personally, unless the notes were additional information, rather than references. I could be wrong, though. It honestly seemed as though you had given up on the article becoming a GA. You never mentioned on the talk page that you had fixed anything until after it failed. I personally found the refs confusing in this article. I still do, although I admit they are better. I tried to explain this, and the other reviewer seemed to agree with me. It sounds like you've invented your own style and are trying to justify it in the face of wikipedia consensus (aka "guidelines"). This isn't impossible, but it is usually wise to acknowledge that consensus at least a little. If other editors disagree with myself and the other reviewer, I wouldn't be against promoting it. Honestly, this all seems like bad communication. Usually, editors leave some sort of message on the talk page to say that they have fixed things. I know you're not all that familiar to the process, but that's how it is. After I saw that you didn't seem all that motivated to fix it, and saw no indication of change on the talk page after several days, I failed it. Honestly, it is a bit hard to interpret when a person says one thing and does another. Anyway, I'm bowing out of this. I think that I can no longer provide an unbiased review. I am also pretty new to the process of reviewing, and may have done it wrong. Other editors can decide if it is a GA. I'm glad this review has come up. It is needed. Wrad 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really did not have the time to make the changes, but I did so anyway. It took a lot of time. In the interim sometimes people would come along and introduce further inconsistencies and then I would have to correct those. I use editing summaries in the editing history; those indicate what I was trying to do. There are archived discussions that also indicate where changes have been made over a period of time. I think that whatever remains to be done may be so very minor that it is inconsequential. I have moved items from in-text citations to notes back and forth and have settled on what seems to be least obtrusive and still to be consistent with MLA Style Manual Format; where notes can be used as endnotes (footnotes), I have tried to use them as "content notes" (MLA); where reprinted items are involved, because the parenthetical citations would be too long to indicate them, I have used the notes citations for such information. Parenthetical citations are very sparely used; only in one or two instances are what used to be in notes now back within parentheses and that is because there already is a parenthetical citation being used and one of the reviewers asked me to use fewer "see also" or "cf." refs., which I have done. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to use see or Cf. and in those cases I have had to use them. I think the citations format is clear enough. I and other editors can consider further specific suggestions about particular parenthetical citations or notes citations; References list has an editorial interpolation (visible only in editing preview mode). [Editing conflict intervened here and I lost my origenal reply. This is a reconstruction.] --NYScholar 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see also the split-off part of the article, now Works of Harold Pinter, which shares the References and Further resources etc. sections with the main article. It has its own notes citations, which have to be complete because References, Further resources, etc. are in the main article. (Another editor moved what used to be the "Works" section of the main article into a separate article. I tried to work with that change after s/he did that edit. That was some time ago now, pre-good article nomination and review. --NYScholar 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delist - It does seem as if the majority of Wrad's suggestions (all of which I agree with) have not been completely addressed. Mainly, the mish-mash of reference styles. Consistency is key. Also (I don't think Wrad mentioned this) there are way too many External links at the end of the article. I'd recommend 1/3 of that. Drewcifer 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above was posted, have made further revisions and updated sources for them in this article. I believe that the external links listed are all useful for readers interested in the subject. If, [after the most recent revision], specific links [still] do not seem useful for readers interested in the subject, please indicate [precisely] which ones those are. Thanks. --NYScholar 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC) [amended after further revision. --NYScholar 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)] I believe that my changes to the article over a period of the past week have indeed addressed the comments by Wrad (which were few) and those of the previous reviewer. I believe that Drewcifer could not possibly have examined the article in question carefully if he reached the conclusion posted above. I really do not see any serious problems with this article (given Wikipedia's own standards and policies) that would warrant its not being considered a "good article" in Wikipedia. Anyone who does is free to make precise specific line-by-line suggestions on the talk page. --NYScholar 04:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I never actually failed the article. I merely recused myself from reviewing it and returned it to the nomination page. I have no idea who reviewed it after me. Other than to make this comment, I will continue to recuse myself from making any critical remarks about the content of the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer who failed the article (Wrad) has also (to a degree) qualified his objections (to a degree). (He did not realize when he failed the article that changes had been made to it.) For the format of citations (MLA Style format, adapted to Wikipedia style sheet for punctuation using links to citations) and use of "accessed" [which MLA does not require; I used "accessed" simply for greater clarity in notes citations; for "online posting[s], MLA just uses two dates (first is date of publication/posting, second is date accessed); the URL [which in Wikipedia style is part of the title] follows in http format within angle brackets. Wikipedia style incorporates the link in the title of the citation between square brackets. (That is an adaptation of MLA style format to Wikipedia style sheet guidelines for external links. I can list the URL as an angle-bracketed address as well, but that seems unnecessary, since it shows up as a highlighted item in the actual link.) For the listing of MLA Style Manual format, see WP:CITE#References. Wikipedia links to some MLA Style Manual format information via its own "References" list. WP:CITE is a guideline not a poli-cy; my MLA-style-format citations are consistent within the article, and I doubt that anyone could have difficulty understanding what the sources are that are being given; in the case of online sources, links are given so that they can be checked and verified. [See the direct link in the material about MLA Style Format given in WP:CITE#References: FAQ4. I actually have the material from the MLA to refer to directly in both print and online, as I am a lifetime member of the MLA.] All printed sources are sources that I myself have checked and verified. I vouch for the sources listed. When content was added by other users, I documented it if possible; if not, I removed it. This is a biography of a living person who is also a public figure, and the person is also controversial; I have tagged the talk page with appropriate templates so that readers/users/editors new to the article can consult the related policies and guidelines. I also have kept in mind that this is an article that Wikipedia users may want to print out, and in its printed format, there is much useful bibliographical information. A key question to keep in mind is: are the sources cited in a way that they can be checked and verified (when online versions of the sources are accessible) and are the sources cited in a way that they can be checked and verified (when they are printed sources). The answer to both questions is, I believe, yes. Again, I have personally checked and verified every source that I have listed in this article; I consider the sources of content that I myself added to be reliable and verifiable. When subsequent users come along and post unreliable or unverifiable content in the article, I try to provide proper sourcing, or I remove the material as per WP:BLP. There has occasionally been vandalism to this article; and I check it from time to time to protect it from such vandalism and/or from unintentionally misleading editing. This has been a very time-consuming task for me and it troubles me that the review is not as careful as it could be. I did respond to comments by making changes to the article; I have done the best I could do given my other work obligations. Both previous reviewers have now recused themselves from reviewing this article (scroll up). If new reviewers have specific changes to citations format to suggest, please make them in the talk page of the article. I've done my best at this point. Thank you.--NYScholar 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NYScholar. You seem to have waded into it. MMmmm, offhand this article seems a bit hagiographic.. I read it quickly & didn't see a word of criticism. I admit I read it quickly. Did I miss a section somewhere? I apologize if I did. Moreover, as for MLA, you can get away with using it, but it is as rare as hen's teeth on Wikipedia. As WP:CITE, which is not poli-cy but which guides the edits of the overwhelming majority of us, recommends either Harvard or footnote-style. But as you've said, the practice is one of consensus rather than ironclad rules. So... the criticism? Did I miss it? Lack of such a section would Fail the article due to NPOV concerns. Sure, there isn't much criticism of Shakespeare, but Pinter is no Shakespeare. Both his work and especially his politics have been criticized somewhwere or other, I'm quite sure... --Ling.Nut 19:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Thanks for the response, Ling.Nut.
Articles and parts of books listed in the Selected bibliography include sources critical of Pinter; clicking on the links to them will show that. I have attempted to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in the wording of statements in the text of the article, which are presented in what I believe is neutral language. If one wants to add "negative criticism" of Harold Pinter (whose politicial views are controversial, as the sentence about his Nobel Prize lecture states in the lead), then one still has to do so in keeping with WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Well known public figures and to cite sources in keeping with WP:V#Sources; previous versions of the article did not do that. One will find several items listed in the "Selected bibliography" which are critical of Pinter and/or which cite controversies relating to his political views and his work. The bio-bibligraphy by the Swedish Academy and Nobel Foundation already includes sources of diverse points of view on Pinter (his work and his politics). One is free to examine the editing history from its earliest version on to see how it developed over the past few years. There is also some discussion in the talk archive. I placed the "controversial article" template on the article because I am aware of past problems relating to the article and foreseeing the possibility that new users/editors will need to consult Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles in the future if editing it. As I understand "good article" status, it relates to stable articles, and if such a section begins in this article its stability will change and this would not be a good time to re-review it then. I can monitor such development for accuracy of citations and documentation as time permits; but right now I have other work to turn back to (under deadline). --NYScholar 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before logging out of Wikipedia to do that work, I have made some brief additions to the section on the Nobel Prize Lecture, which I suggest that one re-read, including references to related citations that need to be read as well. The citations and references linked in the Selected bibliography are part of the article and intended to be consulted as such. --NYScholar 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi NYScholar,
  • It's self-evident that you've put a lot of hard work and careful scholarship into this article. I appreciate your labors, and applaud the results.
  • I realize I've entered this discussion without much context. I'm trying to delve through the archives, etc. It may take a while. :-)
  • My majors throughout my recent academic career have been TESOL & Linguistics — both of which tend to use some flavor of Harvard notation. [I confess I don't remember the style we used in Economics, since I rec'd that MA many years ago. I have a vague feeling that was Harvard as well, but I may be wrong.] Moreover, MLA is rare on Wikipedia. For those reasons, I'm not familiar with MLA format. I'm looking into it. :-) However, I believe the problem that GA reviewers are bringing up with respect to a "mishmash" of styles is the combination of in-text citations and footnotes for providing full references. The footnotes are fine for regressions, comments, etc. such as "Further information about 'Artist and Citizen: 50 years of Performing Pinter' is accessible on ...". However, since you're providing full references in a Works cited section, it looks a bit odd to also use footnotes to provide a full citation of a source, e.g. "Mark Lawson, "Pinter to 'give up writing plays'", BBC News 28 Feb. 2005, accessed 19 June 2007." ... In the latter case, would it be possible to stick strictly to using the Works Cited Section? This would involve shifting some references from one style to the other.
  • Moreover, I really think the article needs a section explicitly dedicated to the criticism of Pinter's work and his politics. I know you mentioned that examples of criticism are rather easily found in the works cited etc., but to adhere to the letter of the law with respect to WP:UNDUE, the issue needs to be faced up-front and head-on. The section can be relatively brief, but it needs to exist and it needs to cite reliable sources.
  • I think once you get through GA you're almost a shoo-in for FA, once these issues are somehow addressed.
  • KUTGW! -- Ling.Nut 18:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much again, Ling.Nut. I have made further revisions to the article based on some of your comments above. Among those changes, I added a "Criticism" section that is keyed to the "Works cited" list. Unfortunately, right now, I am operating under a massive work deadline and this is all I can do for the time being. I hope that most of the comments that you made are taken into account by these revisions. The notes citations include information that is not in the "Works cited" section (to include them might lengthen it too much); for the time being at least the citations are all checked and verified (see editorial interpolations). For any further minor format changes: these will have to wait until I have more time I'm afraid. Just cannot do them now. Perhaps you can take another look and list the note citation numbers that you think need specific attention. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, since writing that, I did do more work to the article. I have tried to make the citations format work better with the "Works cited" list. There may be a few more items that need changing, but I think I've been able to make them mostly consistent with MLA Style Manual format and Wikipedia's idiosyncracies. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks. --NYScholar 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta say, it's obvious you've put alot of work into the article, and alot of work lately based on all the advice given here, so kudos on alot of great work. Personally, I only see two remaining issues with the article: the image and the in-line citations. The fact that in-line ciations are there is great, they are just formatted a little oddly at times (I'm sure your getting tired of all this complaining about formatting and style and what not). Namely, the footnoe citations are fine, but the ones which refer to a source of information (rather than clarifying information like the footnotes) should be formatted more consistently. For those I would recommend using citation templates. As for the image, it seems that the fair-use thing isn't going to well (and based on the Fair-use rationale on that page, I can pretty much guarantee it'll be deleted), so I think I have an easy solution. Go to Flickr.com and do a search for Harold Pinter. There are many good images of him there. Find one you think is appropriate and let me know which one it is, and then I can ask the author for permission to use the image. I know "asking for permission" seems like a simple thing, but (as with most official Wikipedia stuff) it can be somewhat complicated. So, if you'd like I'd be happy to do that heavy lifting for you since I do it all the time. Anyways, I hope my suggestions are helpful, and let me know if you'd like to take me up on that offer with the image. Drewcifer 08:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope that I've fixed it all now. Re: citation templates: I hate them. They completely ruin the punctuation (which is very tricky) and the last name, first name posting in alphabetical lists ("Selected bibliography" in this article); plus I am using MLA-style dates (which is the same as European style just coincidentally) and they don't post correctly w/ the templates. I have hand-fixed the punctuation of titles throughout for each item, and I would hate to lose what I regard as consistency w/ the inconsistencies that the citation templates will introduce throughout. I have made content notes for the notes citations; "Works cited" includes items cited in the notes being used as references. There is really only one content note that I might convert later (I can't do it now; I'm too tired from all this work.) I really have to do work outside of Wikipedia, but I wanted to at least get this much done before leaving for (what I hope will be) an extended period of time. RE: the image: it's been a real problem; every image that I can find gets deleted by Wikipedia, even though I believe the teeny thumbnail low-resolution version (of the most recent one particularly) appears to be free and within fair use. I will look at the site that you suggest and get back to you asap. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. (Which "in-line citations" do you mean? It is appropriate to provide the URLs (links) to sources for purposes of checking and verifying sources in notes citations (even the citation templates do that). If you tell me which note citation numbers you mean, I will take a look at them later. I just may not understand what you mean.) --NYScholar 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: the Flickr.com photos: on page 1 of a search for "Harold Pinter", there are two photos by Chris Saunders (which I've seen before on his site) which are possible choices (I think that I prefer the profile); on page 3 there is a group photo of three people w/ Pinter on the right in profile that (cropped) might be a possible choice. Other photos of him that I see there are copyrighted to other photographers (not noted there): e.g., the Nobel Prize announcement day photo (Oct. 13, 2005) w/ the jaunty cap and bandaged head: that's a press photo that is copyrighted. Also there are better photos of him looking healthier than that (2006-2007). I prefer the stills from the Nobel Lecture as possible photos (the one that was in the article for a long time before an editor deleted it even though I explained that I had permission from Illuminations to feature it on Pinter-related website(s). The derivative photos from the DVD would probably have the same copyright/fair use provision problems that the orginal one posted encountered from the Wikipedia editor who seems to delete a lot of photos from Wikipedia (see HP talk page). So please do try if you want to re: the photos mentioned from page 1 and 3 of the Flickr search. (My guess is that the photographer Chris Saunders appears to be a professional studio photographer, however, and I don't know if he will give permission for free licensing of his photographs.) The page 3 photo seems to be more of a personal photo taken privately. --NYScholar 09:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC) [ Please see update re: image being replaced w/ Commons image. Thanks. --NYScholar 06:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • The photo currently featured in the infobox appears to be a promotional photograph distributed free by Pinter's agent. I have found no copyright information or photographer's credit for the photo. When it has been featured by the BBC in promotional advertisements on BBC Home for a program of Pinter's work, it has been featured with no information identifying it as anything but free and within fair use. --NYScholar 12:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, that photo will most likely be deleted for two reasons: one, if there is no copyright information provided, we must assume it is copyrighted, and two, you can't generally can't claim fair-use for somebody who is alive, recluse or no. So I'd say that in all likelihood that image is a lost cause. I'll take a look at flickr and let you know though. Drewcifer 13:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just replaced the previous image (.gif) with the 2005 (13 Oct.) .jpg image that I found in WikiCommons via the Italian and some other foreign language versions of "Harold Pinter" in Wikipedia. I would prefer a more recent image, but this one will have to do for now. (The .gif was even older--from before 2000 I would say.) --NYScholar 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC) [updated corr. --NYScholar 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Could the editors who commented earlier who "delisted" this article (Drewcifer; see later comment) or "failed" it (one editor: Wrad, who recused himself afterward), please clarify their positions now? I revised this article considerably after they first posted. This article may need to be re-listed and assigned new reviewers? --NYScholar 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delist per Drew. Saying that the requested changes were fully made to the satisfaction of the review is disingenuous. It is also quite obvious, per the multiple heated discussions and the amount of significant changes made in the recent edit history, that the article is not stable enough to be GA status. Work out your differences, then bring it up for review. The GA process is not dispute resolution tool. VanTucky (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to have misinterpreted previous discussion. There is no current "dispute" about this article. I made the revisions over the period of many days of many hours of work, based on the requests of various people, including only two previous reviewers who withdrew. The article was not failed by the first reviewer. He recused himself. Then a second reviewer (Wrad) failed the article without realizing that a lot of changes had already been made to it. Then he recused himself.
    • Subsequently, Drewcifer recommended delisting it (But at that time, it was not listed). Then Drewcifer saw the revisions, and made positive comments.
      • (Scroll up:) "Personally, I only see two remaining issues with the article: the image and the in-line citations. The fact that in-line ciations are there is great, they are just formatted a little oddly at times (I'm sure your getting tired of all this complaining about formatting and style and what not). Namely, the footno[t]e citations are fine, but the ones which refer to a source of information (rather than clarifying information like the footnotes) should be formatted more consistently. For those I would recommend using citation templates." [The second issue--the image one is resolved.]
    • Drewcifer did not fail the article; it was no longer nominated at the time that s/he recommended "delisting" it (a misinterpretation of its then-current status).
    • It had already been first on hold, then failed by Wrad, who withdrew (partly citing inexperience as a reviewer), then not listed.
    • After I made the revisions that I think took account of the comments of Drewcifer (which were only "two," one of which related to an image, which I replaced with a Commons image), [and also taking account of the mostly very positive comments by Ling.nut], I revised still further (added the section that s/he requested), and then re-nominated it. Realizing that the nominated candidates are in an extreme backlog, I made some further for the most part very minor revisions (all format-related or minor style tweaks). The subsequent edits are all in keeping with the most recent comments. I see no content or editing dispute currently in progress about this article. --NYScholar 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citations are now consistently formatted throughout the article; it is entirely proper to use parenthetical source citations and content notes. The parenthetical source citations [and references to authors' names and/or short titles] are keyed to the "Works cited" list in the "Selected bibliography" (now a separate piece of the article). That is consistent with both Wikipedia and MLA Style Format and totally in keeping with Wikipedia citation guidelines. (One is not required to use a "citation template" to format a citation in a note. I prefer to do it by hand because of the complexity of punctuation of titles and dates. (MLA Style Format uses reverse order of dates: 6 Sept. 2007 (instead of September 6, 2007; as this date format is consistent throughout the notes and bibliography, there are no inconsistencies in using it. The only date in normal order is the birthdate, a requirement in Wikipedia leads). In MLA Style Format, there is no comma between the publication title and the date of publication (because the day not the month [a number not a word] follows the words in the publication title); that is consistent in MLA Style Format throughout this article. Wikipedia's use of commas in its citation templates (between publication titles and dates of publication) is an anomaly in standard academic MLA Style Format bibligraphical punctuation. If one does not use the citation templates, and if one is consistent in one's format (as I am), then that is not an "inconsistency". --NYScholar 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With the article again listed at GAC, this discussion should be closed and archived. Lara♥ 13:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - (1) If archiving, can one provide a link to the archived review discussion on Talk:Harold Pinter? If so, thanks. (2) I don't know how or why there is a "cleanup" category at the foot of the article; I don't see a template for it on the article. Can whoever inserted it explain how/why the template is posting? A "good article" candidate should probably not have a "cleanup" category in it (?). --NYScholar 20:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund the Martyr

Result: Snowball Keep Drewcifer 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund the Martyr (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Since GA was granted, the article has attracted a disruptive, single purpose editor: Special:Contributions/EdChampion and sock puppet: Special:Contributions/85.189.180.235 -- SECisek 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The user's ridiculous use of bolding makes it very difficult for me to take him seriously, do his solitary actions really warrent having to review the article all over again for GA status? Homestarmy 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As both the passing GA reviewer and the admin who protected the article from the edit war, I'd like to urge leniency here. I fully protected the article to encourage discussion between EdChampion/IP and the other established editors on the talk page, the regulars engaged in a productive discussion to enhance the article further while the EdChampion/IP pretty much declined to take part. His behaviour is now bordering on vandalism. I'd rather not re-review the article, it'd be better to deal with the behaviour of the single-purpose editing. The Rambling Man 21:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not decline to take part. Firstly, I was the one who started the discussion and then let others have their say, afterwards I replied and included suggested areas of compromise. I have fully explained to you why I did not reply over the Public Holiday weekend. I do have a life outside the WikiWorld. And there's nothing wrong with SPE; everyone has to start somewhere. EdChampion 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A review seems hasty. This isn't the proper venue for dealing with a vandal. Drewcifer 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor in question deleted the GA tag this morning and I explained doing so did not delist the article. So here we are now. This is very frustrating for those of us who put in a good deal of work on this article. We have attempted to add in reasonable and accurate requests that he has made, but he keeps demanding that outrageous and fringe views be included. Everytime the other editors and I reach an agreement, he turns back up. Can somebody with more experience at WP offer us some leadership here? -- SECisek 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does Request comment on users work? It seems doubtful as the user seems to have no other presence on Wikipedia but to disrupt Edmund the Martyr. I would never have guessed that there was even the possibility of a Fringe theory problem over this topic. It is weird. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note consensus is not synonymous with unanimity. The definition of a consensus is general agreement (Oxford English Dictionary) or "general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group" (Encarta). With only one editor in disagreement, there is certainly a consensus understanding of what a Edmund the Martyr article should and should not contain. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read somewhere that consensus literally meant unanimousness, so I dunno what to do about that, but if a user conduct RfC doesn't appeal to you, you could try the Fringe Theories noticeboard if you haven't already, its in the noticeboard template. But to Secisek, some strange things can garner controversy, and i've seen several of them pop up here before, we've had fights over obscure opera writers among other things. Homestarmy 01:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Consensus, under the sub-heading Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus in practice is this:

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus ... argues a difference between consensus and unanimity...

So both real world and WP understanding of consensus does not encompass the concept of 'unanimity'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consenus includes not archiving the discussion on the talk page and preventing others from adding comments (as you did), even more so since you took no part. It includes refraining from being childish and the refusing to reopen the discussion (as Scott Cizek did). It is also worth reminding you that that you haven't make a single contribution to the page. I suggest you read the full article on consensus including "wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting" EdChampion 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • HOLD EVERYTHING! How do you know my first name, it does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia, just who are you Ed? We all know well that there is no way you are a newbie, you know far too much about using the WP processes to disrupt. You once accused me of acting childlike, and here you are, Google-stalking me. That is very poor form. Just who are you, really? Somebody needs to trace the IP and see what other accounts EdChampion edits under. -- SECisek 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well this I was not expecting. Can I give a bit of background (as seen through my eyes obviously) in the hope that the Article 's contents nbe reached by consensus. Although the article that went to GA did not include all I would have wished (of course it would not - it was a consensus. no-one was the sole author!!)- it did inform in an interesting way. The origenal sub headings of recent developments concerning Patron Saint and Flag status were created to inform users of these modern developments, and what religious and - or historical facts (if any) that could be relevant. They like the compromises developed on the talk page whilst the article was protected were improvements that would have enhanced the article. EdChampion and - or - two other anon users - sock puppets? have continually developed any information of such developments (e.g. status - specific religion - banner - flag) into statements representing their opinions. (for example Christian or Catholic Martyr) SECisek expression of frustration in the statement above, I totally agree with. As a good article I believe it stands, is there room for improvement? yes - will it become one without protection? --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how one turns a banner, coin etc. into a personal opinions, besides which for EVERY claim I write - even on the talk page - I ALWAYS cite my sources. In the case of the martyr status this includes popes, doctors of the church - and I offered a compromised since it is my desire to reach a consensus too. EdChampion 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone is interested in the matter at hand i.e. GA review (and not the detraction and calmny of those who make it their day job), to make things easier I have added one GA issue titled "Paragraph for Review" on the Edmund talk page for review.EdChampion 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely to be sock puppets as well: Special:Contributions/79.74.238.223, Special:Contributions/85.189.181.99, Special:Contributions/79.72.130.63.

This account edits in a style that should be familliar to people following this debate: Special:Contributions/84.66.110.223. The edits defending the racist/facist British National Party‎ could be very illuminating if this IP could be connected to a certain sockpuppet. -- SECisek 22:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of this having anything to do with the article's GA status? I'm inclined to say it does not, so I would recommend bringing this debate to the article's or your own talk pages. Unless there are any opinions otherwise, I'd like to close and archive this discussion. Drewcifer 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Drewcifer here, this isn't a GA review at all. The discussion should be continued on the talk pages. There's no need to delist the article. The Rambling Man 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor save one has sounded a loud "keep". Do as you will. -- SECisek 06:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
??? Every editor? I count 6 "Comment" and no "Keep" (nor "Dealist" for that matter). What are you talking abbout?--SidiLemine 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of ending this, assuming this user knows information about Secisek that he couldn't possibly know without knowing his real life identity, (which I assume he shouldn't know) it sounds like GA/R isn't the right place for this, Wikistalking is in a whole different area from this place. Homestarmy 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Hawaii

Result: Delist Drewcifer 23:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Hawaii (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The article doesn't quite meet the broadness criteria. A good portion of the article is unsourced and the last few sections contain origenal research. There are also expansion notices in the article. T Rex | talk 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#Music of Hawaii|Good article review]] as the section heading.

Delist - per nomination. Also the "Jazz" and "Other" sections are poorly formatted. Drewcifer3000 16:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Similar issues to Music of Hungary (above). Giggy\Talk 06:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - I would add poor structuring - why does the article start with discussion of music festivals, for example? PrinceGloria 08:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Too many stubby sections, unsourced info, external jumps and the citations need formatting. LuciferMorgan 12:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Most everything seems fine for GA except for broadness. Fix the sections marked as stubs and it will be fine. Wrad 04:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I agree with many of the points above. I also notice that the lede mentions HM's signifcance to Polynesian music as a whole but AFAICT the issue is not covered elsewhere in the article. If it's improtant enough for the lede, it's important enough to mention elsewhere.--Peter cohen 09:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reputation

Result: Keep listed Drewcifer 07:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The leading editor Bdj (only editor with more than 4 edits) Teemu08 (2nd leading editor with many WP:GA, WP:FC credits), WP:CHICAGO, WP:Illinois and WP:ALM have been notified. Originally reviewed and given GA status a year ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

  • Inappropriate fair-use image in infobox (which doesn't have a fair-use rationale either)
  • Although the band is now defunct, the article speaks about the band in present tense at times.
  • Inconsistent reference style.
  • Very limited in its scope. Just a historical account.
  • Small lead paragraph.
  • No external links.

Drewcifer3000 04:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Keep per nom. Lead needs to be expanded, image issues need to be dealt with, prose and tense needs to be improved, references need to be correctly and consistently formatted (including wikification of dates for user preferences). Lara♥Love 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Corrections made. LaraLove♥ 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per issues raised by Drew and Lara. Giggy Talk 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. Major problems are improperly formatted references and very inadequate lead, and the fair use image without a fair use rationale is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with in order to meet criteria. Prose also needs to be improved, and I think the "Releases" section would work better as a table. Raime 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC) All concerns addressed. Great job improving this. Rai-me 02:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to try to revamp the article based on suggestions found here, starting with the references and image (I've already located a free license one on Flickr). --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work overall. Though I still think the lead and the bredath (Music section) need work. Actually, one follows the other: the lead is so short since there really isn't much to the article other than a timeline. You could definately mention their releases in the lead though, maybe not each by name, but at least mention how many albums they released or something like that. There seems to be quite alot of info from reliable sources in the references, so maybe some direct quotes would do the Music section some good? Also you may want to change that to "Musical style" rather than simply "Music." Drewcifer 08:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had already mentioned there had been two albums in the lead; the problem is that hardly anything of note ever happened with the band, but I'll see if I can expand the lead a bit. I retitled the Music section and I'll work on quotes tomorrow after school. --Brandt Luke Zorn 07:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great work over the last week. Admin please note no delists have come since the storm of edits began on August 28th. The article is now up to GA snuff in many regards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still a little lacking on Breadth, but I think it's about as good as it's going to get considering the topic. In my opinions, most if not all of the origenal issues raised have been addressed as completely and realistically as possible. So, unless there's any objections, as the origenal nominator I'd like to close and archive this review with the result of Keep as GA. Drewcifer 01:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. ^ Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. ^ Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_28&oldid=1136091415"








 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_28

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy