Talk:Falafel/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The article no longer meets GA Criteria concerning points 4 and 5 of Wikipedia:Good article criteria There is edit waring going on and Neutrality no longer seems to be present in particular to the subheading of the Falafal article titled North America. The specific problems have been detailed in the Talk page under the heading "Dispute over statement, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[7]" and citation" The current article is continually being reverted to suppress new information which reflects doubts about the credibility of statements shown in the article and neutrality. Veritycheck (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)— Veritycheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is rich. You are the one edit warring, and you say the article should be delisted because of edit-warring? Ha ha. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is procedural abuse. Normal editing and discussion are the best options here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the particular issue raised by Veritycheck is important, and I'm about to comment on it at the article talk page, but I don't think the problem over this one sentence is sufficient to demote the article from GA status. Andrew Dalby 08:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andrew Dalby.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two major editors involved with "promoting" this article to GA appear to be pro Israeli; at leasted from my quick review of the edit history tabs on their wikipedia websites. Also when I looked at cached wikipedia userpages on Google (which is how I came to here) Nsaum75 is a self declared Jew on old versions of his wikipedia homepage. Expedcting two pro israeli editors, one of whom is a jew, to write a neutral aticle about a 100% arrrab food is like asking Stalin to write a neutral history of Democracy. Its impossible. This article uses questionable sources to falsely credit Israelis/Jews with events in falafels history; when in fact there should probably be no mention in this article of Israelis/Jews because its not their food or their history. Its a product they stole from their arab neighbors and the occupiedc palestinians. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faqtchequer (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Faqtchequer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't like Jews much, do you? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This GA review has a clear likelihood of SPA and sockpuppeteering being involved. Proposals from accounts that lack a significant track record should be taken with a pinch of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the allegation that I am not a new user based on the fact that I act with “experience”. Well I believe that can be attested to one of two reasons if not more. I’m a professor and was on my holiday break when I initially devoted literally 72 hours of my time to this article other than sleeping. I will admit that wading through all the jargon that was thrown at me, a hand full to say the least, and understanding the best recourse available to have the article changed to reflect reality was daunting at first. For every sentence I wanted to include, only 2 or 3, I had to visit at least 20 Wiki pages to sort through and learn terms & procedures.

Additionally, I would say that my ability to learn quickly can be derived from either a sound intellect or as a testament to how well the Wiki help pages are written. In all honesty, I believe it’s a combination of the two. I will say however that other people facing the same situation might be put off, and as a result, simply abandon their contribution of what may well be important and valuable pieces. I do believe that perhaps that was even the intention in the way some of the editors tried to derail my postings. Luckily, I tend to rise to the occasion when confronted in such situations by such people.

Moreover, from my initial post, it’s quite clear that I came here not knowing the best way to proceed and that I, in fact, asked for advice, which I then followed. There’s nothing miraculous here. The adage ”ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find” is an old and worthy saying. Finally, drawing the conclusion that I must be some sort of insidious ghost writer (WP:SOCK) based solely on the fact that I show some aptitude really is weak and is probably in breach of some other Wikipedia procedural jargon that surely must exist– said tongue in cheek and with a modicum of earned pride!

In closing, I came to Wikipedia thinking, perhaps naively, that it was based on truth and facts alone. In this short journey of trying to rectify the inaccuracies of the falafel article, I have come to realize that unfortunately it is more about what is cited and what is not with the former taking precedence, no matter how flimsy it may be, over what is true but undocumented, or has yet to rise to the surface. Nonetheless, I have adapted myself and followed procedure citing everything I wish to amend. The experience has opened my eyes and I will have to look at each Wikipedia article I read in the future under a new light; one that might not be so favourable or convincing. I only hope that other Wiki readers are more sceptical than I was. Wikipedea is now shaping the minds of the masses and has become a cited source in itself. What a huge responsibility to live up to! GA status must be earned and continually evaluated. You can take that with a grain of salt if it makes you feel any better. Vigilance is paramount.Veritycheck (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has now been achieved with minor, yet important, edits bringing this article in-line with GA criteria. The reassessment is over and the GA status is kept. Veritycheck (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note to Malik Shabazz explaining my revert of his revert. You were mistaken. Concerning Individual Reassessments of GA - "An editor has initiated an individual reassessment to determine if this article meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the reassessment page, but the decision to list the article as a good article should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment." This was the case when I initiated the Individual Reassessment. It was my obligation to close it. Veritycheck (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]