User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/56

Final Fantasy III

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept The issues brought up during the review have been addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Legacy section does not contain any references.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I note a couple other paragraphs (not in Legacy) that do not have references. Chris857 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Have the major contributors and wikiprojects been notified? AIRcorn (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done AIRcorn (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Issues I noticed:

• At least one instance where a number under 10 should be spelled out and isn't

• Fixed. --PresN 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• References that need verified as reliable or are unreliable:

• cubed3.com (verify)

• Removed- second source available. --PresN 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:*RPGFan (unreliable)

• zgameBrink.com (verify)

• Replaced with original Japanese source from Nintendo. --PresN 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• gwn.com (verify -- may be a different domain owner now as it seems totally unrelated)

• Replaced. --PresN 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Daryl's Library

• Removed. --PresN 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Soundtrack Central

• Removed. --PresN 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Game Music CD Information Database

• Removed. --PresN 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• g-wie gorilla

• Removed. --PresN 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• The reference format is not consistent. Dates and authors are missing on some items, one ref is a bare URL

I didn't check the prose, but that's what I found on a quick once-over. --Teancum (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, wow, had to fix almost every single reference. But now done. --PresN 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if this should be demoted or not but I do have one question. Do you have evidence that RPGfan is unreliable? I ask because on the checklist section of WP:VG/S (which you cited as evidence that the site is unreliable) RPGFan is listed with a green checkmark which according to that to this statement on that page This is a checklist/index of past discussions. Sources with green checkmarks (✓) are currently considered to meet reliability requirements says the exact opposite. If that assessment is inaccurate a new discussion may be needed to have the site declared unreliable but at this time the site is not considered to be unrliable. I checked the other sources but could not find anything one way or the other.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, got it confused with OnRPG, sorry. --Teancum (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started cleaning up this article to save it here; marking off things inline as I go. --PresN 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up/referenced the Legacy section, which was the initial complaint in the GAR. --PresN 21:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. This is a highly charged article with a lot of strong opinions. Saying that the discussion here has been relatively positive and focused. Based on the original reasons for delisting and the articles present state I agree that it fails the focus criteria, but not the neutrality one. Although that can, and is, debated what can not be is the presence of cleanup tags on the article and the poor prose in the Ethics section (both brought up below). Those alone are reasons enough to delist. It at least needs a good copy edit and better use of summary style before it is renominated AIRcorn (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy fails these GA criteria:

• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Specifically, the lead section presently contains only 4 sentences devoted to explanation of the concepts of homeopathy, and 11 (!) sentences devoted to critique. Attempts to consolidate the critique and introduce fundamental concepts in the lead section are reverted with accusations of being POV. Mkweise (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That is because Homeopathy is undeniably a fringe theory (as defined by WP:FRINGE - which is Wikipedia policy), and it is also pseudoscience (as defined by WP:NPOV#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience). WP:FRINGE requires us to give the majority of weight to the mainstream scientific view - which is without doubt that homeopathy does not, nor cannot work - that it fails every scientific test designed to check it's validity. Hence the correct WP:WEIGHT and the WP:NPOV is to spend the vast majority of the article explaining that homeopathy doesn't work, cannot work, why it cannot work and the experimental evidence that demonstrate that it doesn't work. The weighting of the article does that correctly...please note that the guideline is "giving due weight to each"...not "giving equal weight to each". That is a common misunderstanding of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE that is critically important to the authoring of fringe topics.

Some guidance from WP:FRINGE:

"Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."

"Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources."

"The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative."

" Since fringe theories may be obscure topics that few non-adherents write about, there may only be a small number of sources that directly dispute them. Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported."

We should also be especially cognizant of the ArbCom decisions on fringe science: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science. The most telling finding of which is:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus."

So, this article does indeed "primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus" - which is that homeopathy is nonsense.

Furthermore, documenting "the concepts of homeopathy" in an accurate and unbiassed manner is almost impossible because no two homeopathists seem to agree on what's going on. Trawl back through the Talk:Homeopathy archives and you'll find many cases where practicing homeopathists have flat out contradicted each other. There is no single POV that we can reflect here. To cover all of the random crazy ideas that are out there would result in an article that had so many weasel words like "some homeopathists claim that..." that the preponderance of these disparate views would result in a gross violation of WP:UNDUE because those descriptions of minority-held views would overwhelm the main message of the article, which (per WP:FRINGE) is definitely going to be that homeopathy doesn't work and it's proponents are quacks because that's what mainstream science clearly says...and Wikipedia will always give that viewpoint overwhelming WP:WEIGHT.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't confuse weight with wordiness. A simple statement that the theory of homeopathy is incompatible with science would actually carry more weight than the 11 sentence rant currently comprising the bulk of the lead section. Good encyclopedic writing doesn't make the reader feel like it's trying to convince him of something. Mkweise (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, why use inflammatory words like "nonsense" and "quackery" instead of neutral ones like "disproven" and "ineffective"? I'm sure there's a good reason you have strong feelings on the subject, but the editor's emotions should never be reflected in encyclopedic writing. Mkweise (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no expectation on wikipedians to use encyclopedic style writing in their comments, and I don't see the relevance to the article or the review. The article rightly sums up the multiple issues with homoeopathy in the lead. It is these issues etc which have the weight in the sources. It is against WP:WEIGHT to remove coverage of this and instead talk about some other aspect. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, a neat summary would be a conclusion statement like, "Homeopathy has been largely disproven by scientific studies." This satisfies WP:WEIGHT, due to lack of any statements supporting its validity. WEIGHT = 1/0. Mkweise (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:Guide_to_writing_better_articles, "cramming [...] the lead [...] in order to fully state and prove their case [results] in an unreadable lead." Mkweise (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead has a lot of article to summarize. 4 paragraphs of a lead isn't undue. You appear to want to replace it with a single sentence, which doesn't actually summarize any of the main points of the article. You stated that there was "4 sentences devoted to explanation of the concepts of homeopathy, and 11 critiquing", Here is the breakdown I saw, maroon is the fringe beliefs, and blue is the results of studies and trials, and the perspectives of science and medicine about homeopathy, green are other statements which don't fit into either of the two:

Homeopathy i/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy; from the Greek hómoios- ὅμοιος- "like-" + páthos πάθος "suffering") is a system of alternative medicine originated in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on the doctrine of similia similibus curentur ("like cures like"), according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure that disease in sick people.Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered quackery.

In addition to symptoms, homeopaths consider a patient's physical and psychological state and life history,[7] before consulting homeopathic reference books known as repertories to select a remedy based on the totality of symptoms as well as personal traits. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution of a chosen substance in alcohol or distilled water, followed by forceful striking on an elastic body, called succussion. Each dilution followed by succussion is said to increase the remedy's potency. Dilution usually continues well past the point where none of the original substance remains.

The low concentrations of homeopathic remedies, often lacking even a single molecule of the diluted substance,[9] lead to an objection that has dogged homeopathy since the 19th century: how, then, can the substance have any effect?Modern advocates of homeopathy have suggested that "water has a memory"—that during mixing and succussion, the substance leaves an enduring effect on the water, perhaps a "vibration", and this produces an effect on the patient.However, nothing like water memory has ever been found in chemistry or physics.[10][11] Pharmacological research has found, contrary to homeopathy, that stronger effects of an active ingredient come from higher doses, not lower doses.

Homeopathic remedies have been the subject of numerous clinical trials, which test the possibility that they may be effective through some mechanism unknown to science. While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials have failed to demonstrate efficacy. A recent review regarding the proposed mechanisms for homeopathy found they were precluded by the laws of physics from having any effect.Although many people assume that all homeopathic medicines are highly diluted and therefore unlikely to cause harm, some of them contain high concentrations of active ingredients and therefore can cause side effects and drug interactions. Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than normal medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions. The regulation and prevalence of homeopathy vary greatly from country to country.

I think it's apparent that the 4 lines description and 11 critique isn't the case. Reporting on the results of tests isn't a critique. The lead is pretty well balanced. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of the first paragraph and the first 3 of the 2nd are devoted to explaining, "What's the idea of homeopathy?" Nearly the entire remainder is critique--i.e., it addresses the question, "Is it valid?"--a question that can be answered simply and authoritatively. Compare to the lead of Nazism, which is focused entirely on describing that ideology and its history. Do we need to cite a dozen studies to discourage the reader from adopting it? I don't think so. Mkweise (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Godwin's law - game over. SteveBaker (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And to make a slightly more serious point, homoeopathy is not a political ideology, or (as has also been used as a comparison recently) a religion. It purports to be a system of medicine, so needs to be evaluated and reported on that basis, not as a belief system. That is what the article does. Brunton (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Mkweise's analogy is certainly flawed. The Nazism article is written in the past tense. It's a historical article, so direct comparison with Homeopathy (which is still a very active meme) doesn't make much sense. Any remnants of the Nazi ideas that are still being followed are actually described in Neo-Nazism...so if you really must make such a comparison, that would be a better article to compare against. However, even that is a poor example because, unlike homeopathy, neo-nazism isn't a single idea - it's a combination of nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. But those things, while clearly "bad ideas", are mostly not fringe scientific theories. "Nationalism" isn't a fringe theory - it doesn't make testable scientific claims. So even those sub-topics aren't really covered by WP:FRINGE or the ArbCom ruling on such matters. To the extent that you could draw a comparison with the topic of homeopathy, you'd have to look at an article like Scientific racism (which is that sub-division of racism that really does make testable scientific claims in the way that homeopathy does - and which is similarly disparaged by mainstream science). So here, finally, we arrive at a fully analogous article who's stucture you could reasonably compare with Homeopathy...and if we do that, what do we find? Well, right there in the first paragraph of the Scientific racism lede:

"Scientific racism is the use of pseudoscientific techniques and hypotheses to sanction the belief in racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority. According to the United Nations convention, superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere."

This is a fairly close structure to the lede of Homeopathy:

1. A sentence describing what this is (which labels it as pseudoscientific).
2. A statement that says that it's not true.
3. A statement that it's "morally condemnable" and "socially unjust".

...with a nice authoritative WP:RS to back it up. That's essentially identical to the structure of the homeopathy lede.

QED

SteveBaker (talk) 16:24,25 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your response and the thought that went into it. What I've been asking for all along is a simple statement that it's not true (scientifically disproven,) instead of the elaborate list of objections presently comprising most of the lead. The book on homeopathy as a scientific theory was closed ~100 years ago; our lead is written as though it were still worthy of serious scientific debate. It reads like beating a dead horse.

Then we have the present-day phenomenon, which lies outside the realm of science: You say pseudoscience, implying that believers have been tricked by fabrications. I say quasi-religious phenomenon, meaning some choose to believe in it for reasons unrelated to scientific proof or disproof--and that their beliefs will never be swayed by rational argument or scientific evidence (see magical thinking.) But we can agree to disagree on that philosophical distinction.

My objection to the quality of the article is not over facts, but over their presentation:

1. The lead should summarize the major facts, and not lose itself in details.
2. Encyclopedia entries should not be written from the POV of wanting to convince (or "save") the reader.
3. Inflammatory language should be avoided, as there is nothing to be gained by antagonizing or offending anyone.

Mkweise (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is (as I have explained to you on many occasions) that we are required by WP:FRINGE to put the majority of the "weight" of the article into explaining the mainstream view. That's not optional in fringe articles. We are simply not allowed to state the mainstream view briefly and then move on because WP:UNDUE requires those views to occupy a large majority of the article. If you are correct about it being long winded and overly detailed and we somehow agreed that this required pruning of the mainstream stuff...then step one would have to be to reduce all of the non-mainstream material down to the bare bones minimum in order that we can reduce the amount of mainstream material and still keep the required balance. This would result in some fairly drastic pruning of the description of what homeopathy claims to be. I'm not keen on tossing out so much of that material - so the solution is to put deeper content into the mainstream view so that it does not come across as repetitive or redundant yet does not get overwhelmed by the fringe view. Actually, I don't think this is a problem right now...but if that's your view, then the solution may be (ironically) the opposite of what you're probably thinking. SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that homeopathy is a "religion" or a "quasi-religion" doesn't stand up to the facts. The Wiktionary definition of "Religion" is:

1. The belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.
3. The way of life committed to by monks and nuns.
4. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.

   eg: At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.

5. (obsolete) Faithfulness to a given principle; conscientiousness. [16th-17th c.]  [quotations ▼]

Homeopathists do not believe there is a personal god or gods involved in the curing of disease - so it's not (1). There is no "worship" involved - and because it's really easy to do scientific testing, you don't need to rely on "faith" - so it's not (2). There are no monks or nuns involved, so (3) is out. (5) is obsolete - which leaves us with the meaning of the word that you'd use in discussing Star Trek fans. OK, maybe this meaning could be applied to homeopathists - but that meaning doesn't grant homeopathy any kind of religious status. Sticking "quasi-" in front (meaning "Similar to, but not exactly the same as;") simply says that homeopathy isn't truly a religion, it's just kinda similar to one. Either way, your assertion doesn't move our discussion here any further forward. We're never going to treat homeopathy in the way we treat (say) Christianity or Islam...because it simply does not fit with the English language definition of a religion - it's falsifiable (and false), it doesn't require faith, there is no god/gods involved.

To the contrary, you say "some...choose to believe in it for reasons unrelated to scientific proof or disproof" - which would be religious thinking requiring blind faith if homeopathy were unfalsifiable - but since there are perfectly valid scientific tests which actually do disprove it, your description is essentially the dictionary definition of a pseudoscience: "Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method."...these people purport to be scientific (they do "provings" and follow elaborately proscribed methods of preparation) - yet (as you say) choose to believe it without paying attention to the results of the scientific method. That is precisely what a pseudoscience is - and exactly what a religion isn't! There shouldn't be any debate about that...just read any English dictionary! SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• No offence intended, but I think it would be more appropriate to have a Good article review from an experienced editor with more recent contributions. Mkweise has made less than 40 edits other than this assessment and respective article in the last 5 years, and has made more comments on this thread than his other editing in that time. Many wikipedia policies have changed considerably since 2005, I don't think WP:FRINGE was around for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Mkweise has also demonstrated some pretty strong opinions about the subject on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The quality of the lead

The lead itself should summarise the body of the article. If the majority of the body of the article is criticism then so should the majority of the lead. There may be a case for a bit more history to be mentioned in the lead and the prevalence and regulation sentence is weak (although probably the best that can be done). I would probably add a sentence on its rise to popularity in the 19th century as a second sentence in the first paragraph. The only sentence I would have issue with in terms of tone in the lead is The low concentrations of homeopathic remedies, often lacking even a single molecule of the diluted substance,[9] lead to an objection that has dogged homeopathy since the 19th century: how, then, can the substance have any effect?. I don't like how this is framed as a question and it basically repeats information from the previous sentence. The contrary to homeopathy, sentence fragment seems a bit overkill in this regard too, we already mention that it dilutes the substance and I think this is getting close to the point of rubbing it in. I am not sure why italics are used in the second paragraph either. The remedy link doesn't appear useful either (I never saw the point in linking to sections within an article, let alone the very next one - plus it doesn't work). There are also three citation needed tags and quite a few page needed tags within the article. Apart from the tags I don't think the other issues are necessarily enough to demote the article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that The low concentrations… shouldn't repeat the point of the previous sentence. Repetitiousness is probably the article's most serious flaw right now. Another current flaw in the lead is that, after harping so much about low concentrations, it then says that the high concentrations in some remedies make them dangerous. This is true, but it's a small point, and doesn't belong in the lead. I like the low concentrations sentence, though. It's actually not a question; it states a question that many have asked, making a quick summary of the history of homeopathy while introducing the topic that the rest of the paragraph explores. As much as I oppose the article's tone of advocacy against homeopathy, I do think that the extremely low, often zero, concentration of the diluted substances is important enough and covered enough in the literature to merit an entire paragraph in the lead. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with devoting a paragraph to the dilutions, it is just that the phrasing of that sentence does not appear encyclopaedic. As a suggestion, why not bring the last sentence down to the start of the paragraph and then change reword it to something like Dilution usually continues well past the point where none of the original substance remains. Since the 19th century this has lead to objections questioning how the remedies can work if they often lack a single molecule of the diluted substance. AIRcorn (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fails neutrality due to harping and tendentious wording

Two ways in which the current version fails neutrality are that it mentions arguments against homeopathy repeatedly, well beyond the need for clarity, and it refers to opposing views simply as "the medical community" and "science" as if homeopathy were not alternative medicine or an idea opposed to mainstream science.

An example of the needless repetition ("harping") is the article's pointing out in several places that not even one molecule of the original substance is present in homeopathic remedies. This is an important point to state, and it is rightly stated in the lead, the explanation of dilution, and in the section on plausibility. Once each in those places would make the point clearly and forcefully. Currently, the article states this point 13 times.

Referring to mainstream medicine simply as "the medical community" in an article about a system of healing sick people that opposes the mainstream is simply disrespectful. Since the article is about a form of alternative medicine, there needs to be a way to contrast it with—well, that other sort of medicine, the mainstream kind. Refusing to call homeopathy medicine at all, even medicine that has been proven ineffective, is unclear and certainly sounds like anti-homeopathy advocacy.

These forms of rhetoric come across like a little kid trying to persuade an adult by intrusively repeating his point over and over in every conversation, and refusing to name an opposing idea in plain language lest that "concede" any validity to it. Childish rhetoric does not belong in any article that we should rate as "good".

Harping and tendentious wording cause this article a lot of damage because they dissuade people from reading the factual substance of the article. The factual substance of the article makes it abundantly clear that homeopathy is ineffective. But the smug tone suggests to a reader that the article is a "hit piece" rather than a fair summary of the known facts. It undermines the article's credibility.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fails to address one main aspect of the topic: the homeopathic theory of disease and cure

The article makes only brief mention of the homeopathic theory of "miasms", and no mention at all of the homeopathic theory of how and why its remedies cure diseases. I'm not familiar with this theory myself, but in a cursory search of Google Books, I found that the theory has something to do with it being impossible for two diseases to coexist in the same body. This topic is well represented in the literature on homeopathy, and is needed for a reader to understand why anyone would find homeopathy plausible enough to consider, even in the 19th century. The article cannot be rated "good" until we give at least basic coverage to this aspect of homeopathy. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that there are so many of these crazy satellite theories surrounding Homeopathy. It's hard to decide which of them are more "mainstream" within homeopathic circles and which are fringe theories within a fringe theory. We can't describe them all without running into WP:UNDUE issues...so we can only mention the main ones, and then only briefly. (So people really believe that it's "impossible for two diseases to coexist in the same body"? So someone who has cancer can't catch a cold?...Or maybe catching a cold cures cancer?...Of that if you have a cold, you can consume large amounts of known carcinogens without getting cancer?...Or that cancer and the common cold are really the same disease...and therefore, by extension, that cancer and ebola are the same disease and therefore the common cold is just a mild case of ebola?) Are these people complete idiots?!) SteveBaker (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is indeed extreme fragmentation of thought throughout homeopathy, then that sounds important enough that the article should at least mention it. However, I'm not so sure that there isn't a main homeopathic theory of disease, easily distinguished from the "satellites". On the talk page, we recently identified an important omission: the difference between homeopathy and immunization. In any event, our assessment of whether the article has Good coverage of the topic should be based on how well the article reflects the literature on homeopathy, not on homeopathy's flaws. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a summary style article so the current section on miasms seems appropriate. Part of the GA criteria is focus and for overview articles this is especially important. As for the different theories within homeopathy they should be covered even if briefly, maybe under philosophies. Minor ones should maybe just get a mention in a list sentence (i.e. "other theory's in homeopathy include the belief that two diseases cannot co-exist in one body and ....). Any explaining of these should be left for the main article (a philosophies of homeopathy should possible be split out). Come to think of it the evidence section is probably too long for an overview article and should probably be split. AIRcorn (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree...that would be a good way to take the article in the future...but I don't think this rises to the level where a "Good Article" assessment should not be acceptable for this article as-is. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary style does tangentially fall under the criteria and focus is definitely there. I have commented previously that other articles should probably be delisted for these reasons[1]. Admittedly at the time (it has improved significantly since) it was worse [2] in that regard than this one. Though technically easy, due to the nature of the article I don't think any splitting of the Evidence section is likely to happen before this reassessment finishes. At the very least I would consider paraphrasing and condensing some of the block quotes and tidying up the list of study sentences so they don't all start "in 2002", "in 2003", "a 2007" etc. I don't see the value of the infobox in this section either. The passed version from 2007 reads much better in this regard[3]. In its current state I don't think it meets the Good Article standards. AIRcorn (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the article's current coverage of evidence: the information is excellent, but a lot of it is written like a research review article or textbook, not an encyclopedia article accessible a lay reader. This can be fixed with a bit of work; we're just not there yet. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

American Horror Story

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept All raised issues have been dealt with and the article can be kept as Good AIRcorn (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This series has a new season, which has a completely different setting/characters than the first. I would like a reassessment to make sure this page maintains it GA status, or needs editing for length/navigability. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you notified the major contributors and wikiprojects that you have started a reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, including the person who approved the original GA. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Length is fine (it uses summary style well in the cast section) and it appears pretty good in terms of navigating too. Nothing else is jumping out at me. Unless there is something more specific that you think needs fixing I say it still meets the GA standards. AIRcorn (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, we worked on it last week to make it more readable and navigable, putting all the seasonal stuff with their respective pages. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Having read the article there seems to be no major problems with the introduction of the second season, however 2 points:

• "The second season premiered on October 17, 2012." - why does that simple statement need 2 sources? (suggest to pick only the better one for lead and main text).
• "The second season's opening sequence will be different but done by the same creative team." - should be changed to present tense. Check other remainders of "old" 2nd season predictions throughout.

Except of those minor points i found no glaring issues. Keep after final cleanup. GermanJoe (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the above recommendations, keeping an eye out for others. Thanks for the reviews. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sibyl de Neufmarché

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Withdrawn by nominator I am going to withdraw this reassessment as a result of a discussion at my talk page[4]. An editor has said they will try and fix it, but not while this reassessment is running. Since the aim is always to fix these articles I am willing to give them that opportunity. If it still has issues in a couple of months then I may open a new reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There have been tags on this article since November 2010 August 2012 asking for more reliable sources regarding websites run by Charles Cawley (Medieval Lands and The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy). I have been to the reliable sources noticeboard and from what I can gather the general consensus is that they can be used if no better source can be found. However, the compromise at the moment seems to be to tag these with a "better sources required" tag. There was also comment there that an article that relies on these sources can not be considered Good. The current discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy and there are also previous discussions held at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 131#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley (2) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. Would be interested to know the Good article community opinion of using these sources in a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have since provided the original sources Cawley used; seeing as there are few Primary Sources available online regarding a woman born in 1100 it's unlikely better sources than those of which Cawley used will be found. If the Wikipedia community feels that the article is undermined by the use of these (so far) only available online sources then go ahead and declass it. However, it bodes ill for future editors wishing to spend their time improving an article to GA class only to have it declassed because one editor does not like the sources provided notwithsatnding their having passed muster during the peer review and the GA review.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The claim that there have been tags on this article since November 2010 asking for more reliable sources regarding websites run by Charles Cawley does not appear to be supported by the article's history and they were not there when I assessed the article in December 2010. The tags seem to have been added in this edit on 27th August 2012. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The tags were backdated when they were added. I have amended them there, and struck the comments here, on the talk page and the reliable source noticeboard. AIRcorn (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You are perfectly entitled to strike out your own comments, and I would question whether you aught to be striking out other editors' comments without their agreement (I've not seem any discussion with them in respect of getting their agrement). Pyrotec (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What other editors comments have I struck. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm minded to close this review and keep GA status. AIRcorn failed to comply with the clause 3 of Community reassessment, i.e. "Please notify the most recent GA reviewer, major contributing editors....". I, as the last reviewer (see Talk:Sibyl de Neufmarché/GA1), was not notified and (As AIRcorn states): "The application of the Good article criteria is a bit subjective and reviewers will interpret the criteria slightly differently. According to the criteria references are only needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". The "likely to be challenged" part allows a lot of leeway to the reviewer to ask for references. However, one of the criteria is also that there should be no valid maintenance tags. As not all tags are valid to the criteria this can be a little contradictory (tagged deadlinks is one I usually ignore when cleaning up articles). From reading the above there could be an argument made in this case that the sources themselves don't strictly fall foul of the GA criteria, but the presence of the tags themselves may. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)". The tags were not on the article at the time of the assessment in November 2010, they appear to have been added on 27th August 2012. This reassessment and some of the discussions in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy appear to have been prompted by the statements that appeared to imply that the article was awarded GA-status with maintenance tags on the sources. Having raised concerns here and on the article's talk page, the November 2010 dates have been struck out and replaced with more accurate dates. Pyrotec (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that the quote Pyrotec is using came from the reliable source noticeboard and "the above" refers to the discussion there. It should be noted that some of the editors in "the above" expressed concerns about the sources being used in a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

But, do you think that an article can be considered Good with the tags currently present. The date is not really an issue, it just meant that I choose it first as I thought it was an old GA with problems. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I was not so sure that the date was all that unimportant: this review, and the preceding discussions on the article's talkpage and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, appeared to start off with a every low key theme "here is an article that was awarded GA-status with tags on", but that was not checked at the start: wikipedia (well a bot-produced list) was taken as a reliable source, which it is not. But, I don't proposed to dwell any more on this point, as we know how this situation came about. To return to the article, the tags are on it because an editor objects to some of the sources used and there is much detailed discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. The article is required to comply with WP:WIAGA. Generally, it is compliant: for instance, there is no evidence that the article is unstable (clause 5), its citations are tagged in places but there is no evidence of any edit war; it is also appears compliant with clause 2(a). There may or may not be minor problems with clauses 2(b) and (c), as the "noticeboard" discussions do refer in places to questions over primary sources and reliability of a web site (described as both good and poor in parts). Overall, the "noticeboard" discussions appear to be "positive" with quite detailed suggested corrective actions. I'm not convinced that this article is sufficiently non-compliant with WP:WIAGA to: (i) loose its GA status, or (ii) be placed On Hold. However, I'm not too keen on seeing GAs with "tags" on, and I suspect that your view is somewhat similar on this aspect. My suggested solution would be to leave this review open for a short while: (i) to see if any other views are expressed, and (ii) to allow interested editors the opportunity to improve the article in accordance with the discussion at the "noticeboard", if they so choose. For instance, primary sources could remain as references/further readings if they were supplemented with reliable secondary sources (if/when they exist). At the end of the process a decision needs to be made: is the article compliant with WP:WIAGA and if, not how is it non-compliant? Pyrotec (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That was one of the reasons I went the community route instead of conducting an individual reassessment. I was interested in what other reviewers thought about the status of Good articles with maintenance tags. AIRcorn (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No acton Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC).

The Good article status of the Pink slime article was delisted per the nominator of an individual Good article reassessment (GAR) discussion located here: Talk:Pink slime/GA2. No offense intended, but the GAR nominator appears to possibly want the article to be structured per his or her dictum, rather than upon consensus achieved through editing and per discussions on the article's talk page. Most, if not all of the individual's concerns were addressed by editing the article, and some of the concerns in the GAR were contentious (e.g. reducing information in sections of the article, despite significant coverage in reliable sources over a significant period of time). Importantly, this article actually passes Wikipedia's Good article criteria. Therefore, I am listing this article for community reassessment, for it to be re-listed as a Wikipedia Good article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not GA Sorry, NorthAmerica, I know you worked really hard on this, but I agree with the nominator. This article has such recurring concerns with NPOV and stability (not to mention poorly organized flow and questionable sources) that it will probably never make it to GA no matter how obsessively we tweak the wording. This never should have been given Good Article status in the first place; the original Good Article review, which can be seen here Talk:Pink slime/GA1, was a travesty of the process involving no detailed analysis at all. --MelanieN (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input. How would you recommend better-organizing the flow of the article? Which of the sources do you perceive as questionable? Activity at the article has slowed down, the article is stable, and while there have been some recent minor changes, matters regarding maintaining a neutral point-of-view have been resolved. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with NorthAmerica. I wasn't involved in the initial review and my participation in the reassessment was limited at best, but all of the points that hamiltonstone made were addressed by northamerica in the reassessment. The only possible exception is that hamiltonstone didn't think the controversy section was effectively "distilled or summarized," but I disagree. No summary of remaining issues was given at the end of the reassessment. Just because it's controversial doesn't mean that it can't be a good article. The article seems to have been relatively stable recently and I question the comment about NPOV. There's no POV tag or any recent discussions about how the article is supposedly biased, as far as I can tell. All of the Good article criteria are met, in my opinion. It's a Good article, not a Featured article or a Perfect article. AgnosticAphid talk 20:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the criteria. Melanie, which criteria do you think it fails, and why?:

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. AgnosticAphid talk 20:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

GA: This looks like an attempt to do some damage control as the term "pink slime" is a PR embarrassment to vendors, but this is the WP:COMMONNAME at this point and therefore a valid title for the article. As such, anything more than minor changes to wording likely cannot be justified (if the topic of a page is the subject of controversy, Wikipedia itself does not take sides in that controversy but at the same time has no reason to deny that the controversy exists). K7L (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The article fails to meet criteria 3a (breadth) and 4 (NPOV). For example, the Mass media section gives scant details on the plaintiff's reasons for the suit. For example, the CNN article describing the lawsuite (note 120) contains important details on why the company feels it has been wronged by the news report and why it subsequently launched the lawsuit. Omission of details like this leaves the article incomplete and unbalanced. Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Y The article's "In mass media" section has been updated with information about the plaintiff's reasons for the lawsuit. This information was then moved to a new section titled "BPI lawsuit". Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Partial review by Pyrotec

At this stage I'm just going to highlight problems. When I've produced the list I will consider them and then come to a decision. I've also read Talk:Pink slime/GA2, which was closed in August 2012 and I'm seeing similar problems, may be not the same but unreliable sources are being used in it. The same point, about (un)reliable sources, was made in Talk:Pink slime/GA1 Pyrotec (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Lead -

• Ref 3 is used in the article to confirm the statement "Pink slime refers to mechanically separated and disinfected beef products known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)" and the ref also used later on. This ref is a blog so its not generally regarded as a WP:RS, however since some of it was posted by Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, Under Secretary for Food Safety, I'll regard words by Hagen as (possibly) reliable. The second used of ref 3 uses words by Elizabeth Hagen, however, she does not use the term "Pink slime" nor does she seem to confirm that Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) and Pink slime are the same. Ref 5 does, as do the rest of the references used in the first paragraph but they don't seem to be used for this purpose (they are there for other things).
• Ref 4 is a broken web link - error 404.

• marker point - I'm comming backed to the lead when I've gone through the article to the end. Pyrotec (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Product overview -

  In the first paragraph, Ref 16 is marked as a dead link (and it is dead, I've checked).

• The second paragraph has a Wikipedia:Citation needed flag.

• • Legality by country -

• In respect of this series of statements: "In the United States, the additive itself cannot legally be sold directly to consumers. However, it can constitute up to 15 percent of ground beef without additional labeling,[19] and it can also be added to other meat products such as beef-based processed meats.[19]". The first sentence is not verifiable, the second one is verifiable, and the third is somewhat vague: it states: "Many wanted to know whether it was in ground turkey or chicken, it is not. Pink slime is only being added to beef products, primarily ground beef, but it is also in some processed meats.".
• The claims about the UK are based on a blog. Hardly a reliable source, as stated back in Talk:Pink slime/GA2.
• The claim about the EU is based on Ref 31, which seems to be broken - it gives a 503 service unavailable message, Ref 32 The Hudson River's "The Nyack Village" web site (not something I'd regard as a reliable source on Europe); and ref 33 The Independant, which also seems to be unavailable.

• History -

Overall summary

This is not an article at WP:GAN, so I'm going to stop treating it as a GAN. Having got this far, I would say that this article is close to being a GA, but its not there yet. If this was a GAN, I may well put the review On Hold for corrective actions to be done. However, this is not a GAN, its a WP:GAR and more precisely its a complaint about the last personal WP:GAR, so I'm going to consider it from that point of view.

Ignoring the title for now, this is a fairly comprehensive and well referenced article, but some of the claims are unreferenced and/or have citation needed flags (and dead links) and some references cant be regarded as reliable sources - the use of blogs for instance and local US community web site(s) for European Union official policy statements. The lead is non-compliant with WP:Lead in that it makes no attempt to summarise the whole of the article and comply with the relative emphasis (see WP:Lead#Introductory text), nor with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (I'll come back to this). The current lead needs to be approximately double its current size for an article of this length.

If this was an article about lean finely textured beef (LFTB) and/or boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT), I would accept that article was broadly compliant with the requirements for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is made clear in the article that "pink slime" as a pejorative term (in History section it states: "....This article included the first public use of the term "pink slime" as a pejorative term.[37]....").

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Close to being a GA, but needs more work in places.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead is non-compliant, its too short and only provides a summary of some of the material discussed in the article. This was raised back in July 2012 in Talk:Pink slime/GA2.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Mostly yes.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   This was raised in Talk:Pink slime/GA1 in respect of a Yahoo blog; again in Talk:Pink slime/GA2, and by my above.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I would consider the body of the article to be compliant. The title is not compliant nor is the first paragraph of the WP:Lead. The tone of the lead is set by the first paragraph, namely: "Pink slime refers to mechanically separated and disinfected beef products known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)[3] and boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT).[4] It is also known by the dysphemistic slang term soylent pink." The term "dysphemistic slang term" is used for soylent pink (see wiktionary - dysphemism) a term that is equally applicable to Pink Slime. It is very easy to fix this, rename the article and carry out a minor edit on the first sentence of the lead; a re-label the two images. Probably nothing else is needed.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

In summary:

1. By all means resubmit the article to WP:GAN, but I do suggest that the concerns raised in Talk:Pink slime/GA2 and in this assessment are addressed first.
2. I consider that many of the concerns raised by hamiltonstone on 18 July 2012 in Talk:Pink slime/GA2 are valid, as are many of the comments raised on the talkpage: Talk:Pink slime. I'm sorry but to be a GA the article has to comply with WP:WIAGA, and in parts it still does not.

I will be happy to review it at WP:GAN should you choose to submit it you I would that the points that have been raised over the last four months are addressed first. I wish the article well. Pyrotec (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this review. I'm not very experienced or familiar with either the article subject the procedure here, but if you'd care to expand on your opinion of the title in light of WP:POVTITLE and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming, I'd welcome it. I feel like soylent pink is not a very familiar or frequently used term and there's not an obvious encyclopedic alternative to pink slime. The industry-favored names seem as POV as pink slime and they are not as popular. Thanks! AgnosticAphid talk 07:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See also Soylent Green.AgnosticAphid talk 07:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I entered "lean finely textured beef" into google and it came up with this list of hits: [5]. The first hit was for wikipedia: Pink slime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pink slime" Look up pink slime, lean finely textured beef, LFTB, soylent pink, or beef in ... Lean finely textured beef, also known as pink slime, is a beef-based product that is ... Meat slurry - Advanced meat recovery - Mechanically separated meat". It seems to me that the article should be titled: "lean finely textured beef", or something similar. In fact there is an article called lean finely textured beef, it merely a link to the article Pink slime.
• The lead could then say: "Lean finely textured beef (LFTB) refers to mechanically separated and disinfected beef products known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)[3] and boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT).[4] It is also known by the dysphemistic slang term soylent pink and. as term of abuse: Pink slime. It is a processed beef product that was originally used only in pet food and cooking oil and was not approved for human consumption.[9] In 2001 in the United States the product was approved for limited human consumption and began to be used as a food additive to ground beef and beef-based processed meats as a filler at a ratio of usually no more than 25 percent of any product. The production process uses heat in centrifuges to separate the fat from the meat in beef trimmings.[10] The resulting product is exposed to ammonia gas or citric acid to kill bacteria.[10][11] The product is sold in the U.S. to food companies which use it as a filler product in ground beef production. It was reported in March 2012 that approximately 70 percent of ground beef sold in U.S. supermarkets contained the additive at that time. In March 2012, ABC News ran a series of news reports about the product, which generated significant controversy and led to increased consumer concerns. Following the controversy, some companies and organizations discontinued the provision of ground beef with the additive, while others continued to provide beef with the filler.". Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems a little anomalous to have to change the title to LFTB in order for this to be a good article given that exact that proposed move failed to achieve a consensus because many people thought LFTB was not neutral and that if a non-neutral name had to be picked that Pink slime was the WP:COMMONNAME. [6] (a similar proposed move to BLBT also failed [7].) But like I said, I'm not very familiar with this whole process and I do appreciate the feedback on how you think the article could be made more neutral. AgnosticAphid talk 23:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the difficultly, but just changing the name will not make this a Good article, it has to comply with WP:WIAGA. Having carried out this review I've raised concerns about verifying claims. There does appear to be reliable sources in the article supporting the use industry-standard names. The name "Pink slime" seems to appear only in blogs and some newspaper articles, but those articles are not being used to verify the claims that Pink Slime has that (property, etc). Blogs are not generally regarded as being reliable; and a local US community newspaper article is being used to "verify" claims that Europe has officially banned something. If that is so a European reference is better than a US community web site/newspaper. Wikipedia is not asking to proof that something is true or false; only that certain statements in the article can be verified via references to reliable sources. For example, I've stated above: Lead - Ref 3 is (being) used in the article to confirm the statement "Pink slime refers to mechanically separated and disinfected beef products known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)" and the ref also used later on. This ref is a blog so its not generally regarded as a WP:RS, however since some of it was posted by Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, Under Secretary for Food Safety, I'll regard words by Hagen as (possibly) reliable. The second used of ref 3 uses words by Elizabeth Hagen, however, she does not use the term "Pink slime" nor does she seem to confirm that Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) and Pink slime are the same. Ref 5 does, as do the rest of the references used in the first paragraph but they don't seem to be used for this purpose (they are there for other things). Pyrotec (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Top Hat

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Issues raised appear to be have addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm amazed I'm putting this up for GAR now and not after it was promoted. Nothing has significantly changed in the article when it was promoted, with the expection on a clean-up tag added after it recieved its GA status. So because of that, the article has so many problems like its failure of 1.B in the criteria and unreliable sources used like IMDB. GamerPro64 16:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I also see bare urls that need completing. Chris857 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The bare urls are easy to fix and I only see one link to IMDB, which should be replaced. There is the references tag for the DVD releases (recently noted on the talk page by me) and the references could do with some better formatting. This should be fixable, have the major contributors and Wikiprojects been notified? AIRcorn (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikiprojects I have notified. I did not notify the user that promoted it to GA status as he was an IP and haven't edited the site since 2010. I also notified User:Hamiltonstone about the reassessment due to him being the one who promoted it. GamerPro64 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just checking. AIRcorn (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the template links in your notifications. Hope you don't mind. AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Its alright. Didn't know that there were problems to them. GamerPro64 01:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the style, the structure and the layout of this article. NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 22:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Its been over a month since a comment has been made. Is there any consensus on this? GamerPro64 14:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fully clear on the remaining issues, but I'll be glad to try to address them. Am I correct in understanding here that what's needed is just a replacement of one IMDB citation, a reference for the DVD, and replacement for two bare URLs? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I replaced the bare URLs, the IMDB citation, and added a citation to the DVD section, removing the tag. I didn't immediately turn up confirmation of the details on the 2003 UK DVD release, but this doesn't seem like the kind of controversial claim that requires a citation per criterion 2b. Let me know if this addresses the concerns; I'm not an expert on this movie, but it seems a shame to de-list if we can easily fix the problems instead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Epifanio de los Santos Avenue

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Not listed There is consensus here that the article does not at this time meet the Good article criteria. There are plenty of suggestions for improvement presented here. Once these are addressed nominate it at WP:GAN AIRcorn (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The article itself, from the last time it had been reviewed for GA, appears quite fit now for the GA for me. Also, most members of the Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines would want at least another GA page under their scope. Imeoneta03 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is far from the GA standard; large portions are uncited and MOS deficiencies are everywhere. --Rschen7754 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose promotion—I agree that it isn't close to GA standard yet. Many of the points from the original GAN review in August are still left unaddressed. Some of them don't directly impact the GA criteria, but without them, the article isn't "good".
  • Headings are still in Title Case, not Sentence case. For example, "Route Description" should be "Route description" and "Traffic Management" should be "Traffic management" per the MOS. Not a GA item, but it still shows sloppy attention to detail and a lack of engagement on an easy fix from four months ago.
  • The lengths as adjectives issue was sorted out, but now there are lengths in the text without conversions. Do not assume that your audience excludes Americans.
  • The junction list table does not need "mi" and "km" in each cell of the table if those are the labels for those columns. It still needs reformatting to comply with the MOS
  • There are still non-reliable sources (in the Wikipedia-defined use of the term) in use in the article. Namely, footnotes 6 and 13 are to another wiki and to a blog, respectively. Footnote 6 looks like a mirror of an earlier version of this article, which is especially problematic.
  • The only footnotes in the RD section are in the last paragraph of the Traffic management subsection. RDs are usually the easiest sections of a highway article to source because any good paper map plus the satellite view on a decent online mapping service can be used for all of the major details. Failure to address this point from the original GAN review, which does impact one of the GA criteria is a major failing.
  • There are source names that should appear in italics in their citations, and one that appears in italics that should not.
    • Philippine Daily Inquirer is either a newspaper in print, or the name of a news website; as a publication name it would be italicized.
    • GMA News should not be in italics as the name of a television network. TV networks are the publisher, and any specific programs they air would be the "work". As an example, citing 60 Minutes, a news program aired on CBS in the United States, the program gets the italics while the network does not.
  • The "notable incidents and accidents" section was removed, which makes this less comprehensive in terms of content. If those events are truly notable, they need to be reinserted, maybe as a part of the history section.
  • Given the above issues, the article still fails criteria 2a, 2b, 3a. I haven't read through the prose to see if its quality has improved, but again, given sourcing/research failures, it's pointless to polish prose that may need to be rewritten to comply with research and content requirements expected of a GA. Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• The lack of referencing in many sections stands out for me. My advice is to treat this like a peer review and work on the changes (including those brought up at the previous GAN). It is unlikely to be overturned here even if these issues are addressed as it will ultimately need a full Good article review. Once you have worked on the article a bit nominate it at WP:GAN and you will hopefully get a good review (the road project is pretty good at taking these on so you shouldn't have to wait too long). AIRcorn (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. The article itself is not yet good at the time, and based on the text, I think it requires a copyeditting. Kj plma (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Breyer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: no consensus This article sits right on the borderline of meeting the requirement for broadness and this outcome could easily go either way. However, since there are few comments and no consensus, it is probably requisite to close this per the status quo, i.e. GA, even though my personal preference would be to delist. Safiel (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC).

I don't believe this article meets the Good Article criteria. It lacks depth in all areas, specifically the judge's personal history and jurisprudence. The article would do well to have numerous sections added which describe Breyer's views and rulings on various issues (abortion, free speech, etc.) as you can see here in the article on John Roberts. The merit of this kind of organization is that it elucidates the judge's position on specific cases and issues rather than painting his or her jurisprudence in a broad brush using such descriptive terms as 'liberal' or 'conservative', which fail to capture the subtleties of the judge's views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimakides (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 January, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. It is useful, but not strictly necessary, to show that information on these areas are available somewhere (be they online or offline sources). AIRcorn (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A request to the WP:Scouting was made. From the standpoint of scouting, perhaps the mention of the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award belongs in a separate section on Awards, but given that there is no such section, having it in the current location is fine. On a secondary note, I'm actually surprised that an article on a current SC Justice is as short as it is.Naraht (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd tentatively suggest that this should be kept as a good article. Reading the judicial philosophy section, there's a fairly detailed explanation of Breyer's judicial principles, which touches on his specific positions on abortion, First Amendment rights, Sixth Amendment rights, and gun control; the article also discusses his work in copyrights, deregulation, and federal sentencing guidelines. There's certainly room for expansion, and it would help to know what notable decisions or dissents he's written. But I feel like this "addresses the main aspects of the topic", even if it doesn't provide the depth the nominator's looking for. I'm not a Supreme Court expert, though, so if someone can point out a "main aspect" that this doesn't mention, I could be easily persuaded otherwise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delist There is simply not enough here, particularly given that he is a Supreme Court Justice. Simply not comprehensive enough coverage to warrant Good Article status. Safiel (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Poundland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted Neutrality issues have not been solved in the month and a half since this reassessment was initiated. Safiel (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is tagged with a neutrality tag in the "Business practice section" and I think it is well warrented. This section includes these sentences from sales strategy:

• Poundland's biggest sales advantage is their price consistency across all products
• While other retailers must decide upon the price of each individual product and have this clearly displayed to their customers, Poundland may simply move stock onto its shelves from their warehouses, so customers always know how much a product costs.
• Although the retailer encountered initial scepticism from some suppliers worried about selling their top brands in a discount environment, this was quickly dispelled and the big brand suppliers now deal directly with the retailer
• Suppliers can see the benefits to this strategy being that they know exactly where the products are going, the quantity being sold and the price the retailer is selling them at.

That is just in the first half of the first paragraph and I feel I could probably quote the whole section. It very much reads like an advertisement. The products offered section is not much better, with "The range will include a number of favourites that used to be found in the Woolworths' Pick n Mix selection" and "As well as their own brand line of products, the retailer also sells hundreds of products from other top brands such as Colgate, Walkers and Cadburys to name a few."

To me this reads too much like an advertisement to meet the neutrality requirements of a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the GA status of this article is questionable. Many retail articles have suspected WP:COI issues, but they generally aren't GAs. The article is otherwise well written. --Ef80 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• I made a bunch of changes to the section here and here. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• The above claims do need to be sourced, but they are important, and not just fluff. Consumers want value, they also want brands. There should be coverage of these claims in the retail and financial press, if not in academic sources. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
  

Development history of The Elder Scrolls series

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted A merge discussion resulted in a decision to merge the article into the parent article and the various individual games. This will result in this article becoming a redirect. Redirects can not be Good articles so this is in effect a technical delisting. AIRcorn (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC).

Promoted in 2007, a quick glande to the article shows that it substantially fails the broadness guideline: it's scope is the development history of the Elder Scrolls series, but it lacks a considerable amount of information for the latest games, Skyrim, its expansions, several spin offs as well as the recently-accounded online game. Also, references are a big mess and I have foudn that several facts stated in the prose are not covered by the sources. As I believe that an individual reassessment is out of my hand for several reasons, I request this community assessment. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since this is an overview article and Skyrim is quite well developed it should not be too difficult to add information from there. I wonder if there is an overview that can tie all these games developments together. Otherwise it looks a bit like a glorified dab page. AIRcorn (talk)
• I think it should remain GA. Per the GA criteria, the article does address the development of Skyrim; it is not comprehensive in its coverage, but it is still just a GA. I'm more concerned that it doesn't discuss possible sequels to Skyrim, though I don't know enough about the game to know whether that would be speculation. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• I made a suggestion that the article be split and merged as it seems to be redundant with other articles. If this goes ahead then the article will be delisted as redirects cannot be given Good status. The discussion is Talk:Development history of The Elder Scrolls series#Merge. AIRcorn (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Per the results of the merge discussion, I am delisting this article. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Schultz

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Most of the raised issue were fixed during the reassessment AIRcorn (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm requesting a community reassessment of this article because I've been involved in editing it. The article seems to be boosterish in tone and to contain a lot of extraneous information. -- Mesconsing (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

From a brief glance, I see that there are many brief paragraphs that could probably use expansion or combining with others. Also, the lead seems long for the article, and ideally shouldn't need citations. And a fair bit of the career section seems to be about Joliet and not on his actions as mayor. Chris857 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Only a brief glance too, but I agree about the short paragraphs. It is also has a slight news ticker style (In August 1989, On October 17 etc) that is used to start many of these sentence, which is not ideal prose. Mesconsing, have you notified the main contributors and Wikiprojects? AIRcorn (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have resolved the stubby paragraph situation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• I had a go at editing it with the aim of neutralising some of the language. I am surprised that there is not some negative information pertaining to the introduction of gambling, but it is probably at a good enough stage to be kept as a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as GA following these revisions; problems appear to have been resolved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Grave robbery in the United Kingdom

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: List as a Good article One of the rare cases when an article failed gets a full review here. The article appears to meet or exceed all the GA criteria AIRcorn (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Axl just failed Grave robbery in the United Kingdom with the rationale "You clearly have no intention to collaborate to improve the article." This, after I reverted his short series of edits that, in my opinion (as someone most familiar with this topic), removed important information from the article's lead section and introduced several grammatical mistakes.

In the review, his observations are that the lead section is too long in comparison to the rest of the article, and that the common noun resurrectionists requires quotes. I can find nothing in WP:LEADLENGTH which suggests that this article's lead is too long. It contains only pertinent information, but more importantly, Axl offered no guidance on what he thinks is spurious. For those who are unfamiliar with the topic, the lead tells why the practice occurred, its legal background, why the practice became more popular, the public, medical, judicial and elite opinion on the practice, the popular reaction, and how the practice was brought to an end.

This is a complicated topic spanning well over a century of social and legal history; to be asked simply to "shorten the lead" without any rationale is rather insulting. Furthermore, guidance on lead length is just that - guidance. There are no fixed rules.

I'm somewhat familiar with the GA process, having reviewed quite a few articles myself, and having also submitted more than a few for consideration. This type of "nose out of joint" reaction to my refusal to follow instructions makes me think that in future, I'll just head over to FAC, where I'll not have to deal with such idiocy. Parrot of Doom 19:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to take on this GA assessment. I have a copy of Richardson, Ruth (1987). Death, dissection, and the destitute. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7102-0919-3. (And other sources, because this is a subject that interests me.) Although I work mainly at FAC, I understand the GA criteria and think the nominator and I can quickly achieve consensus. I will have time to do this tomorrow (Sunday 3 Feb) if the nominator agrees. Graham Colm (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Graham, yours is a name I trust without question. Parrot of Doom 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Promote

This article meets all the GA criteria. It is engaging, exceptionally well written and referenced. I have taken the opportunity to verify the facts attributed to Richardson's book since I have a copy, and found no issues with close-paraphrasing or inaccuracy (apart from my comment below). Specific comments:

• Is "a handful of corpses" the best choice of words? The expression is used twice (no deal breaker).
• I think a reference is needed here, "In 1721, contracts issued by the Edinburgh College of Surgeons included a clause directing students not to become involved in exhumation, suggesting, according to historian Ruth Richardson, that students had already done the exact opposite", although it is covered by the one given after the following sentence, it's a strong statement that requires clear verification. Also, unless the page numbering of my copy of Richardson differs, this information is on pages 54 to 55, not 52. Graham Colm (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, we have Malleus to thank for that (my writing before I met him here was atrocious). A "handful" is used because I've found conflicting data on the number of bodies available. IIRC, some sources say 6, others 10. Is there a synonym that conveys the same information, but remains vague? I've just got in from work so I'll address the other point once I've had some tea. Parrot of Doom 18:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You could say "less than a dozen", but having thought about it, "a handful" conveys the meaning well. Graham Colm (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the cite thing, it's one of those Wikipedia annoyances that doesn't let you hover over the cite to reveal what text it covers. So I merged the lot and put them at the end of the paragraph. I've also explicitly cited Richardson's opinion, as you suggested. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is close to FA standards. From a conversation that I have had with the nominator on the article's Talk Page, I know that there is more he wishes to add when the sources are available to him. The Lead adequately covers the salient points, and given the article's FA potential is of adequate length. I understand that the subject is grave robbing and not anatomy, but perhaps a sentence or two could be added later to stress the importance of the work of the pioneer anatomists to modern medicine. This aside, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted Currently the article does not contain enough references to be considered of Good quality AIRcorn (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Article has numerous unreferenced or poorly referenced claims. The article also contains bias in some parts aswell as a lack of appropriate tone.

For these reasons I am nominating it for community reassesment.Retrolord (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating this for reassessment. Have you notified the major contributors and the Wikiprojects? AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure of how to do so. Retrolord (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You can find the top contributors to the article here. The Wikiprojects are on the articles talk page (Germany and Military History should suffice). You should also let the reviewer and nominator know Insanephantom (talk · contribs) and Pudeo (talk · contribs) respectively. You can just copy-paste {{subst:GARMessage|Joseph Goebbels|GARpage=1}} to the talk pages if you wish. AIRcorn (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delist - Extensive unreferenced information. For several paragraphs that appear to be referenced, the reference only supports the info at the very end (last sentence or two), with the remainder unreferenced. Unreferenced quotes, opinions, potentially controversial information. At least one reference to a forum - not RS. Nothing has been done to improve the article in the month since it was brought here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the Delist. But how do we go about doing so, do we just remove it from the list or do we have to do a complete review of the article? ★★RetroLord★★ 21:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you have started a community reassessment it is up to an uninvolved editor to close it. I am about to do a run through now. If you see articles you don't think meet the criteria in the future then you can always do an individual reassessment. They are the similar to these, but you can close them yourself. Think of it like a normal review. If the delisting is likely to be controversial I would recommend bringing it here though. AIRcorn (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The article has bee now delisted (I agree with that). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Krishna

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Some good advice for improvements below for any editors looking to return this to Good status AIRcorn (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This article appears to me to have problems with both clear and correct prose (criterion 1a), sourcing (criterion 2b), and perhaps to some degree neutrality (criterion 4). I've cleaned up some basic proofreading errors in the text [8], but here are some sample problematic sentences that remain:

• "In this form, he usually stands with one leg bent in front of the other and raises a flute to his lips, known as Tribhangi Mudra, accompanied by cows, emphasizing his position as the divine herdsman, Govinda, or with the gopis (milkmaids) i.e. Gopikrishna, stealing butter from neighbouring houses i.e. Navneet Chora or Gokulakrishna, defeating the vicious serpent i.e. Kaliya Damana Krishna, lifting the hill i.e. Giridhara Krishna ..so on and so forth from his childhood / youth events." -- a syntactically odd and incorrect sentence.
• "This lone find may not establish Krishna as contemporary with Pre-Indus or Indus times, but, likewise, it cannot be ignored." -- "cannot be ignored" is a bit of editorializing that should be attributed to a specific author.
• "Chandogya Upanishad (3.17.6) Composed around 900BC-700BC" -- "composed" is miscapitalized here (fixing) and needs citation since Dec '10.
• "Connected with the festival Holi" -- floating sentence fragment
• "Mathura (in present day Mathura district, Uttar Pradesh) was the capital of the Yadavas ... " -- paragraph is unsourced
• "Krishna asked Arjuna, "Have you within no time, forgotten the Kauravas' evil deeds such as not accepting the eldest brother Yudhishtira as King, usurping the entire Kingdom without yielding any portion to the Pandavas, meting out insults and difficulties to Pandavas, attempt to murder the Pandavas in the Barnava lac guest house, publicly disrobing and disgracing Draupadi. Krishna further exhorted in his famous Bhagavad Gita, "Arjuna, do not engage in philosophical analyses at this point of time like a Pundit. You are aware that Duryodhana and Karna particularly have long harboured jealousy and hatred for you Pandavas and badly want to prove their hegemony. You are aware that Bhishmacharya and your Teachers are tied down to their dharma of protecting the unitarian power of the Kuru throne. Moreover, you Arjuna, are only a mortal appointee to carry out my divine will, since the Kauravas are destined to die either way, due to their heap of sins. Open your eyes O Bhaarata and know that I encompass the Karta, Karma and Kriya, all in myself. There is no scope for contemplation now or remorse later, it is indeed time for war and the world will remember your might and immense powers for time to come. So rise O Arjuna!, tighten up your Gandiva and let all directions shiver till their farthest horizons, by the reverbration of its string. -- quotations begin in this paragraph, but have no closing quotation marks. The quotations are unsourced.
• The section "Kurukshetra War and Bhagavad Gita" is almost entirely unsourced; it also flips between present and past tense while describing events.
• "Some Vaishnava traditions maintain that Krishna's children were born out of divine mental transmission The ten sons of Satyabhama were Bhanu, Subhanu, Svarbhanu, Prabhanu, Bhanuman, Chandrabhanu, Brihadbhanu, Atibhanu (the eighth), Sribhanu and Pratibhanu.

Samba, Sumitra, Purujit, Satajit, Sahasrajit, Vijaya, Citraketu, Vasuman, Dravida and Kratu were the sons of Jambavati. These ten, headed by Samba, were their father's favorites. The sons of Nagnajiti were Vira, Candra, Asvasena, Citragu, Vegavan, Vrisha, Ama, Sanku, Vasu and the opulent Kunti. Sruta, Kavi, Vrisha, Vira, Subahu, Bhadra, Santi, Darsa and Purnamasa were sons of Kalindi. Her youngest son was Somaka. Madra's sons were Praghosha, Gatravan, Simha, Bala, Prabala, Urdhaga, Mahasakti, Saha, Oja and Aparajita. Mitravinda's sons were Vrika, Harsha, Anila, Gridhra, Vardhana, Unnada, Mahamsa, Pavana, Vahni and Kshudhi. Sangramajit, Brihatsena, Sura, Praharana, Arijith, Jaya and Subhadra were the sons of Bhadra, together with Vama, Ayur and Satyaka. Diptiman, Tamratapta and others were the sons of Krishna and Rohini." -- long sets of lists without obvious relevance or sourcing

• "The concept of Baladeva, Vasudeva and Prati-Vasudeva was used to solve it." -- neutrality disputed since Dec '12
• "Krishna lived like humans and he was a prophet." -- a bald statement of fact that should be put more clearly in the context of a religion.

I want to emphasize that this list isn't complete, but simply examples of the kind of problems I'm encountering. If someone attempts a general clean-up, I'll be glad to take a second look. Notifying relevant parties. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a high traffic article, many users and anons have contributed to the article, some of the content has violated GA criteria. I am currently busy and can check this only week. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it is best that this article fails as lot of work is needed to cleanup and I am currently busy. Will do this article on my own pace afterwards. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delist - Nothing has been done to improve this article since it was brought here, and the person who would be the best choice to clean it up (Redtigerxyz) has indicated that he does not have the time to do so right now. The issues that Khazar2 points out are indicative of the quality of the article as a whole. There is a significant lack of referencing, some unreliable/outdated sourcing, poor organization and poor prose. Redtiger's statement that this article is a target for additions (often unsourced and poorly organized) by new users and anons is unfortunately quite obvious from a quick look through the article. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Kumbakonam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Listed All concerns seem to have been dealt with and no new questions have arisen. This has been open for a few months and no one else seems interested in commenting or closing it so I am taking the initiative. I could arguably fall under "involved" as I contributed to the GA disagreement about this article prior to the community reassessment. I asked at the WP:GAN#WP:Good article reassessment for new closers, but so far none have applied. If anyone disagrees with this close they are free to revert. AIRcorn (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• There were no set of action points and pass/fail criteria listed by the reviewer.
• Most of the comments were provided right during the closure, without providing any room for rework.
• The failure criteria listed have been addressed.

Ssriram mt (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a snip from Kumbakonam Reassessment.

1) Well-written: b

• the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. b Pretty okay. The section on Utility services is made of two small paragraphs that I feel it could be merged with some other section.
• it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. As discussed in the GA-reassessment, the image caption for the Mahamaham contains peacock terms, but they haven't been remedied yet. A standard referencing style is not followed. The last name of the author along with the year should be used for citations ("Ayyar 1920" and not "P. V. Jagadisa Ayyar 1920"). The citations texts "Imperial Gazetteer of India" and "International Dictionary of Historic Places" should be replaced with author names.

2) Factually accurate and verifiable:

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
• it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
• it contains no original research. The first sentence in the section "Education" claims that "The oldest functional educational institute in Kumbakonam is the Raja Veda Padasala, established by Govinda Dikshitar during the 16th century, that teaches Sanskrit vedic scriptures in specialised fields of Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Agamas and Sastras." However, the source cited as reference does not state anywhere that the Raja Veda Padasala is the oldest in Kumbakonam. It is therefore WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

3) Broad in its coverage:

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). "During the Mahamaham festival of 1992, there was a major stampede in which 48 people were killed and 74 were injured." Why has this been mentioned? Was it the worst-ever accident of its kind in the Mahamaham? If so, then should it not belong in the "History" section. The article has too manyb images of temples and temple tanks.

4) Neutral:

5) Stable:

6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:

• images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
• images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There are excessive images of temples in Kumbakonam which could have been avoided. There are two images of the Mahamaham tank. The photos of the sculptures in Nageswaran temple has excessive lighting.

On the whole, I feel inclined to delist this article.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 06:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we are still in progress and surprised to see the closure without providing time for a discussion/rework. All the comments were addressed right on the same day. Also a methodical review as done on Kanchipuram would have been best to handle this review.

• The points on referencing of Ayyar, Imperial was not mentioned earlier and it is a simple edit.
• Mahamaham tank and Mahamaham festival are two different entities - that is why two images are added. There is no peacock there as "prominent" is a commonly used term - example Mumbai. The annual Maham festival is one of the top 10 festivals in terms of number of visitors as per HR&CE calendar. The 1992 mishap movement to history is merely a copy paste from one section to other.
• Images - we have a 10th century sculpture replacing a 20th century painting. Which should take precedence in history secion is common sense. If lighting is bleak, an alternate image can well be added. More images on temples - 2 more than originally present. Also i am not sure why a sculpture and a tank is counted with temples. Check this site as how these temples are treated by government - these are not merely religious, but cultural is the underline - p2. The tone is cultural and not religious.
• Raja veda padasala - the reference clearly states 16th century. How much original research is needed to tell 16th century is older or 19th century? Also the part on "functional" is left out i suppose.

Well, nowhere does the article claim that the Rajaveda Padasala is the "oldest functional educational institute". This being the case, such an addition is a violation of WP:SYNTH. The Government Arts College, Kumbakonam, established in the 19th century, was definitely one of the oldest educational institutions in the Madras Presidency considering the fact that the term "educational institutions" is usually used to refer to European-style "schools" and "colleges" and not "pathashalas" and "gurukulas". Besides, Madras Presidency came into being only in the 17th century and hence, the college is definitely one of the oldest. You may very well disambiguate by using the term "European-style educational institution" or the like. Anyway, as I've already said, the claim in the Hindu article does not make Rajaveda Patashala the oldest institution in Kumbakonam.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 05:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have rephrased it. I am wondering if there were any educational institutions during the 16th century that were not padasalas in TN! WP:SYNTH and original research are superlative in this context. Ssriram mt (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

On the whole, i seek a reassessment on the points above in a list with timeframe and the fail/pass be assessed subsequently. Also a second opinion can be sought if need be. I am not blindly seeking a GA, but with the effort put in and minimal rework that is needed, i think this can be through. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done All corrections mentioned above on references, images and merge are implemented.Ssriram mt (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw this when it was undergoing the original individual reassessment. Many of the issues detailed above appear to be dealt with and most are not part of the criteria. In its current state I think it meets the Good Article critera and should be relisted. AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I find that an uniform citation style has not been adopted yet for eg. see sambamurthy sastrigal, prashant more, etc, in contrast to jagadisa ayyar.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 05:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Included the changes. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ling Woo

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: kept I know I initiated this reassessment, but considering no one else has voiced an opinion in two months I am going to boldly keep it. This can be considered a no consensus to delist close or a withdrawn by nominator close. AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Two large tags on this article which relate to the criteria (prose and neutrality). The tone is the main issue, it reads too much like an essay and too much is written in Wikipedias voice. AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, it apepars that the tags were placed there by User:TEHodson, and that users concerns can be found on the talk page. There does not appear to be a consensus as to whether the concerns are valid or not. That being said the article content which TEHodson is concerned about is verified to reliable sources, and thus the content is justified. That being said, the article content appears to be relatively stable, and I would weak oppose the unlisting of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wedlock (band)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Listed as Good article. All concerns raised have either been explained or addressed. The article has potential for expansion, but currently meets the WP:GACR. AIRcorn (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

While being respectful of the previous assessment, there are a few minor points of disagreement that I feel are grounds for reassessing this submission.

In this article, while reference number 17 doesn't seem to go their Billboard Chart History Reviews and Biography, this seems to be because that entire site is being re-vamped. There would be several artists that had live links to this as a reference, but currently the site is out of sorts. Dead links don't look good in an article, but is that grounds for it to fail the GA test?

The editor said the article mentioned the GBLT charts "a lot". When reading the article I only really saw one mention for that regarding their Exogamy album. The GBLT chart is a real chart.Believe it's been in existence since 1996?

While there may be too many for the editor to list, what were some of the grammatical errors making the article "hard to follow?" It seemed to adhere to the topic just fine and it made sense. Was the over all tone not encyclopedic enough?

The sound file was called "Cuts Both Ways," not "Cute Both Ways," and it mentioned their lead vocalist, but not as another artist.Agreed it should be labeled "Wedlock" as a way to depict what the journalist was saying in the review, but I think it was just poorly labeled.

The images definitely need those permissions, but I'm puzzled as to why the other editor was "puzzled" by their 2009 photo.From what I can tell, it's just another picture of the band? Over all improvements are needed, but not because of the band's notability. If the goal of W is to have good quality articles, is it naive to say let's take on a more positive encouraging tone while still maintaining high encyclopedic standards? - AnotherGenericUser (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave my reasons and I'm sure my decision will stick. I revised my review on the GBLT charts and neutrality. Some grammatical errors such as ("Wedlock brings a contemporary edge to a beloved decades-old musical stencil "), ("a nervous, discordant drip of blips & tones, and a whirl of kaleidoscopic synths" ), those are a few grammatical errors that confuse me and make it hard to follow. I didn't fail it on the basis of notability or because of reference number 17 (which you haven't fixed correctly) I'm aware that they have revamped their site but I have done other reviews with people having issues with Billboard but they were still able to fix them. I really wish you would have notified me of this community re-assesment and I'm slightly tired of getting criticized for my reviews. I take the time to do reviews and suggest improvements and all I get is crap, I don't ever get any thank-you's for some of the work I do. I'll admit I'm not perfect, but I'm trying JayJay^{What did I do?}

I know you are trying and I'm sorry for not approaching you privately first. Maybe I just perceived your tone in the review as condescending. I am not perfect either, and this may be another example of why I'm not. The journalistic quotes could have been clearer, you're right;I hadn't considered that when I read the full article.Yes, 17 needs to be corrected.If you know of an effective way of dealing with this please advise.It seems for now the Billboard site is messing up many artist profiles and the link is just not a good source right now. Your time is valuable. I am sure the people who write and submit articles for your review feel their time and effort is valuable as well. In the spirit of W community and making articles better let me offer you a public handshake and thank you for the review in the first place. AnotherGenericUser (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For reference 17 I could find anything on the Billboard charts and I even tried seeing if I could find anything on the Wayback machine. Nothing, although I did find it on Google but still gave me a dead link. Right not I have removed it. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm thinking if you found it on Google that shows it was there, but if removing the link is the best thing for the article, then that's the way it has to be for now until the site gets sorted out. But taking note, as of January 2013 that site contained several reviews, editorially vetted profile/biography, and chart history. But you're right, what isn't there NOW, isn't there. Thanks for taking the time to search it out.AnotherGenericUser (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I've tagged all dead links from this article and from related articles. I think dead links shouldn't necessarily preclude the article from being promoted to 'Good Article' while the article meets other criteria. Thanks, Nickaang (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this article meets GA criteria? JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jay,Jay, can you tell me if I did the fair use rationale thing right for Wedlock sound file "Cuts Both Ways"? I gave a reason, but wasn't sure of any further steps involved. It's mainly because it was their first single getting any critical acclaim and thinking the sample would be proper for people to hear. Is there another template or declaration that's needed?Please let me know Thanks SlowFatKid (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I reworked the quotations to make them more NPOV and readable. Monstermarch (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment JayJay has asked me to look at this. I have had a look at the article and think the prose still needs some work. Some of the sentences are overly long. I also think a problem is that it assumes knowledge. The formation jumps straight into the albums without introducing the band members. The lead contains some information, but it should really be in the body. The pictures seem fine (the song has been deleted though), but the media section doesn't fit. It should probably avoid using ambiguous times as if something changes the article becomes false. There seem to be a few editors working on this so it should be able to meet the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Hi Aircorn, I had asked JayJay about the sound file, but he didn't respond. The song's been deleted because JayJay marked it that way. I can make an adjust to that media section, but the song sample should probably be there because that was significant for the band and that journalist did a review of it. Thanks for saying something, I know folks are busy. SlowFatKid (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the file actually, all I know is it had to be below or at 64kpbs (which I can fix), if you want it undeleted see WP:UNDELETE, if you want a media section it should be above the see also section and should be longer than one sentence. I also wasn't the one who marked it for deletion, someone else did. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can get the song undeleted I don't see an issue with having it in the article. Many band articles have a Musical Style or similar section. If there is enough information out there to add that the media file would fit in there well. AIRcorn (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jay, Jay. That was my error then. I wasn't trying to throw shade I just thought the article wasn't up to the right standards and you were just being a good editor in spotting the mistake. Anyway, like I was saying, I THINK I got it right, but if I did something wrong, I'm prepared to be corrected on it. Thanks for your post. SlowFatKid (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Hi again to Aircorn or whom it concerns, I think I did the fair use thing right and uploaded that "Cuts Both Ways" file again and put it in the article. As for the prose, I don't know much about that; as I read through the article it makes sense to me, but maybe that's because I have seen it more than once while changing the media section. SlowFatKid (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Should read to the end before commenting. I don't personally have an issue with the song there, although I am not an expert on audio files so do not know much about copyrights concerning them (I thnk there are quality and size limits). One of the issues (which is really easy to fix) is that the lead contains information that is not in the article. What you should do is write the article with no lead and then make the lead up by summarizing what is in the article. When I review articles I usually read the lead last. When I do that here I am missing a lot of information. Think of it like two separate articles; the body is the detailed one containing all the information, while the lead just contains a quick overview of the important points. Both should stand on their own. AIRcorn (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know you didn't mean to say you had an issue w/ that song.I may try to work on the article, I am just not very good at prose.Thank you very much.SlowFatKid (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do what you can and then drop a note here or at my talk page and if I have time I will give it a copyedit for you. AIRcorn (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Air corn, I took a shot at changing the article a little, would love to see if it reads any better for you. Please let me know what sentences may be too long as well? Thanks.SlowFatKid (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty good. Needs a citataion for Aleg Oggs description. AIRcorn (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the citation has been added, but do we need the same one in both places? Should one be removed? You end up w/ [1] and then [18] being repeated.I see this bio at http://www.last.fm/music/Wedlock, but is this an acceptable source for Wikipedia? If so, maybe it can be used? Please advise.Thank you.SlowFatKid (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/6fe9f838-112e-44f1-af83-97464f08285b as well.SlowFatKid (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You only need it in the body, but you can add it to the lead if you wish. If you want to use the same citation more than once you can use <ref name = "add name here"> followed by the citation in for one and then <ref name = "add name here"/> for the rest. It will be presented as [1] and [1] in the text and 1^{^ab} in the references section. However reference 18 is not acceptable. It basically is a copy of Wikipedia so is in effect a circular one (see WP:Mirrors). The other one seems fine so I would just use that one. I will do it for you so you can see an example. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as this reassessment goes I think it currently meets the critria and should probably be listed. My only remaining concern is the image in the infobox. It says it is the authors own work, but it doesn't really look like a typical user generated picture. It is also found at last.fm whic is a little suspect. Still it could be as the license says so in the absense of other objections I would be tempted to let it pass. AIRcorn (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the example.Yes, I had a feeling that BBC Music would not be adequate as a source because it is the same info already supplied here. As far as the image, the only thing that may be a clue is how long it's been posted versus the other images.Correct me if I am wrong, but if something is listed as "own work," that means if posted here at Wikipedia it must be original-not taken from another source. I checked the link to last fm you provided, and the upload date is AFTER the one here so if that image was Wikipedia approved as of April 2011, it's probably a good faith upload in my opinion. Are there any further steps that I should be taking on the article? Are you in charge of the nomination or does JayJay need to be doing it? Thank you again.SlowFatKid (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with that explanation. I will ask JayJay if he has any further concerns. AIRcorn (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't tag the inforbox picture because it was added by another user along time ago. As the article goes it looks pretty good, although I really don't like the music style section, consider adding it in the lead. I also looked at the infobox picture and it is used in some drafts, you could maybe take some stuff from the drafts and put in the article, I would ask just in case, but they shouldn't have any problems. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you like the music style section? It is found in many other band articles. The lead is supposed to summarise the information in the body of the article, not provide new information. AIRcorn (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Was I not supposed to remove this? Did I do the wrong thing? Should I change it back?SlowFatKid (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's been reverted. Was that the right thing to be done?SlowFatKid (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To JayJay, What items did you have in mind to take from the previous drafts? Can you advise? Thank you.SlowFatKid (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well is there anyways you cane expand the section, removing it is your choice. I feel it's short and rather not needed. For the drafts I was thinking more of discography sections. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Expand what section exactly? The discography? I'm not understanding what you mean? From what I've seen most bands have a brief outline of the discography, then another main article section? Or what needs to be expanded? Can you do a copy edit as an example of what you're thiking?SlowFatKid (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

@SFK. You have done nothing wrong. It is just a slight disagreement on how things should be presented between myself and JayJay. It happens quite a lot here and most of the time it is sorted without too much trouble. It is not a big deal in this case anyway. If you can expand it that would be great though.

@JJ. Do you think it meets the criteria now? AIRcorn (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a closer look and noticed a few more isues sorry. There are three references to imdb, a site that ise very seldom considered reliable for citations (see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb). I think the information cited falls outside the GA criteria 2b, but it would be good to have another source there if possible. The bands own website would be better as the information can be comfortably supported by a Primary source. It most likely does not even need a source. The links would be fine as an external link though. Oh, and do you have a cite for which reached No. 9 on the top mp3 downloads at Amazon.com. Sorry about dragging this out. AIRcorn (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The IMDb sources tell what the songs were about.I went to the links, and each short film described what the topic was. In the case of "Reverend Charisma" it's about Jim Jones, and in the case of "Black Sundress," it is based upon Paul Allgood's novel. I could use their site as a primary source, but I thought Wikipedia wanted third party sources, and from looking at their site I don't know if their biography covers what "Black Sundress" is about. I still am not sure what Jay Jay wants as far as expansion in the article, can you advise? BTW, it's fine as far as trying to get things up to GA standards,as that is the spirit of Wikipedia- so long as our corrections are for the good of the project.SlowFatKid (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the source for "Black Sundress" chart placement has been added. Please keep in mind that Rovi is editorially vetted.SlowFatKid (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Aircorn, the IMDb sources have been removed; I think you are right, and I listed what I thought were better ones. Found an online article on Reverend Charisma, for example. Again I am not sure about what would need expanding, so if you have an idea, can you do a copy edit to illustrate what you have in mind? For all my inexperience compared to the other editors, I think the article should be listed if there's no other issues. We have been reassessing this for some time now.SlowFatKid (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep This has been open for a few months and it is close to a month since any major edits have been made to the article. The article is in pretty good shape and has improved throughout the reassessment. I beleive that most points raised have been addressed and in its current state it meets the Good article criteria. Any further issues are probably best dealt with at the talk page AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello community! I've reached this instance because there has been a discrepance with this editor over the quality of the article. I find ridiculous for the article to be reassessed for capricious actions, but should this be done, neither me (I've been the major contributor) nor the aforementioned editor (who has made just two contributions into the article, both of them today and none of them introduced new content) can be involved. I do believe a reassessment is not necessary at all, but will make this as democratic as it can be.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny you did not give a chance to raise my rationale before calling it ridiculous

I believe this article should be de-listed because it fails to meet the following criteria for GA:

1. a. The History section is not clear and concise. It is entirely too long and needs to be broken down into sections.

b. The lead section does not summarize the most important points covered in the article. It goes no further that to introduce the subject and does not summarize the article.

3. a. Fails to address the main aspects of the topic - One of the reasons for the success of the Airline is that it has over the past few decades implemented an advanced system of education and training in a country with little or no technical training programs which is completely lacking in coverage of this article. A simple look at the the airlines website will show the following pages of information which with other sources should be incorporated into the program:

• Aviation Academy
• Aviation Maintenance Training
• Marketing and Ground Operations Training

- There is very little coverage of the amenities available to passengers, livery, and marketing campaigns. Similar GA articles like: British Airways, Alaska Airlines, EVA_Air contain extensive information on the marketing, services, amenities, cabin structure, in-flight entertainment which is simply lacking from this article. This not from lack of information available, because a two second web search will again yield these pages from the airlines website which can be used a starting point for expanding this article:

• The Passenger Friendly Features of The 787
• 777 Aircrafts
• Food & Beverages

And this independent online news article:

• Ethiopian Airlines Takes Delivery of 1st Customized Q-400

- The accidents and incidents section is laughable. It completely fails to cover except in passing a hijacking incident with is a significant event in the airlines history.

4. Article fails to be neutral and unbiased. In its dry list-of-facts manner of presentation, it fails to represent the spirit and vibrancy of the organization and the symbolic significance of its history and success to the region and continent. In its attempt to be NPOV, it fails to present the subject matter properly. It is a sort of reverse bias.

6. The article is not adequately illustrated. Look at the pitures. It looks more like this an article on the airplanes of history than the oldest and most widely recognized greatest airline in sub-Saharan Africa. When I think of Ethiopian Airlines, which I have been a passenger of many times these are not the images that come to mind.

In the end, as far as I can see the problem here is the same as what we see from many of the airline articles on wikipedia. Too much emphasis is paid to Aviation and not to the culture that builds around airlines. If a fair coverage of subjects like this is to be achieved then more input from outside of WikiProject Aviation is needed. I am biased. I know. But that is how Wikipedia works, I believe. Multiple view points arrive at a much more balanced perspective on articles. This article needs to be de-listed so that more people can have an opportunity to edit and contribute to it. Hopefully, a more rounded coverage of the subject can be achieved. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The way I see things, you're mistakenly believing that the WP:GAR process is an expansion request. The accident section you mention above has a link to a stand-alone article that I created, which covers all the occurrences the airline went through in its history. You're being somewhat contradictory here: on the one hand you're requesting expansion, on the other you're saying that a section is too long. Let others decide.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that the history section needs to be broken down (that is divided into smaller sections). Which is what the tag I put on it said that you removed. The accidents sections does need to be expanded but so does the history. After division perhaps by time periods more detail needs to included to cover the full history besides airplane purchases and record breaking flights. Again that is more Aviation history than Airline history. However, there are much gaps in the coverage of this topic which is what I have a problem with. And I have listed them above

STOP EDITING YOUR POSTS TO INFLUENCE THE DEBATE. LIKE YOU SAID, LET OTHERS DECIDE! AND STOP WITH THE ATTACKS! TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. NOT ME. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've never commented at one of these before, but if this is an example of a good article, lord help us all. I found two examples of far too close paraphrasing in the first paragraph of the history section alone, and also a serious misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what a source said. The quality of that source is also almost certainly sub-par for the uses to which it's put. This was in the first paragraph of the history section. I fixed them, but this article clearly needs to be gone over quite closely.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, and feel free to contribute as much as you wish. This process is used to see if the article currently meets these criteria. The things you mention definitely fail these criteria and if you have only scratched the surface warrant further investigation. The previous review was unfortunately quite superficial, so it is hard to judge how carefully sourcing was checked. The aim is always to get the article up to standard and as long as someone is willing to work on it we generally allow them a decent chance to do so. AIRcorn (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Note that I am looking at this version). From a quick look it fails criteria 1b as the lead contains information not presented in the body and does not summarise the article plus there are a couple of cleanup tags present (quickfail 1 - I think). As to the points raised above by Janweh64 (talk · contribs) I don't think the history section is too long, but he has a point about the broadness. The primary sources indicated would be okay to expand on this if secondary ones cannot be sound. This does fall under the Good article criteria as one of them is broadness. The accidents could do with a little expansion (not too much as that would lead to undue concerns) as it felt a little incomplete when I read it (i.e. it was the most deadly, but doesn't give us a number). The images is not really a GA concern unless better free ones are found (and even then it is highly subjective whether they are better or not). No comment on the neutrality of the article at this stage as that will require a closer look at the sourcing (I checked the "good safety record" one and felt it was a little weak, but not enough to delist solely on). One more point is that there are too many single sentence paragraphs and short sections, which is a prose concern. AIRcorn (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly willing to fix the article, as I've been the major contributor. Please let me know the concerns to be adressed. As per above, starting with the lead section might be a good choice.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So far I have only given the article a superficial review. The lead is an obvious one. It should summarise the article, not introduce new content. For example I could not find the following information in the articles body:

• from which it serves a network of 62 international destinations and 16 domestic ones, more in Africa than any other carrier --- 56 Africa + 9 Europe + 14 Asia - 16 domestic - 1 Addis = 62. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• and is among the largest on the continent --- I think this section covers this only partially. A mention of the relative size of the fleet and number of destinations compared to other african airlines would cover this. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ethiopian is one of the fastest-growing carriers in the industry ---- noted section for previous point should perhaps specifically raise this point. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• The airline's cargo division was awarded The African Cargo Airline of the Year in early 2011
• Ethiopian is a member of the International Air Transport Association, and, since 1968, of the African Airlines Association (AFRAA).
• As of December 2011, the airline is also a Star Alliance member. --- last paragraph of history sections. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As well as that it doesn't really summarise the history of the aircraft, which receives a lot of space in the body. There are also cleanup tags present, which seem relevant:

• Americans believed the country could host a strategic air base within reach of the Red Sea region and its surroundings and agreed to help the Emperor -- perhaps we should just delete this statement. It seems to be the only statement that cannot be verified by more reliable sources. — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe hiding? Perhaps a source can be found in the future.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• In 1998, the airline disrupted their flights to the Eritrean capital Asmara after a war erupted between the two countries.

The prose itself could be improved, as well as the single sentence paragraphs there is a news ticker style of presenting the information in some sections, especially the fleet one (with ,multiple sentences starting with "in February 2005, On 31 May 2005, in August 2010, in October 2011, in July 2012, in November 2012 etc"). The services section could be condensed to a single header so the short one or two sentence paragraphs could be presented better (or the information could be expanded). Also I think Janweh64 (talk · contribs) has a point about the broadness. AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to make these comments, I appreciate it. First of all, I'd like not to talk about Janweh64 (talk · contribs). Despite some if his suggestions may be valid, I believe he is missing good article criteria point 3.a, for the article should only address the main aspects of the topic, i.e. passenger and cargo services for an airline, and not a broad coverage of all related aspects. Regarding his participation in the article, the only thing he has done is to place two maintenance tags, nothing more. If he thinks he can improve the article in either way, he can do so according to WP:BOLD rather than criticising the current version of the work made by others. It took me a lot of time, not to mention the effort, to gather and organise all the information now included in the page. Back to article content, maybe some sections should be improved and/or expanded (not falling into what Wikipedia is not), source-availability permitting. To this respect, Carbonix (talk · contribs) has recently made an interesting contribution by adding a table with the financial figures for the last years, properly sourced. I will consider the suggestions you make. Nevertheless, let me draw your attention concerning the following points in the lead:

• The number of destinations is not only mentioned in the lead, it is also disclosed in the ″Destinations″ section
• Same for Star Alliance membership: it is treated in the last paragraph of the ″History″ section.

That's all the comments I have for now. Again, thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have indicated by striking through the list of reasons I have raised this reassessment, some of the problems have been dealt with or were listed in error:

1. a. The history section has been broken down for readability as per my suggestion. I still believe it should be expanded but that is a matter of opionion and not grounds for delisting.

b. The lead is still an issue but that is apparent to everyone. I have struck through the list of problems with the lead that I believe have been dealt with. After the rest have been dealt with, summarizing the history section should cover this problem.

3. a. 1. I was mistaken about the inclusion of training programs and some additional info that has been added covers my first of three concerns about good article criteria point 3.a. However, there is still little to no detail about passenger services for the airline. The accidents section needs to list perhaps the top ten or five major incidents in the airlines history. Simply, stating that it had 60 accident/incident events leaves too much information to be desired. I believe that is the norm for other airline articles.

4. I believe dealing with my issue of more detail about passenger services will resolve this issue.

6. As AIRcorn, has pointed this is not a GA issue unless more free pictures can be found. I can find none. Therefore, this issue is mute and resolved.

Jetstreamer, I disagree that a person needs to contribute to an article to criticize it. I believe the whole point of an assessment is to have another editor that was not involved in the creation of the article look at the article from an uninvolved point of view. I have abstained from editing or contributing to this article because my POV would bleed through and show immediately. But please ASSUME GOOD FAITH. I obviously care very much about this article and want to see it improve. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I will expand the ″Accidents and incidents" section a bit, as well as the in-flight entertainment stuff.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the ″Accidents and incidents″ section. It now mentions the three worst deadly accidents experienced by the company, with a proper link to each article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NICE! I like it. Let the other articles deal with the gory details. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I will continue with the in-flight service asap.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are Ok with me crossing stuff out as it is done. I could instead put  Done. But crossing them out is somehow more satisfying :) I accidentally did cross stuff out without logging-in by the way. 128.8.73.101 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL! and I did it again! አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Janweh64 (talk · contribs). Can you please comment on this? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• How is this progressing. It started off well (well not exactly at the start, but it improved quickly), but seems a bit quite now. Have you come to any conclusions regarding the status or do you want some advice? AIRcorn (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This review is still quite ;) active and progressing. There is further discussion on the articles talk page. I am confident we should be able to recommend its continued GA status soon. We may be able to do even better than that. But your advise is always welcome. — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've been working very collaboratively with Janweh64 in the last days/weeks, and also two other users (Carbonix and EagerToddler39) have contributed either with edits or with discussions. Nonetheless, a pair of fresh eyes is always welcome.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist Consensus here is that the article does not meet the criteria. The article will need a lot of work before it is renominated, in particular the focus. Some serious trimming and condensing could help with the other tagged issues. AIRcorn (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: While text is not usually deleted from this type of page, a large amount of space is taken up by material which is "off-topic" and makes reading the page very difficult. It should be on the article's talk-page and some has been copied to it. Since I am indirectly involved, I suggest an independent editor removes it and as a temporary measure have inserted anchors and links to enable readers to skip the "off-topic" parts Jpacobb (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The number of tags at the top of the article makes the need for reassessment obvious. I don't normally have much to do with GA, and I haven't had much to do with this article, but I'm sure help would be appreciated. According to the tags, it fails criteria 1 and 4 of Wikipedia:Good article criteria. StAnselm (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The article was promoted to GA in 2006 (see this edit) by User:Lincher, who has been inactive for a few years now. StAnselm (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delist - Wow, that is a serious stack of tags on the top of the article. They seem to be quite appropriate, too. The article is far too long, at 12375 words, it's over 2000 words above the recommended maximum article size. The lead, at one short paragraph, is nowhere near being sufficient for an article of this size (or even an article half this size). The article is far under-referenced. It attempts to give a blow-by-blow recitation of five centuries of dispute, rather than summarizing the arguments using reliable third-party sources. Way too many quotes, and a bunch of editorializing, especially in the final section (what is up with all of the capital letters there, by the way?). I think that 73 notes is the most I've ever seen in an article, and they include additional quotes, to the point that we may begin to be accused of copyright violations if any of these sources are not in the public domain. Quite a few ibids in the reference section, and at least one in the notes section, as is detailed by yet another tag, in the references section. Tl;dr version: Extensive trimming and reference work necessary before this article is even close to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delist Fails 1a. & 1b. (lead section among others); 2c. (eg. final section = "The Grammar of I John 5:7" which is atrocious OR and I propose to delete); 3b. a lot of unnecessary detail; and probably 4. Neutrality – Arguing a case? I also agree with Dana boomer's comments. Jpacobb (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  

For next contribution to the reassessment, click here

The material you deleted has now been restored. StAnselm (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I am the one who wrote the grammar section of the Comma Johanneum article, and I am the one who restored it. This is what I wrote on the talk page for that article. "Someone identified as Jpacobb deleted the grammar section of this article on March 1, 2013, without any discussion. That person simply claimed original research and personal point of view without explaining why. That constitutes vandalism. I undid the deletion. The grammatical section compares the view of four experts in the Greek language and the view of three non-experts in the Greek language, and it quotes examples from the Greek New Testament to show why the four experts are right and the three non-experts are wrong. That is neither original research nor personal point of view. After undoing the deletion, I changed the several uppercase words to lowercase. The uppercase words were intended for emphasis, but they might have been seen simply as shouting, hence the change." Since when do presenting the published views of people who are identified with a particular topic and quoting examples to show that the experts among those people really do know what they are talking about constitute original research and a personal point of view? As for the rest of the article, I had nothing to do with that. Those who think that the Comma is a Trinitarian addition instead of an original part of the text concede that the Comma was added to the Latin text after Augustine explained and endorsed the Trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD. Therefore, any references in that article to the Comma being quoted AFTER 427 AD do not help the view that the Comma is an original part of the text. Nevertheless, a large part of the volume of information that has been added to that article since October in 2012 refers to citations of the Comma AFTER 427 AD, which no one disputes, and which is not evidence that the Comma is an original part of the text. The goal of adding that large volume of information to that article since October in 2012 appears to be to impress on the reader through shear volume that maybe the Comma belongs in the text after all. 7Jim7 (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Two further contributions

• Delist Fails on multiple points. It is too long, has an improper lead section and overuses block quotes. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delist OR and POV in the article. It is also too long. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  

For next contribution to the reassessment, click here

I restored the grammar section after Leszek Janczuk deleted it, again without explanation. I don't know who Jpacobb is. For all I know, Jpacobb could be Steven Avery under a different name. I don't know. I do know, however, that Leszek Janczuk is sympathetic to what Steven Avery has done to the Comma Johanneum article since October in 2012. Both Steven Avery and Leszek Janczuk are opposed to the grammar section because it proves, through the published statements of the experts (Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace) and through the corroborating examples from the Greek New Testament, that there is no grammatical requirement for the Johannine Comma. 7Jim7 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This section is written in an uncyclopedic style. It is too detailed, almost unreferenced, some words are written in capital letters (e.g. ALL). You used formulas "ALL of whom are experts in the Greek language" and "who is not an expert in the Greek language". According to whom they are experts or not? For you Bengel and Bulgaris are experts. They lived in the 18th century. This section should be summarized. Daniel Wallace is enough. You do not need use Edward Hills. I am not sympathetic to what Steven Avery has done to the Comma Johanneum article since October in 2012. It will better if you will not guess. According to me we should restore this version and we can save GA status for the article. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Both Johann Bengel and Eugenius Bulgaris are identified in Wikipedia as experts in the Greek language. My footnote leads to a web page that links to a biography of Bulgaris, which corroborates that. Bulgaris was in fact a Greek. Frederick Nolan, the guy who invented the false grammatical argument favoring the Comma, acknowledged Eugenius Bulgaris as an expert in the Greek language in footnote 193 on page 257 in his 1815 book, where he falsely claimed that Bulgaris analyzed the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 the same way that he did. Either Nolan never actually read Bulgaris’ letter, or he read it, but he did not understand it, or he read it and understood and intentionally lied about, thinking that no one would ever challenge his false claim. John Oxlee is identified in Wikipedia as having been famous for being a linguist who was familiar with over 100 languages. You already know of Daniel Wallace. All of these experts in the Greek language expressed the same opinion regarding the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text and/or Critical Text and Majority Text, which refutes the false claim originated by Nolan and subsequently promoted by Robert Dabney and Edward Hills. The examples from the Greek New Testament corroborate the view of the four experts and refute the view of the three non-experts. The reason that you like the version of the article to which you provided a link, instead of the original version, is that it includes the 12 pro-Comma notes added by Steven Avery in 2011, because you yourself apparently are pro-Comma, which is why you deleted the grammar section. It is not my personal point of view, but an objective treatment of the grammar issue, that led me to write the grammar section, whereas it is not an objective treatment of the grammar issue, but your own person point of view, that led you to delete the grammar section in an attempt to suppress it. What you have said in your explanation for your deletion of the grammar section indicates to me that you never took the time to read the grammar section and the information to which the footnotes provide links, or you didn’t understand it, and yet you nevertheless deleted it simply because it contradicted your personal point of view. The primary complaint about the article is that it is too long. The original article was 3500 words. Then Steven Avery added 1500 words in 12 pro-Comma notes in 2011, which you liked. Then, in 2012, Steven Avery added 20,000 words (mostly pro-Comma), bringing the article to 25,000 words. But what part of all that did you decide to delete? Was it any of the pro-Comma parts in that massive 20,000 word increase? No. You decided to delete the part that objectively refuted the pro-Comma grammatical argument, which was less than 6% of the article, because it contradicted your personal point of view. 7Jim7 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for any detail. Wallace is enough. We do not need experts like Edward Hills. Aland never quoted Hills, Metzger only in footnotes. Why do you promote Hills? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC) And you are wrong I am not supporter of the Comma Johanneum. Why do you think so? I'm the author of several printed articles against the Textus Receptus, Luther text and KJV. In my translation Comma was not included. I even do not support the Byzantine text-type (because of conflations). Your guesses are wrong (Jpacobb and Steven Avery are different users). The grammar section is not written in an encyclopedic style. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Probably we need earlier version with 3500 words. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You delete the grammar section, which refers to Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace as experts whose view of the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 refutes the view of the non-experts, Nolan, Dabney and Hills (although, for some reason, you seem to think that I have referred to Hills as an expert), because you say that it is too detailed, because it mentions too many names. Nevertheless, you not only allow but actually promote the version of the article that contains the 12 pro-Comma notes of Steven Avery, which (the 12 notes that you like) refer to Forster, Bengel, Gill, Burgess, Clement, Tertullian, Coxe, Augustine, Metzger, Brown, Hepokoski, Mace, Bugenhagen, Grotius, Hills, Nolan, Prisicillian Athansus, Origen, Cornwall, Fulgentius, Hales and Cyprian, because it is not too detailed, because it does not mention too many names? Do I have that straight? 7Jim7 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

We need grammar section, but not so detailed. It is almost unreferenced. There is some OR. It is correct OR, but it is still OR. I agree that Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace are experts, but we should prefer contemporary scholars, not from the 18th century. "seem to think that I have referred to Hills as an expert" - you quoted him in the main body of the article. You should publish your work in more professional places than wikipedia. But... let us return to this version, because it was much better, and start work again. I do not support work of Steven Avery's, as you wrongly think. Between October 2011 and January 2013 I was not active user on en-wiki. Stop your guesses. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You delete the grammar section, which refers to Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace as experts whose view of the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 refutes the view of the non-experts, Nolan, Dabney and Hills, because you say that it is too detailed, because it mentions too many names. Nevertheless, you NOW promote the original version of the article that does NOT contains the 12 pro-Comma notes of Steven Avery, which (the original article) refers to Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Wallace, Athnasius, Sabellius, Origen, Priscillian, Fulgentius, Augustine, Erasmus, Froben, Metzger, Newton, Jerome, Newcomb and others, because it is not too detailed, because it does not mention too many names. Do I have that straight? Also, let me get this straight. You do not want to retain anything that is cited in the grammar section of the article that has not been written in the present day, because, well, just because. Nevertheless, you want to retain whatever is cited in the other parts of the original article, regardless of when it was written, because, well, just because. Do I have that straight? 7Jim7 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your work in many points does not meet wikipedia standards. It is unreferenced. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

ATTENTION: I have copied and pasted what is written above to the talk page of the Comma Johanneum article. Could we please do any additional discussing on that talk page of that article, not here, so that I don't have to keep copying and pasting from here to there? Just a thought.

Comments My first attempt to comment got lost in an edict conflict; please note:

1. Much of the above should not appear on this page but rather on the article's talk-page where I shall deal in detail with my reasons for deleting the "Grammar Section"
2. As stated above, I am not Stephen Avery.

Thanks. Jpacobb (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Contributions continue below

Tet Offensive

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: My opinion on this was roughly neutral and at best the discussion here will result in no consensus. Given that this has been open since last year I am going to close it as a keep and remove the tags. If anyone feels strongly about this close feel free to revert it. AIRcorn (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC).

There have been a few major cleanup tags on this article for a while, so I feel a reassessment is in order. The two tags are one suggesting the tone of the article is not encylcopaedic and the other suggests that a more worldwide view is needed. I opened a discussion on the talk page, but it hasn't really addressed the issue. I don't think we can have a Good article with these tags on them, so am hoping this will result in either some improvement or agreement that the tags are not necessary. Worst case scenario is that the article will be delisted.

Tone

The tone applies to criteria 1a of the GA criteria. The concern is that the writing style leans too much towards an essay than a article in an encyclopaedic. The talk page comment accompanying the tag said I see a lot of colloquialisms and other kinds of unencyclopedic language in this article. Some examples of what could be considered inappropriate or prehaps informal tone (some bordering on original research) are:

• During the fall of 1967, the question of whether the U.S. strategy of attrition was working in South Vietnam weighed heavily on the minds of the American public and the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson.
• Provided with an enemy intelligence windfall accrued during Operations Cedar Falls and Junction City, the CIA members of the group believed that the number of communist guerrillas, irregulars, and cadre within the South could be as high as 430,000.
• This prompted the administration to launch a so-called "Success Offensive", a concerted effort to alter the widespread public perception that the war had reached a stalemate and to convince the American people that the administration's policies were succeeding.
• Under the leadership of National Security Advisor Walt W. Rostow, the news media then was inundated by a wave of effusive optimism.
• Westmoreland was even more emphatic in his assertions
• By the end of the year the administration's approval rating had indeed crept up by eight percent,

That is from the first section. Overall I think that the writing is of an excellent quality, but I can see why there are concerns over the tone.

Globalise

This relates to the broadness criteria, and is the older tag. This is what I can gather the reason for the tag [9]. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on this. It could be relavent and considering it has sat on the article for 1.5 years it probably is not completely misplaced.

I have notified, RM Gillespie, RedSpruce, KAM, Kauffner, Muboshgu, Iankap99, Interchange88, Ciroa, 74.177.109.240 and the wikiprojects on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of material is sourced to "Nguyen, p. xx". The full sourcing must have dropped off at some point. There is a lengthy section on communist decision-making that I find problematic. Various authors have radically different takes on this issue, but you wouldn't know that from reading this article. For example, "Although Giáp went to work 'reluctantly, under duress,' he may have found the task easier due to the fact that he was faced with a fait accompli." That is presumably based on the CIA's theory that Giap was quarreling with Thanh, who planned the offensive. The two complained about each other using incomprehensible Marxist jargon, so what the dispute was about and how Giap really felt about the offensive is anyone's guess. Kauffner (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't read all of the article yet, but the tone/prose style doesn't strike me as a major problem. Yes, there are sentences which can be improved; no, it isn't serious enough to demonte the article. Majoreditor (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep While some sentences could be rephrased there isn't a major issue with this article. My biggest complaint would be that the references needed to be reformatted. I have done corrected this issue. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 17:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Grand Hotel, Birmingham

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist I actually thought this might be an easy fix, but it requires someone with a bit more knowledge and motivation. It has had plenty of time to be worked on and it has only received minor edits since the nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This article had a number of grammatical errors, some of which I've corrected [10], but I'm not sure I got all. Some sentences like " Hickmet Hotels took lease of the hotel in 1972, and even after a £500,00 refurbishment, trading conditions proved difficult, and they fell into receivership in 1976" I don't quite understand enough to fix--what does it mean that "trading conditions proved difficult" for a hotel? Is the refurbishment amount meant to be 50,000? Also, if "they" refers to the company "Hickmet Hotels", it should be written as "it" or "the company".

The language also appears to me in places non-neutral in tone: " rich and impressive Louis XIV style decoration", "and the grand staircase will be restored to their former glory".

This seems to me an article that can be brought back up to GA status without too much work, but I don't believe it's there at the moment. Notifying the relevant parties. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• The lead is choppy, and such phrases as "restored to their former glory" don't cut it, even with a source. Further comments are forthcoming. dci | TALK 03:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Money No Enough

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Article has been updated AIRcorn (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• This passed, what, in 2011, and clearly will not pass today. Take The Dark Knight (film) for an instance, this article pales by comparison... By far. Surely this only deserved a Start class grading, or at most C class? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Which of the criteria does it no longer meet. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Decide on your own. I feel it is not comprehensive and broad enough in its coverage. This would be typically a Start class article. Also, the information present in the article itself is outdated. See: Ah Boys to Men. And there are many nitty-gritty little errors here and there, ala overlinking. What's your take? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In 1998, Singapore had virtually no film industry, so media coverage was very limited, as nobody realised the movie would be such a hit. The only outdated information is the claim to be the all-time highest-grossing Singapore-produced film; this and the overlinking (if a valid concern) are not difficult to address. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so the counter-argument is that this is the best it can get. However, I feel more can be done. Also, I feel the citation style is weird. And it would be good if you could provide more online sources. (I'm quite certain the Internet existed in 1998.) You could add things like online newspaper archives from the National Library. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor stuff "Uneducated Chinese men" does not equate to "Ah Bengs". A better translation would be Chinese male gangsters, or something along that line. The Infobox is also missing quite a bit of info – Country? Budget? Gross? Why is a "Cast" section missing? (WP:FILMCAST) Filming locations? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are inaccuracies then they need to be sorted. I am assuming this relates to the claim that it "remains the all-time highest-grossing Singaporean film". One way to deal with these date limited sentences is to use {{as of}}, that way the article will never be false. It should be relatively easy to update in this case. Broadness can be trickier. Is there anything specific that you think is missing? AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, the article gives no indication of specific filming locations – I think that is important. Also missing is a cast section. The plot section does not cover all the cast, and also fails to say which actor plays which role, which can be done by adding parantheses nex to the names of the characters, ala Hui (Henry Thia).... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the lead section and Reception section to state that Money No Enough was the all-time highest-grossing film until 2012. In addition, I added the actors' names next to the characters' names in the Plot section. Rechecking my sources for information about filming locations (budget and gross, though missing from the infobox, can be found in the Production and Reception sections respectively). After reading previews of the Google Books results, only one book provided substantial information and I will be checking it out at the library this weekend. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm inclined to say that the article should remain a GA. When I read through it, there didn't really seem that much out of order in the prose; sure, additional sections, etc. would be nice, but there is nothing egregiously wrong with this article. The problems existing with it can easily be fixed (see WP:SOFIXIT), and I see no need for downgrading the article in the process. This is not a time to tear down, but a time to build up. dci | TALK 02:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Akita (dog)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Citation needed tags are relevant and yet to be fixed. AIRcorn (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Page needs serious reference work. There are [citation needed] tags all over the place, and many of the refs are dead. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it was tag bombed by one editor a short time age (an earlier version). I don't have time to check right now, but I suspect that many of the surrounding refs support the statements. I would give some of the regular authors time to remove the unneeded {{cn}} tags or fix any that are justified. AIRcorn (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like most of the {{citation needed}} tags were placed by Tikuko on 5 March 2013. However, their placement is spread amongst so many edits of this editor's that they cannot be undone all at once; that, and some of the information that this editor added during these edits was constructive. Steel1943 (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I have started checking refs, it appears that the tags Tikuko (TKK) placed are quite correct. Out of almost half a dozen that I checked, information given prior to the reference (tagged by TKK) was not supported by the reference in every single one of the cases. If there is someone interested in working on the article, I can continue checking references, but it appears that I'm duplicating work already done by TKK as they placed the tags. There are also a significant number of unreliable sources and dead links, the latter leading to even more unverifiable information. TPH (and TKK, through their tags) are correct in saying that this article needs a complete re-referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article needs some serious work and unfortunately probably should not be listed as a GA in it's present state despite some of the {{cn}} tags being removed today - I don't have access to the sources to check whether removing the tags was valid or not. TKK is an excellent editor and has done a tremendous amount of sterling work on dog articles so I would trust her judgement; it's unlikely she would have just undertaken a drive-by tag bombing without valid reasons. She hasn't been around much lately but I have pinged her talk page in case she wants to add further comment here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys! I indeed have had to cut back a bit on the Wiki because I'm now working nearly an 80 hour week. I do occasionally drive-by tag temperament sections as they tend to be loaded with unsourced, breed-promoting bs, but with this article I actually opened up the cited sources and backchecked. Everything I tagged was not to be found in the given source. I intended to come back to the article and do some work on it myself, but picking up a second job has nearly put a halt to my wiki adventures. I can throw the list of sources I accumulated at anyone who's interested, however. --TKK ^{bark !} 12:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Did not mean to assume bad faith on your part, it was just from a first glance it looked like a tag bomb had been dropped. I too have now checked some of the sources and come to the same conclusions as Dana above. AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delist - There have been very few edits to the article since this review started, and none that made substantial moves towards addressing the issues raised by TKK and TPH. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

World Trade Center

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept No examples have been given of poor prose, bloat or missing citations AIRcorn (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is bloated and in places badly written and in need of citations. It might survive a review if something is done quickly, but at the moment it definitely fails the criteria. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing any issues with poor prose or citations. It is long, but that is probably warranted. Some examples of the problems would help. Could you also let the main contribtors and wikiprojects know. AIRcorn (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jamesx12345, I would like to point out the WP:GAR directive: "The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it." It looks to me as if you have never contributed to the article talk page, and that you have made but one edit to the article itself, to remove the pop culture section. (This section was very small, referring mainly to the large-but-messy article World Trade Center in popular culture.) I am interested in discovering exactly what else you would remove to solve the perceived bloat, and what badly written prose you would fix. I wonder what stands out as lacking citations. I don't see a huge problem here. Binksternet (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Dimitri Marick

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept

I am listing this article for GA reassessment as this article requires major cleanup and expansion. One example is that in most current soap opera good articles, the development section can consist of character creation, relationships the character had, other major storylines which contributed to the character's profile, etc. Until I attempted to clean up the article, there was only a "Writing and portrayal" section, which is really just character creation. From what I read the character had a relationship with soap opera icon Erica Kane (Susan Lucci), there should be development information on that as well as other romances or storylines he may have encountered. All this is to say is that work needs to be done on the article, and that its current state does not meet the good article criteria. Creativity97 21:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated here, how does its current state not meet the WP:GA criteria? It's mostly the same as it was the day it was elevated to WP:GA status. You made this edit to the article, and a few others, including having added this copyedit tag to it. The article "missing" some information you feel should be in the article does not mean that it does not satisfy the WP:GA status. Considering that the editor who brought this article to WP:GA status, Rocksey, has not been on Wikipedia under her Rocksey account or at all since February 15, 2012, it would be better to send her an email about this WP:GA reassessment instead of just the message you left on her talk page about it.

There is already information in the article about Dimitri's relationship with Erica Kane; the article points readers to the Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick article for in-depth information on that; there is no need to repeat a good deal of information about that relationship in the Dimitri Marick article. There is no requirement that any character article needs information about the development of the character's romances so that the article can meet WP:GA status. Not at the time the Dimitri Marick article was made into a WP:GA article, and not now. Furthermore, real-world information about the development of romances on soap operas, especially American soap operas, is difficult to come by and is other times non-existent. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with everything Flyer22 said, I see no immediate pressing issues, that can't easily be fixed.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, in my message to Rocksey, I said I didn't know how active they were given their contribution history. I didn't know I was supposed to send them an email, so I left them a message regardless of their account activity. And other than in reception, there isn't much information on Dimitri's relationship with Erica in this article. Because their relationship was clearly notable enough to warrant a supercouple page, there should at least be a condensed version of the information on their supercouple page in this article, my opinion. There are quite a few examples of this around; just because their is a supercouple page for a pair, doesn't mean we just don't post any information about them in their own respective articles. All I'm trying to say here, and all I ever wanted to say when bringing up this issue, is that the article needs a significant amount of work, let alone a good, thorough copyedit. Excuse me for saying it doesn't meet the good article criteria. In comparing it to other high quality soap opera articles, this doesn't include a lot of information in development other than character creation, that's all I'm saying. In conclusion, the article needs to be worked on. Creativity97 01:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't state that you had to send an email; I stated that it would have been better for you to send an email in addition to posting on her talk page about this WP:GA reassessment. To partially reiterate, the article is mostly the same as it was the day it passed as GA...except for your changes to the article (such as this first one)...and it should not have been nominated for WP:GA reassessment just because you feel that there should be some development information for some "other romances or storylines [Dimitri] may have encountered." You used "may" because you clearly are not sure if there have been any other storylines worth documenting in this article. Like I stated, this article already has information about his relationship with Erica Kane; the in-depth information about it is at the Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick article. We only need a summary of that relationship in this article (Dimitri Marick). See WP:Summary style and WP:Content forking; we should avoid duplicating content when duplication is not needed, and we should especially avoid duplicating a lot of material unless the duplication is needed. You want this article to include a summary of the development of his relationship with Erica; I don't disagree with such an inclusion. As for storylines/romances outside of Dimitri's relationship with Erica, it's very likely that there is no significant real-world information about other Dimitri Marick storylines besides the ones mentioned in the Dimitri Marick article; I stated above that "real-world information about the development of romances on soap operas, especially American soap operas, is difficult to come by and is other times non-existent"; the same applies to the general soap opera storylines, which is why it's been difficult for a lot of soap opera articles to be expanded beyond plot and is therefore why a lot of soap opera character and couple articles have been deleted...besides editors deleting the articles because they see no WP:Notability in the articles (and fail to look for WP:Notability for them). Some WP:GA and WP:FA articles of the same genre are more developed than others; it doesn't make one GA article better than the other, for example. Some simply have more real-world content to build the article on. Though cleanup usually goes on in WP:GA reassessment, WP:GA reassessment is not for article cleanup, and I see no cleanup or copyediting issues that make this article not of WP:GA status. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, one of your changes to the article messed up what is currently reference #41; that needs to be fixed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

First off, I changed the article's set-up to match other soap opera pages. What was formerly listed as "Writing and portrayal" under a "Background" section is now development, so I changed it to make the article look more updated and resemble other soap pages. I used "may" because I never watched the original All My Children a day in my life, so I have no idea what storylines the Dimitri character was involved in throughout his run. It was not because the character doesn't have enough major storylines to document in development; I would appreciate it if you don't assume that I meant something else from what I actually said. I just thought that significant work needed to be done on the article, and a discussion needed to take place to see what type of work needed to be done on it to see if it still warrants its GA title (which you have proved on many occasions that it does). And from reading through it, it needs a good copyedit, which is why I tagged the article with "needs copy editing". Clearly you have deemed this discussion pointless, so I guess it will be closed soon. Creativity97 03:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Relax. I don't care why you changed the design of the article; I was simply noting that the article is mostly the same as it was the day it passed as GA; the exceptions are small changes since then, including your changes. While the WP:GA standard has shown itself to become stricter as the years go on, the WP:GA standard is not based on anything you have stated in this WP:GA reassessment, except for the fact that copyediting is a staple of WP:GA assessment. It was clear why you used the word may, as you have also confirmed that you are not sure if there have been any other storylines worth documenting in this article; there was not much assuming going on when I noted your use of may. As for thinking that significant work needed to be done on the article, there is WP:Peer review and (as you know) there is WP:SOAPS that can be contacted to weigh in on peer review or on the article's talk page about what can be done, or if anything should be done, to improve an article. Again, WP:GA reassessment is not for article cleanup. I realize that my tone, when commenting on article content, policies or guidelines, on Wikipedia can sometimes come off as strict and/or cold, but I usually don't mean any offense by it. In cases like this one, it's that I am protective of WP:GA and WP:FA articles, especially ones that I don't view as needing demoting, and especially in the case of soap opera articles because we have relatively few WP:GA and WP:FA examples in that regard. I'm not sure what you mean by "you have proved on many occasions that [this article still warrants its GA title]"; I haven't proved that on many occasions, including in this discussion. It's my opinion that it is still of WP:GA status, as what is a WP:GA article is often subject to opinion. Others may feel differently than me about this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

All I meant by "you have proved on many occasions that [this article still warrants its GA title]" was that you believe the article still of WP:GA status. Apologies for the poor choice of words. And I also apologize for using WP:GA reassessment for article cleanup, I guess I didn't read its description quite right. And yes, there is peer review for other cleanup. Looking back now, I suppose the article just needs a copyedit, and I was sort of wrong for beginning this discussion here. And also, just recently, we reached 9 good articles for American daytime soaps, including Dimitri. Hopefully we can get that number to keep rising. We can wait for further comments on this matter, but otherwise, I think this discussion can be closed soon. Creativity97 04:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, criteria #3, states, "Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing."

No need to apologize to me or others for nominating this article for WP:GA reassessment; it's understandable how a person could nominate an article for such after seeing what they view as problems in the article. And it's not like you created some horrible offense. I apologize if I came off harsh, which it appears that I did. In my 03:38 comment above, I meant to add that I greatly appreciate all the hard work you have done on soap opera articles. We seriously need more editors like you and some of the other soap opera editors who significantly improve these articles beyond plot. And as WP:SOAPS is on my watchlist, and I started watching my watchlist again this year, I'm aware that we have more articles that are WP:GA articles. I didn't pay attention to the exact number, so thanks for telling me the number. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology, and many thanks for your kind words. I'm hoping to get the number of GAs for U.S. soaps to keep rising, it means that soap pages are improving. There are also numerous GAs for British/Australian soaps as well. It doesn't seem as anyone is going to comment here on this matter, do you think it can be closed? Creativity97 14:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that there are significantly more British WP:GA and WP:FA articles; one of the editors responsible for that is Raintheone, who you have surely seen at WP:SOAPS from time to time. And, yeah, if you think no one else is likely to comment in this WP:GA reassessment, I see no problem with closing it. As you very likely saw, you did receive an additional comment on the matter, though, at WP:SOAPS, and so more people may weigh in on the topic there or here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm closing the discussion now. Anyone who has any further comments can post them on the WP:SOAPS talk page. Creativity97 03:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)