Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 42)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 40) →

An Inconvenient Truth

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

Result: No action. Reassessment unnecessary. Article has been renominated. Geometry guy 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is ready for a reassessment. All sources previously unreferenced have been cited and the content seems generally pretty close to GA-status. What does everyone else think?--The lorax (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please renominate the article at WP:GAN. Geometry guy 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

American Civil War

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

Result: No action. Please resolve content issues on the article talk page, then reopen a GAR if necessary. Geometry guy 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Notification of intention to close. This is turning into a meandering content dispute and unless I see some signs that editors are addressing failings of this article concisely with respect to the good article criteria, I intend to close this reassessment in the next 24 hours. GAR cannot resolve content disputes. Geometry guy 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see this is a Lost Cause of a GAR discussion :) Majoreditor (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

why doesn't the notice of reassessment appear at the top of the talk page, near the part that denotes the article as a Good Article?Cedwyn (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

It is there, just not very well placed. I've moved it. Geometry guy 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So, who is the ultimate arbiter of such questions, anyhoo? Is there a panel or something? I'm also wondering about article discussion protocols; on the Lincoln talk page, somebody deleted an ongoing, unresolved discussion. I reinstated it (thank god for cache!) but I am wondering what the standard process is. Thanks!Cedwyn (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Anyone with experience of interpreting the good article criteria can close a reassessment and act on the consensus of the reassessment discussion. There are guidelines on doing it at the top of the reassessment page. In practice, it is often me.

As for talk page etiquette, discussions should not be removed until they are resolved, and even then they should be moved to "archive" pages. See WP:TALK. Geometry guy 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks! i'll keep my suspicions as to who it was to myself for now. heh. so, should i have started an individual reassessment? i really wasn't sure. and what do you think of the examples i've cited so far?

thanks for the feedback.

Cedwyn (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

In the case of a neutrality dispute, individual reassessment is not a good idea. Content issues should be resolved on the article talk page. Community GAR can be used to address failings with respect to the good article criteria (including criterion 4), but it is not the best forum for mediation: try WP:RFC. Geometry guy 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks. i did a request for comment. i noticed the article has retained its Good Article status?

Cedwyn (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Hi

I nominated the article to be reassessed as a Good Article because I feel it has some weaknesses with regards to neutrality. Namely, it should not have "Slavery" listed as the only cause of the war, when secession was the more immediate driver.

Here's another example that violates neutrality requirements for the assessment:

(I just realized I've got my discussions confused and this passage is in the Abe Lincoln article, not ACW. mea culpa. the ACW article could do a better job of explaining that the Emancipation Proclamation explicitly left slavery intact in some territories, though.)

I also question the representation in this passage:

Lincoln had already published a letter[100] encouraging the border states especially to accept emancipation as necessary to save the Union. Lincoln later said that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war".[101] Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, and his final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.

I've included its context to highlight what a complete non-sequitur the bolded statement is. additionally, the actual context of the Lincoln quote is from his second inaugural address:

These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow the cause of the war.

beyond the difference between "slavery" (as attributed) and the "powerful interest" constituted by slaves, here is the definition of "somehow":

Main Entry: some·how Pronunciation: \ˈsəm-ˌhau̇\ Function: adverb Date: 1664

in one way or another not known or designated : by some means <we'll manage somehow>

i.e., even that statement from Lincoln casts slavery as peripheral.

67.171.145.192 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

just 'cuz we're here: the link for reference #27 is dead.67.171.145.192 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

this passage is also inaccurate/non-neutral:

Alexander Stephens said that slavery was "the cornerstone of the Confederacy"

from the speech:

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery�subordination to the superior race�is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

...The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"�the real "corner-stone"�in our new edifice.

he is not saying that slavery is the cornerstone of the confederacy. the cornerstone he refers to is the idea that it is the negro's place under God's plan to be inferior to the white man. the result of this divine inferiority is that slavery is a natural condition. but slavery is not the cornerstone here; the cornerstone is the idea that the races are not equal. the error he mentions others making is assuming equality of the races, i.e., not questions of slavery vs. emancipation.

in fact, that whole paragraph is of questionable neutrality.

67.171.145.192 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

this assertion regarding the 1828 tariff is decidedly non-neutral/inaccurate:

"the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846,[14] and even the tariff issue was related to slavery[15])"

A) what does the italicized portion even mean? is it supposed to say "lowered" or something? does the fact that tariffs were higher in '46 somehow nullify the opposition to the '28 tax? i don't understand why that passage is there.

B) the conclusion in the bolded portion is not supported by its citation. the tariff of 1828 itself says nothing about slavery.

John Calhoun's Exposition and Protest (direct response to the 1828 tariff) doesn't even contain the word "slavery."

The source referenced (#15) for the claim that "even the tariff issue was related to slavery" quotes a John C. Calhoun statement from 1930, two years after the tariff of 1828 and Calhoun's Exposition:

I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things.

Calhoun introduces 3 ideas here:

there exists a present unhappy state

there exists an occasion (marker) of present unhappy state

there also exists a separate, "real cause" of present unhappy state

Reading the rest of his quote, it breaks down like this:

present unhappy state = north/south tensions, trajectory towards dissolution

occasion (marker) of present unhappy state = the 1828 tariff

real cause of present unhappy state = the southern states' agrarian economy threatened by their minority status re: congressional representation

This is not a Calhoun declaration that the tariff issue is all about slavery. The South perceived this tax as bullying by the abolitionist north and a breach of trust by the federal government - they felt that sides were being taken and that their interests (most of the tariff did hit them disproportionately) were not being represented. Calhoun's main point is that the tariff favored the north and its industry at the expense of the South and its farming. The only mention of slavery is tangential:

the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry

i.e., slavery and the fact that the south evolved an agrarian economy with it

has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union

i.e., the southern states are an outnumbered minority as far as economic interests being represented on congressional matters, e.g. tariffs

All he said about slavery in this passage, basically, was that they're in the minority for supporting it. The bigger concern was that the South's minority status in congress made them vulnerable to the whims of the other states regarding a variety of issues, including slavery, tariffs, etc.

In a nutshell, he more or less ranted about tyranny of the majority - that the South (and her agrarian economy) would be forever outnumbered in Congress and would be powerless to stop whatever tariffs and all else the majority states felt like passing. He was NOT saying that slavery was some "real cause" of the tariff dispute, or whatever "even the tariff issue was related to slavery" is supposed to impute.

peace

67.171.145.192 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

::The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not already under Union control.

in letter, it's accurate enough, but not in spirit. for the article to maintain a neutral POV, it should explain that the EP retained slavery in some territories under Union control. there were explicit exceptions for loyal border states and union-controlled parts of the Confederacy.

It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war.

the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves and the article doesn't quite make that clear. the reader is allowed to assume that the EP effectively ended slavery on the spot, which is not the case.

there's also heaps of neutrality discussion on the article talk page under "opinion." peace

67.171.145.192 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

This article does not meet the neutrality guidelines, as evidenced by the current discussion ongoing about the page.

• Keep - Is this about the article's discussion page, or the article itself?Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to guess what this is about. The last discussion page comment was very long and ends as follows:

"lincoln did not withdraw federal troops or the flag, so SC fired on it.[3] Nothing to do with slavery there - it was a response to the U.S. federal presence on SC's sovereign land."

98.232.243.146 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Two problems here.

1) It is a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to say either that South Carolina was "sovereign" (the South's point of view) or to say that South Carolina was part of the United States (the North's point of view).

2) As to the "nothing to do with slavery" remark, both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis said a great deal about slavery before the war. They downplayed the slavery issue when the war began because, as historian James Ford Rhodes explained (History of the Civil War, 1861–1865, page 49), Lincoln needed to keep the loyalty of the border states, which were both pro-slavery and pro-Union, and Davis hoped to get support from Britain and France, where slavery was unpopular.

The long version of the comment was basically a Lost Cause version of the war, which is not a good reason for this review.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

a) i started this page because i thought i was flagging the article as questioned neutrality. if i've gone about that wrong, please halp. the site is kinda confusing like that.

b) when i said "nothing about slavery there," i meant that firing on ft. sumter itself had nothing to do with slavery. that resulted from SC's declared sovereignness and the presence of federal troops. i.e., they did not fire on ft. sumter over anything to do with slavery.

c) if "SC was sovereign" violates neutrality on the basis of being SC's POV, then the idea that slavery was the only and ultimate cause of the war is also in violation of neutrality, because that's somebody's POV, but not Lincoln's or the Confederacy's. Lincoln was fighting to preserve the Union; the South fought for the right to secede. It was NOT about slavery, even though slavery influenced secession. there's a quantum leap difference to jump from there to "the civil war was entirely about slavery." From the famous letter to Greeley:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

To list only slavery under causes of the civil war is woefully inaccurate and flies in the face of the known thoughts of both sides' leaders. Neither side believed slavery, one way or the other, was their cause. again, the Ft. Sumter example - they didn't fire on the fort for any question having to do with slavery. they fired on it because they perceived themselves to be sovereign and it was an unwelcome federal presence.

to dismiss all the questions about states' rights and the banking laws and tariffs the South felt disadvantaged them is not an honest reckoning of events.

yes; lincoln spoke at length about slavery and personally opposed it. but he only ever spoke against its expansion. he didn't think it could easily be eliminated and also didn't think he had the authority to abolish it. and if his goal was abolition, why did the emancipation proclamation only apply to the southern states? slavery was left intact in the border states. if he was willing to sacrifice abolition for political ends (e.g., france, britain and border-state support), it really couldn't have been his primary goal - that would be the political ends for which he sacrificed abolition. the EP was introduced, largely for the reasons you state - he thought it would enlist the support of france and britain and swell the union ranks with freed slaves. but its goal wasn't abolition for abolition's sake, as evidenced by its exceptions.

peace 98.232.243.146 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

It's true that Fort Sumter was not fired upon because of slavery. Secession was the issue. But what caused secession? What the best historians have to say is the same thing you see by reading through documents written by the secessionists themselves. It's easier to find secessionist complaints about slavery that omit the states' rights issue than to find secessionist complaints about states' rights that omit the slavery issue. See Causes of the Civil War for details. Read the article FAQ for more details. And the best historians do like to point out many inconsistencies with Lost Cause descriptions of causes.

As to the comment "the idea that slavery was the only and ultimate cause of the war is also in violation of neutrality, because that's somebody's POV, but not Lincoln's or the Confederacy's", while the article doesn't mention an only and ultimate cause, Lincoln did say (in his Second Inaugural Address) that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war." Davis led the Southern fight for alleged Southern rights to slavery in the territories in the years leading up to the war.

On the discussion page you added, 'what the South realized was that the "gradual emancipation" in prohibiting slavery's expansion to new states would leave them woefully outnumbered in Congressional debates regarding slavery and that they would then be economically vulnerable to tyranny of the eventual non-slave majority.' That is pretty much the sentiment expressed by a number of secessionists, although many of them put the matter in more forceful words than that. So we agree pretty much on why they seceded.

Also, the article does mention the influence of Thomas Jefferson's ideas on both sides (not just the South) and does mention the biggest tariff dispute, although that happened three decades before the war.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. The way to handle neutrality issue 1) is to qualify the remark so that it is clear whose point of view is being reported, and that Wikipedia is not asserting it. My first impression of the article is that it is very good, but there are some statements in the later stages of the article that need citation. An example is "However, Lincoln was angry that Meade failed to intercept Lee's retreat, and after Meade's inconclusive Fall campaign, Lincoln decided to turn to the Western Theater for new leadership." Geometry guy 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, I don't think the above is a good example of a statement which absolutely requires citation, Geometry guy. The statement is not likely to be challenged and it's far from counter-intuitive. Nonetheless, it's best if editors err on the side of including citations. Majoreditor (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But the article does "mention an only and ultimate cause":

Contents [hide]

1 Causes of the war

1.1 Slavery

2 Secession begins

"Slavery" is the only entry under "Causes of the War." But the war was fought over secession, regardless of what motivated secession. The South engaged at Ft. Sumter because they perceived their sovereignity was threatened (secession not recognized - something Lincoln had asserted) by the federal presence and Lincoln responded in kind to preserve the union.

I've made heaps of other comments at the discussion page itself that address some of the other points you raised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_War

yes; in his second inaugural address, Lincoln did state that "These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war"

Main Entry: some·how Pronunciation: \ˈsəm-ˌhau̇\ Function: adverb Date: 1664

in one way or another not known or designated : by some means <we'll manage somehow>

even that statement from Lincoln casts slavery as peripheral.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

So we agree pretty much on why they seceded.

slavery was absolutely a huge factor behind secession, but not for its own sake and it wasn't the only factor. the monied interests in the South clung to slavery because their livelihoods depended upon it; it was a means to their monetary ends. so anticipation of ever fewer slave states influencing policy in washington directly threatened their South's economic interests, to their thinking. and by the time the civil war actually broke out, south carolina had felt for decades that they (and the south) were not getting a fair deal by the federal government. the lengthy backdrop of tariff disputes cannot be discounted as an influence on secession. it's not like SC woke up one day in 1860 and explored the idea for the first time; they had discussed it since the '30s, notably in response to the nullification crisis.

anyhoo, the concerns of the South (at least those for whom slavery was paramount - several of the states didn't secede until the fighting started) were not slavery itself, but what the institution of slavery afforded them; the perceived attempts to shackle (no pun intended) their economy; and what they felt was a breach of the federal government's constitutional duties to states. to the southern slave-owners' mind, slavery was the fulcrum point the north could manipulate to its industrial advantage over the South's agrarian economy; this perception played a huge part in their defense of it - they wanted to maintain king cotton and felt the north/feds were biased against them.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Amish

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

Result: Delist. While the neutrality may be a matter for debate, sentences needing citation per 2b remain uncited. Apart from comments from an SPA, no argument has been made for keeping this article as a GA. Geometry guy 18:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The article contains many problems, most importantly regarding references. Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more explicit about the problems you see in the article? -Malkinann (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I already said: the referencing. The article is actually tagged for missing citations. Diego_pmc ^Talk 14:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What needs referencing? I must admit that I think the tone is a bit weird - (Amish#Child discipline for an example) and the proportion of Further reading to references is a concern. -Malkinann (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator lists the "many problems" besides references. True, there's a very small number of citation tags; these should be addressed. However, the "No references" banner on the "Similar groups" section may be overkill, as GA criteria don't mandate citations for each section, and the section in questions doesn't contain quotes, statistics, counter-intuitive claims, etc. Majoreditor (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry about that — bad wording with the "many problems". But the references/citations are still a problem. Just because sections aren't tagged doesn't mean they are fine. For example: Education, Clothing, a big part of Family life, and not only. BTW, though at this stage this isn't a really big problem, the Portrayal in popular entertainment section might need to be reworked. I don't think it is necessary about every single publication the Amish are mentioned in. But as I said this isn't a very important problem. Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delist. Cites are only needed for staements likely to be challenged, but some HAVE been challenged with tags (including whole "unreffed section" tagging, and no cites are appearing. If no one is going to improve the sourcing, then it should be delisted.Yobmod (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I have added citations where requested to the article. Are there any other citation or reference concerns? Majoreditor (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Citation issues have been addressed. Majoreditor (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  Nothing like, Majoreditor! You are normally more careful about things like this! Geometry guy 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. First of all I want to stress that adding a citation tag or banner is not per se a challenge per WP:V. I could take your favourite article, and go through it adding {{unreferenced-section}} to every section and {{cn}} to every sentence. That isn't a challenge, it is just a mess of templates.

The GA requirements for citation are not that strong. Nevertheless, on going through the article I found 15-20 places where statements of opinion, statistics, or controversy were uncited. And I did not try hard to be comprehensive.

Also, I found the article very bland, and am not convinced it is neutral. By the time I reached the uncritical "The Amish do not educate their children past the eighth grade, believing that the basic knowledge offered up to that point is sufficient to prepare one for the Amish lifestyle." I was expecting to find a criticism section (however non-ideal such a structure may be). All readers get, however, are the criticism implicit in isolationism and media parody, and a section on child abuse. I'm unconvinced this is close to the encyclopedic treatment we should expect from a GA. Geometry guy 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The citation does no longer seem to be a problem. I believe criticism of Amish is not notable enough to warrant a section. Smalcat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  What makes you believe that? How many of the missing citations have been fixed since I noted the problem? I agree that there shouldn't be a criticism section, but neither should this article be so nonchalant about a way of life which is not without controversy. Geometry guy 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  I disagree. If controversy is notable (recorded, outspoken) I believe it should have a section, though I can't remember to ever read/hear/see important criticism about amish. I'm sure it exists but it is not notable in my experience. Could it be that your disagreement with their way of life is what makes you object this article is nonchalant? Many feel similar to any form of organized worship and most are written in very similar way. Shall we delist every good religion article, because it is nonchalant about a way of life which is not without controversy?

  About citations: first some really silly things are marked as citation needed, I will delete them when I'll have the time. Second this article has 84 citations, I guess that is more then an average for a good article. Third on quick examination I did not find any crucial citations would be lacking. Prove me wrong : ) Smalcat (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  "Could it be...?" Nope. My views are irrelevant, and actually I don't disagree with this way of life. "Shall we delist...?" Nope. We simply ensure they are written from an encyclopedic and neutral viewpoint, not an insider viewpoint. "How many missing citations have been fixed?" Precisely zero. Drawing on your vast experience, you say the citations are not needed. I have given reasons for each tag I added in the edit summary. We don't count citations at GAR.

  Ironically, both of your main space edits are to Tax protester constitutional arguments, which is a controversy not unconnected with the Amish, who receive special treatment regarding social security taxes. Schooling is another controversy. It didn't take me long to find a discussion in John A. Hostetler's book on Amish Society, p. 257, at Google Books. Geometry guy 19:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• weak delist If possible I'd notify the editors of the comments here and give them a week.
  • Coverage looks OK to a mere Brit, but I notice the coverage issues raised above.
  • Citation issues:
    • A few "citation needed" tags, with which I agree. Section "Relations with the outside world" suffers most from citation issues.
    • Final sentences of many paras don't have citations, and it's anyone's guess whether preceding citations in the same paras cover the final sentences.
  • Whole article needs copyediting after citations are brought up to standard. Examples:
    • In the lead, Ordnung is capitalised and linked to an article which describes an "Amish blueprint for expected behavior" and points out that each community sets its own rules. A few sentences later "ordnung" (uncapitalised) apparently means "community".
    • In section "Clothing", sentence "Rather than using "fancy" buttons, zippers, or velcro; hook-and-eye closures or straight pins are used as fasteners on dress clothing" is mess, but can easily be fixed once the citations are in place. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Croatia national football team

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

Result: Kept. After a collaborative copyediting effort. Geometry guy 11:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This article came to my attention when it was nominated for FA (and subsequently failed) for the fifth time. I've looked at it carefully, and I don't believe it meets good article criteria. The use of the English language is poor in violation of GA criterion 1(a). When this was pointed out to the FAC nominator, who obviously is not a native English speaker, he was dismissive and made no changes, and the article failed. I'm not saying that because it has repeatedly failed FAC it can't be a GA, but it doesn't seem to meet 1(a). Additionally, there are numerous MoS goofs, such as section titles in all caps. I think promoting it to GA was a mistake, but as I opposed it at FAC, I'm probably not the person to remove its GA status, and therefore request a community reassessment. I have placed notes on the talk pages of Malez and Domiy, the two main contributors to this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is only a matter of hours since you nominated this so I don't know if you intended to advise me about it, given that I reviewed it for GA, but it just so happens I have only spotted it because I came to this page looking for another review.

Anyway, the GA review was completed two months ago and the article history has grown considerably since then so, really, I would have to review it again. I hope that my recurring advice in the GA review about "making sure all previous FAR concerns have been addressed" was followed and that the article's standard has not slipped since early October.

Unless there has been a slippage in recent weeks, I think it is wrong to say that the use of English is "poor". When I reviewed the article, the spelling was correct and the grammar, though not brilliant, was satisfactory. Overall, the English wasn't up to FA standards but for GA purposes, I think we are more interested in readability without distractions. In football parlance, "a referee you didn't notice had a good game", but if you are the FIFA adjudicator who is there to study the referee, you might not agree. GA review is no place for FIFA adjudicators. I'm puzzled by your MoS comment about "section titles in all caps". The only slight error I could find in any section header was the capital I in "Team Images", which I've just altered.

GA criteria are supposed to be more relaxed than FA. GA is not FA. GA means "good article" and a good article does not have to be perfect; indeed, a good article is absolutely not perfect, it is good and that is all. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 15:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with pretty much everything which Jack said. Wehwalt, the article was fine when it was promoted to GA; it is still fine. While it is obvious the article history has grown, this is fairly without any major changes. Most edits are simple copy edits or slight additional phases being put in, again, nothing major. There are no MoS "goofs", what you saw was a result of quick vandalism or an editors accidental error. It's been fixed up likewise. Again, please remember that somebody's concerns aren't always indeed correct. Just because you don't like the style or certain grammar of an article, it doesn't mean it is a poor article. The same goes for your concerns about this page excluding any major information. You claimed that there is a great "story to tell" involving Croatia's history. This is just untrue; everything you see in the article is everything that happened. While I see the possibility of a great story behind the volatile team, that doesn't mean it is correct either. The story is that they were declared independent and started playing separately. I guess they were just blessed with good players and a good coach, and maybe had a bit of luck along the way which helped them achieve such great results in their first few years of playing. This is all mentioned in the history section of the article. If you have some personal preferences involving the team, you are more than welcome to include them in this article yourself; that's what WP is all about. It is not a sufficient argument to claim that the article excludes major information merely because it doesn't suit your own personal style. I can't assure that any added information of such will be kept in the article since it does undego constant surveillance, but it's always worth a try. I have told you there is no massive story to tell involving the team. If you think I'm wrong, then go ahead and prove me wrong; include your great story in the article. I'm sure you will find some negativity and difficulty in this task because of what I said already.

Feel free to completely review the article again Jack. Domiy (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for a community reassessment, though obviously anything Jack has to say is helpful. I find many odd phrasings such as "Shortly after the dropping out of the 2004 tournament, former player Zlatko Kranjčar took over as national team coach[46] and led Croatia to finish first in their qualifying group for the 2006 World Cup without losing a match." and "Although they were initially considered underdogs, Croatia enjoyed a 3–0 victory ...". I would like to see improvement in the article, yes, but the compelling story line is not part of the GA and was not mentioned by me above. I think this article has great potential, that is why I am keeping after you even though it failed FA for the fifth time.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this is a case where native English speaking Wikipedians can help others maintain the prose quality in a spirit of collegiate collaboration to improve the encyclopedia. However, I also think that the lead section is too long, and that the article goes into too much detail in places. "Other recent appearances" is not an encyclopedic concept. Some cuts are needed, as well as some copyediting. Geometry guy 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Response Oh, I agree. I am trying to push Domiy to improve the article. Better to make this FA-worthy than to have an endless stream of unsuccessful FACs. I don't want to do the copyediting myself though, just to keep the pressure on. From Domiy's comments above, to quote Gilbert and Sullivan, he seems to feel that the article "is not susceptible of any improvement whatsoever." It is not however graven on tablets of stone!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Response I'm happy to copyedit the prose, but can't begin until 1700 GMT, and can't promise my efforts will bring the thing quite to Strunk and White's standards. Is that any use? Gonzonoir (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Response Go for it. If someone gets rid of most of the difficulties, I'll go through it myself and help clean out the last of the dust. I think it will take more than this to get it to FA, but I'd see a good copyediting as a way of clearing up the GA concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think there is a danger of overkill here. This article is about a football team and the people who read it are going to be football fans who are well used to phraseology such as: "Although they were initially considered underdogs, Croatia enjoyed a 3–0 victory ...". Sorry, but that is how football people write and speak. There is nothing actually wrong with it and you could ruin the whole readability of the article if you introduce stilted phrases that footie fans cannot relate to: e.g., "Having been considered outsiders prior to the tournament, Croatia was victorious in the first match, the result of which was 3-0." The latter version is pedantically correct and reads like some pre-war jolly good chap from Varsity writing in The Times, but the original is readable and is in tune with the readership. I think if you start making the article formal rather than friendly, you will chuck the baby out with the bathwater. Caution is called for. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 14:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Response. I'm a football fan; I'll try to balance accessible prose with the necessary encyclopedic tone when I copyedit tonight. On me 'ead :) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • LOL - that's a funny idea of what constitutes good encyclopedic prose: formal, stilted and verbose. I hope you don't think non-football articles should read like that, Jack! "Having been considered" is an awkward passive construction, "was victorious in" is unencyclopedic (try "won"), and "the result of which was 3-0" is verbose. If I came across such a sentence, I would copyedit it to something like "Croatia were considered outsiders before the tournament, but won the first match 3-0". Vigorous writing is concise, and copyediting normally shortens prose.

  On the other hand, the article should not be written in the language of a football commentator just because it is about football! "Croatia enjoyed a 3-0 victory" begs the question "how did they enjoy it?" Good writing should be easy for everyone to read, including those with less fluency in English. Geometry guy 19:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  This is good, this is real good. The article is getting fixed up, and once it is, I'll drop my reassessment request. Doesn't mean it will pass at FAC (some serious work is needed there) but at least it will be a solid GA. This is what WP is all about!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  Yup. So far Gonzonoir's copyedit has removed cliches, unneeded words and editorial opinion, cutting 1KB of prose. That's good copyediting. Geometry guy 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  Cheers - I've finished now, please see the Talk page for my comments on suggested further improvements. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have the impression that the nominator Wehwalt is ready to withdraw his concerns. The lead has been trimmed, and my concerns about the "Other recent appearances" section are not substantial enough to prevent a GA listing (although I think you could run into problems at FAC). I would be happy to close this discussion as keep, except that I found just one sentence needing citation in my copyedits:

  "they were prohibited from participating in competitive matches as FIFA still recognized the Yugoslavian team as the official representative of the country."

This is in the "Pre-independence" section, and needs a cite. I couldn't find a good one. We do need to know why the pre-independence team had no more matches after 1944. Can someone fill in the blanks and clarify? Geometry guy 23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to citation needed Many references in the pre-independence section cover this topic. It is said in a few places that the reason the 1940s teams existed was because Yugoslavia was temporarily inactive and unstable. However, once a more organised Yugoslavian republic came into power again, these 'Croatian' teams could not play separately anymore. There are sufficient references around the article which cover this point, but I will work on finding the most accurate one and put it directly after that statement if needed. Domiy (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also make the sentence as accurate and informative as possible, based on the source you find? Geometry guy 23:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is FIFA policy that one, and only one federation can represent any individual area. There have been anamolies, such as when there were two Irish federations, one in Dublin, one in Belfast, each drawing players from the whole island. But that is the rule. Saar almost qualified for the World Cup one year because the Allies were holding it apart from West Germany. However, for my part, my concerns have been addressed and the GAR can be closed. I'd rather someone else did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

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

Result: Delist. Only one concern of many seems to have been addressed in the last week. This still fails the GA criteria on multiple issues of sourcing, focus and neutrality. Geometry guy 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the talk page for discussion of neutrality problems with the article. There are several issues under discussion, any one of which would cause the article to fail to meet good article criteria. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is some relevant discussion of this question over at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Dispute over addition of POV tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr has a long history of POV tag bombing this very article. See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution for more history on his egregious behavior. There was also an ArbCom activity after the failed MedCom addressing this very behavior by SaltyBoatr. The point of the POV tagline dispute at present is apparently a disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling on Heller by SaltyBoatr, not on the neutrality of the article itself. Yaf (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf's Arbcom petition was unanimously rejected[1]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No reason to make this personal. There are several editors beyond myself who question the neutrality of the article. One of the editors that declares the article to have "pro-rights" bias is Yaf[2] "The tone of the article is currently pro-rights...". This amounts to a stipulation that the article has a pro-rights neutrality skew, and a stipulation that violates the neutrality criteria of Good Articles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with the lede:

• Due to the way in which the technical term "individual right" is used in political discourse, it can be misread as asserting more than it actually says. Therefore its unexplained (though wiki linked) use in the first sentence is misleading.
• The second sentence makes contentious assertions about history that are sourced to the SCOTUS instead of an appropriate scholarly source.
• The explicit mention of an individual right in the first sentence makes it appear that there cannot also be a collective right. The second paragraph asserts that disagreement about this was ended by the Heller decision. This does not seem to be correct.

There seem to be some serious neutrality issues in the body of the article, but I don't have time to present them right now. In my opinion this article fails GA criterion 4. The extreme opinions of some editors make it appear likely that it is hard to correct this, and if done the article will likely fail criterion 5. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to fail the GA test for numerous reasons - It violates neutrality by presenting one particular point of view as fact in the lead; it contains original research; it's confusing to read and is poorly written to boot. I hope that other editors come and look at this article as it seems troubling to me that this article ever passed any kind of GA review. To give just one specific example of the clear policy violations in this article, I'll repeat what Hans said. The lead "makes contentious assertions about history that are sourced to the SCOTUS instead of an appropriate scholarly source." Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS is absolutely a Reliable and Verifiable source, probably the best, for interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Any other interpretation is a lesser interpretation, with no legal bearing on affecting court cases. That said, adding additional content from lesser sources with academic interpretations would be fine, too, if they can be found. Being that Heller is a recent SCOTUS decision, however, the number of published academic books/papers is going to be rather limited. If you feel that there is original research content, then that should be tagged so that it can be fixed. The article is not currently marked as containing any original research. It appears that the neutrality dispute is more with the SCOTUS ruling than with the article, however. Yaf (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence. I have no problem with using the SCOTUS as a source for saying that "protecting the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons". (There is a potential cherry-picking problem here, but that's a different matter and has nothing to do with the authority of the SCOTUS on interpretation of the constitution.) So let's shoot this strawman with a silver bullet, stake him and bury him. The question is whether the SCOTUS is an appropriate source for historical statements. The lede currently claims that "history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents". This is a strong and unusual claim about history, establishing some kind of natural law, not just saying that some people at the time felt like that. This is just like we can cite a court on whether it's legal to sell or use a certain drug, but not for a contentious statement about the drug's efficacy. Just like we can't cite the legal opinion of a leading historian (with no relevant qualifications). --Hans Adler (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that is precisely what the court said in Heller, as noted in the subsequent footnote:

District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller. 554 U.S. ____ (2008). "[H]istory showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents." (Page 25) "In addition, in a shorter 1840 work Story wrote: 'One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.'" (Page 36)

Is the court a reliable source for interpreting the Second Amendment, and then giving a reason why they interpret the Second Amendment this way. Yes. As a matter of fact, if one accepts the authority of the court to interpret the Second Amendment, then one must accept the reasons for the interpretation that the SCOTUS gave. This lede for the article does no more than this. Is this a point that causes certain individuals to cringe. Undoubtedly. But is it the interpretation of the court regarding the reasons behind the Second Amendment. Absolutely. We should not "cherry pick", to use your phrase, the parts of the interpretation that we like, while ignoring the parts that we dislike. The US Constitution is considered anachronistic by many, especially those without experience with a Constitutional form of Government, more attuned with a Parliamentary form of democracy. However, if one is to be intellectually honest and accurate in writing about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, then one must accept the differences that come with the turf, warts and all. This article does no more than this. (That said, I do not oppose the addition of other lesser interpretations in the body of the article, even with a summary of these other interpretations being inserted into the lede; but, we must be concise here, and not make the lede into a leaden monstrosity.) Yaf (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the idea that if we accept the legal authority of a court, then everything opinion uttered by the court must be irrefutable historical fact is very faulty reasoning. I can't think that any serious scholar would believe this to be true. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nwlaw63, and going further. Yaf declared about sourcing directly from the court ruling: "We should not "cherry pick"...while ignoring the parts we dislike", that said, the article does exactly the opposite. Many, perhaps all, of the selective direct quotations are selected to advance the personal theories of the POV pushing editors. It would be much wiser to rephrase the article from a the perspective of neutral accounting of the reliable third party sources and to remove the selective quotations. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The SCOTUS, with the Heller landmark ruling, was breaking new legal ground which is a hallmark of 'primary sources'. The ruling contains interior conflicts, on its face it overturns a regulation requiring trigger locks on handguns, and in the same ruling it says that the constitution does not prohibit the government from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The dust has not settled on the effect and meaning of what the SCOTUS ruled. Direct quotes from Heller risk being interpretive due to selectivity and are treading very close to the WP:NOR threshold. It is false that the available reliable secondary sources analyzing Heller are "rather limited". Countless academic journal and law review articles have already been written[3] and at least six books published[4]. There is no actual need to tread on WP:NOR thin ice by using a primary source as a faux secondary source at this time. We can do better. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The primary source here is the US Constitution. The Heller decision is clearly a secondary source interpreting the primary source. There is no original research difficulty here. Besides, only the SCOTUS has the authority to issue interpretations of the US Constitution that become case law determining interpretations. It would be a false economy to ignore the best secondary source there is regarding interpreting the US Constitution. This is also this same precedent on Wikipedia used in the other articles on the other Amendments, too. Yaf (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

While the SCOTUS has the authority 'judicially', this is not a judicial court. It is a global encyclopedia. Here we use a different standard. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The SCOTUS fails on at least two out of three of these standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets see. The SCOTUS is clearly reliable, being very methodical in granting certiorari, in hearing testimony, and in publishing rulings. The members of the High Court are also selected by the President and either selected or rejected by the Senate. This one looks ok. It is clearly a third party, being a third branch of Government, separate from the Congress that votes on Bills and from the Executive that signs them, while also being separate from the States that voted on Constitutional ratification in the first place. This one looks OK, too. Published... Hmmm. Well, the SCOTUS publishes their rulings in official Government documents. This one looks OK, too. "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Yep, these look good too. If errors are published, then corrections are published, too. On the other hand, your preference for refusing to use the interpretations of the only body which can issue legal interpretations of the Constitution appears to be fraught with problems. Looks like it meets all of the requirements, with margin to spare. Yaf (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is just silly to suggest that the judicial branch, being the "third branch" of government is therefore a "third party" source in context of Wikipedia policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Fails criteria 1a, 1b (WP:LEAD and WP:WTA), 2b, 2c, 3b, 4, possibly 5.
  • This remained relatively unchanged until 1671, when Parliament created a statute that drastically raised the property qualifications needed to possess firearms. In essence, this statute disarmed all but the very wealthy.[citation needed] In 1686, King James II banned without exception the Protestants' ability to possess firearms, even while Protestants constituted over 95% of the English subjects. Drastically? According to whom? And where is this statistic taken from?
  • The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker, also known as The American Blackstone. "Earliest" needs a source.
  • Another one of the most important early commentaries on the Second Amendment was the 1833 book Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution authored by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Joseph Story. According to whom?
  • Justice Joseph Story clearly viewed the original meaning of the Amendment as a concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared federal control over the militia: "clearly" is unsourced analysis of the quote.
  • This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion. Whose perception?
  • The controversy of a standing army for the United States existed in context of the Continental Forces that had won the American Revolutionary War which consisted of both the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress and of State and Militia Units. In opposition, the British Forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia, and Hessian mercenaries. Incomprehensible unsourced prose.
  • Federalists, on the other hand, believed that federal government must be trusted and that the army and the militias "ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal" of federal government. This belief was fundamentally stated by Alexander Hamilton: Fundamentally? Where does the analysis and quote in the first sentence come from?
  • Reaching a compromise between these widely disparate positions was not easy, but nonetheless, a compromise was negotiated with the result being the Second Amendment. And Wikipedia editors were there at the time to observe just how difficult it was.
  • The Pennsylvania ratification convention was the second state convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution and the first at which there was significant Anti-Federalist opposition. One of the main opposition points of contention was the Constitution's omission of a Bill of Rights.
  • In the early months of 1789, the United States was engaged in an ideological conflict between Federalists, who favored a stronger central government, and Anti-Federalists, who were skeptical of a strong central government. This conflict was accentuated by the recent news of a brewing, potentially violent revolution in France with similar Anti-Federal tensions. Also, the conflict in beliefs continued between northern states, that generally favored Federalist values, and southern states, that tended to share Anti-Federalist values.

  Intense concerns gripped the country of the potential for success or failure of the newly formed United States. The first presidential inauguration of George Washington had occurred just a few short weeks earlier.

  Anti-Federalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached, and James Madison drafted what ultimately became the United States Bill of Rights, which was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

  I'm impressed by the drama and by the fact that weeks were particularly short at the time (6 days? 5 days? Or just the regular 7?). I'm less impressed by lack of citations to support statements of opinion and hyperbole.

  • For over a century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning of the Second Amendment, and how the Amendment applied, drew less interest than it does in modern times. The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. The notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820), where the Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside, but Justice Story "misidentified"[56] it as the "5th Amendment." Uncited.
  • Initially, the act included handguns, but the complaints of women who could more easily handle handguns than long guns reversed this additional position, and handguns were not included in the National Firearms Act. "Complaints" needs a source.
  • The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was aimed at those involved in selling and shipping firearms through interstate or foreign commerce channels. "was aimed at" - according to whom?
  • The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns. "Key" according to whom?
• Overall, this is a sprawling article about a two line amendment, albeit a very controversial and topical one. The first sentence isn't neutral, and the whole article does not provide a neutral analysis, with some segments favouring one viewpoint, and some segments favouring another. That would be okay if the article presented, described and attributed these viewpoints without engaging in them. It fails to do so, and isn't a good article right now. There's also an excess of quotation and unsourced analysis, and a misunderstanding of what is a primary vs. secondary source. I perused the talk page briefly and found the claim that the Supreme Court is a secondary source for the meaning of the amendment. Well, maybe in politics it is, but not on Wikipedia. It is a secondary source for what the amendment says, but there are plenty of such sources. However, in terms of its reports of its own judgements on what the amendment means, it is obviously a primary source. Secondary sources analyse multiple judgements by the Supreme Court and place them in context.
• At the moment this article is engaging in such analysis, and it needs to stop. GAR cannot resolve content disputes, but as a fellow editor, I would suggest making heavy cuts, and making fairly minimal factual references to the June 2008 judgment and its fallout. Then there is a good chance that the rest will be not so hard to fix. This is an encyclopedia, not a news source or a soapbox. Geometry guy 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't delist. Those which are calling for this article to be delisted are doing so because they disagree with the interpretation given the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court. If the reasons given by SaltyBoatr, and those who support him, are sufficient, then no article about a legal issue can ever be a Good Article. If the Supreme Court is not to be considered a legitimate source, then all law articles (especially those about the Constitution) need to give equal weight to all interpretations. The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution would need to give equal weight to those who claim the Amendment was not legally adopted. Titles of Nobility Amendment would need to give equal weight to those who claim the Amendment was adopted and then hidden. The precedent SaltyBoatr would set is that, when it comes to the law at least, there are no fringe opinions and all possible interpretations of the Constitution deserve equal weight. SMP0328. (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  You are the only one here talking about equal weight and the only one suggesting the Supreme Court is not a legitimate source. I am not siding with SaltyBoatr, or disagreeing with the interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling. Neither am I agreeing with it. Wikipedia articles describe disputes, they do not engage in them. This article should not be a GA right now because it contains a confused mess of unsourced analysis. If you want the article to stay a GA, stop fighting over most recent 0.5% of the amendment's history and fix it! Geometry guy 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  SMP, my opinion that this article should be delisted has absolutely nothing to do with whether I agree with the Heller decision. It has to do with opinions voiced inside of that decision being presented as fact instead of the opinion of the decision. Doing this would be equally inappropriate if the majority decision had been the opposite. Furthermore, the overlong, chaotic article with its overreliance on quotations seems a far cry from the prose of a good article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the recent edit to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Response Then tell me what you want changed, instead of simply claiming the article is not neutral and shouldn't have a GA status. SMP0328. (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read my above detailed delist comment??? Geometry guy 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

<comments moved to talk page>

• Please discuss the article, not other editors. Geometry guy 09:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cologne Mosque project

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

Result: List as GA. The article was checked against the criteria, minor issues were fixed, and the article is now GA standard. Geometry guy 12:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This received a GA review which failed it for inherent instability. Discussion there and at WT:GAN suggests this fail may have been inappropriate. With a reasonable hold period, would this article pass now? Geometry guy 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak fail. Only took a glance, but the lead is insufficent and shuld be expanded to give a summary of the article. The full 4 paragraphs may not be needed, but should be more than now. Also has a single paragraph section and many very short paragraphs - i think it should be restructured, with more equal sectioning or subsections.

Is that the official name? Das Köln-Moschee-Projekt, oder was? Yobmod (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider, as I have expanded the lead.Bless sins (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• List as GA. The lead was the main thing bothering me. That has been fixed, and the rest of the article looks fine. However, I'm happy to hear arguments to close as no action and renominate. I just don't think that is necessary. Geometry guy 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• List as GA. Note: I'm one of the major authors of the article.Bless sins (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is almost ready to be listed now that the lead has been beefed up. There's a few loose ends to tidy:
  • There's a weasel tag () which needs to be addressed
  • Footnote #5 ("Plans to lower height...") needs to be properly formatted
  • There's a stray <refname> appearing in the body of the text

Can someone help out with these? Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, but easily fixed. Geometry guy 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• List. It meets GA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank Barson

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

Result: Delist. Detailed and undisputed reasoning below. Geometry guy 12:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the article Frank Barson no longer meets the criteria for Good Article status. Some of the language is sloppy, and a fair few of the statements are unreferenced. At present, I would give the article a C-grade, possibly scraping a B due to the use of images and its broad coverage of the topic. Still, some of the GA criteria are not met, and the article should be reassessed. – PeeJay 02:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Any specific criteria? Woody (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 1a and 2b. – PeeJay 20:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I dispute 1a: the prose is clear, it is not brilliant prose, but this is not FAC. In terms of 2b, add citation needed tags on any contentious statements which you feel aren't referenced. From my point of view, all contentious statements are referenced. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Some are not just referenced, but even copied! Geometry guy 17:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that presumed WikiProject ratings have nothing to do with good article status, which is determined by reference to the good article criteria alone. Geometry guy 17:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. The first source I checked was "50 greatest hard men of football". Although published by The Times, this title does not inspire confidence in its reliability. The sum total on Barson, who comes in at "Number Thirty Five" is:

Frank Barson (Aston Villa, Manchester United and Watford)
Famed for brutality even in the 1920s when footballers were less squeamish about physical play than they are today. On frequent occasions Barson was escorted out of grounds by policemen to protect him from mobs of angry opposition fans. Once banned for seven months for a hideous challenge in a match against Fulham.

Compare with the last paragraph of the lead: "Barson was known as one of the most feared players of his era,[4] and had a reputation as a "hard man" of English football.[5] On frequent occasions Barson was escorted out of grounds by policemen to protect him from mobs of angry opposition fans. He was once banned for seven months for a challenge in a match against Fulham." The second sentence is verbatim, and the third sentence barely altered.

The Discipline section has "Barson was regarded as one of the most feared players of his era,[14] and had a reputation as a "hard man" of English football.[5] On frequent occasions, Barson was escorted out of grounds by policemen to protect him from groups of angry opposition fans.[citation needed]... He was once banned for seven months for a violent challenge in a match against Fulham.[5][6]". How ironic that near verbatim copying should have a citation needed tag. The lead is summarizing this by omitting one sentence changing a handful of words.

The second source I looked at was the "Aston Villa database". Clearly it is not a reliable source, but a compilation made by an unidentified author on a webhosting service. Is it used for citations which are needed according to the criteria? Yes, it is the sole source cited for several statistics, including a transfer fee. It also contains the statement "He was later youth team coach, senior coach and head trainer for Aston Villa."

Next up: MUFCINFO, an unofficial Manchester United fansite maintained by Mark Graham used to source Barson's height. Unreliable. Similarly RedNews, where the sentence "It will come as no surprise to hear that the rough, tough Barson was one of the most feared players of his era" can be found. By this point I am no longer surprised to find an extract copied verbatim.

Finally we have a moderately reliable-looking source: The Star, as a Sheffield-based local newspaper. No attempt is made to alter the form of words (the source has "started his working life as a blacksmith", "started his career with Sheffield amateur clubs Albion FC and Cammell Laird's before joining Barnsley in 1911", "Barnsley sold him in October 1919 to Aston Villa for £2,850 - more than the average Sheffield worker earned in a year".) The only time the source is not essentially copied verbatim, it is misrepresented: "is up for sale again - and this time is expected to fetch up to £6,000." gets transformed into "His FA Cup winners medal has been sold twice and fetched £6,000."

The article's main source is an unreferenced opinion piece on an unofficial Aston Villa Fansite, Heroes and Villains. More verbatim copying (e.g. "He maintained a business in Sheffield and refused to move to Birmingham despite the Villa's insistence that he should do so."). More distortion (e.g. "After a very public fall out with the Barnsley directors over travelling expenses, he joined Aston Villa in October 1919.[6]" from "Barson came into conflict with Barnsley over travelling expenses").

The yeoldetreeandcrown reference is broken: here it is on the web archive. And here is the home page: another fansite, this time for Wigan.

I gave up checking at this point. I see that there are two print sources, and one cite to an official website, but basically most of the article is plagiarized from unreliable sources. Likewise no evidence is supplied that the images were published before 1923.

From the failed FAC I see that the main author may have been an inexperienced Wikipedian who did not realise that we don't write articles like this. However, this should never have passed GA, and the copyright violations will have to be removed. Geometry guy 17:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist per Geometry guy. The article relies heavily on self-published sources. Majoreditor (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Great power

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

Result: Delist. The case has been made by multiple reviewers, including the original GA reviewer, that this article needs work and renomination. The case to keep or revert is too weak. Good luck to editors keen on restoring GA status. Geometry guy 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. On August 19th of 2008, Great power became listed as a Good Article. However, some editors believe that the person who reviewed the article might be biased as his or her country might be one of the countries listed as a current great power. To put an end to this, I figured it would be best to have a community review of the article to fix this problem. Deavenger (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call. This looks like a case where reliable secondary sources are needed in abundance. Comments below please. Geometry guy 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Delist. The article fails criterion 1 and is weak on criterion 2. There are numerous criterion 1 problems. The writing is sub-par. Too often the prose is abruptly interrupted by ill-placed quotations. In places the prose falls flat; for example, As noted above, for many, power capabilities were the sole criterion. In other spots the style is archaic and awkward to the modern reader: This approach restricts analysis to the post-Congress of Vienna epoch; it being there that great powers were first formally recognized. Dozens of footnotes lack proper formatting. The lead is marginal; it's scant at best, incomplete at worse.

I am also concerned that the article relies on substandard sources and synthesis to cobble together lists of great powers. See, for example, the lists of Great Powers circa 1900 and listing as of 1919. Some sources aren't particularly reliable (Blacks' Academy? Citizendium?) Is it just me, or does this article feel like it needs an infusion of better sources? Majoreditor (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I was peripherally involved with the assessment of this article during its GA nomination, and feel that the current version could use some significant stylistic work. My suggestions:

• Increase paragraphs' length: Many paragraphs throughout the article seem rather skeletal. For example, while the lead is technically in line with WP:LEAD#Length, its aesthetic quality and contextual information would be improved by filling out the two introductory paragraphs to four to five sentences each.
• Eliminate special formatting for quotations: This is a corollary to the previous suggestion. In the 'Characteristsics' section, quotes should be incorporated into paragraphs rather than carved out into a separate area of already-sparse subsections. Doing so would help the quotations supplement the paragraphs rather than vice-versa, which seems to be the current situation.
• Expand lists' lead sections: Another suggestion closely related to the first. The lists which comprise most of the subsections in 'Change of great powers' should have their corresponding lead paragraphs expanded. Not only would this add needed qualification as to why each entity is a member of its respective list, it would also afford the opportunity to move appropriate references to the end of clauses in prose rather than their current unsightly position appended to the end of each item in the list. The subsections 'Great powers c. 1880' and 'Current great powers' look particularly cluttered by this. As another way to cut down on unnecessarily redundant citations, instead of citing the same source four times to account for each country named in a list, citing it once (after grouping the countries together in a sentence, for example) should be sufficient.
• Fix citation positioning: Citations belong after punctuation, and there should be no spaces between the beginning of a citation and the punctuation it proceeds. On a quick glance, I counted over half a dozen examples of where this could be fixed.

Feel free to insert replies between each of my bulleted paragraphs as appropriate. With regards to the perennial allegations of POV pushing made in this article's talk page, I would suggest future attempts at WP:RFC in addition to this review. Cheers, Emw2012 (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Declaration - I have been contributing to article's talk page recently. The structure in the version that existed about 18 months ago, with each possible candidate country having its own detailed NPOV section, was better imo, and should be reintroduced. Attempting to formally list today's great powers is stirring up hornets' nests among nationalists who think their country should be listed. The current world order of a single superpower and many lesser powers has rendered the term 'great power' difficult to define. Expert opinion is divided. Viewfinder (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I assigned "Good article" status in August 2008, and Deavenger has invited me to comment. I consider the prose reasonable, although I accept that there is room for improvement. Majoreditor points out some problem areas. The sourcing is (I think) quite good. The article is well-referenced throughout, with in-line citations. [However the Citizendium source has crept in after my review.] I don't see a problem with "Black's Academy" as a source. Full formatting of references is not a requirement for GA status. The content appears to be neutral and accurate, as far as I can judge from the sources. [However Deavenger implies that I have been accused of prejudice because I am British.] Unfortunately the main problem that has arisen since my assessment appears to be an intense discussion about neutrality/accuracy, documented on the Talk page. On this basis, I am now reluctant to describe the article as "stable". It certainly doesn't seem to fit the community's consensus for a stable, neutral, accurate article. Therefore it would be better to delist the article. Sadly because of the ongoing arguments, I suspect that it will never achieve community consensus for a "Good article". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. But hopefully, me and other members will get this back up to a good article in a month or so. Problem is, there's lots of nationalism going on in the articles falling under PIIR. For instance, in the superpower article, it is commonly accepted by academics that U.S is the only superpower. However, many people think Russia should be added, and bring sources that just say, Russia invaded Georgia, it's a superpower, and academics go, no, it's not. In the great power article, the term great power is commonly used to call certain current day powers like Russia or China based on many factors. Some people would bring in sources for their country like CIA Factbook, use the facts of that, and call it a great power, which is synthesis. Also, some editors want to get rid of current great powers. This is something I highly disagree with. 1. Many academics call these countries great powers, there are plenty of sources calling modern day states great powers, many sources are provided within the great powers page. 2, getting rid of them to stop nationalistic arguing is wrong. There are plenty of people who would like to think their country as a superpower. Does that mean we should get rid of any mention of what's a current day superpower, of course not. Should we get rid of the South Ossetia War page to avoid nationalistic debates, of course not. Expert opinion is divided, the article even states "While some nations are widely considered to be great powers, there is no definitive list, leading to a continuing debate." But, there are still plenty, plenty, plenty of academics that use the term great power to refer to modern day states. Deavenger (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or Revert Well I must say that I am surprised that people directly involved can input here... That doesn't seam objective, rather the opposite actually. I would say that this is a good article with good sources on a subject that sometimes elicits strong emotions. I can understand if people wish to remove the Citizendium source (though is it not peer reviewed?) but all other statements are backed up by well verified sources and they have been academic in nature. Due to the disputed nature of the subject I also believe that older versions like the one Viewfinder proposed is a bad step since that version is pure WP:OR. If the current version fails I say that we merge or replace it with the version that gained it the GA status. Much was changed to pass the GA criteria Talk:Great power/GA1. But one thing I would like to say is the article has actually been rather stable since the GA status was reached. The discussion have been kept on the talk page and usually with new editors not spilling out into the article itself. Wikipedia:Good article criteria says a good article must be Well-written be Factually accurate and verifiable (it provides references to all sources of information... contain[ing] no original research) be Broad in its coverage be Neutral be Stable (it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute) and be Illustrated from what I can tell this article passes all of those criteria. Have I been mistaken? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This version is pure WP:OR? Come off it Phoenix, there are more than 100 sources (although for example "India is the newest Great power on the world stage, according to some" was not properly sourced). I was not proposing to revert literally, but revert to its general structure which seems to me to be more NPOV when addressing the currect Great Power issue, including for example sections about Italy and India. Moreover, referenced material about likely future Great Powers could be added without breaching WP:BALL. Viewfinder (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Then please give us the sources listed in that version... or any source that passes WP:OR WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:SYN. So far they have not appeared. The version you pointed at is a very good example of Synthesis of published material which advances a position. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling us that none of the references listed at [5] pass the above guidelines? Viewfinder (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Um guys, since this is the article assessment, can you talk about what sources are WPOR or not on the Great Power talk page or even your own talk pages. Deavenger (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to Phoenix. GAR is something like GA's high court, and as such input to a community reassessment from any involved party is valuable, just as the prosecution and the defense provide input in a trial. To forbid such input would be Kafka-esque. The input of each editor may be subjective, but the community attempts to reach an objective viewpoint through consensus application of the GA criteria to the current state of the article. Geometry guy 17:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I strongly disagree with the proposition that we should bring back the sub par version Viewfinder is suggesting. I tend to agree with Phoenix that we should keep the listing and improve the article per the above feedback or revert to the GA-listed version and work on stylistic/prose improvements as necessary. I would also agree that this article has been rather stable since it has reached GA status and the truth is that only a few editors such as Viewfinder and IP users who suggest the term is archaic and irrelevant or propose to add a country based on synthesis of sources. These dissenting views have largely occurred and (have been addressed) on the Talk page and not on the article itself which is the measure of stability as far as GA is concerned as Phoenix has noted. With all due respect, the evidence provided suggests that the term is notable and the listed great powers are verifiable. Though the article remains far from being a FA, it is still a relatively well-written article that retains for the most part the quality of the GA-assessed version. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"With all due respect" Nirvana, I am not advocating bringing back that version, but something with structure more similar, with a current powers section including NPOV sub-sections about candidate countries. There are sources that directly contradict the Encarta POV. Like this: [6] "The UK and France have declined from their former great power status". The article has been relatively stable because we do not like edit wars, but the talk page shows that there is discontent among many users, both registered and IP. Viewfinder (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Majoreditor's analysis. The article is just too loose, with too much synthesis of source material. Much of the opinion here needs to be attributed (qualified) so that the article does not advocate its own view as to what a great power is. One example illustrates several issues: "Another important criteria throughout history is that great powers have enough influence to be included in discussions of political and diplomatic questions of the day, and to have influence on the final outcome and resolution." According to whom? The sentence is loose and uncited, and "criteria" is plural.

The article hasn't changed that much since the GA version, so I don't see the benefit in reverting to that. It has changed substantially since 18 months ago, but I don't see the advantage of that structure (in fact, individual sections on each great power are magnets for POV pushing), but even if it were preferable, reverting to it would require delisting the article and renominating it at GAN.

My suggestion would be to shorten an tighten the article to focus on how the term has been used by historians and other reliable sources throughout history. Geometry guy 17:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lostpedia

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

Result: Delist. There have been minor improvements to reference format and some of the nominators concerns are not GA criteria. However, the article does not meet these criteria yet. Please renominate when it does! Geometry guy 23:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I really, really don't see how this is GA class. Out of the 20+ sources, we have more than half of them being from the site itself. We also have a blog, and a freaking JPEG image of all things. I really, really fail to see how this site even meets WP:WEB, much less how the article is GA class with almost everything cited to a primary source. Beyond that, the critical reception section and subject matter sites seem horribly undeveloped (gee, maybe because there aren't any secondary sources, you think?). Yes, this may be a little snippy coming off my withdrawn afd, but the concern isn't the notability, so much as it is the lack of secondary sources and the overall skimpy nature of the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Counting the references, I count seventeen that are secondary sources. While more would be an improvement, that's not more than half, and that's not really "almost everything cited to a primary source". You also may want to mention on the talk page that the article is under reassessment. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, didn't I? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I missed the template at the top. You might want to also add a new discussion section about it so it's more noticeable. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. The lead does not summarize the article. On the other hand I only see a few issues with citations. Instead of saying half of the citations are to the primary source, ask instead what material needs to be cited to a secondary source? Is there anything controversial here? Published opinion, statistics, analysis? Yes, there is some, but not much. Mostly the article describes uncontroversial factual information about the site. The use of blogs as sources is disappointing and the references are poorly formatted and disorganised. However if a lack of reliable secondary sources prevents the development of the critical reception and subject matter sections, then these sections do not need to be and should not be developed! Geometry guy 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article still has a {{fact}} tag. More concerning is that most of the citations are from blogs or Lostpedia. Unless the article's referencing improves it will need to be delisted. Majoreditor (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pinky and the Brain

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

Result: Delist. Geometry guy 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here goes:

• Lead does not summarize article. Do we really need a quote in the article, especially one that is only allegedly the tagline? The lead also seems to suggest that the article is about the characters and not the show.
• Most of Pinky's description is unsourced.
• Large portions of "Production" are unsourced.
• No section on critical reception.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you've transcluded this to the GAR page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it transcluded automatically. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It takes an hour (when the bot is working). See also WP:PURGE. Geometry guy 22:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. Poorly cited and difficult to understand for someone who has not watched an episode. Ten Pound Hammer's concerns are spot-on. Geometry guy 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per TenPoundHammer, plus: The lead needs to be expanded to sufficiently cover the article. 32 out of 53 of the current references are to individual episodes, ref 50 (Gookie) is to a Google group, there are a couple of references to IMDB. There does seem to be some sort of a reception section by the name of "Reponse", but parts of it read more like a list of trivia. Anyway, overall, not GA quality. Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

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

Result: No consensus/no action. The article is borderline. Reviewers raised concerns about the breadth of coverage, neutrality and the lead, but disagreed as to whether these concerns were sufficient to merit delisting. Editors are encouraged to heed these comments so that the article does not need to be brought to reassessment again. Geometry guy 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This article was opened as a community reassessment, but the nominator, Mais oui! has left a fairly complete review, along the lines of an individual reassessment. Please read the review by Mais oui!, but do not add to it. A discussion section is available to discuss the review. I have further added a section below to allow a community reassessment to continue. In this section, reviewers and other editors should state whether they believe the article should be kept or delisted, giving their reasoning based on the good article criteria. Please note that WikiProject criteria are not per se part of the good article criteria; they may, however, be used to inform reviewers' interpretation of the good article criteria. Geometry guy 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The article now fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria on several points:[see the subsection below for the review by Mais Oui!]

Note: when exactly was Scotland promoted to GA status? Where is the original GA assessment page?

14 April 2006 - this version [7]. The GA assessment page is not recorded. Note: this info can be pulled down from the GA template on the article's talk page.Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The October 07 review involved an extensive house-keeping with the details on Talk:Scotland/Archive 15. Ben MacDui 10:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha! So, is this actually Reassessment No. 2, not No. 1? --Mais oui! (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the last was 2 Oct 2007; plus two PR's. (See article history template on article talk page).Pyrotec (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Review by Mais oui!

Well-written?

"A good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world"

Fails in the first sentence - "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." Apart from the ugly grammar it should be noted that other country articles do not begin, eg:

• Aruba is a country that is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Aruba is a 33-kilometre (21 mi)-long island of the Lesser Antilles in the southern Caribbean Sea, 27 km (17 mi) north of the Paraguaná Peninsula, Falcón State, Venezuela.)
• Denmark is a state that is part of the European Union. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: The Kingdom of Denmark, commonly known as Denmark, is a country in the Scandinavian region of northern Europe.)
• Hong Kong is a state that is part of the People's Republic of China. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a territory located on China's south coast on the Pearl River Delta, bordering Guangdong province to the north and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south.)

Note that the Scotland article comes under the auspices of WikiProject:Countries, which states explicitly that "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like".

Until 20 December 2008 the long-standing lead sentence (and, as far as I can work out, the lead sentence when the article was promoted to WP:GA status - when was this? where is the assessment page?), which had the consensus of the editors who actually wrote the article, was:

• Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean...

Surely this is more in line with the word (and the spirit) of WP:LEAD?

The original lead when the article was first awarded GA status (in April 2006; note: page does not appear to be recorded) was this:

• Scotland is a nation in northwest Europe and a constituent country of the United Kingdom. The country occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, shares a land border to the south with England, and is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to...

At the time it passed the first review of GA status in October 2007 the lead was this:

• Scotland is a nation in northwest Europe and one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to...

The imposition of the new lead sentence was achieved on 20 December 2008 by a small group of Users who do not hide their agenda to promote the United Kingdom; and who are trying to portray England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as somehow having identical status within the Union, which is clearly and demonstrably contrary to the real-life complexity of the constitution of the UK. Eg. both England and Scotland are ancient nations, who can trace their origins deep back into the 1st millenium. The UK has only existed during the last 208 years (arguably 301 years). Whereas Northern Ireland was invented in a smoke-filled room or two approx 80 years ago.

It is a grave error of historiography to over-emphasise recent history over an overview of the entire history of a topic (see also WP:UNDUE).

WP:LEAD states clearly: "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." How on earth can one "establish context" on the Scotland article without mentioning the word 'Europe' in the lead sentence? Scotland is one of the oldest still-extant countries on the entire continent, and has both had a profound influence on the history of Europe, as well as being formed and shaped itself by wider events throughout the continent.

Things that "it is known for"?

The introduction also falls down on the second guideline: "add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for". No mention of golf, whisky, Scottish inventions and discoveries?

Factually accurate and verifiable?

Probably a pass here.

Broad in its coverage?

Probably a pass here.

Neutral?

• "it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias."

Fail. This article has been clearly manipulated in recent months in an effort to claim WP:UNDUE weight for Scotland's modern role as a constituent of the United Kingdom. This phase in the history of this article kicked off when a neutral, geographical map of Scotland's location within Europe was replaced by a political map, highlighting the United Kingdom.

Scotland's membership of the Union is no more important than the UK's membership of the EU is to that political entity, yet I note that the United Kingdom article does not begin:

• The United Kingdom is a state that is part of the European Union.

Stable?

"it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute"

Crystal clear fail.

Note that the article is now permanently semi-protected due to ceaseless vandalism and edit warring over the years.

The only reason that it is "stable" is because it has been 'sat-upon' by a small group of editors who are only interested in promoting the UK in the lead sentence/map/infobox and other high visibility features. The actual editors who wrote the body of the article have been scared off.

It is "stable" because it is utterly stagnant. It cannot possibly be reviewed and improved upon because all knowledgeable Scottish editors have abandoned the article due to the WP:POINT campaigns of recent months.

Also, the History section keeps getting mucked about with for some reason.

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.

Not checked yet.

--Mais oui! (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

References

Probably fails as GA's now require page numbers to be cited. Ben MacDui 10:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no such requirement. Geometry guy 20:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of above comments

Mais Oui, just to make this clear. The above comments are your view on the articles GA status, not an independent reviewer? --Snowded TALK 12:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is not a serious GA review. It seems to me to be a massive breach of WP:POINT over the consensus formed over the opening sentence - a protest from a minority view. There are several personal attacks on the editors who've worked well on the talk page of late (not a single edit war). Also, "Scottish" editors do not own this page as per above. Very poor show for a review. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if this was a GAN and I was reviewing it, which I'm not, I'd be inclined to go for GA-status. Many of the book references do have page numbers, the others could be addressed by an On-hold. Sorry, but I'm inclined to to sympathise with Jza84's comment about "failing" it being a WP:POINT making exercise.Pyrotec (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone unfamiliar with article assessments, I'd like to know if Mais oui is allowed to start this Good article assessment. If he is, why is there a complaint that its a breach of WP:POINT. Doesn't everyone have to assume good faith? He does make some good points, and has as much right to make them as anyone. When an independent reviewer, or reviewers, take a look at the article (I presume this will happen) they will come to their own conclusions, so whether or not anyone thinks he is doing it to make a point the review will be neutral anyway. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I echo the concerns of the editors above. Mais oui! is not detached enough from this article to make an independent review. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Which begs the question, are there any editors who frequent the Scotland article detached enough? Titch Tucker (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors who have made significant contributions to an article should not be doing GA reviews on that particular article. Looking at the last 1,000 edits made to the article Mais oui does not appear to fall into this category - I have not checked back any further. However, the review does not appear to be presented in an unbiased manner, it appears to be point-making; and it is incomplete.Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify and allay concerns. This is a community reassessment: Mais Oui! may not be independent enough to carry out an individual reassessment, but any editor can initiate a community reassessment and any editor may comment on a community reassessment. (For the intentions of Mais Oui!, see WT:GAR#Scotland.) The decision is then determined by an evaluation of the consensus of reviewing editors with reference to the current state of the article and the good article criteria. The decision is made by a reviewer (such as myself) who has not previously been involved with the article. Please comment in the section below to inform this decision! Geometry guy 21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The above "review" is stunning, clear bias and simply an attempt to undo consensus the reviewer disagrees with. Also what is the point in someone nominating an article for reassessment if they think it fails to meet a standard needed for Good Article? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I withdraw my previous comment after reading the clarification by Geometry above and seeing the WT:GAR#Scotland page. Although i am still pretty confused about all this. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The reassessment was started in a confusing way, and I have attempted to put it back on track. The review above may well be partisan, and influenced by a particular issue, but the reassessment should focus purely on assessing (and hopefully improving) the article against the good article criteria. Geometry guy 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment comments

• Comment. Please continue the community reassessment here ("Keep" or "Delist", with reasoning). See WP:GAR for guidelines. Geometry guy 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• How come you get to review the GAR?Pyrotec (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  I don't understand this question. Anyone can comment on a community reassessment. Geometry guy 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  I was referring to "The decision is made by a reviewer (such as myself) who has not previously been involved with the article."Pyrotec (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  It is like closing an AfD. Someone with some experience of handling GA reviews/reassessments (and not with a vested interest relating to the article) has to determine what the consensus of the reassessment is (if there is any): see the guidelines at WP:GAR. GAR is very short-staffed compared to AfD. If you want to help, please contribute to a few other community reassessments, not just this one. Geometry guy 22:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link and the explanation. I'm busy doing GA reviews at present, but I have a look at the WP:GAR process when I have some time. I have no experience of the AfD process.Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. If this article was up for GAN I would probably assess it as a GA-class article. The so called assessment by User:Mais oui appears to be confined only to the WP:Lead; and some of the "review" is merely unverifiable assertions. There is no discussion or review of the main body of the article. It is a nonsense and a travesty of a GAR to seek to fail the article for (possibly valid) non-compliances in the WP:lead. The article as a whole is GA-compliant, or could readily be made so in a short period of time. Delist is a nonsense and a travesty of a GAR. Pyrotec (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  There is no travesty: improvements during the course of the GAR can be taken into account, just as they are when a GAN is "on hold". Geometry guy 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delist. The lead does not currently summarise the article as well as it could and there appear to be some gaps in coverage (e.g. Scotland's international image and cultural exports). This reflects minor issues with the article as well as the lead.

Regarding the lead, I'm not referring to the first two sentences here, or the Europe issue raised above: GAR can't sort out content disputes, and it is difficult to get the balance right over what order to present the facts in the first two sentences. Instead I'm referring to the issue that the current lead has some nominal geography, a bit about Edinburgh and Glasgow, some history, and a bit about Scottish institutions, but not much more. There is very little on its geology, economy and culture.

Conversely, the sentence "Scottish waters consist of a large sector[13] of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves in the European Union." contains an uncited and unelaborated claim, while the concluding sentences ("The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union.[19] Although Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, the constitutional future of Scotland continues to give rise to debate.") are barely covered by the rest of the article.

The quote in reference [19] does not support the statement at all well, especially concerning culture, and the coverage of the debate over the constitutional future suffers from recentism. Apart from [19], I also found reference [37] to Devine somewhat unclear: I'm concerned here that one particular analysis is being cherry-picked, and then presented as fact. In such cases, I recommend qualifying (attributing) the source and/or finding complementary sources which express similar ideas.

However, I don't consider any of these issues major at the GA level. Geometry guy 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept your comments as justification for a keep / week keep and yes, the WP:Lead is not a representative summary of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope to be able to strike the weak delist and replace it with keep. However, I'm also happy to be overruled by other reviewers who think that the issues I raise are spurious or too fussy. However, as you agree on the lead issue, this may be a signal to article editors that there's a bit of work to be done. A community reassessment usually lasts at least two weeks, so there is time. Geometry guy 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. There are some issues with the lead in that the last paragraph goes too much into too much historical detail when a concise summary would be better, and some aspects of the country (such as the golf and whiskey that Mais mentions) are not covered - however, they are also not covered in the main body, and this is, after all, not a FA assessment. I don't see glaring omissions in this article. And the precise ordering of the words in the first paragraph are more to do with politics than a GA assessment. I think most readers would accept this as a fairly detailed and reliable article on a large topic, and that given the limitations of space, it covers most of the main issues rather well. SilkTork *^YES! 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As Geometry guy said the WP:LEAD is lacking more to WP:UNDUE weight of the last few sentences, not the first sentence. I also contend that this article needs more focus on the Scotland of today. The only thing that made me consider its delistment are the content disputes that editors cannot seam to get around, but this is a rather stable article so I don't see that as an issue. But minor problems aside, this is still a good article and should not be delisted. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Erm, folks... The front page of GAR says "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not." The two above comments seem to be saying that the article should remain listed, but then go on to give examples of the article not meeting the good article criteria. Please forgive me for being a bit confused here. GA is not FA-lite: we don't assess articles against the FA-criteria and then let a few things slip. Instead we assess them against a lower standard, but just as carefully. Geometry guy 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  I was not Confused. I even stated that the only thing that gave me a pause was content conflicts on the talk page, but like I said this is a rather stable article so I don't see that as an issue. SO lets take this point by point, Wikipedia:Good article criteria says a good article must be Well-written be Factually accurate and verifiable (it provides references to all sources of information... contain[ing] no original research) be Broad in its coverage be Neutral be Stable (it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute) and be Illustrated from what I can tell this article passes all of those criteria. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  Hey relax a bit: I'm the confused one here. You skip over 1b: your previous comment suggests the article fails WP:LEAD, which is a GA requirement. Also, you link WP:UNDUE which suggests a failing of WP:NPOV, criterion 4. Finally "needs more focus" suggests a failing of criterion 3. You say it meets the criteria, but your comments seems to say "it nearly does, but not quite". Which is it? Geometry guy 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  I know that text makes it hard to tell the emotions behind the statement but I was not angry or had any other emotion that would be negative, I just believed that I needed to be more precise after your points. Your comments gave it a weak delist so you are not 100% convinced, I also ended saying that the issues brought up were only minor problems. So while I do believe that the intro needs to be more refined and less weight given to some statements I still believe that its a good article and should not be delisted not warranting the articles delistment; so in reality it is "it nearly doesn't, but it still passed". Did that help :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC

  Yes, thanks. The "weak" in my "weak delist" means I think that any failures to meet the criteria could be easily fixed within the timescale of this GAR. If others think the article meets the GA criteria and should be listed right now, then we can close this discussion. Geometry guy 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my point. I feel there are some issues with the lead section, and some issues with coverage, but not strong enough to delist. I feel this is a decent article within GA criteria and is one that the general reader would find useful and agreeable to read. My feeling is that the main points raised by Mais are more to do with concerns outside the GA remit. SilkTork *^YES! 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this process. In my opinion, the article apart from the WP:lead meets the requirement for GA. If this was a GAN I would either put it On hold for the lead to be fixed, or would fix it myself. By all means delist it if that is the only way to move forward. If someone is prepared to put it up for GAN, after you have delisted it, I'm prepared to review it. I've also suggested an alternative first sentence at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Scotland/1.Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delist because of serious WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV failures. The atmosphere on this article is utterly poisonous, with nearly every single long-standing editor (the people who actually wrote it) scared off the article. I have a good mind to remove every single one of my own contributions to this article. Removing all my own contribs alone would knock it right back to a low "B", borderline "C", grading. If we removed the contributions of all the long-standing Scottish editors who have abandonned the article it would be back to Stub or Start status. And yet these are the Users that have been labelled the "Scottish mafia" and the basis of "the rampant nationalist bias that exists in WP:SCOTLAND that keeps holding Scottish content back". So, the parent WikiProject of the Scotland article (a WikiProject I myself initiated) is "holding Scottish content back"? If it were not for Scottish Wikipedians the Scotland article would consist of one sentence (the very first one), a map of the UK, and a cat called Category:Parishes of England. We would expect Parisians to be more knowlegable than non-Parisians in regards to Paris-related topics; Canadians to be more knowledgable than non-Canadians in regards to Canada-related topics; and Scots to be more knowledgable than non-Scots in regards to Scotland-related topics; so why on earth should we be surprised that the Wikipedia articles about Paris, Canada or Scotland are largely written by people from those places? It is only natural. What is unacceptable is that Scots are being explicitly warned off editing the Scotland article, which we ourselves largely wrote. It'll never get anywhere near WP:FA status without us. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel better now? To claim Scottish editors are being "scared off" "warned off" the article is pathetic. This whole excerise has been because you were annoyed with the perfectly accurate change to the opening sentence. I am sorry but Scotland is part of the United Kingdom this is fact, why dont you go out onto the streets and start campaigning for the break up of the United Kingdom if thats what you really want rather than making silly claims BritishWatcher (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst i still do not fully know all wikipedia rules im sure removing a large amount of content from articles with the explanation that (i wrote it and no longer support the article) would be seen as vandalism. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, why is there a conversation going on at both the project page and the discussion page? Should they not be brought together? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm thanks for pointing that out Titch, i didnt see there was a conversation on there aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I honestly don't know that all of this has much to do with a GA review, but whilst it is impetuous of Mais oui! to ascribe motives to other editors without providing evidence, a quick glance at the archives shows that there has been a very significant change in the content of the Talk:Scotland page. The shift occurs circa March 2008. Prior to that time the bulk of the discussion was largely undertaken by Wikipedians who professed to be Scots/members of WP:Scotland and concerned a fairly wide variety of subjects. After that time the discussion becomes increasingly focussed on the lead and infobox (especially the map) and dominated by editors who do not claim such an affiliation. This is a generalisation of course, but I believe the trend is clear. This does not mean the change is for the worse. However, it is likely to make future improvements in the article more challenging if a decreasing number of editors who are knowledgeable about the details of the subject matter (as opposed to the important but narrow question of Scotland's relationship with the UK) are available. There are no doubt many reasons why this has occurred.

As a recent contributor to the article I have no wish to pass an opinion as to its overall quality. Nonetheless, a specific feature of this "review" is the nature of the lead. The opening sentence (ex Gaelic and sound) is "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." As I have said elsewhere I don't believe this is an especially well-phrased opening sentence to an important article and most similar beginnings are a little more expansive. However, another feature of the sentence is its innate political position. A significant minority in Scotland do not (apparently) support the continuance of this union and it is evident that a majority ("the settled will") take the view that there are benefits to a measure of local empowerment. On the assumption of good faith, I presume this sentence is not intended as a calculated insult to these groups, but I suspect whilst it remains in place that it may be more difficult to redress the current imbalance in participation than otherwise might be the case. Ben MacDui 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that your terms "calculated insult" (whether intentional or accidental) and "innate political position" (undoubtedly and demonstrably intentional) perfectly summarise what I have been trying to say about the WP:NPOV problem with the opening sentence. The opening sentence tries to portray Scotland merely as a modern political subdivision of the Yookay. Whereas the entirety of the remainder of the article describes the ancient and modern peculiarities of the Scottish nation. There is massive post-cognitive dissonance going on here. It is unsurprising, when one considers that one group of Wikipedians wrote the 1st sentence, whereas another group of Wikipedians wrote the rest of the article. I thought that WP:GAs had to be 'joined up' articles? --Mais oui! (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - personally I think the first sentence of the article should be changed - but because it sounds bad not because of neutrality concerns. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are usually described as constituent countries of the UK, not parts. Broadly speaking I think that the article still meets the good article criteria and any real concerns primarily rest with sourcing not neutrality or the lead. This review seems to be based on a user's problem with a consensus driven change in content. Getting a wider opinion through WP:3O or WP:RFC might be a better way to proceed. Guest9999 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. I could write an essay or two on the disgraceful events of the last 10 months or so. But it should suffice to refer to:

• Admin User:Derek Ross: "Many of us have made our positions clear over the last few years of debating this issue. So please do not ignore the opinions of those who have contributed to the debate but not to this vote if using it to determine whether there is consensus for this change" and "In cases of "no consensus", the standard WP thing to do is "nothing". So that is what we should do"

Nuff said.--Mais oui! (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think it matters with regard to this discussion whether there was or was not a consensus to make the change. GAR is not the correct forum to raise your objection to that decision. If you think changes were made to the article that shouldn't have been, start dispute resolution - there are many systems in place on Wikipedia via which this can be done - WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:MEDCAB or any of the other methods laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Guest9999 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Brunner

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

Result: Not listed. While the review was not considered helpful, reviewers here identified genuine concerns about the neutrality and focus of the article. The article can of course, be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brunner has become a controversial politician whose actions are considered partisan by many Republicans. This article was failed for neutrality. Five specific paragraphs were considered violative. I have read and re-read these paragraphs to consider whether they are more than a restatement of the secondary sources that are pretty neutral WP:RSs. The five paragraphs at issue are:

• Intro, second paragraph
• 1.1, last paragraph
• Section 1, 2-4th paragraphs--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The reviewer was corrrect to fail the article. In its present form it fails criteria 2-b (in-line citations) and 4 (neutrality). There are also some minor issues with the prose and MoS problems. Majoreditor (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This debate is solely about neutrality of the five paragraphs that the reviewer failed the article for. I don't see anything POV in those five paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. by inline citation, I am not sure what you mean. I think you are talking about all the places you put {{fact}} tags when the fact was covered by a citation one or two sentences later. I have added the redundant citations, but they have nothing to do with this GAR, which is about POV content in the five paragraphs at issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, GAR reassessments aren't constrained to examining just the reasons the reviewer failed the article. We evaluate articles against all GA criteria. Now, to answer the question you pose: yes, I mean that there are several sentences which needed or still need in-line citations per criterion 2-b. Here's a partial listing of what I found:

• • • "We want Ohio’s voters and the rest of the nation to see that we have prepared a transparent process of transporting voting equipment, ballots and supplies. That begins with security practices at boards of elections and polling places, documented chain of custody, and now procedures to make secure voting machine delivery."' This is a direct quotation; as such it requires an in-line citation.
    • Due to the disproportionate voter registration by Democrats it is anticipated that much of the confusion at the polling places will be for challenges to newly-registered Democrats who have been delisted from the ranks of registered voters. Exactly who "anticipates" this confusion? An assertion like this requires an in-line citation; otherwise it verges on crystal ball prognostication.
    • One month before the 2008 United States election, 5% of Ohio mortgages were either severely delinquent or in foreclosure. There were 67,000 foreclosure actions in the first half of 2008. Statistics like this require in-line citations.
    • Brunner has spoken out against election officials taking voting machines home with them in the days before an election. Such actions have allowed hacking even though it makes transport and delivery to the eventual polling place simpler. IMO a strong assertion that the voting machines have been hacked when in the custody of election officials is likely to be challenged and should have an in-line citation
    • "We want Ohio’s voters and the rest of the nation to see that we have prepared a transparent process of transporting voting equipment, ballots and supplies. That begins with security practices at boards of elections and polling places, documented chain of custody, and now procedures to make secure voting machine delivery." Once again, this is a direct quote and it needs an in-line citation immediately following the quote.

The article suffers from more than just missing citations. It also contains serious NPOV issues. It presents little in the vein of evenhanded criticism of Brunner. The article reads more like a haliography. I found cases of POV language. For example Other partisan sources claim that ACORN advises and influences Brunner. Why include the perjorative term "partisan" to describe a GOP source, while pro-Brunner sources are presented as impartial? (I have removed the term "partisan" from the sentence to give it a NPOV). Unfortunately, the articles POV runs deeper than choice of adjectives.

Tony, I'm glad so see that you've currently working on improving the article. Frankly, it still has a way to go. Best wishes, Majoreditor (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This about my fourth or fifth appearance at GAR. Historically, the reassessment has been based on whether the article was failed for a legitimate reason. Arguments about new or additional reasons for failing an article have been considered offtopic. Let's face it, any article at WP:GAC probably has a few faults or else it would be at WP:FAC. In this case, the sentences above "One month before the 2008 United States election, 5% of Ohio mortgages were either severely delinquent or in foreclosure. There were 67,000 foreclosure actions in the first half of 200." Where both from the citation at the paragraph that was a citation for the entire paragraph. I have added the repeat citation in three places in the paragraph at your request. I will look at the rest of the examples above. I think they are additional examples of the same phenomenon, but I will look later this evening.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In my experience of GAR and in everything I have done to help this process, GAR is entirely about whether the article currently meets the good article criteria. I see no evidence that new or additional issues have ever been considered off-topic, and they have certainly not been off-topic for at least a year and a half. "Good article disputes" does not exist any more.

I say this without prejudice about examples, issues and details that pertain to this particular article. Geometry guy 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if anything goes, it is like asking for a GAC assessment from the community. In debates about failing, my past debates have always been about whether the reason for failing was endorsed by the GAR community. I think I am about one for four or five on GAR reassessments about failed articles. However, I do not recall ever holding a discussion about anything but the reasons given for the fail. This article is probably in the third quartile in terms of quality of articles that I have nominated at GAC. It has some flaws. If we are going to get into a debate about whether this article has warts, it does. It is in the quality range that could be passed or failed. A review like the commentary by User:Majoreditor at 16:28, 30 December 2008 would not have been unfair. A pass would not have been unfair. What is unfair is to fail the article for a reason that nobody can explain and the I can not correct. Many worse articles than this have been promoted and many better articles have been failed. I am here to get an understanding of the community's perception of POV for political bios. I have several more political bios at WP:GAC and I want to make sure I understand the issues. I also have several forthcoming editorial efforts on redlinked Politician bios. I need to understand this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes all of these now have repeat citations. However, what is helpful for this reassessment is a list of statements that are possibly POV from the paragraphs at issue. That is how I anticipate this reassessment to evolve. A discussion of possibly POV statements is the crux of the evaluation of the validity of this GAC fail. If people don't think there are such statements in the paragraphs at issue then the article was not failed for a valid reason and in the absence of glaring problems it should be passed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Majoreditor, In your time contribution to the consideration of this reassessment, which is of course appreciated, would it be a fair statement to say that you have pointed out no POV content in the five paragraphs that the reviewer cited for his reasons for failing the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I will try to provide specific comments in a few days; at the moment I am tied up with off-wiki events. The article is improving and I am hopeful that we can resolve any concerns. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to have the reviewer point out the statements, rather than having someone else guess what the reviewer was thinking? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 09:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It would of course be useful if the reviewer told us which things were not neutral. Then I could fix them and renominate if they are considered valid or get a reassessment if they are not. If nobody comes up with some clarification on what is not neutral about the five paragraphs at issue, I can not fix a problem I don't understand or one that does not exist.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

On December 27, I notified the reviewer of this discussion. On January 2, I told him no one seemed able to note anything POV in the paragraphs he cited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was also failed because coverage was not broad enough, so the Personal section would need looking at. I also noticed that the Lead section doesn't cover all the contents of the body of the article. I also have concerns with the article staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail - there's a lot of information regarding voter registration, and it's not clear from the text where Brunner's direct involvement comes, and where there is too much coverage of a related topic that perhaps should be in a different article. I think there are a number of concerns with this article. SilkTork *^YES! 13:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the reviewer had issues with breadth. The emphasis was on neutrality for the fail. Often, fully recounting a twenty-seven year career, accounting for an entire post-secondary education, and identifying family is enough. I am not sure that there is much detail that should be removed, but am willing to listen to such commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth looking into the detail on the 2008 elections and considering if a standalone article could be created and placed in this cat Category:Ohio elections, 2008, leaving a summary in the Brunner article. Much of the material here seems to be about the problems with the Ohio election system rather than with Brunner herself. As an example - this subsection doesn't mention Brunner, nor seems connected with her in any way. Her office is mentioned, but she is not:

1.2.2.2 Growth of voter registrations in 2008

Between January 1, 2008 and mid-October 2008, over 666,000 Ohioans have registered to vote either for the first time or with updated voter information, and over 200,000 of them provided driver's licenses or Social Security numbers that do not match government records. Over 20% of these voters are from Cuyahoga County, which is heavily Democratic.[47] Also, many of the newly registered voters were the result of voter registration drives to register voters for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the March 4, 2008 Ohio Democratic primary.[48] The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9–6 decision ruled on October 14, 2008 that extra steps must be taken to authenticate these registrants and Jeffrey Sutton's majority opinion suggested that these misregistered voters cast provisional ballots. Historically, 20% of provisional ballots have been thrown out. As a result of the ruling, the Office of the Ohio Secretary of State must provide each county with a list of registrants with mismatching information and provide direction on a proper course of action. There are federal laws barring purging voters from the election rolls within 90 days of an election. This issue is considered to be a partisan one with Republicans favoring greater scrutiny, and the justices voted almost along party lines based on the United States President that appointed them.[47]

There are other such paragraphs and sentences. I'd appreciate a concise summary of her involvement in these affairs in an article on her, and then for greater depth and details where I am interested in knowing more, I am willing to go to another article. It's always difficult to get the balance right on these things - and when trying to explain a person's impact on Foo there is clearly a need to explain that Foo. But care must be taken not to explain so much that an article ceases to be about the person and becomes instead an article on the Foo. SilkTork *^YES! 10:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph discusses a ruling against Brunner because it is against the Secretary of State. Everything that comes out of that office comes out under her name. It is a ruling against her in a sense except that after she leaves office other Sec of States will have to continue to adhere to the ruling.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked some wording regarding the relevance of this paragraph in this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I found no significant violations of NPOV in the cited paragraphs. The only sentence that comes close is "As a result, Brunner has had to focus on addressing the procedures instead of the inherent lack of technical security." This contains an implied criticism of the General Assembly and is sourced to an interview with Brunner. I suggest "Consequently, Brunner has focussed on addressing..." instead.¹

In terms of NPOV in general, by and large this article presents cited fact after fact after fact, so if it is not neutral, then it can only be a bias in fact selection. However, there are some exceptions. For instance "Ohio Republican officials have already filed paperwork that Brunner feels is an attempt to establish grounds for contesting ballots on election day" is clearly not written from an encyclopedic point of view.² The paragraph

• "Conservative editors such as Peter Bronson who write for Cincinnati.com, the online arm of The Cincinnati Enquirer, describes Brunner as having a "reputation as the most partisan state official in Ohio". This is partly because after entering office, she took immediate action against Republican county elections officials, including Robert T. Bennett, Ohio Republican Party Chairman. However, more recently, she has been accused of partisanship by her former Secretary of State opponent in the 2008 general election. He claims that she has set policy in order to throw out absentee ballots likely to be cast for the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket.[54] Other sources claim that ACORN advises and influences Brunner."

is a point of view mess, which tries to negate one opinion with another.³

Nevertheless, neutral point of view issues are pretty minor (if this is a hagiography, then how about Mother Teresa, which remains an embarrassment to GA?). In agreement with SilkTork, I think the main GA problem is that the article loses focus and goes into unnecessary detail about the Help America Vote Act. I disagree that the article is not broad because the personal life section is short: if there are no notable events in her personal life, then the section should not be expanded artificially to meet some bean-counting criterion. I recommend instead shortening the digressions. Geometry guy 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I am not sure I understand why the suggestion addresses the problem. As I understand the problem, you are saying that some facts are WP:ATT a primary source, which may be POV. I the context of an article with 67 sources, 3 or 4 such sources is probably not a big problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is mainly with the tense "has had to focus" which presents the facts from Brunner's perspective and implies that the General Assembly should have addressed the subject of funding an all paper ballot. Geometry guy 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Revised with simple past.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2. There are a few instances where I attempt to present perspectives of the legal battle. I would certainly accept suggestions on where to be more encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Something like "Brunner has stated that the filing of paperwork by Republican officials may be an attempt to establish grounds for contesting ballots on election day." would be better in this case. Geometry guy 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Yes I was trying to present Anti-Brunner opinions followed by pro-Brunner explanation in a way that would be percieved as neutral. Advice on cleaning this up would be welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all the quote needs a citation. I realise that it is probably from ref [54], but the link is broken. Second, the quote needs to be attributed to Peter Bronson (not "conservative editors such as Peter Bronson"). Third, Peter Bronson needs to be described more concisely and not labeled as "conservative": let his views speak for themselves. Fourth, it is not up to Wikipedia to explain why conservatives are hostile to Brunner: let the sources do it or let the facts speak for themselves. For instance, you could write "On entering office, Brunner took immediate action against Republican county elections officials, including Robert T. Bennett, Ohio Republican Party Chairman. Writing for the Cincinnati Enquirer, columnist Peter Bronson describes Brunner as 'the most partisan state official in Ohio'". You also need a better source than the Ohio Republican Party for the claim that ACORN influences Brunner.

I fixed most of this. I am looking for an ACORN ref. However, it is but a part of this picture of perceived partisanship.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The following paragraph is out of date (the 2008 election has happened).

I changed some tense issues

It isn't the purpose of GAR to fix the article for you. The closer I look at the article, the more I find wanting. Geometry guy 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Spend a little time at FAC. Watch for articles that have had little editing since passing GA. All articles can be shown to be faulty in many respects. My point for bringing the article hear was for an assessment of whether it was fairly rejected. I continue to await any clarification that could show me the existence of POV issues that the original reviewer claimed were problematic. I will STFU when someone shows me I was not reviewed unfairly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

After further discourse with the reviewer, he has still not pointed out any issue that he failed the article for. No one else has either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) Tony, I think I understand where you are coming from, but GA is not FA-lite, and GAR is not a finger pointing exercise. The front page says it quite plainly: "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not." The GAN review your article received was plainly inadequate, but by bringing the article to GAR you have now received a more than adequate review by two of GA's finest and myself. None of us think that the article currently should be listed. Your posts above suggest you think that the GA criteria are like the FA criteria, except that we can let a few things slip. I understand how you might feel that, and the GA process of one reviewer means that often a few things are missed. Such slips are only caught by the ebb and flow of listing and delisting by multiple editors. That is a radical difference between GA and FA. However, the bottom line is that the GA standard is not "FA with failings allowed". Instead it is a much lower standard to which articles should conform just as rigorously. Any failure to meet the GA criteria is a reason not to list an article. With a given reviewer, a few slips may pass under the radar, but GAR, as the high court of GA, cannot list articles which do not meet the criteria.

The best I think we can do here, is close this GAR as "no action", with a comment that the review failed to articulate genuine concerns, but that now there is plenty to work on. Then you can renominate. I hope you won't need GAR next time, and the article will pass. Geometry guy 21:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If the article is not up to snuff, I don't mind it failing. However, I am a bit confused about how the GAR process became a GAN reevaluation as opposed to a evaluation of the review. It seems like the change will allow for people who are hoping for a second opinion to the contrary to just bring failed GANs here without cause. My objection is not that the article is a few notches below FA, it is that the review was $h!tty and worthless. If I am correct that it did not actually point to valid problems, it is the worst review I have probably had in about 200 or so. The old process use to be an assessment of whether the review should be endorsed. Now, the new process is a second GAN. The change in rules probably protects the GA portfolio, but probably does not reprimand worthless reviewer. I'll take the article to WP:PR and come back if that is what is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

<response moved to talk>

Insulin

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

Result: delist Boghog2 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this article's last good article rating, the article has undergone the following major changes:

• split (insulin → insulin + insulin therapy)
• merger (insulin + insulin gene → insulin)

In my opinion, there are still some rough edges to be addressed in the insulin article while the insulin therapy article appears to be in better shape. I therefore propose the following:

• The good article rating be transfered from the insulin to the insulin therapy article.
• The insulin article be given a {{B-Class}} rating.

In a somewhat related issue, I propose that these two articles be assigned to the following projects:

• insulin – WP:MCB
• insulin therapy – WP:MED + WP:PHARM

Thoughts? Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject ratings and assignments are a matter for the relevant WikiProjects, not GAR. Geometry guy 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. After a quick look, I'm afraid neither article looks like a GA right now. Both are lacking citations, and have missing or stubby sections. So my initial impression is that insulin should be delisted. It may be not too hard to raise insulin therapy to GA standards, in which case it can be nominated at WP:GAN. Geometry guy 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and comments. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but GA status cannot be transfered between articles - each article has to go through GAN on its own merit; this makes the status of Insulin therapy a moot point. Insulin should be delisted due to a lack of referencing and the presence of fact tags that have been in place since September 2008. There are too many lists, some should be changed into prose. Web references need to be formatted with a title, publisher and access date, rather than just a bare link. The further reading link to Famous Canadian Physicians deadlinks, as does the External link to Insulin in the protein databank. Also, as Geometry guy says above, which wikiprojects an article is under and which ratings they are given (other than GA or FA class) are under the authority of the individual wikiprojects, not GAR. Dana boomer (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments. In checking this articles GA assement, it appears that this was done ad hoc without a formal assessment. Therefore it is clear that this article should be delisted. I apologize for not more carefully checking this before requesting this reassessment.
• The conclusion of this reassessment is to delist by unanimous consensus. Boghog2 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste Hachème

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

Result: Not listed. Geometry guy 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I selected this article for review and had immediate problems with its comprehensiveness. After discussion with the main editor, it appears that no more information on this subject may be available. I am uncomfortable passing the article in its current state and, with the main editors agreement, have brought the article here to generate a wider consensus about whether this article qualifies as a GA. I'm happy to abide by the GAR decision, and I believe this may be a test case regarding size and comprhensiveness at GAR.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. In terms of readable prose size, as of 2 December 2008, 70 current GAs are shorter than this nominated article. Neither length nor comprehensiveness are GA requirements. The pertinent questions I believe, are "is it broad in its coverage?" and "is it reliably sourced?". Geometry guy 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, by comprehensiveness I meant "is it broad in its coverage?", specifically the problems concerning coverage of his life before 1963 and after 1974 outlined on the talk page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It is likely that his life prior to 1963 is not notable, and there is probably nothing to say about his imprisonment. However, the article doesn't even give the year of his birth, and readers will shortly want to know whether he survived 20 years hard labor or not. Furthermore the main source is tertiary (a historical dictionary) and one of the other two sources is also tertiary. The added last sentences "Very little is written of Hachème. It is unsure if he is still alive or not." beg the (here somewhat self-referential) question, "according to whom?"

There is plenty of reason to believe that further sources exist and I see no compelling reason to list this article as a GA. Geometry guy 22:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And why do you think that further sources exist? I have exhaused any I could find, and new ones you mention would be helpful. Please note that Historical Dictionary is not tertiary: Mr. Decalo actually went into Dahomey and investigated various subjects. Not sure if that makes this a primary source, but he is (was?) a professor of African studies and has had material published in academic journals. Shillington 2005 was only added to avoid the stigma of this being a two-source article. I can remove it if that is the concensus. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I added the last few sentences as a request by Jacky because we don't know anything about him. Admittedly Decalo 1976 i a bit dated, but it's the best we have. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What sources does Decalo use? What about contemporary newspapers?

As for Decalo himself, five minutes on the internet produced a revised 1995 third edition of his historical dictionary. I believe he is a retired professor who occasionally teaches at the University of Florida's Political Science department. Geometry guy 19:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Decalo used a bunch of primary sources in his work, as well as original research. I'll try to find the newer book on interlibrary loan; I did not know it existed. As for contemprary newspapers, Hacheme throws up nothing of value on Google News. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Google News didn't exist in the 1970s. You have to go to the library for newspapers from that time. It looks to me like this discussion needs to be closed shortly (as "not listed"). Sorry, but I hope the new source is helpful. It may have a good bibliography. Geometry guy 23:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with length, but I do have problems with "addresses the main aspects of the topic". There is very little information here. The article raises more questions than it answers. What does "Fon origins" mean? And when I click on Fon I am taken to a disamb page. How significant is this person's origin to his situation? I'd like more information about the "brutal" crushing of the riots. What is the significance of his dismissal because he lived in the South? As this is a standalone article, we need support information. We also need cites for "Alleged to have plotted againgst Kouandete and Alphonse Alley" and "Very little is written of Hachème." And "It is unsure if he is still alive or not." I support closing this as I feel it needs more work than can be done in 7 days. SilkTork *^YES! 02:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Good articles can be short, but they shouldn't be stubby. This article seems incomplete in scope, leading me to think that it doesn't meet criterion 3. Like Silk Tork, I suspect it will take more than a few days to bring the article up to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe this article fails both 1a and 3a of the good article criteria and should not be listed at this time. "With the appointal of Emile Derlin Zinsou as president ..." is just one example of the fractured prose, but that could be easily fixed. More importantly, I am unconvinced as to broadness of the article's coverage. For instance, a cursory Google search shows that Hachème was released on amnesty, along with others, in 1984 ([8]). The fact that he was in charge of the government for only one day would also seem to be worth a mention. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Added his term in office (don't know why I didn't mention that in the article!) and fixed the Zinsou sentence. For his 1984 amnesty release, the link you provided was a search guide for Keesings World Archives and didnt mention Hacheme at all. I am perfectly content at letting this fail, as I am in the process of acquiring the updated Historical Dictionary and other sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my mistake. I've corrected the link. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)

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

Result: Delist. The article does not approach the subject in an encyclopedic way: it should describe the website rather than tell the reader what to think about it. The latter approach has resulted in multiple GA problems (noted by reviewers) with stability, non-neutrality, the failure of the lead to summarise the article and misuse of language. Geometry guy 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to recent events, the overall tone of the the article, and the fact that the article is not stable at all, I recommend the article be delisted, at least temporarily. Enigma^msg 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has been unprotected one day and there have been no sequences of reversion in over a week; you haven't given it a chance to be stable. Tone is not a GA requirement. The neutrality criterion specifies that a GA "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias". If you have a specific viewpoint that is not represented fairly to what the reliable sources say, or statements that introduce bias to sourced content, please be forthcoming with it. At present, this GAR is premature and the objections underspecified and unactionable. Skomorokh 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's been full-protected for a week two different times within the last month is a cause for concern unto itself. I view this as overdue rather than premature. Enigma^msg 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've seen that one bone of contention is whether the lead needs to be rewritten.

In my view, it does. It labels before it describes, which is not a good way to achieve NPOV. I recommend looking at the lead of Holocaust denial for an exemplar. Notice that the labeling phrase ("an antisemitic conspiracy theory") does not come until the final paragraph: before reassessment, this was in the first sentence. Notice also how effective this structure is. Once the reader reaches this point, they are not likely to be surprised by the labels, because they have been informed about the nature of the movement in neutral terms.

On the other hand, starting this article by saying Stormfront is a "white supremacist, neo-Nazi" organisation may cause readers who do not already know about the organization (or are not hostile to it) to switch off ("yet another sanctimonious WP article"). You lose precisely the audience that an encyclopedia article could educate. The key to NPOV is "show don't tell" and let the reader decide. Geometry guy 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Geometry guy. Compare the current version of the lead with this version. I have argued against including labels in the lead and in favour of making the lead a summary of the article, but other editors have disagreed and thought that the subject ought to be characterised more forcefully in a negative manner early on. I am in agreement with your analysis here. Skomorokh 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well cited and attributed labels can appear in the lead, but I recommend saving them for later, not the first sentence. Please direct those who have disagreed to my comments. The forceful negative characterization of the subject in the first sentence is actually counterproductive to their well-intentioned aims. Geometry guy 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Directed, thanks. Skomorokh 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The article was recently, and in my view tendentiously, rewritten. I hope it's a long way from stable, because a number of issues remain to be sorted out. User:Gwen Gale is supervising the talk page and has put in place a limit of one revert per person per day. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Tom. I would also urge any participants not to take "pronouncements" from this page as a reason to override editors consensus at the relevant talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This page only concerns whether the article meets the GA criteria or not. Content disputes are a matter for the article talk page. If there is no interest in addressing the GA criteria, I will delist the article shortly. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as to the matter at hand, i feel it falls well short of GA. It's been rewritten to have a Stormfront friendly, apparently pro neo-nazi point of view. A problem that extends far beyond the lede. There are walls of obfuscatory, irrelevant text, efforts to favor the sites self-description rather than those of other parties, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It can surely be delisted. I'm just very disappointed that you don't realise that describing the site in factual neutral terms is the best way to discredit it. Let the site discredit itself by its own descriptions. That isn't so difficult to do. Geometry guy 23:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My interest is not in discrediting or editing based on what "tactic" would best achieve some (incorrectly as it happens) assumed goal of mine. My interest is having the most factually accurate, neutral (not neutered) reflection of what Stormfront is. Current article falls well, well short of that. It's unfortuntate, but it's true. And don't be condescending and tell me what i don't "realize" when we disagree.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm happy about that. Now reread the "pronouncements" on this page, and explain how you would address them. Geometry guy 23:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say "It can be surely be delisted"? No specific, actionable instances of the article's failure to meet the GA criteria have been raised here. The stability criterion is a concern, but I'd argue that there has been no edit-warring recently and editors are discussing proposed changes on the talkpage. Skomorokh 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We both agree it fails WP:LEAD. Most editors seem to think it fails WP:NPOV. Geometry guy 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the former does not speak directly to GA? and actionable evidence of the latter has not been forthcoming. Skomorokh 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in 1b, Skomorokh: "it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation". Also, I know FAC is has an "actionable" requirement, but at GAR, the only question is "does it meet the criteria or not?" The article can always be renominated at a later date. Geometry guy 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist for failing criteria 4: "it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias." The opening sentence is not balanced. Wikipedia is not about making people's minds up for them, it's about presenting information in a neutral and balanced manner. Alexa has: "White supremacist organization seeking to advance Western culture and ideals, and freedom of speech and association. Also serves as a forum for planning strategies and forming political and social groups." I find that quite neutral and balanced, and I understand what the organisation is about. Is it left to me as an individual to then make my own mind up. On a personal level I find the information quite chilling, but I can see that some might be attracted to the organisation. So be it. We are not political - that is one of our founding principles. SilkTork *^YES! 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the article can be reassessed when it has become stable, and the lead has been sorted out. SilkTork *^YES! 02:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that point. My argument is that it should be delisted now, and it can be reassessed at some future point in time. Is it time to close this? Enigma^msg 04:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the article is stable and very little of it has been assessed (though the assessments are appreciated). It would be good at minimum to have experienced outsiders investigate the charges made on the talkpage that the article is biased in favour of the subject and is insufficiently broad. Skomorokh 07:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Daddy Yankee

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

Result: Kept. Minor issues were raised and fixed. Geometry guy 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly believe this article is a B-class article. The article doesn't read very well, and there are basic mistakes like incorrect usage of parenthetical commas, and some subject-verb agreement mistakes. Also, some sections contain references from only one source. obentomusubi 08:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note. Good articles are assessed according to the good article criteria, not according to presumed WikiProject ratings. The number of sources used in a section is not a good article criterion, as long as the material is reliably sourced. Geometry guy 12:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've had a look at the prose. It is verbose in places, but I found very few problems except in the "Film and other career projects" and "Personal life" sections, which required heavy copyediting. These two sections should also be covered in the lead. Finally there I noted one confusing sentence and one unsourced fact. Geometry guy 12:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comments. References #23 (Mike Glover) and #31 (Notimex) deadlink. All links that aren't in English need to be marked as such (for example, see #4, to Terra). Overall, though, this is a nice article that I don't think needs to be delisted. After my comments are fixed, and the two tags left by Geometry guy are taken care of, I believe this article will be a solid "keep" for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I will fix the links and work with the lead. However, reassessment is probably pushing the envelope. The main problem is (or was) found in the "Film and other career projects" section. I don't need to mention that due to some politician's campaign, that section came under fire, and so did "Personal life". Nevertheless, most of the article has retained the quality featured when I wrote it, just like it was when it passed the nomination. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The prose needs variety - at the moment nearly every paragraph starts with Ayala did this or Ayala did that! - but is clear enough: it conveys the information, and that's enough for GA. It's for FA that the prose needs to be engaging, etc. SilkTork *^YES! 02:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Reassessment is out of hand.--Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The article could benefit from copyediting but it doesn't fail criterion 1. There's a {{fact}} tag which should be addressed and a verification tag which can perhaps be removed. Overall, this article looks like a keeper. Majoreditor (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Since nothing has happened here, I've removed the two offending sentences. According to comments here, this is a perfectly decent GA without them. They can be readded once sources are found and/or clarified. Geometry guy 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per my above comment. Majoreditor (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

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

Result: Kept. There were several GA issues and some disagreement on how to deal with them, but a compromise structure was found, retaining the basic approach of the main editors, while also treating the key elements of the topic in an encyclopedic way. Nice work: hopefully this will be a useful example for the genre of the article. Geometry guy 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2 and Talk:Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA1

I started an individual review and the two main contributors are disagreeing with my assessments, so it seems appropriate to bring it to the community. SilkTork *^YES! 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about article

My main concern is regarding broad coverage. There is a lack of detail and coverage regarding what might be seen as basic aspects of the topic. The song that was selected ("Secret Combination") is mentioned by name in the lead, and then in a section named "Kalomoira" with this description: "an R&B style upbeat song with a Greek feel composed by Konstantinos Pantzis with lyrics by Poseidonas Giannopoulos". And then "The song had an "American production" feel to it." (sourced to an interview with the composer on esctoday.com)

There is no further information on the song or composer, even though in the same interview there is more information that could be included about the song and the composer such as that he had worked with the singer on her previous two albums, this is his first Eurovision song, and that "there is darbuka (toumberleki) but not the rhythm like we know it. It has a more western rhythm with Greek sounds. It is darbuka with Mediterranean sounds."

We learn that the performer is called Kalomoira, that she "appeared on stage in a short JLO dress", and that the "four dancers held her up on top of themselves while she was laying down flat. Later she came down, and started dancing with them". However, I think the general reader might like to know who she is - if she known nationally or internationally? - is she Greek? - is she popular? - has she any experience of the competition? - etc.

I also have concerns about unnecessary detail when the article goes into fan gossip about the singer's clothes, and tells that after "a brief break, she traveled to Turkey, arriving on April 10, where she posed for pictures, gave interviews to the local media, and went shopping through the old town, where the Turkish media followed her."

My feeling is that the focus of the article should be less on what might be seen as fan details, and rather more on encyclopedic details.

I also have concerns about the quality of the writing. It is quite choppy in places, and is so bitty and condensed that the meaning is not always clear. SilkTork *^YES! 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wider issues

This article is being used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision as a template example of what to aim for.

There have been concerns about the notability of these topics - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006. I feel that the topics are worthwhile, and are popular and hold a wide cultural interest. However, given the concerns that this topic was an intersection too far, and that main encyclopedic information on this topic could be contained in the two main articles for each topic (in this case Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest), it would do well to pay close attention to the formatting of these articles. SilkTork *^YES! 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment comments and recommendations

• Comment. I agree with most of SilkTork's concerns. The article is disorganised and confusing, goes into unencyclopedic detail in some places, and fails to establish context in others. The lead not only fails to summarise the article, it also fails to define the subject in the first sentence. Prose disasters are abundant:

  "ERT originally proposed to Elli Kokkinou internally". I wish the couple a happy internal marriage.

  "Kalomoira and Kostas Martakis' songs for the national final were leaked on the internet." I hope no fuses were blown. ["leaked" is rather too journalistic for an encyclopedia and allegations of wrongdoing need very reliable sources.]

  "He started off his song sitting down, later getting up and dancing. During the middle part of his song, he jumped up on a platform, and a big prop opened up on stage in the shape of the letter V with him in the middle. The lights then went to him with smoke machines on during a break, while his dancers started singing as backing vocalists with microphones facing him." [The fact that he sat down, stood up, danced, or jumped on a platform during his performance is unencyclopedic.]

  "Although Greece was granted a place in the 2008 final because of Sarbel's seventh place finish at the Eurovision Song Contest 2007, it had to compete in a semi-final in 2008 because the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) decided to regulate all countries except the Big 4, France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, to pass through a semi-final." [Verbose and confusing, and "to regulate... to pass" is ungrammatical.]

  "The EBU split up countries with a friendly voting history into two different semi-finals, to give a better chance for other countries to win." (Also interpretation is uncited.) [Verbose; "split up" implies the countries were together before, "different" adds nothing.]

  "At that same moment of the book opening, she changed her outfit converting it from a pink dress into a silver mini skirt." Harry Potter eat your heart out. ["At that same moment" is verbose, "changed" and "converting" is repetition. Presumably she actually took off the pink dress to reveal a silver miniskirt underneath. If so, say so.]

These examples illustrate several of the issues raised. Geometry guy 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see some of your points, but some of your comments are not too helpful. You list sentences, and either don't list what is wrong with them, or post sarcastic comments at the end (I don't think this is a place for jokes), some of which I don't get. Some of the things you mentioned are a matter of preference. Each user can write a sentence a ton of different ways. I don't think that it detracts from its encyclopedic purposes, just because you would write it a different way. The original reason for the article going up for community reassessment was because of changes SilkTork proposed on the GA2 talk, that don't really work for each country since each country's selection process is different. Like for example a section on "Producers" which is irrelevant to Greece in ESC 2008. But that is not mentioned on this talk. Greekboy (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if my (three) poor attempts at humor were unhelpful or offensive. I have added additional comments in square brackets about the prose style to all but the first example. The first two sentences of the body of the article are very disorienting. Why "chose to hold"? Why "again"? I suggest reordering the paragraph so that previous practices come first. However, it isn't the job of GAR to fix every sentence. I agree that a sentence can be written in many ways, but good prose is concise and clear. The above prose is verbose and confusing.

I also agree with you that there is no reason why articles like this should all follow the same pattern, but I don't see that as the main concern raised by SilkTork. Geometry guy 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually "following the same pattern" was one of the issues raised when Silktork decided to reassess all current GA articles of this type. He felt like there should be more information taken from other articles to make the page more complete which I disagree with. It is one of the reasons why there is wikilinking - so someone can go to another page that focuses more on that topic. Silktork feels that there should be subsections about the song, artist, composer etc, separate from the prose explaining each, which I feel will break up the article. He used Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 as an example. The article to me is not really a list of blurbs about difference aspects of Greece's participation, but more of a summary written day by day from Greece's decision to enter to the aftermath. After reading it through again after a few months I did realize some deficiencies in the prose and some more explaining that could addressed, but I see no problem with the overall format and content of the article. Everything is sourced (if its not I can find one in a few seconds) and the article is not biased or "fanish". The description of the performances could be better phrased instead of he stood up, sat down, danced a little, etc, but that is what happened its not like that article reads "she was the best of the night" or anything like that. The goal is to make the article as complete as possible, not break it up with little subsections about the past that doesn't affect the current year of the article. Important details can be and are to an extent included when necessary and relevant. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the song that went through to Eurovision gets little more coverage than the two which didn't. Summary style is completely unused. Geometry guy 21:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The important thing is to keep in mind that this is not the song's page. It would not be necessary to get into tiny details about the song when the process of the song getting to and its outcome at the contest is what the article is about in general. The other songs deserve just as much coverage in that section since it is about the selection process not the song, anything of further detail belongs on the song's separate page. The purpose of this page is not to be a place to look to find more information about the participant, the song etc, its about the country's participation. Should we include a subsection about the history of Greece and the contest overall too because that's the type of additions I feel I am being told to add. I'm not against adding some basic relevant background info, but I am against adding overly detailed irrelevant background information for things that have their own pages. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The other songs do indeed deserve as much coverage in that section, and that exposes the poor organisation of the article. At a structural level, the article is proseline. It tells the story like a news source, not an encyclopedia. Try to write the article as if you were looking back on events ten years from now. You would spend more time discussing the song which entered the event, right? The focus of the country's participation was at Eurovision, and concerns the song which was actually sung there, right? Geometry guy 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree there. If you do infact look back at the contest from the 90's on other online sites that provide a history section, there is detail about the selection process and the other songs. The other songs are just as important to the countries participation as is the song picked. I myself would like to find information about the other songs too in 10 years. It's not like there is currently no information on the song actually picked. In fact there is a whole page on it. The page is about their participation. The song selection and the other competing songs are also a part of their participation. Greekboy (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we are digressing. The point is whether the article is a GA or not which more than one editor agrees it is which is why it was listed in the first place. In fact, over the past few months, it has only improved and become more complete. I respect the Silktork's opinion of the article, but I feel like we are all being put into a situation where Silktork believes such and such must happen or the article cannot be a GA which is not true. The purpose and format of the article is not determined solely by the wishes of one user who threatens to de-GA it. I think we need more opinions and everyone needs to take a look at what the purpose and scope of each article related to this one is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of belief, but valid argument against the good article criteria. SilkTork has argued cogently that the article does not meet the criteria. Instead of delisting, SilkTork has generously brought the article to community review. So far no uninvolved editor has disagreed with his assessment. So far, I am pretty much bound to close this discussion as delist, but we need to wait a bit longer before making the final decision. Maybe an uninvolved editor will expose some flaws in SilkTork's reassessment. Geometry guy 22:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've lost site of exactly what the problem seems to be. Is it that he wants more background info because we added some, more can be added, or is it the fact that he feels we need historical subsections of related people? The latter, what I assume to be his argument, is not a valid reason to delist. The article does in fact focus entirely on encyclopedia details and I wait for a reason why a sourced description of her promotional tour is a "fan detail".

The "wider issues" argument is misleading since when those articles were nominated for deletion when they were stubs saying the country participated and consisted mostly of the entrants biography. [9] [10] All of the deletion comments pertain to the page in that condition and are irrelevant today. The reason they were kept was so they could be like this one. There is no way that the information could ever be only on the country and year page.

I also think the listing GA reviewer should give his opinion before the discussion is closed as there was a reason why he listed it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion can be summarised as - 2 GA reviewers feel that the article needs more details about the main song and the composer and other basic facts in order to meet "broad coverage"; 2 main contributors feel that their aim for the structure and focus of the articles would not allow for such "broad coverage". On that point it would be fair to say that the contributors may structure the articles in the way they feel best serves the topic, but that unless the articles comply with GA criteria they will not pass GA. In addition, there is disagreement about focus and organisation. However, there is mutual concern about the quality of the writing which the contributors are willing to address.

Given that there are concerns about the article, and that the contributors are unwilling to make the adjustments requested to bring the article up to GA standards, it would indicate a delisting on the grounds that the article is contentious. However, it would be valuable if another GA reviewer could give an opinion on this matter, as it does impact on the other "FOO in the Eurovision Song Contest YEAR" articles as they carry the same structure and approach as this one. SilkTork *^YES! 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we are not seeing eye to eye here. The article already lists "basic" facts on the participation. It just may be lacking some background information (Which is readily available by wiki-linking). And with all due respect, I did not see Geometry guy raise the same exact concerns you raised. His concerns had to do more with the writing style of the article rather than additional composer and main song information. Regardless though, throughout this discussion there have been changes and additions made to the article that I feel are a fair compromise, that do not go into excessive un-necessary detail, but do provide basic background information. You can see the extent of the changes at [11], which is still a work in progress. Anyway, I feel like we should make a compromise on this, especially since there is currently a consensus on the current format by wikiproject editors, as well as the fact that not every year can follow the same pattern (as Geometry guy agrees) because of different circumstances. With all due respect again, I don't think that it must be done only your way when that is not the case. Greekboy (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For me, I believe that the article is not about the song, or the artist, or the country's participation in Eurovision, it is about what the country did to select their entry for the Eurovision Song Contest for that year. Of course there does need to be some detail about the songs or the artists, but just about a sentence or two to explain them. No one song or artist is as important as another, even though one song came out the winner and went to Eurovision. I also believe that the article has a broad coverage. I don't really see how the prose is choppy or how there is a lack of detail. The main goal of the article is explain what happened for that country in their Eurovision "journey". There are other articles for this information, articles on information based solely on the singer or the song or the producer or the songwriter or any number of things that can be related to the article. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If so, the article needs to be moved. The title is "Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008". When I read such an article, I expect to read an article about, well, Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest in 2008. If the article is about the "journey", then it needs a title like "Selection of Greece's 2008 entry for the Eurovision Song Contest". Geometry guy 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also about the promotion, the performance at the contest, the aftermath etc; the title is very appropriate. The problem is how much background info from related articles should be copied and pasted in. Now I've added a considerable amount without breaking the flow of the article and I think that solves the problem. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and do not recommend moving the article, but ensuring instead that the article reflects the title, not the need to tell a story about a journey. Encyclopedias don't generally do that. Geometry guy 21:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) I looked over the article again. The addition of a "background" section is a great improvement (summary style, hoorah!), which breaks the jolt that there was from the lead to the first section. The article is getting close to the point where I would be willing to dive in and copyedit it, rather than complain testily about the prose :-). I still think it needs a separate section on the song, between the "National final" section (which could be renamed "Selection process", perhaps with "National final" as a subsection) and the "Promotion" section: that actually would improve the flow by discussing what was promoted! If the structure is looking good by the weekend, I'll try to find time to copyedit. Geometry guy 21:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, so I can understand a bit better. What information would be added in this song section that is not already in the article? I am working on the article in a sandbox, but I can't seem to understand what other information could be added that isnt already in the article and relevant. If you take a look at the song page Secret Combination (song) mostly all of the information on it is already spread onto the Greece in ESC 2008 page. Thanks. Greekboy (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a pertinent question, perhaps the Eurovision material in Secret Combination (song) is better off in the Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008. The two articles are inter-related, so there will be some cross-over of material. SilkTork *^YES! 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the lead section of the article to readjust the focus. The information is now organised so that the most important information comes first. If you compare you'll see that in the new version the song that was entered comes early on, and the result is also in the first sentence. The next important information is who performed and wrote the song. The selection process is then mentioned, followed by the performance and a comment on the performance, and then what happened with the song, and finally, putting this years performance in context of previous years. That, in a nutshell, is the information that a reader might wish for. Then sections in the main body should expand upon each of these points. The order in which the sections go is not necessarily chronological, but that is an option. Rather than chronological it might be appropriate to have a general background section - which there is - and then a section on the Eurovision final, as that is the important aspect. The selection process is secondary to the selection process, and so that can come later in the structure. My personal feeling is that a section on the song itself should come before the selection process. My thinking on that is that the song is more known internationally than the selection process which was broadcast only in Greece. It is also a more pertinent question - "What was the Greek entry in 2008?" than "How did Greece select the 2008 entry?" - I'd like to see both questions answered, but in the appropriate and natural order.

My view is that the more I look at these articles the more work I see needs doing. As there isn't an agreement on how to structure and present them, it might be better to delist this and the others, and allow the contributors - in collaboration/consultation with myself and/or Geometry guy - to work on the articles so that there is some consensus on how they should be presented and what information they should contain. My feeling is that a period of work on the articles would benefit the articles, the contributors, the GA process, the Eurovision Song Project and Wikipedia as a whole. Accepting these as GA when there are so many concerns would benefit nobody.

I don't wish to delist and walk away. But I would like to feel that we could work together. If it is felt that my approach to the articles is more destructive than helpful, then I would not get involved. Regards as always SilkTork *^YES! 12:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So um, its been a few days. Geometry guy did you want to get in and copy-edit now? Me and Greekboy are pretty much done I think unless there are any more big problems left that we forgot. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do at least the lead and background sections soon, but I agree with SilkTork's post above and you haven't commented on it. I will shortly close the GAR as delist. Geometry guy 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So wait. Let me get this straight. Basically all the changes to the article have been made as requested, but yet it will be de-listed because there is no agreement on the structure of these type of articles --- which you agreed are not necessary to follow the same pattern, as each country and year is different. I am a little lost here now. You guys seem to be talking in circles about the issues. The issue raised by SilkTork was that there was not enough broad coverage, which was fixed, but also that there isn't enough song information in the article. When I pointed out that almost all the information about the song is already in the article (from the song's article), he didn't really give a definite response on that issue. Now you say to delist because more work needs to be done, but yet neither SilkTork or you jump in to do that work, or at least offer an explanation of what exact work needs to be done to keep it at GA. Greekboy (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You have had four days to respond to SilkTork's post, but did nothing. Then as soon as I comment, you jump down my throat. Thanks. SilkTork was the reassessor, and the only point where I have disagreed with him is that these articles do not all need to have the same structure. I agree with his comments on this particular article, and since no other uninvolved editor has commented, the only possible outcome at the moment is delist. Geometry guy 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I "jumped down your throat". I just saw the talk in my watch list today. I have not been very active on Wikipedia the last couple of days, which you can see from my contributions. I still don't really get what SilkTork's suggestions are for the article. I see that he mentions that the selection was only broadcast in Greece, which is NOT the case. It was broadcast by the EBU on their official site, as well as other foreign broadcasters as in previous years. So that would give the selection itself importance as well. The only other real thing I see in his comment is the order of the sections, which like he said, is an opinion. That shouldn't hold back a GA. From what I see on Wikipedia:Good article criteria, its well written, its verifiable, it now has broad coverage, it's neutral, its stable, and it's illustrated by images. The layout complies with Wikipedia:Layout, so I don't see what the real problem is. I mean sorry if I seem to not get it, but I honestly don't get what the real problem is here. Greekboy (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I too am confused now. I thought I was done since you said a few days ago that it was near the point where you would be willing to copy-edit it since we had added the background section. Your only complaint as of then seemed to be your request for a song section. So we then renamed the "artist" section as the song titles as that is a better fit, which also means that a song section was added, no? The "promotion" section was renamed "promotion of selected entry" and made a subsection of a new larger section "before eurovision" which includes "national final" renamed "selection process". We have addressed every issue in some way, if not exactly to your liking. What in particular makes this article fail GA besides some section ordering disagreements? It should not be "I'm the reviewer here are my demands", if the present state works, which I honestly feel it does, then there is no problem. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies guys. My feeling is that the current structure of the article does not highlight the chosen song sufficiently well, and scatters information about it. However, this may not be enough of a problem to prohibit GA status, in which case I ought to try and address the prose concerns (criterion 1a). I will wait for SilkTork to comment on your responses, and have another close look at the article myself. I think this reassessment would benefit from further independent views. Geometry guy 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(ec)I haven't looked at the article recently. I'll do that in a moment. But I wanted to address some of the concerns raised above first. I agree that it shouldn't be "I'm the reviewer here are my demands". It should be "here are my concerns" and "here are my suggestions for addressing those concerns". And it should be "I am willing to discuss the best way forward". I think I have done those things. However, the common theme here has been that the main contributors do not agree with the concerns raised, and we have reached an impasse. The best way out of this would be if some uninvolved person came forward and gave their view. But that hasn't happened. I feel that my part has largely been done here. I have raised a concern. The main contributors disagreed with my assessment so I brought it to community review where I expanded upon my concerns, and gave some background information which is pertinent to the concerns and considerations, though is not decisive in making any decision about GA status. The situation has not substantively progressed from where it was when I brought the case here. The main contributors and I disagree. I'm unsure how much that is going to change. I made an offer to assist, which was dependent on some measure of agreement or at least an ability to discuss disagreements in a positive atmosphere, and that hasn't been taken up. I wouldn't like to get into a stressful conflict over editing an article. My recommendation is to delist as the concerns still stand, and - I have just checked - there has been no progress on the article since I made edits to the lead on the 10th and made those comments and suggestions above. However, as there is a basic disagreement between myself and the main contributors I would prefer if someone else made the final decision so that it doesn't appear as though this is simply a personal issue. SilkTork *^YES! 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is exactly what I was talking about yesterday. You say that the concerns still stand, when they have all been addressed besides a structuring issue based on preference -- which in no way should be grounds for a delisting as it complies with both Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Layout. I don't see how delisting makes any sense since the issues have been addressed. Please take a closer look at it, as well as your original concerns which were in fact met. Greekboy (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I can see how the the talk about structure has obscured what I wanted to convey about my main concern with "Broad in its coverage". The aspects of "Broad" that I wanted to address are "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", which I felt would be assisted by reorganising the article, and by addressing the focus of the article. Where we disagree is on the central issue of what the article should be about. I have raised concerns that an article on Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 should have as a fairly central part of the article some solid information on the song that Greece entered, rather than simply a link to information elsewhere. And that information on what the performer of the song wore is very low down on the priority scale. I felt that looking at the way the article was structured would assist with addressing that core concern. It is not the structure by itself that I am concerned with, but the structure as a way of possibly helping to address the main issue. The structure is a means to convey the information. A well organised structure can aid both writer and reader in understanding an article and the main points. I was suggesting restructuring as a way of bringing the song into focus. However, that is incidental. The main issue remains. The main contributors are uncomfortable with having the song as one of the main points of the article. The main contributors feel that the performer and the performance ranks higher. I have genuine concerns that articles for which issues were raised about their ability to generate solid material, and which are also being used as templates for others to copy, are fundamentally not focused on the main points and so are not "broad in coverage". I feel I have explained and expanded on this a number of times and in a number of ways, but with absolutely no progress. I agree that I may be wrong in my understanding and interpretation of the criteria. I am always ready to be pointed in the right direction. Meanwhile, I don't feel that the decision on how this GAR is closed should be up to me. My concerns remain, but I may be wrong. I note that G'Guy is leaning toward accepting the contributors' view that the article does cover the main aspects with the current coverage of the song, and though I would be disappointed in Guy accepting that view, I would accept it, and learn from the experience. SilkTork *^YES! 22:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that it would mess up the flow of the article. Like we discuss the song right away and then later repeat it with the other candidates in the selection? Its not that the song is not important enough to get its own section, its that all of the information is there were it makes sense (though not entirely together: if someone wanted that I feel the song's page will suffice). This was the first article expanded into something credible. When we made it, we decided that its focus would be about the country's "journey to the contest", not really a summary of related events or topics. I can see how it would work if it were (sections: background, national final highlights, song, performer, eurovision, aftermath), but to me it reads better as a chronology. This is the only page for the national final and that is one of its focuses. I feel like if it were to be blurbs about different aspects of Greece's participation, it would not be as interesting an article and serve more as just a place to get a brief overview. I like it as an article answering the question: What went on with Greece's participation in the contest this year?; oh looks like a national final, oh they chose this song and there was a promotional tour. Its more interesting to read about the "journey".

Like I said from the very beginning, I knew there were some problems, reading it last month before all of this I was like huh, how did we miss this before, but the article has come a long way from when you first put it up for reassessment and I now feel confident that it should be kept as a GA. But, I too am eagerly waiting for more input, specifically from the original reviewer, who seems to have disappeared. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets try to get a better understanding of the situation. Like stated before, the current decision on what content to include in the article has been reached through consensus via the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision. These pages for each country in the Eurovision Song Contest each year are about the country's journey, which includes its national final, promotional tour, and such. Changing the structure of the article to be more about the song rather than the countries journey would go against the consensus and do more harm than good. The fact is that the articles main focus is not about the song only. The main focus is about the country's journey, which include the national selection process, promotion, performance, performer, and song. Like Grk1011 stated, these pages also double as pages for the countries National Finals (as determined by consensus again), since like you said, some are not notable enough for their own pages. Changing the structure of these article to focus solely on the song would mess up the original goal of these articles. If your only other complaint is the "unnecessary detail" about what the contestant wore, then that could be taken out. It was significant at the time, as the singer, Kalomoira had ties with Jennifer Lopez. (Besides being exclusively dressed by J-Lo, Kalomoira borrowed dance routines from J-Lo's past shows) Maybe more detail about that should be brought to light? But like I said, that could be taken out. You write that your main concern is what the article should be about and focused on. But like stated, there has already been a consensus on that in the wikiproject. I believe that broad coverage can be met, and has been met, with the current focus and format. I understand where you are coming from, but the structure that you are suggesting really does not fit in with the articles main goal. This is why I have been saying that the disagreement over the structure is based on an opinion. Do not take it the wrong way, I am not trying to explain the situation in an ill manner. I am just trying to clear some things up since it seems like we are going in circles. :) Greekboy (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I am confused: a major component of your argument with SilkTork is that these articles do not need to be structured in a common way, whereas now you are saying that they should be according to consensus at WikiProject Eurovision. I disagree with common structure, no matter who proposes it. The focus and scope of each article is determined by its title, notability issues, and what reliable sources have to say. I would expect that Sweden_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_1974 (once expanded) would have a very different focus to this one. No one is proposing to change the article to be about the song. However, turning it into a "journey" for "flow" is unencyclopedic, bordering on original research by synthesis, unless you have a reliable source that approaches the subject in the same way. Geometry guy 10:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. A request: if we are to go round in circles (as it seems), please can we try to be a bit more concise about it.

I didn't mean that it should have the same structure. I just meant that it should have the same focus in general. The current focus of these articles are its journey. (Which are the background, Selection process, Promotion, Performance, Performer, ect. --- how it got to its choice, and what happened after that) It is currently in an encyclopedic way, not like a book or fan-ish, full of sourced information. SilkTork's proposal was to focus the articles primarily on the song only, which would change the focus outlined by the wiki-project. Now having a guideline for a common focus doesn't mean that the structure has to be the same for each article. The guideline for the focus only is there to instruct user on what type of information should be included in these articles if available. That has to do with the circumstances of that year, but only if it fits in with that particular year. Greekboy (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done some editing which I hope combines the aims of those involved in this Review. I have removed some more commentary on the individual performances as these commentaries appear to attract criticism. However, I have mainly kept the existing structure. I have moved some text and done some rewording in order to clarify points, and to bring the song(s) into focus without swamping the article with information on the song(s). There is still a bit of copyediting to do, and some decisions to be made on the inclusion of material in the Promotion of "Secret Combination" and After Eurovision sections. I feel the material on Kalomoira's dispute with her record company belongs more appropriately in the Kalomoira article. And if we are debating how much information on the "Secret Combination" song should be in this article compared to the "Secret Combination", then information on the promotion of the song possibly belongs more properly in "Secret Combination". Though it is debatable if there is a need to have two articles which so closely overlap. Most of "Secret Combination" is about Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 - so some consideration needs to given to where these two articles diverge. Anyway, I wouldn't continue to object to this being GA on the basis of "it addresses the main aspects of the topic", though there are still the copyediting issues, and the question over inclusion of the material mentioned above which impacts on "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". My recommendation now would be to allow 7 days to do the copyediting and make a decision on the questionable material. SilkTork *^YES! 13:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the after eurovision section about her record label, etc. was added at the request of the original reviewer who felt that it would close the article well, which I think it does. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think that at least some of the performance information for the songs in the running should be included. Greekboy (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some commentary on the performances in the Final section of the selection process would be appropriate. But care needs to be taken on the amount and the type of commentary. SilkTork *^YES! 21:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think in general the article is better now, but still has some progress to make in terms of comments and suggestions already made but not acted upon. I'll see if I can get down and spend an hour or so on this tonight to attend to those suggestions. SilkTork *^YES! 11:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent reviewer opinion

I have approached this reassessment as though conducting a Good Article review, and without reading the above debate in any detail. I hope this will enable me to give a fresh perspective on the article. It is informative and well-researched, and I enjoyed reading it - I'm very appreciative of the amount of work that has gone into writing it, and I don't intend my comments below to be destructive in any way, but to help guide further improvements to the article.

Per the GA criteria:

• Prose: this would benefit from a general copyedit for clarity and flow. Some sentences come over as abrupt and disconnected, and awkward parsing leaves the text ambiguous in places. A few examples:
  • "Before Greece's win, its highest placing was third place, achieved by the duo Antique—of which Elena Paparizou was a member—in 2001 with "Die for You" and then again by Sakis Rouvas in 2004 with "Shake It"." Too much going on; split the sentence up
  • "Greece participated for the twenty-ninth time in the Eurovision Song Contest by once again entering after Sarbel's seventh place finish with "Yassou Maria" in 2007" Reads as though Sarbel had finished in seventh place more than once
  • "ERT originally proposed to Elli Kokkinou internally..." I think I know what this is getting at, but I'm getting a bizarre mental image... ;)
• Manual of Style compliance looks fine for GA
• Accuracy and verifiability: this seems reasonable, though...
  • Three of the links (one cited twice, so four refs) appear to be dead or broken:
    • http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=67&country=19
    • http://www.lgr.co.uk/music/news/13012/secret-combination-storms-into-uk-top-40/
    • http://www.lgr.co.uk/music/news/12899/kalomoira-hails-3rd-in-eurovision-well-done-to-greece/publisher=
  • The second paragraph of Background is unreferenced
  • I'm not 100% happy about the use of Greek-language sources without a translation provided for verifiability (though this isn't a major issue)
  • The article is bordering on a synthesis of primary source material in some places. The ideal source for the article would be a reliable secondary source entitled "Greece in the 2008 Eurovision Song Contest" (or something similar), where someone else has done the research first. However, I see no sign that the article uses its sources to advance any "novel conclusions", so as long as care continues to be taken I think this is OK.
• Broadness and focus: again, this looks fairly good. However,...
  • Some information on critical opinion of Greek participation (and perhaps the Eurovision itself) would help to flesh out the article. For example, the perennial Greece/Cyprus block-vote and the issues of 'friendly voting' might be worth a mention.
  • I think the article focus wanders in places. As a casual reader, I'm not really interested in what costume changes were made or what the backing dancers were doing, and I think descriptons of this don't work well in a written medium. I'd be more interested in, for example, finding out how the chosen songs were received by music reviewers.
• The final three criteria (neutrality, stability and images) look fine.

Given the above, I don't think the article currently meets the GA criteria, and I support its delisting unless the issues identified are addressed. It has the makings of an excellent article though, and I thank its authors for their work. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks EyeSerene. This is a very helpful review. Geometry guy 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll respond point by point. Yes, it does need a good copy-edit, though I should probably not do it since I know what I was trying to say when I wrote it so most of it probably makes sense to me already, though not the average reader. Eurovision.tv reorganized its website so I'll fetch a fresh link for that source. LGR likes to delete their articles after a few weeks so I'll search the wayback machine or whatever its called. The background section was thrown in to appease the previous reviewer (and its a nice addition), but other than its addition, not much attention has been paid to it; I don't know where I would find a source for that besides sourcing each year and somehow having the reader notice that some year's selections were different. With the Greek sources, I used Babelfish to translate since I'm not fluent, anyone challenging can do the same. There really aren't many music reviewers, so I don't know where I would find that and now I have a question: The Cyprus/Greece voting should go in the Background section?

Thank you for taking a look. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will also take a look and see what fixes can be made to the above concerns. Thank you for bringing in a new review opinion. Greekboy (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that most of the above concerns have now been addressed besides a few tweaks that still need to be made. I think that the article is progressing well. I just replaced the 2 LGR sources with other sources. Greekboy (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you've been putting in on this. I think the prose particularly has hugely improved, and the article organisation feel much tighter. The removal of most of the performance information is good too, although I agree with the above comments that its inclusion in the final is relevant. I'd still like to see something about how the Eurovision itself is viewed in Greece, as I think this characterises the nature of a country's participation - for example, in the UK it's taken less than seriously (with broadcaster Terry Wogan providing a very entertaining sarcastic commentary throughout) because the voting is seen as more about politics than music (ie the predicatability of which nations will vote full marks for each other regardless of the quality of their entries). I was wondering how, or even if, the same issues are perceived in Greece. Great work though so far ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I wasnt really able to find anything about song reviews, since that doesnt really happen in Greece, but this idea about how the contest is viewed in Greece might be easy to find in a source. (BTW, it is viewed as something of national importance, especially after the win). I am also on the fence about adding 2 sentences to the article on how Kalomoira herself was viewed in the contest. Specifically from an interview the other day: "In the same interview, host Eleni Menegaki stated that for her as well as many others, it was one of the most defining points in their view of Kalomoira's career to date. This was due to the fact that it displayed her as more of a mature professional performer, distancing her from the innocent little girl image people had associated her with after her participation in Fame Story." Greekboy (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested too, but think that the information EyeSerene is asking for may be better placed in Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest. Unless there is something specific about the reception in 2008 this is a bridge too far, and not needed for breadth of coverage. Geometry guy 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there was a specific view or reception of the contest in Greece for 2008 that differed from previous years....I don't know though. (If it should be included I mean) Greekboy (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the friendly voting between Greece and Cyprus. With the review, probably not going to happen, there aren't really any magazines or reliable sources that actually review albums and songs besides like whats on it and the writers on the songs. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re all the above, I think G'guy is correct that detailed exposition of the Greek view of Eurovision properly belongs in the parent article (otherwise you'd be repeating the same content for every 'Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest YYYY' article). All I was really asking for was a brief mention, which you have dexterously integrated into the article.

If reviews don't exist, that's not a problem. Consider that objection struck ;)

For the actual contest itself (and again, per G'guy we have to be careful to stick to the scope of the article), you mention that it's regarded as of national importance. Some reflection of this might be good in the After Eurovision section if sources can be found - ie how was a third place finish received? What did the news media have to say? Did the Greek public feel let down or pleased by the performance? I think this might help to balance the section, which at the moment is as much about the singer as about the contest. Personally, I'd be inclined to replace (or severely trim) the stuff about Kalomoira's record label and moving to the US, with your suggestion about the Eleni Menegaki interview - I think it's more relevant to the article, and might integrate nicely with my previous suggestion.

I think we're at the stage now where the final polish is going into the article, and I'd probably support its retention as a GA in its current form (obviously I can't speak for SilkTork though!). Those last few tweaks would be great though, if you have no objection ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the information about Kalomoira and the record label was related to Eurovision because she claimed that they made her pay for things while at the contest and did not honor the agreements they made before the contest. I worded it a little different to clarify that it was not just a general disagreement with her record label and tried to incorporate the Eleni Menegaki interview info at the end. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to look for sources on how it was received in Greece. I don't think it should be too difficult. So I guess now that Menegaki comment about her view on Kalomoira fits in? Also I am wondering if the actual final voting should be elaborated more. Like the fact that she led in the voting until the ex-soviet countries started to vote. (or would that be too objective and off topic?) Greekboy (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner - I was (entirely my own fault) without computer access over the weekend. The relevance of the record label stuff is clearer now, and I think the interview fits in nicely. Regarding the voting, as you suggest it's probably relevant as long as it can be stated without making it sound like political voting knocked her off the top spot (...unless, of course, it's been expressed that way in a reliable source!). I think you've done a fine job though, and pending other reviewer comments I am now recommending the article be retained as GA. Thank you for all your hard work. EyeSerene^talk 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I've expanded the lead slightly (and tweaked it a little) to include the prose changes discussed above and, I hope, better summarise the article. Please proofread/adjust/revert as necessary ;) EyeSerene^talk 21:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I will add in that part from the interview once again. I am still working on those other sources -- I had a busy weekend too. Greekboy (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It occurred to me last week that the remaining concerns raised by SilkTork might be addressed by flattening section 2 a little. On revisiting the article, I now see that this has been done. I think we have reached the stage where this GAR can be closed as keep. Geometry guy 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan Kotok

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

Result: No action. Further comments were made on improving the article towards the criteria, and some improvements were made, but there was no consensus to list as GA. The article can, of course, be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First thank you to Mattisse for the GA review; the article is in much better shape and has organization now. Second I am at a loss how to improve this. Kotok died suddenly and had few records (as may be true of a lot of engineers and scientists). I believe that I found and added every citable bit about him, either in this article or in one of several smaller articles that it led to. I apologize for not being a writer. On the other hand, if everything known is in the article, I am not sure it is a good idea to add a lot more. Alas the League of Copyeditors Wikiproject is closed, and only a few people have edited the article (in two years I count one, other than small grammar and category fixes). I think I would probably have passed this. -SusanLesch (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, SusanLesch as done an admirable job of collecting information. I do not think it necessarily needs "more" information, as much as amplification of the information already presented, and continuity in the narrative style. I am not familiar enough with computer science info realm (e.g. what a PDP-1 is, or whether I was correct to link single user (which redirected to Multi-user) to superuser as a substitute) to give the article what it needs. Due to his achievements, Alan Kotok definately warrants a well written article describing his contributions. Since the information is all there, I urge some knowledgeable editor to put a little time into the article and make it a GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with the reviwer's assessment that this article is not yet ready to be listed, and with the analysis given of the problems. All of the necessary information seems to be there, but it's almost like it's being spat out piecemeal, with no obvious themes linking sentences together. For instance:

At MIT, Kotok earned bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering. His teachers included Jack Dennis and John McCarthy. Kotok was a member of the Signals and Power Subcommittee of the student-organized Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC) which he joined soon after starting college in 1958. Kotok and his classmates are described in the book Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution by Steven Levy.

When this appears we have no idea who Krotok's clasmates were, or why anyone would choose to write a book about them. Neither have we been introduced to Jack Dennis or John McCarthy, who are just left dangling there. The information about the model railroad club only fully makes sense when we're told later that members of the club were allowed access to the computers. The reorganisation needed probably isn't that great, but it needs to be done. The prose also needs to be tightened up and varied a little. I lost count of how many sentences start off with "Krotok ...".

I'll offer to help with this article, but I don't think the work needed can be done during this GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be wonderful if you would do that. My sense is that the author would be willing to allow this GAR to be closed for the work to be done, and then would renominate it later. The article is intriguing and I would like to be able to read it and understand the information it presents. Even the W3C stuff, which I am generally familiar with anyway, I would like some expansion on his specific his involvement there. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with the above, but in some cases it may be better to cut material than flesh it out. For instance in the personal life section, we don't need to know that the Kotok's took photographs on one of their holidays. On the other hand, we do need to know that they married in 1977. According to the Kotoks' website, Judith was previously married to Don Beck, hence the stepchildren. This makes it an anachronism to say "Judie Kotok co-founded Tech Squares at MIT in 1967." At the moment the personal life section concentrates on his wife, and is very misleading. I also found the step-children issue confusing before I figured out about Don Beck: one of the two obituaries actually refers to them as Kotok's "children", not "step-children". At the moment the two obituaries are the only reliable secondary sources for this section: the other three are the family website, the choir's myspace, and the interview.

For another short example, in the "chess" section, we have "neither Kotok nor McCarthy were known as chess players—later in life Kotok loved bridge" and "The program drew criticism from Richard Greenblatt and more recently from Hans Berliner." I don't see the relevance of the bridge. If the criticism is significant, then we need to know what they said (and when was "more recently"?) If it isn't, just cut it. Geometry guy 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This GAR helped in that I now have two or three specific things to work on. I don't know anything much more about W3C, Mattisse, sorry, but can understand the comment about the paragraphs in MIT and Personal life. So thank you all. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Those two or three things are done. So what do you say? Mattisse, I did find a nice video reference about starting up W3C. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a SusanLesch connected with the W3C, and I thouht perhaps you were she![12][13] If someone like Malleus, who apparently is familiar enough with the subject matter that he understands the terms used and could connect the dots, (and who offered to help with the article) would work on the article, then that seems like a wonderful solution. Malleus says that this could not be done within the time limits of the GAR. Therefore, I would recommend closing the GAR, thereby giving Malleus the time he needs to deal with the article (along anyone else who may help). Then it could be renominated at GAN and would certainly pass then. I think this is the best solution. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We'd need a to do list, otherwise we are editing towards a vague unknown, which is the reason I opened this GAR. Yes that's me (pardon I edited a space in your comment) but verifiable sources about Kotok's role are hard to find. I think I did everything on that list so far. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  That isn't the role of GAR. We are here to determine whether the article meets the criteria, and give reasons. Producing a to-do list for fixing everything would take longer than actually fixing it. You have made some good improvements, and fixed some specific examples. I may make some further fixes myself, but I plan to close the GAR soon. If you are stuck for things to do, Malleus' made some general remarks about the prose style ("Kotok did this..."). Geometry guy 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it doesn't pass now is, "Somewhat choppy with short paragraphs". Again I apologize for not being a writer but I think I could pass this. I think we are seeking something unattainable, or at least not defined. It is fine with me if you close this GAR. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian Bale

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

Result: Delist per unanimous consensus Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is no longer of Good Article quality status. A large majority of the article is unsourced. This is not appropriate for a GA-rated article - especially one on a WP:BLP. The article is also not stable, and includes way too many purported fair-use images (5) - and many of the image pages have inadequate fair use rationales. Cirt (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You express considerable certainty here. Why is a community GAR needed? Could you carry out an individual GAR? Geometry guy 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I could. Honestly I don't recall ever carrying out an individual GAR before - all the GARs I had participated in, in the past, were those where multiple editors weighed in. I am not averse to it, by any means, I just wanted to stray towards the safe side with delisting an article. If there are no objections I guess the way to go would be simply to have a shorter Community-GAR. If no one objects after a couple days I will delist it. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Worth noting that this became a Good Article on May 17, 2006; this was the revision. I am not sure if the article can be fixed up so quickly. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per Cirt. The citation issues pose major concerns. I don't think a lengthy community GAR is needed in this case. Majoreditor (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per refs aren't as good as other BLP good articles. (consideration should be given to my lack of experience at this) — Ched (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per Cirt. Needs more references, especially for a BLP article. Current references need work - several are dead, many are lacking titles, publishers or access dates. However, Cirt, just as a comment, all of those fact tags are a little annoying. In the future, perhaps just drop one at the end of the paragraph when you feel that the whole paragraph needs citations? Other than that, good work on finding this one and keeping GA standards high. Dana boomer (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, far too many unreferenced statements, particularly for a BLP, and of the sources there, several seem sketchy/questionable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Maga

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Good article nomination review

Result: No action. The article can, of course, be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for a community reassessment on this article. It was recently failed for comprehensiveness and prose issues. I believe most of these prose issues were fixed during the GAN, and we can iron the rest of them out during the GAR. As for comprehensiveness, I believe the article is reasonably comprehensive as it is over 50 kb long on a person very little of you have even heard of. (That's not to say more can't be added; I'm having an updated Historical Dictionary of Dahomey shipped to my library on the loaning system.) This was probably with regards to background information that was requected at the GAN on the Dahomeyan political situation. I added some backgrond info, though did not want to overwhelm the article with it. That said, constructive comments are welcome. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Eddy, perhaps the simplest path forward would be to wait until you receive the book via Interlibrary Loan, add relevant material from the new source and then re-submit the article at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, renomination is the best way forwards in this case. Geometry guy 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, this article is not as comprehensive as it could be, but this is not FAC. I will receive the books, add the material, submit to peer review, and then nominate at FAC. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was not failed on comprehensiveness, but on breadth, amongst other things. If the GA breadth criterion can't be met, then there's very little chance it'll meet the much more stringent comprehensive criterion of FA. If you still believe that this article was unfairly failed at its GAN review, then you need to make it clear why you believe that. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm basically trying to see if my additions regarding the political background were enough for this to pass GA and, upon further improvement, FA. Malleus, you failed this for poor prose; could you provide further examples? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never failed any article because of poor prose. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You specifically mentioned poor prose at the end of the GA review. Granted it wasn't your only reason, but it is the other reason that I am attempting to form a concensus whether you were right or wrong. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

← The prose isn't bad but will benefit from wordsmithing and copyediting. Take these two examples from the first paragraph:

• • In 1951, Maga was elected to the French National Assembly, which has been cited as when regionalist parties arose. This sentence isn't clear. It's difficult to determine the antecedent for the relative pronoun "which". The sentence also sports an awkward passive construction.
    • I think I fixed it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • At the Assembly, he served in various positions, including Premier from 1959 to 1960. The title "Premier" needn't be capitalized in this context. (See MOS Titles of people: When used generically.)
    • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Of greater concern are the criterion 3 (breadth) issues raised by the GA reviewers. Why not get the book, work on enhancing the article, and renominate later? Majoreditor (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Several books arrived today (not the updated Decalo) and if they are any judge, the article is pretty complete. There might be a few facts worth adding, though not many. The reason I brought this to GAR was because I waited over 40 days for an initial review, and I don't want a repeat. Maga's death date is on May 8 and I would like it to be featured on that day. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise (40 days is not good) but it isn't the purpose of GAR to bypass GAN. I hope (if this GAR endorses the fail) that you will have better luck next time. Geometry guy 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Septimus Heap

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

Result: Due to improvements made during this GAR, there is now a unanimous consensus to keep this article as a GA. The conclusion of the procedural question is: lists cannot be GAs, but this article is not and should not have been a list. Geometry guy 23:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a procedural Good Article Reassessment, following a concern raised by the original GA reviewer (Mattisse) and the subsequent community discussion at WT:GAN#Question about lists and GA. The reasons for the GAR are:

• To resolve the question of whether this is a list or an article (lists cannot become GAs per WP:WIAGA#What is not a good article?, and should be taken to WP:FLC instead). The opinion so far is that Septimus Heap does qualify for GA, but more discussion may be needed.
• If the article is eligible for GA, there are some outstanding issues to be addressed for the award of GA status. To quote Philcha from the discussion linked above:

• The prose is rather immature.
• There's a shortage of objective sources - too many have personal or commercial reasons to be enthusiastic about the books. Google (for "angie sage" review) got me only one lead, Times Online (see below.) I could find nothing relevant on Metacritic for Magyk, Flyte, Physik or Queste. Times Online lists a couple of reviews and an article about plans to make one or more films of the books. It would be worth checking the sites of the other "quality" British papers - Independent, Guardian, Telegraph - to see if they have reviews. I have not tried Google Books or Google Scholar.
• I noticed one important but unsourced statement, "The series received mostly positive appreciation from the critic". There may be others.
• The list of characters is far too long, as I said above.
• The list of locations does nothing for me.
• The obvious comparison is with the Harry Potter series and should be included if at all possible. IIRC one of the Times Online articles quoted Angie Sage as saying the Harry Potter series convinced her there was demand for kids' / young adults' fantasy. After reading 4 of the Septimus Heap books I've seen no sign of the development that's visible in the Harry Potter series, where the tone changes as the main characters grow up. (Philcha (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[14])

To sum up, I don't believe the article is GA standard yet, but it can certainly be brought into line with the GA criteria. I hope we can work together to address the issues raised above and retain Septimus Heap's GA status. EyeSerene^talk 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• The sub-character list can be removed and created into a list of characters and so can be for the universe. Then the article would not qualify for a list. As for comparisons with Harry Potter, they are already included in the reception section of the article and complies with WP:NPOV. Even the character section has few comparisons too. so i believe a removal of hte character section is necessary, otherwise the article is GA standard. "Legolas" (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the lists are too long, and are the main non-GA passing areas. I would say a list of non-notable characters / locations fails WP:PLOT and the will written part of the GA criteria. But the main (?) editor there has already started planning how to move them to a sub-article. Most of the other points are covered up to "breadth" in my opinion. Comparisons to Harry Potter has a whole subsection. Development of the series likewise, and the authors inspirations. All are well enough sourced. The lack of quality or devlopment in the books has nothing to do with the quality of the article imo - most films also have virtually no character development, but that doesn't prevent them passing GAC.

A few more independant reviews would be good to see, but i don't think there is any reason they must be from newpapers rather than reliable web-sources. Lack of metacritic type coverage does make the "generally well recieved" comment difficult, but i think if a range (5 or 6 miniumum?) of reviews are found and all are positive, then this is an acceptable way to summarise them. I see that each of the book sub-articles has mltiple sources for reception. Note, I didn't check the prose for "immaturity" rather than errors. Overall, i think with the lists removed, this can quite easily br brought up to GA during the reassessment. Until then, a weak delist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 February 2009 Looking much better, so now Keep. May not be the best GA out there, but it is at least in the top half, so any further improvments are a bonus.Yobmod (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have developed a separate list of characters now and removed the big list from the main articel. Reviewers, please take a look. "Legolas" (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delist, at least until the prose is sorted out. Too many niggling little bits and piece for me, such as "Kimberley Pauley of Yabookscentral.com wrote that according to her ..." Who else would it be according to? "... the character of Septimus Heap and the world he inhabit was fully realized ...". I think it would be fine for GA after a bit of tidying up by a decent copyeditor though. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough has been done to persuade me that this article meets the GA criteria. It's not perfect, anything can still be improved, of course, but I think it's now a worthy GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  It's on its way, but in my view it still fails WP:LEAD. However, that is fixable, once the rest of the article is in good shape. Geometry guy 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  Are you arguing with me? How dare you! ;-) Leads are easy to fix once the article's sorted. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  "Wise words in the mouths of fools do oft themselves belie" ;) In this case, I couldn't have put it better myself :) Geometry guy 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ha, ha - "Legolas" (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The prose is a bit rocky, and crosses the "in-universe" line from time to time, especially in the "Characters" and "Universe" sections, which could profitably be converted into prose. I've given the "The novels" section a work-over, but the other sections need help too. Geometry guy 15:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  I've now prosified both subsections, but they probably need additional work, so comments are welcome here or on the article talk page. With Mattisse and Malleus joining in the copyediting effort, I'm optimistic that we might be able to save this one, but I will also not be unhappy if we delist with a view to renomination. Geometry guy 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  I apologize to you for making necessary all this work you are doing. If you can suggest ways I can help, I will. The changes you are making now are not ones I would have thought to do. Perhaps I will learn from watching you. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • You're doing your bit too. With the array of copyediting talent being deployed here I doubt this article will be delisted because of concerns over its prose. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Apologies are unnecessary, Mattisse. Your keen prose eye will be very valuable in ensuring the article meets the criteria. Feel free to copyedit the changes Malleus, myself and others make. Geometry guy 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  A real thanks to Matisse and Geometry Guy. Your edits are so good, that i'm just spellbound. Now this article is more GA standard than its previous version. Thanks a lot, guys!! You rock!! "Legolas" (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The article doesn't yet meet GA standards, but is moving in the right direction. The article needs copyediting and two sections — "Characters" and "Universe" — should be rendered as standard prose rather than bulleted lists. I also wonder if more authoritative sources exist. Majoreditor (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  The article has been copyedited and prosified. I share your concerns about the quality of the sources, which may reflect the knowledge of the main author, rather than the best sources available. The current version is less than perfect on the source front, but it may be good enough for GA. Geometry guy 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not a list In the current form it is not a list, in my opinion. Two lists that remain in the article are quite short. No opinion on other problems (I need to read article first). Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  I agree, it is certainly not a list now. However, overarching articles on book series like this shouldn't be lists anyway, in my view, so whether it was a list at the time of review is now doubly moot. Geometry guy 19:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  Doubly agree. "Legolas" (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Retain as GA There's been some hugely impressive progress over the weekend - great work from all concerned. I too believe we're almost there; I share the concerns about the sourcing, but think it's acceptable for GA. Only one minor point - do we need "popular" in the lead? EyeSerene^talk 11:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think that it hinders the acceptability for GA in any way, we can remove it. Not a big deal. "Legolas" (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you'd removed it. I think it was unnecessary - it came over as slightly POV, but more to the point such prose dates quickly (will it still be popular in six months time?). We're already told it's best-selling a few sentences later, so the reader can assume it's popular ;) Anyhow, thank vou for your hard work in response to this GAR - I'm now supporting this article's retention as a GA. EyeSerene^talk 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "popular" was my mistake. I was looking for a way to assert notability in the first paragraph of the lead, but that wasn't a good choice. Geometry guy 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe "well-received" if something needs to go in there? EyeSerene^talk 13:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article now meets GA criteria. Granted, there's still room for improvement. Majoreditor (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Mark 1

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

Result: List as GA, but without prejudice concerning the optimal structure or emphasis for the article, per discussion below. Geometry guy 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this article more than meets the GA criteria and that it was failed because of an ill-informed and idiosyncratic view of what such an article ought to look like, and the material that it ought or ought not to contain. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for failing it are given at Talk:Manchester_Mark_1/GA1#Conclusion_of_review. --Philcha (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification I will outline my objections to the reasons for failure:

• It is in my view perverse to suggest that a description of how data was entered into the machine and represented internally is "unnecessary detail". It is certainly true that Zuse had no contact with the Manchester team, but neither did Eckart and Mauchly, who the reviewer kept insisting be included because of their imagined input into the Mark 1's design. Zuse is mentioned only in the context of placing the development of stored-program computers into its historical context in any event, a section of the Background that the reviewer insisted be expanded, against my better judgement.
• Williams tubes did not quite rapidly displace mercury delay lines as "the standard memory technology" as the reviewer claims, and indeed were never "the standard memory technology". Both were quite quickly replaced by core-storage, because both had very significant disadvantages.
• I fail to see the relevance of a long list of features that the Mark 1 did not have, such as hardware interrupts and an operating system, which made it more difficult to program. Especially when that observation is considered against the objection to the article including features that it did have which made it more difficult to program, such as the need to break each 40-bit word into eight 5-bit chunks encoded by a modified version of the IAT2 teleprinter code, and then reverse the binary representation because of the machine's "endianness".
• The Mark 1 had two purposes, as I believe the article makes perfectly clear. Initially to provide a realistic computing facility for the university, but very quickly after work began to also provide a prototype on which the design of the Ferranti Mark 1 could be based.

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The GA process is not a good vehicle for resolving disagreements over content and structure. Such issues are better handled when all views are represented by editors on an equal footing, as contributors to the article, on the article talk page. My initial impression is that the differences of opinion on the content to include here are not major enough to be a GA issue, per criterion 3. There are many ways to write a broad article.

There's also nothing in the criteria about the target audience. All Wikipedia articles should be as accessible as possible, but it seems to me that this one is of greatest interest to readers who are expert in or fascinated by the history of computing, not necessarily modern programmers. It is not the role of every article on every early computer to emphasise just how different programming was then. They should certainly describe it and provide wikilinks, but I think the article now does a reasonable job, in part thanks to improvements made during the GAN review.

One issue I would question is the "Cultural impact" section: if this is notably about the Manchester Mark 1, rather than the Manchester project in general, then it is worthy of mention in the lead; if not, it could be cut. If kept then "unexpected" needs to be explained (who didn't expect it?).

Another small issue I noticed is the paragraph about index registers, beginning "Perhaps the machine's most significant innovation was its incorporation of index registers,..." The novice reader may find this disorienting, as the first additions mentioned are the multiplication registers, rather than the index registers. Geometry guy 20:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply

You make a good point about the "Cultural impact" section. The chronology suggests that the debate was sparked by the publicity surrounding the Manchester Mark 1 (and/or its prototype, the SSEM), and that's also what the source suggests, so it should be included in the lead, as you say. My excuse is that I only added that section yesterday, and hadn't thought about its implications for the lead. Thin, I know. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The reaction was unexpected by the developers, which I've clarified. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As a non-expert, I found the article informative and interesting, and think you've got the balance about right. I thought the passing mention you made of the lack of features we see today was enough, and with the descriptions of the advantages of the Manchester Mk 1 over its predecessors, was sufficient to set it in its historical context without going into unnecessary detail. The usual GA technicalities; references, layout, lead, images etc look fine. Personally I'd be happy to pass this as a GA. EyeSerene^talk 11:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would also pass this as a GA without any of the drastic changes called for during the previous review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Intention to close as list, but without prejudice concerning the optimal structure or emphasis for the article. The original reviewer has indicated on my talk page that, despite disagreements, the article is probably acceptable for GA anyway. Any objections to such a close? Geometry guy 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• No objections to Listing as GA.Pyrotec (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments hidden. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on the party, but...Oppose Listing. I find this article undercited. ...but it was mathematician John von Neumann who became widely credited with defining that computer architecture, still used in almost all computers.  Done --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC) The University of Manchester's Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM), the world's first stored-program computer, had successfully demonstrated the practicality of the stored-program approach and of the Williams tube, an ea rly form of computer memory based on a standard cathode ray tube (CRT), by running its first program in June 1948.  Done --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Stored-program computers were also being developed by other researchers, notably the National Physical Laboratory's Pilot ACE, Cambridge University's EDSAC, and US Army's EDVAC. The SSEM and the Mark 1 differed primarily in their use of Williams tubes as memory devices, instead of mercury delay lines.  Done --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC) On the the Intermediary Version programs were input by key switches, and the output was displayed as a series of dots and dashes on a cathode ray tube known as the output device, just as on the SSEM from which the Mark 1 had been developed. However, the Final Specification machine, completed in October 1949, benefitted from the addition of a teleprinter with a 5-hole paper-tape reader and punch.  Done --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC) All without a reference. Also, just wondering, how reliable a source the computer50.org site is. I mean, the article (here) attributes it to the University of Manchester, but the actual site only says it's done by a former faculty member. Seems like a self-published site to me. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Napper is a clearly reliable academic source, and he built the computer50.org web site for Manchester University's Department of Computer Science; the university claims the copyright for that material, so it's hardly "self-published".[15]. That von Neumann is widely credited with defining the computer architecture which bears his name is hardly contentious, but if a citation is demanded so be it. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• List. Meets GA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• List No objections now. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Peak water

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

Result: Endorse fail. See comments below. Geometry guy 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The reviewer the article completely forgot that this article is being assessed against the GA criteria instead of some loosely arbitrary article grade.

1. Well-written
2. Factually accurate and verifiable
3. Broad coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

We can look at individual issues, but these could have been given some time to correct.

"If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself. Otherwise state which criteria were not met on the article's talk page. Please detail the article's flaws to help other editors improve the article for another GA nomination." There were more issues than I felt could be fixed with a few quick edits. Failure is no barrier to another nomination if the article is improved per my suggestions. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[...individual issues and responses to them moved to the talk page of this reassessment for ease of reference...]

OK ... I get an F if it were a paper. But it's Wikipedia. I'm looking for collaboration on the article.Kgrr (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then ask on the talk page for the appropriate projects. That's what they're there for. GAN is for getting a thumbs-up or down. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Sometimes articles get dramatically improved during the review of a nomination, or an individual or community reassessment. However the primary purpose of the GA process is to assess articles against the GA criteria so that articles which meet them are listed as GAs and those which don't aren't. Reviewers can, if they want, list every possible concern for nominators to fix, or even fix the article themselves, but when there are many issues both may be impractical. In such cases it suffices for reviewers to give illustrative examples and/or point to general problems, and fail or delist. GA isn't a mechanism for collaboration, even if it sometimes results in collaboration. We all want to improve the encyclopedia, but we all have limited time and our own priorities. Geometry guy 21:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse fail. The review could have been more tactful, but it points to several clear GA problems with the article. It fails criteria 1a ("The peak usage sparks debates similar to those about peak oil." is unclear prose, and there are grammatical errors too), 1b (the lead doesn't summarize the article, and words to avoid are misused), 2b (and perhaps 2a: what source supports "Once an aquifer is contaminated, it is not likely that it can ever recover."?). It also fails on neutrality (criterion 4) in spades in the "Issues defy easy solutions" section. Even the section title fails WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia: its purpose is to inform its readers, not to tell them what they should do: we let the reader decide for themselves. At the very least the usage of "should" needs to be replaced by "can be".

Finally, there is a more serious issue: GAs should not contain plagiarized material, especially if it is copyrighted. This may be an issue here and I have given some examples (which I discovered before reading the "cut and paste" concern in the GAN review) on the talk page. Geometry guy 21:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse fail. Of particular concern are the criteria 1 and 4 deficiencies. The article's editors may wish to contact the folks at Wikiproject Environment for collaborative assistance or submit the article for peer review. Majoreditor (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)