Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 47

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 48)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 46) →

Bobby Kay

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

Result: No action. Reliance on one source is not per se a GA issue. In this case, additional sources have been found, so the issue is moot. A fresh GAN review is needed in any case. Geometry guy 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This nomination was failed for not meeting the criteria for verifiability. The concern was that too much of the article is attributed to the same source. I feel that this is in error because this concern is unrelated to the criteria listed under the verifiability requirements. Furthermore, while I agree that one source has been used quite a bit, I disagree that the article relies too heavily on that source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Currently about a half of the content relies on ref1, at most. I do not think that this is an impediment to its promotion to GA. Ruslik_Zero 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Ruslik that this is not a GA issue. However, the article needs to be reviewed again, and has not received in depth comments here. I therefore recommend renomination at GAN: subsequent reviewers can be pointed to this reassessment if they are concerned about the reliance on this source. If there are no objections, I will close this reassessment as no action. Geometry guy 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not thrilled with the idea. I waited 31 days for the initial review, 8 days trying to get a response from an absentee reviewer, and 20 days waiting for comments on the reassessment. It was nominated in November, it's almost February, and the idea of waiting another 30 to 60 days to get an actual review holds no appeal for me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

    I sympathise, but the popularity of GA and the shortage of reviewers impacts both at GAR and GAN. You have an offer from Wizardman to look at the article, which you might still be able to take up. Geometry guy 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have time tomorrow to review the article. If no one objects, I'll review it. I've gotten countless articles to GA, FA, and FL, so I understand what a good article is. Would be happy to help.--WillC 08:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Many thanks! I'm happy to close this GAR on that basis. Geometry guy 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Closing anyway per previous comments. I hope you or Wizardman will have time to review the article in the near future. Geometry guy 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fluorescent Grey EP

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

Result: No action. No progress is being made on the article and this reassessment has received no attention; renomination at GAN is recommended. Geometry guy 22:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In a similar case to that of Breakout (Miley Cyrus song) below, user MisterWiki quick-failed my nomination of Fluorescent Grey EP with little rationale or advice on how to improve the article (see review here). 1b and 3b are Neutral with no rationale. He says the article is written from a "fan point of view" (suggesting NPOV, although in the Breakout review he references fancruft, which is a bit different), although no specific examples are given. He was also critical of my use of primary sources, which do take up a sizable chunk of the article, although I posted the following on his talk page:

"WP:PRIMARY has not been violated: the article is not entirely based on the use of the Deerhunter blog, no synthesized or interpretative claims have been made based on these sources, and the information is "verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge." I don't see how it's that different from an interview done by a music publication. This is not as "primary" a source as the music itself; making interpretive claims with these Deerhunter blog posts would not be that different from doing the same with a Deerhunter interview on another website." Indeed, they are more like "1.5 sources" to use a made-up term from a Wikipedia essay: it's not the music itself, which would really be a primary source, but it's still self-published by the band.

Before this story gets too long, I'll say that I asked MisterWiki on his talk page to reconsider his review. He told me if I relisted it at GAN he would review it again, although just today he was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and block evasion, among other things. His block appeal was rejected, although he put a second appeal template on his talk page. In light of that, I would really appreciate it if I could have Fluorescent Grey EP reviewed. Thanks! --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 03:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(note: MisterWiki has been conditionally unblocked.) --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 01:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops!... I Did It Again World Tour

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

Result: No action. Stale review, renomination needed. Geometry guy 20:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This nomination was failed for not meeting the criteria of coverage. The reviewer said that there was not enough information on the background section, such as "the backup band, the other dancers, the touring technical crew, the various local technical crews, the staging, the lighting, the sound system, the wardrobe and makeup people, the tour bus, the freight trucking, the airplanes". There is really no information on any of these and i really had to look for details in the tour reviews to make a small paragraph about the stage and props. There were also no wardrobe malfunctions or problems, are least not noted by a reliable source. Another concern was that the article lacked pictures. The tour poster is the only one i found. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A few minutes of looking online and I found Michael Tait of Tait Towers to be the stage set designer. Showco was the sound company, and they used their PRISM system. Raza Sufi became her monitor engineer in August 2000 and he immediately put the entire backup band on in-ear monitors and headset mics. (I don't know who he replaced.) Sufi continued into the next tour by Spears, as did Showco and many of the techs involved. Spears did not use in-ear monitors—instead, she used monitor wedges, proprietary to Showco, the SRM wedge. Pre-recorded vocals were run from an ADAT player as replacement for Britney's voice when she danced. This is in the February 2001 tour profile in MIX magazine. Kevin Antunes was the musical director for Spears, and also for Enrique Iglesias. Mark Foffano was the lighting director. It appears that Richard Channer may have been the tour manager. Felicia Culotta was on the tour as Britney's assistant. This Billboard article says a number of the 2000 concert dates sold out, some in one day. Bruce Kapp of CCE was concert promoter. Average audience size was 15,841; average ticket price $31. Tim Miller appears to have been production manager. You had none of this in the article. I do not think this article is ready for GA. Go find the lighting industry magazines, the sound industry magazines, the touring industry, etc. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I do research in regular sources, like magazines and newspapers. I based the article on other tour pages that are GA, such as Madonna tours. They don't have any of this information and still passed GA. I will add the information you researched to the article. Sorry. Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I added all the information and provided some i researched. I think that the development section is covered. None of the opening acts benefited from the exposure, that's pretty clear. I corrected the spelling mistake and there are no free pictures from the article. Xwomanizerx (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some of the tour's technical information. This is a good start. However, the article mostly describes what was on the then-current tour, the Dream Within a Dream Tour, and only mentions a little of what was on the Oops! tour. One niggling point is that the canned vocals were said in the article to be running in the background on ADAT, not DAT which is what you wrote. I still feel that more should be done with this article, including turning the "Opening acts" section into prose, describing how Spears felt during or after the tour, how the tour results affected the next tour, what her production people said. Lack of action photos is a serious gap. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Turned the opening acts section into prose. I can't find any other statements from Spears apart from the ones about the setlist and the comparisons with the previous tours that are already in the article. I also can't find any pictures. Anyway, thanks for helping. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-harm

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

Result: No action. The article was significantly improved during the reassessment. It remains as a GA without prejudice. Geometry guy 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A number of issues need to be addressed

• should be ordered per WP:MEDMOS

This should be now, I have changed the section titles back to those used in WP:MEDMOS and re-ordered the sections accordingly. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• a number of references need expanding 44-46 for example

I have expanded many of the references now using the {{citation}} template. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• no mention of Munchausen Syndrome and by proxy, should a least be discussed in the classification system to define how it is different / similar

This addition requires an expert to make, do you have any sources that discuss the links? Nevertheless I don't think the lack of this information would be reason to delist the article. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in the Pathophysiology section we do mention that one motivation of self harm is to seek attention, however it is noted that in the majority of cases of repetitive self harm attention seeking is NOT the primary motivation. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The attention seeking misconception is also already discussed in the classification section. So although we don't wikilink to Munchausen Syndrome we do certainly already deal with this issue. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lesch-Nyhan syndrome is listed under diet and drugs but this is a rare genetic condition

I have removed the reference to the this syndrome. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The cause section should be broken in causes and pathophysiology ( the supposed psychological and neurochemical reasons )
• Self-injury awareness is more of a prevention measure rather than a treatment measure.

I have created a new "prevention" section and put SI awareness as a sub heading. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• The wording in a number of sections is poor. For example in the lead after listing specific mental illness that are associated with self harm mental illness is mentioned as a cause.

I have removed the repetition of mental illness as a cause in the lead section. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Eating disorders are mentioned twice in the lead but not mentioned in the body of the text in the cause section

But eating disorders are discussed in the classification section. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• The cause section has no subsection specifically on psychiatric illnesses even though this is the primary "cause"
• Red links such as culturally sanctioned self-mutilation should not be linked at all.

This has been de-linked by Guerillero. However I think Self-injury Awareness Day should stay as it a legitimate red link, unless red links are not allowed in good articles? Jdrewitt (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

They are not disallowed but having many red links does not look good. The link has to be WP:notable and if it is not it should not be linked. BTW it looks like it is American?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A google search for the exact phrase "self injury awareness day" gives 9,720. I know that doesn't necessarily make it notable but it does seem to be a recognised annual event. I've seen references to it from both american and UK websites. It is the only red link left in the article, I don't think it needs to go but if others do then I wouldn't mind. Jdrewitt (talk)21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have started the page with its one google scholar hit. Will see if it people add to it and it passes notability.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Psychological explanations, Motives, Cultural motives are sort of all the same.

I don't agree that Cultural motives are the same as Psychological motives and these should be kept under seperate sub-headings. But I do agree that the causes section needs sorting out. I propose renaming "Psychological explanations" to "Psychological motives" and merging the text that is currently in "motives" into this new section. Jdrewitt (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done this now but some more work needs to be done to make the subsection "Psychological motives" more coherent and succinct.Jdrewitt (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now improved this section somewhat. Jdrewitt (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Non stable as effort made to keep this from meeting WP:MEDMOS
• The epidemiology section does not give number / estimates of the rate of occurrence. This ref gives some numbers [1]
• Some of the paragraphs should be broken up into two as they are too long.

I've now split the longest paragraphs. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• The naming of the article needs to be address with WP:RS The ICD10 says self harm thus we need significant justification not to use this terminology also self harm get 1517 pubmed hits as opposed to 844 with Self injury. A this text says the main forms of deliberate self harm are self injury and self poisoning. Self harm is therefore slightly more inclusive. [2] Currently under the classification section we say that self harm includes poisoning but the above ref indicates that it does not.

But that is a list of every way a person can commit suicide...--Guerillero (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that re-naming would expand the scope of the article, the article currently stands at 48kb, so any significant addition of material to cover the broader area would necessitate splitting anyway, the most sensible solution would seem to be creating a second article which covers the broader definition, and could act as a grouping article for the related issues. --Nate^t/_c 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it would expand the scope too much. If the term self-harm includes everything mentioned in this article plus self-poisoning then that isn't really much of an expansion. We do already talk a little about self-poisoning in this article. I think a name change to self-harm would be the way forward and then a new article could be created for self-poisoning if necessary. By the way, I have seen examples where Deliberate Self-Injury is used as an equivalent term to deliberate self-harm. For example, Klonsky, Clinical Psychology Review 27 (2007) 226–239. So I don't think the definition is formally defined. Some academics do still use the terms interchangeably. But I agree, in the vast majority of academic papers the term "deliberate self harm" is used and covers both "self-injury" and "self poisoning". Jdrewitt (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't thats the problem. --Guerillero (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the need for focus in an article. To cover (non-lethal) self-poisoning would mean needing to cover alcoholism and drug use, self harm would also reasonably cover self-inflicted wounds and potentially body modification etc. not a small scope. I think having a separate article called self-harm that discussed all these in summary style, and directed to the relevant articles, would split out some of the definition material from the SI article and would allow the inclusion of any overlap as relevant, rather than having to exclude it entirely of include a great detail of information that is only related tangentially. --Nate^t/_c 10:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Once these are addressed further issues will be discussed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What needs done now? --Guerillero (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of the above still need to be done. Some references need formatting. Some content needs citing. The section on mental illness need to clarify the degree that different mental illnesses are associated with this problem.

The issue of the naming of the article has not be sufficiently address. The disease box needs to be expanded. The article lacks depth of coverage and is still narrow in scope.

Some of the history section is not history but belongs under classifications.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To resolve the name problem we would need a consensus. How do you go about getting that? Start a vote in the talk page? Most of this seems to technical for me. I know why you need this. But I don't know where to start looking for sources.--Guerillero (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You could just go about moving the page, you could fill a request for comment, or you could start a pool on the talk page. The world health organization guidelines is what we should go by. I have posted a link to it somewere. Google scholar can help.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we will find this out soon.The vote is here

The name has been changed. Is there anything that needs to happen because of it? --Guerillero (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made all the fixes resulting from the name change I think. The question is, does the article now meet the GA criteria? Fresh bulleted comments below would be appreciated. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Break

A number of the above have not yet been dealt with. Will add to this as time permits.

1. The causes section is tagged with an expand section. Munchausen syndrome should be discussed under mental disorders. This paper mentions it. [3]

   I've already commented about this above. The article does deal with the issue of attention seeking. This is essentially what Munchausen syndrome is right? However, it is noted in the article that it is a common misconception that self-harm is attention seeking behaviour whereas in fact for many people it is the opposite and individuals often conceal their injuries, which is also a reason why the statistics for self-harm prevalence are inaccurate because many sufferers do not seek attention or help. So I don't think it is the same thing and it definetly isn't a reason to downgrade the article. It should instead be discussed on the talk page. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   Munchausens is not attention seeking it is a mental disorder of unknown cause with the primary symptom of the condition being self harm. The causes section does not go into sufficient depth at this point. Eating disorders is another condition that should be discussed under causes as they are mentioned in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

2. In other animals is also tagged.

   I have expanded this section, added some images and removed the tag. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

3. There are three citation needed tags.
4. Lacking in images

   I have added two images, also see my comment below. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Image wise what are we looking for? My guess is we may want picutures of the diffrent types of self-harm. And how graphic is in good tastes?--Guerillero (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of images of self-harm in other animals. The use of images in this article has been the topic of numerous conversations which can be found in the tak archives. In short it is difficult to find suitable freely available images of self inflicted injuries, note the word suitable. Other images would include those that give insight into the demographics or statistics associated with e.g. the prevalence of self-harm but this also assumes reliable data and suitable free images. Note, The previous world map image, that I removed, would have been ok if it had been explained properly and that the data was deemed reliable, i.e. if it was showing worldwide prevalence of self-harm then is there really a greater than 2:1 prevalence in russia compared to the uk? Jdrewitt (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think we really need more than a single image of self harm. I was thinking further graphical comparisons of data such as worldwide prevalence. I re added a map based entirely on WHO data.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you shouldn't have re-added the map, in fact I find the behaviour quite reckless. It has already been removed TWICE and you have failed to address my concerns about the map, refused to even enter discussion. I have left the image in for now as I'm not interested in having an edit war with you but I would appreciate some discussion about the usefulness of the image you added, its accuracy and what it actually shows. Also an image without appropriate explanation is useless and you have refused to provide that explanation. I'm not happy about this, I haven't got some personal grievance with you or your images I just wanted my concerns addressed. The image should NOT be in the article without sufficient explanation and until the concerns on the talk page are addressed, i.e. what does the map exactly show and is it reliable enough to include. It may be WHO data but that doesn't automatically make it accurate, as I have already said "is there really a greater than 2:1 prevalence in russia compared to the uk?". Jdrewitt (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You justification for removing the map ( that I have not yet provided text to accompany it ) is not sufficient for removal and you did not have consensus to remove it. The fact that it is WHO data does make it reliable. It is explained right in the title what this make shows DALYs. This is neither prevalence nor mortality data but DALYs. Yes few will have a good understanding of this idea but they can click the link to find more information.

We are by the way in no position to determine the accuracy or reliability of the World Health Organization. I am not sure who you think should determine this but the WHO?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the map. It uses a fairly obscure measurement unit. (Remember wikipedia is for laymen not doctors) It adds nothing directly to the article;p just because its from the WHO does not mean its needed.--Guerillero (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

However we have an entire page describing DALYs? Much of Wikipedia is obscure. Were else do we have a global perspective on self harm? If we had I better map I would be happy to look at it. A number of other parameters were looked at by the WHO. Would you prefer a map with a different one?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please could you take this discussion to the article talk page, I don't think it is overly relevant to the GA reassessment process. Regards, Jdrewitt (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree as it is not directly related to this review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1. There is issues with the wording. "Self harmers" is similar to using patient and IMO should be avoided as unencyclopedic.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
2. We also have issues with the references. This statement is not a good synopsis of the original "due to this prevalence the term self-harm is increasingly used to denote any non-fatal acts of deliberate self-harm, irrespective of the intention." "As a result, the term deliberate self-harm is increasingly used in Europe to denote any nonfatal acts of self-harm, irrespective of the intention.)"
3. Also the above ref has a copy avaliable online that was not linked too.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Notification of intention to close. This is a community reassessment, not a battleground. Recent edits have been moved to the talk page. I intend to close it shortly as "No action". If editors believe that this article does not still meet the GA criteria then a new community reassessment can be opened. Thank you. Geometry guy 22:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  There appears to have been a misunderstanding, so I do not intend to act on this notification yet. Geometry guy 23:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the revert. Was mistaken regarding the assessment type.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable G Guy --Guerillero (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally would also be relieved if the reassessment is closed as no action. I am happy to address any remaining concerns with the article on the article talk page. If a future reassessment is required then I hope it can be first discussed on the article talk page. Thanks Jdrewitt (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There continues to be issues of references, prose, and insufficient detail regarding causes. Thus this article does not yet fulfill these three GA criteria. Some of the details regarding this are discussed above.

Looked at the GA review from two years ago and it was a tentative keep at that point in time WP:Good article reassessment/Self-injury/1 Many of the comments made than have not been addressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

<Moved to talk>

Break 2

• Review. This reassessment needs independent review comments, and I've been asked to provide some. Here they are.
  1. I found it hard to verify some of the content of this article. This mostly concerns the definition of "self-harm" and the motivations and causes, so I will start with that. The first sentence

     • "Self-harm (SH) or deliberate self-harm (DSH) includes self-injury (SI) and self-poisoning and is the deliberate infliction of tissue damage, alteration, or poisoning without suicidal intent."

     seems to exclude suicidal intent (although the prose here is ambiguous, and may only be excluding suicidal intent in self-poisoning). While I can see from the sources that self-harm does not usually involve suicidal intent, some include it. Conversely, the term "suicidal behaviour" is used in some sources (including the major source "Deliberate self-harm in adolescence") to include self-harm without suicidal intent. This is confusing for the reader (e.g., the sentence "Self-harm in such individuals is not associated with suicidal or para-suicidal behaviour.").

     I also looked into the issue as to whether self-harm is attention seeking. The sources and article concur that it quite often isn't but I wasn't able to verify

     • "A common belief regarding self-harm is that it is an attention-seeking behaviour; however, in most cases, this is inaccurate."

     For this I would need a source both for the common belief and for "in most cases". I also do not know what "some individuals suffer from dissociation" means or how to verify it.

     Regarding Münchausen syndrome, it is clear from that article that self-harm is one behaviour that syndrome sufferers use, so there is an overlap, worth mentioning, perhaps even to illustrate that this is atypical self-harm. Obviously "by proxy" and other variants have nothing to do with self-harm.

  2. "Signs and symptoms" also begins with some general statements that could be attributed to generic sources but aren't.
  3. Many of the sources concern self-harm in the young (c. 11-30?) and state that this demographic is particularly prone to self-harm. This isn't made very explicit in the article, and hardly at all in the lead.
  4. This brings me to WP:LEAD which might fix much of the above. The lead does a good job explaining the complexity of self-harm, but does not summarize the article well (for instance epidemiology, history, and animals are unaddressed). Both article and lead may need fixes to work in harmony.
  5. "In a study of undergraduate students in the United States..." Which study?
  6. Gender differences. I'm surprised there is nothing on the tendency for males not to report illness/harm compared to females.
  7. In the developing world. This is a case study based on Sri-Lanka. There is no original research on Wikipedia, so the article should confine itself to describing the finds in the study.
  8. The reference (currently #60) to the WHO "Ad Hoc Committee on Health Research Relating to Future Intervention Options" surely has a weblink.
  9. Images are not required for GAs. In particular, the last section on animals only needs one image, not two, to avoid sandwiching the text.
  10. The Wellcome Trust Reference seems quite helpful as a back-up source for accepted material: it could be cocited more often.

  Thats all. I've numbered my comments so that it should not be necessary to break up the above review with replies: please comment below. Geometry guy 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Geometry guy. Also, for clarity purposes, would it be possible for Doc James (or any other user who wishes to do so) to re-list any of the outstanding issues that they feel have not yet been addressed above. If they could also be numbered (if its possible to continue the same sequence?) then it will be easier to reply to everything. Thanks. Jdrewitt (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

11)My greatest concern currently is the causes section. It has been reordered substantially but still needs to be expanded and clarified. When it says "some" it should state how many. Information on genetic conditions and mental illness should be expanded. Currently we have only one line on LNS. A number of prominent mental disorders are not mentioned ( muchausens). The diet section does not provide any evidence that diet causes self harm just aggressive behaviour. The two people in the case studies had obvious mental illness that failed other treatments and implying that allopurinal is promising generally is not supported by this evidence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this isn't in any specific order:

(2) - I have added a couple of generic sources into the "signs and symptons" section. On the subject of generic sources, I personally think the Mental Health Foundation 2006 report truth hurts is an excellent source for general information on self-harm. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(11) - I have removed the diet section, I don't think it did anything to improve the article, as you say it is concerning aggressive behaviour and not self-harm, although one of the patients did self-harm it certainly isn't conclusive evidence. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(8) - On performing a google search for "Document TDR/Gen/96.1." many different publications were suggested. I'm not sure what the reference is referring to. The reference is citation number [15] in the Eddleston reference. Since its the Eddleston reference where the statement was orginally taken from I think its safer to cite Eddleston so that is what I have done. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(5) - I think its referring to the Vanderhoff, H., and Lynn, S.J. (2001) paper, but I don't have access to the full text of this publication and so cannot verify, maybe someone with access to medical journals can verify this? Jdrewitt (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(6) - This reference Rodham, K. et al. (2005), "Deliberate Self-Harm in Adolescents: the Importance of Gender", Psychiatric Times 22 (1) discusses gender differences and differences between genders in (i) presenting to the hospital following self-harm and (ii) in motive for engaging in this troubling behavior. This is already cited in the article so should be easy enough to mention. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) - I have addressed your first points in the lead. Hopefully the definition is now clear and the association with suicide is clarified. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(3) - I clarified the greater prevalence of self-harm amoung younger people in the lead section. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(10) - I have cited the welcome trust reference some more in the lead. The reference also contains many citations that could be useful. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Right that's about all I can do for now, I have work committments for some time now. I hope the changes I made to the lead have improved things and hope some other editors can step up to the mark because unfortunately I've run out of time for a bit. Cheers, Jdrewitt (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(11) I added some more information on genetics and added some information on munchauusen's. Can you check if its in the correct place? I don't have a medical or pyschology background so not sure what heading it shoud go under. Thanks. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Close

Since all points have been resolved (I think) and nothing else has been brought forward in the past 2+ weeks can we have a consensus to close this and keep it on the last of GAs? --Guerillero | My Talk 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is more I would like to do. I have addressed most of geometry guys and Doc James' points but some do still remain. Of course the time allocated for GAR has to be finite, it can't go on forever... I personally think this is a good article with excellent citations. I will continue to edit and improve the article to the best of my ability for as long as I am on wikipedia, which I have no intention of leaving anytime soon! I think also the GAR process has brought users together and I think that the article now has an effective collaboration of editors dedicated to improving the article. So the question that remains is does the article as it stands now meet GA criteria? Jdrewitt (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• If this question is not answered by 16 February, I may close as "no action". I hope, however, that improvements to the article will continue to be made before then. Geometry guy 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have been involved in editing this article will leave it to others to decide.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ateneo de Manila University

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

Result: Endorse delist per comments below. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This article was very recently delisted. I did not notice it was being reviewed and only noticed its delisting because another university being nominated for the same process prompted me to look up its status. There doesn't seem to have been much activity in reaction to the review so in combination with my not seeing it I'm wondering if there was proper notification. If I had known I might have helped to address the concerns. Looking at the actual review a significant amount of the negative seems to be about the formatting. I'd like to ask the opinion of those involved here how significant the problems listed by the reviewer are and if its not that bad whether the problems can be quickly remedied. Lambanog (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have taken a cursory look at the review and the concern that I have is that the reviewer mentions that this is a high level review. It's simply looking at the article as a whole and pointing out significant problems (too many embedded lists, 10 dead links, stub or single sentence paragraphs and section). Certainly these could be corrected but that would only open up the article for a more thorough review which would likely bring up more issues. What I'm trying to say is that from what I can tell, simply addressing the issues brought up initially would not (in the opinion of the reviewer) satisfied the GA Criteria, more review and possibly more work would still be required. Perhaps more importantly, another user Rmcsamson was aware of the review at least enough to ask for clarification, which was provided, and then nothing was done. Nine days between review and delist is plenty of time to at least indicate a desire to work on the article. My recommondation would be to do the work required by the review, ask the reviewer to do a more thorough review (or list it at Peer Review) and then renominate for GA consideration. H1nkles (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was the one who delisted the article. When first reviewing it, I notified Rmcsamson, because from the edit history he seemed to be the main contributor. I did not notify Lambanog, who does not figure prominently in the edit history. H1nkles is correct that this is a high-level review; once these changes are implemented this would essentially be a completely different article, and a new review would be necessary. I believe I followed proper protocol when delisting the article, but if Lambanog, or anyone else, would like to revise it, I would suggest they simply list it on the Good Article nominations and then contact me directly. I will then try to get to it as soon as possible, which will circumvent the long queue at GAN. Lampman (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. In my view this review was conducted excellently. Notifications are a courtesy but not a requirement at GA, since articles can be renominated at any time: editors interested in maintaining the GA quality of an article are assumed to be watching it so that it does not deteriorate (GAs can also be delisted at any time). In this case, there was a courteous notification anyway. In addition the review points to areas where considerable work is needed to meet the GA criteria; nevertheless the article was put on hold to allow for the possibility that improvements would be made. I have looked at the article and there are substantial outstanding issues:
  • There is a heavy reliance on primary (and self-published) source material (2a): GAs must meet WP:V and use reliable secondary sources. Just to pick a few examples at random:
    • "The following decades saw escalating turbulence engulf the university as an active movement for Filipinization and a growing awareness of the vast gulf between rich and poor grip the entire nation."
    • "Ateneans also played a vital role together with student organizations from other prominent colleges and universities as student activism rose in academe in the 1970s"
    • "The Ateneo de Manila is also home to the largest Jesuit community in the Philippines, most of whom reside at the Jesuit Residence in the Loyola Heights campus." The superlative cannot be sourced to the institution itself.
  • The article goes into unnecessary detail (3b). This is the origin of many of its problems with layout, list incorporation and an overly long lead (1b).
  • The prose is unencyclopedic in places (1a) and there are NPOV issues (4) which the reviewer did not raise but hinted at in the reliance on primary sources. In several places, the article, while informative, is promotional. In addition to the above examples, the Social Initiatives section has "The Ateneo has grounded its vision and mission in Jesuit educational tradition." This, and the entire final paragraph of the section, is marketing, not encyclopedic prose.
• In summary, I think this reassessment can be closed straightforwardly as Endorse delist, so that the article can be renominated when editors have time to work on it. Geometry guy 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Delisting. Although the article is quite nice, it has some issues which need to be addressed before it's ready for re-listing. My biggest concern is the reliance on university sources (2a); I lost count of the the number of times the article cites such references. There are also minor MoS concerns and unnecessary detail, as outlined in the GAR. With a modest amount of work the article can be brought back to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol in the Bible

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

Result: Delisted per individual GAR and comments below. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 21:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

An individual GAR was done last year as part of the GA Sweeps project. This review was inconclusive after much discussion. Given the controversial nature of the content of this article I felt it important to submit the article to a community reassessment. Since it is part of the GA Sweeps project a decision regarding its status will need to be made. I am seeking community help in this. Thank you. H1nkles (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the previous individual review can be found here, it is also transcluded on the article's talk page. Rather than rehashing the issues raised in the individual review I think it best to refer you to the actual review so you can read it yourself. H1nkles (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't see whjat is controversial in the article. There are two 2nd opinions on the GAR. No action has been taken since August 2009. If you aren't happy with it then delist it. If you feel that it meets muster keep it. But please finish teh GAR off one way or the other. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks the controversy revolves around whether or not Jesus drank. Not that I, as the reviewer, have to dabble in the controversy, it's just that when I stepped into the review I had no idea how contentious it would be. The automatic knee jerk reaction to delisting is that it is prompted by personal opinions about content. Your opinions make sense except that another user, David Fuchs, kept it held and didn't really want to touch it. If it is as simple as you say then I'll delist and let the consequences roll. If there are no other thoughts in the next couple of days then I'll pull the trigger. H1nkles (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any comments from David Fuchs in the GAR - how did they keep it held? With regards to whether or not Jesus drank wine, the best that can be said is that the Bible, in the form it is known to Christians, doesn't really confirm one way or another. The whole problem with the article is that every phrase in the Bible has been translated and rewritten several times from unknown sources so it really is not in any way a reliable source for anything. All that can be reported is the opinions of Biblical scholars, as long as they are all attributed as opinions not fact. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I will delist. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hilary Duff

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

Result: Delist. This GAR has been open for well over a month. While many (but not all) of the concerns raised here have been addressed as they arose, the article still does not meet GA criteria. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Over a month ago, I started a GA reassessment of this article as I didn't feel it met the criteria. I happened to have been involved in a content dispute revolving what I believed (and still believe) was unencyclopedic, gossip-rag content. As a result, I was asked by numerous editors to step down and let a community reassessment take place, which I gladly did. One was never started, and it's been quite a long time. I still do not feel this article meets the good article criteria, so I am opening this community reassessment.

I've found a bunch of issues that are not compliant with the good article criteria.

• In the third paragraph of the lead, "Duff has also launched clothing lines including, 'Stuff by Hilary Duff', and Femme for DKNY Jeans and two exclusive perfume collections with Elizabeth Arden." The commas before and after "Stuff by Hilary Duff" (which does not need to be in quotation marks) are unnecessary; a comma would better work after "Femme for DKNY Jeans."  Done

Fixed. Gprince007 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• 2001-2003: "Lizzie McGuire, which first aired on the Disney Channel." This is not a complete thought.  Done

Fixed. Gprince007 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• The lead does not adequately summarize the article, it only provides a few general introductory facts.

the lead provides information of her albums, upcoming releases and general summarisation of the article...what more can be added??? pls suggest.. Gprince007 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead essentially lists off her albums and films. It does not fully summarize the article. –Chase (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pls suggest as to what should be added in the Lead.... Hilary Duff is a actress and a singer by profession. It is natural to have the lead paragraph describe her movies and albums alongwith the awards and album sales....if u have anything better to add pls suggest....Gprince007 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, her career is not the only thing discussed in the article. Perhaps FAs such as Michael Jackson should be referenced for what I am trying to get at; its lead is a comprehensive overview of the article, this only lists off a select few of Duff's albums and movies. Leads are supposed to be introductory but they are also supposed to summarize. –Chase (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I still dont get you...Michael Jackson's career has spanned over 3 decades....obviously there would be lot to write about in the lead ....Duff's career has spanned hardly a decade....still the lead paragrapgh covers her acting career, singing career and her upcoming movies....it also covers her entreprenuerial ventures....it basically summarises the article very well....What more can be added???? If you have any views, pls suggest concrete proposals instead of beating around the bush....Gprince007 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Several redirects and one dead link.

Redirects should actually be kept as redirects, as it preserves the web archives. See Wikipedia:CHECKLINKS#Do_not_.22fix.22_redirects. Nymf _talk/contr. 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• A few references are bare URLs.  Done

Fixed by Nymf. Gprince007 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the references here, such as StarPulse and Digital Spy, are not reliable

Response to this charge has been in the Talk page of the article Gprince007 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

StarPulse is not considered reliable. I will ask about Digital Spy at the WP:RSN. I've doubted its reliability for quite awhile though. –Chase (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to link provided by you, starpulse is not entirely unreliable. The editor himself states that "They might have reliable articles"....The comment (abt starpulse being unreliable) has been made by the editor specifically for Priscilla Barnes page on the site....it might vary on case to case basis and also the editor has not explicitly stated that its unreliable. Gprince007 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor asked if it was good for BLPs, and another editor stated that it likely wasn't due to lack of editorial control. –Chase (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The other editor didnt say so....he expressed reservation over using this as a source for Priscilla Barnes page...Moreover only one editor seem to say that and not the whole wiki community.Gprince007 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• A bunch of unsourced statements, many of which are already tagged with {{fact}}.

Fixed. I have removed unsourced statements and provided some additional cites for some fact stated in the article. Gprince007 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the 2004-2006 section, it is mentioned that critics appreciated Duff's performance in A Cinderella Story, but the same paragraph mentions a Razzie nomination for the role. One or two positive reviews cannot determine a film's critical reaction as a whole, and this goes for other aspects of the article that mention reception to Duff's films.
• The personal life section goes into far unnecessary detail. In my opinion, the section could easily be removed; the only encyclopedic information here worth keeping is the information about her father cheating on her mother. Even so, I'm not so sure if that should be kept. The rest of the information here is pure gossip trash. We are an encyclopedia, not Tiger Beat.

Unnecessary detail??? A lot of trivial details have already been removed from this section....And seriously, her father cheating on her mother is notable???? This article is abt Duff and not abt her parents....So this article should focus on Duff and thats why the "Personal life" section focusses on her relationship in a brief manner. You can see previous versions of the page and compare it with current version and you'll notice that lot of gossip trash has already been removed. Gprince007 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the early work section, "Duff's first serious rise to fame" – if the article is going to refer to this "rise to fame" as "serious," there needs to be a cite to back it up with the article making it very clear that it is someone's opinion. As an encyclopedia based on neutral point of view, we are not to determine what is "serious" and what isn't.

Reworded the statement...Gprince007 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless I missed some things, that's about it from me. –Chase (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly no further comment has been made here. The article still has unsourced opinion: "She had more creative control over Most Wanted compared to her previous releases". These are grounds to delist, and I am willing to do so in one week, unless it is clear that problems like this are being fixed. Geometry guy 22:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the statement has been removed....though i vaguely remember having seen a cite for this statement long time ago, i cant find it as of now....so i have removed the statement.Gprince007 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to work on the article here is a source with links to subarticles that might help: Hilary Duff - Allmusic. The article Hilary Takes Charge is from May 2006 and might address the specifically cited concern. Verify before using. Lambanog (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

After taking a look at the article's talk page, I would say that notification of the resumption of this process has not been clear. I left a note now. Lambanog (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The TMZ article does not specifically mention the Most Wanted album, and the video the article cites does not work. –Chase (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Remaining problems as of March 8, 2010

This GAR has gone on for six weeks as of today; they aren't supposed to go on for longer than four. I suggest we quickly gain consensus on what should be done, because it would be unhelpful for the quality of this article to have another GAR with no consensus. This article has the potential to be FA status but if it remains at GA with numerous grammatical and sourcing flaws, the chances of it significantly improving are unlikely. In the meantime, I would like to look at the article a little more thoroughly and add comments; it appears some of the earlier ones have been addressed.

• "her most commercially successful movies being Cheaper by the Dozen (2003), The Lizzie McGuire Movie (2003), and A Cinderella Story (2004)." Source?

Source is in the main article below. As per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the Lead are minimal.Gprince007 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• "In November 2008, she released a Greatest Hits compilation, Best of Hilary Duff with her third #1 on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play single 'Reach Out' ." Very awkwardly worded sentence. In addition, "greatest hits" does not need to be capitalized. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Duff is credited as executive producer for the upcoming independent film According to Greta." The film is not upcoming, it's been released.Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• "She is the second child of Susan Colleen [...] and husband Robert Erhard Duff" She's the daughter of her husband? Needs rephrasing. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Duff's first rose to fame when she was cast as one of the children in the pilot episode of the NBC sitcom Daddio in 2000." Duff is first rose to fame does not make sense.Fixed Gprince007 (talk)
• "It received mixed reviews, with certain critics calling it 'an unabashed promotion of Duff’s image, just as Crossroads was for Spears', Later that year, [...]" run-on.

What is your point?? I didnt get it....The sentence states criticism which is cited by multiple sources....Gprince007 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Duff's first full-length studio album" I've never heard of such a thing as a full-length studio album. Her first album which is mentioned a few paragraphs above, please explain how that is not full-length? Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• "The third single, 'Little Voice', was not released in the U.S." Source?
• "Most shows scheduled in the major cities were completely sold out." Completely is too WP:PEACOCKy. "were sold out" will do. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• "In a 2003 episode of George Lopez, she had a role as a makeup salesperson; she later reappeared in the show in 2005 as Kenzie, a feminist poet friend of the character Carmen (Masiela Lusha). In 2003, she acted opposite her sister Haylie in American Dreams, while in 2005, she played a classmate and idolizer of the title character of Joan of Arcadia." This whole chunk of info is unsourced. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Duff's second full-length album was the self-titled Hilary Duff in which she co-wrote some songs." In should be changed to for.FixedGprince007 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• "the film went on to become a moderate box office hit," source/expand? Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• "and were particularly harsh towards Duff's vocals" this is not WP:NPOV. "and were critical of Duff's vocals" is better. fixed Gprince007 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Duff's third album, Most Wanted (2005), comprised her favorite tracks from her previous two albums, remixes, and three new songs which included 'Wake up'" Up needs to be capitalized, and that it consisted of her favorite tracks needs a cite (was not found in the source provided).

unsourced statement removed....Though i remember seeing a cite for this, i cant find it on the net ....will add it back when i get the cite...Gprince007 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• "and became her third number one debut in Canada." cite this.

The citation is present in the very next statement which states that it sold over 2 lakh copies..Gprince007 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• "She is also a model signed to IMG Models New York." a little out of place here? Would do better in the lead or if it was explained that she became a model around this time (assuming that is the case). Fixed...Moved to Lead...Gprince007 (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Duff later told MuchMusic that she did not say the quotes attributed to her in the article and that the subject was 'definitely not something that I would talk about...' She denied the quotes again in a 2008 interview with Maxim magazine." If she denied the quotes twice, why is it claimed that she said such things?

The quotes were attributed to her in an Elle magazine interview, which she denied later in interviews given to MuchMusic and Maxim magazine. Its stated in the article along with the neccesary citations. Hope the matter is clarified... Gprince007 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• "She frequently attends his games. Comrie bought Duff a Mercedes-Benz for her 20th birthday." Totally out of place in an encyclopedia. Just making note of when they began dating and their engagement is fine, what is here now is too WP:FANCRUFTy and gossip-y. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

–Chase (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you can go on and on improving and eventually it will pass but the process shouldn't be dragged out. There is a time limit for a purpose and I'm in favour of moving on by demoting delisting it. When it's good enough it can be GA renominated. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Delist I would add that some of the facts are based on unreliable sources such as Hillaryduff.com - not an independent or third-party source, not peer-reviewed, etc etc. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hilaryduff.com is Hilary Duff's official homepage. It is not a fan site or forum....nor is it unreliable... Gprince007 (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what Hamiltonstone means here is that Hilaryduff.com is a primary source, so could be unreliable for certain kinds of information. However, according to my checks, it is only used four times, and the material cited to Hilaryduff.com is primary source material, in my view. Only the fourth occurrence raised a GA issue for me, as ""With Love...Hilary Duff" was one of the three best-selling fragrances launched at U.S. department stores in late 2006." needs an independent (secondary) source. Geometry guy 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Geometryguy is right about my main concern, however, i'm also puzzled about the use of Duff's own page as the citation for the sentence "Duff confirmed on MuchOnDemand, that she would be filming two independent films According to Greta, and What Goes Up". Why is MoD not being used as the source? As for the site itself, while one can generally rely on people to accurately report their own names and birthdays etc, we should always be cautious in relying on official sites like these in biographies. Strictly speaking, i'm not sure that they do meet normal criteria for reliability - they aren't peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense i don't think, and one can always expect an individual to put the best possible gloss on themselves on their own webpage. Nevertheless, caution does appear to have been exercised in using the official webpage in this WP article. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well i must say that due caution has been exercised in using official website a source in this article....Wrt your query of using MoD as official cite, i must say that i couldnt find it on MoD so i used her official website as a reference to her interview on MoD. Anyways most of statements which use hilaryduff.com as its source is personal details... remaining statement are all mostly third party cites....Gprince007 (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can't find it on MoD, take it out. you can't use her website as a source for what was published in MoD. Use of some very dubious sources is a problem here, Amazon, Peta1, Starpulse, Itunes, Digital Spy are not reliable sources. The Philanthropy section conatins much repetitive porse and appeasr overly promotional in tone. The Lead does not fully summarise the article, no mention is made of the Razzies, her UN work, critical reception, animal right support, criticism of her by animal rights organisations. Plesae check out WP:LEAD. I suggest delist now and let the artcile be brought back to WP:GAN when it has been improved. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity

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

Result: No action. While the review process for this article has not been ideal (see the talk page for general comments), there has been support here for concerns about focus and prose, and an independent case that the article currently meets the GA criteria has not been made. Hopefully peer review will help. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This article was kept on hold for three months, from December on through March. The original reviewer, Wandalstouring, made no attempt at constructive commentary: every point he made was addressed by myself, with the intent of satisfying his needs or disputing his contentions. Wandalstouring did not oblige me. His most frequent reply was silence; his most frequent contentions a simple, unattached phrase absent foundation. I would have been very happy if he had engaged with the work constructively, but he decided instead to stonewall me. When reading the first review, witness that I replied to every single issue he brought up, but that he did not reply in turn. This is my most basic objection to Wandalstouring's review: If you cannot say what a problem is, and give a specific instance of it, it is not a true problem.

I brought in outside review. I contacted Ealdgyth and Malleus Fatuorum, both of whom gave the article a run-through and then offered me their support. Wandalstouring opened up the floor to second opinion. Every single issue raised was addressed, and every single commenter ended in giving their support. The most persistent individual to weigh in, Cmguy, expressed his support in bold type.

After Wandalstouring went silent for an extended period of time, various GA nomenklatura started sniffing around for a way to get rid of the unsightly mass on their review list. At last, Jezhotwells decided to land a final review. A fail. It is my contention that his review was also inadequate. It was deeply unspecific, contradicted elements of Wandalstouring's review, and was installed without leaving me any chance at reply.

I am here because I believe this article complies, in full, with GA standards; because all prior review has been inadequate, designed to forestall discussion, blinded by false premises (Wandalstouring and Jezhotwells both seem to believe, in some unspecific way, that original research is going on here; they can point to no example of the same, because the contention is completely false), and based on a misapplication of guideline; and because I believe this forum will stipulate to those facts.

I am willing to speak on all elements of fact or opinion raised in prior discussion. It is with full confidence in the verity of my case and the legitimacy of this article that I speak here today. I hope that we may all cooperate and move forward on this case. Thank you. G.W. (Talk) 14:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I failed the article because it is clearly a long way away from GA standards and most of the points raised in previous GA reviews had not been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"most of the points raised in previous GA reviews had not been addressed". All points had been addressed. "clearly a long way away from GA standards". Where? Why? For what reasons? And "clearly"!? You have not made any of your points of contention clear at all; and where they can be read as clear, they are wrong. These things that you write are demonstrably untrue. G.W. (Talk) 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Following his initial review, Wandalstouring approached me to give a second opinion on the article. I offered some suggestions for improvement, which were mostly addressed after some requests for further explanation. However, having neither background knowledge on the subject nor easy access to most of the sources, I declined to give a final ruling on the article when approached by Wizardman after Wandalstouring became inactive. In my opinion, the article passes on the criteria with which my review was mostly concerned (writing and formatting, stability, images); I do not feel informed enough to judge it on the other criteria. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would first just like to make a few comments on Wikipedia's review process. When an article is submitted for review there seems to be no consistency with who will review the article. Also, some articles get reviewed while other articles seemed to get stalled or have different assessment criteria.

Aside from this, Philip the Arab and Christianity, deserves GA status. I would add a brief section on Christianity, itself, possibly just one paragraph, giving Christian origins, how it spread throughout the Roman Empire, and the how the earlier Roman Emperors viewed Christianity. I would also add a brief one paragraph section on Irfan Shahîd. His comments are found in the article, however, it is unclear on who Shahîd actually is. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)}

• G. W. asked for my input here. I did not really do a proper review of the article but had only suggested that the GAN needed to be resolved. At a glance the article appears to be of GA quality, even though there seem to be FA-level issues. The lack of access to sources is problematic but I believe that it is acceptable to a certain degree to accept sources on good faith provided the reviewer can at least confirm the major points and there are no editors disputing content. In general, though, I defer to Wandalstouring, Nikkimaria, and Cmguy777 as to whether it is good enough or not. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. There are several key Good Article Criteria to consider here:
  • "the prose is clear..."
  • "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid,...
  • "it contains no original research..."
  • "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail..."

  There are concerns in each of these areas I think, though the OR one is hard to evaluate without access to the sources.

  • The prose is generally precise, and prepared by a scholar or scholars of considerable skill and knowledge. But it is not necessarily clear to a lay reader. However, i think this issue relates largely to issues of focus and structure, rather than being a product of any problems with written expression per se.
  • The prose does not fully comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid etc. For example, the lead does not tell us where or of what Philip was an emperor. It makes reference to "ecclesiastics", the meaning of which would be opaque to anyone outside the field. The opening para of the body text makes reference to his birthplace being "refounded", which makes me think it was moved to another location, but i doubt that is what was meant. Even with a wikilink, the following sentence is much too technical: "A fully developed synodal system is attested for the mid-third century,..." (I have had to comment previously about the use of the term "attested" in articles intended for lay readers.)
  • It is impossible to evaluate whether or not the article contains OR without access to the sources, but in places the style certainly suggests this possibility. I am having difficulty in concisely explaining the issue, but overall, I sense the WP article author is developing a line of argument / perspective on the scholarly work of Shahîd, rather than having the secondary sources speak directly. I admit it is difficult to pin down this issue. Sentences such as this one can create the perception that it is the WP author who is assessing the evidence: "The passage contains two important features: first, the statement that the letters of Origen to Philip and his family were still extant in Jerome's time; and second, a strong affirmation of Philip's Christianity", however, it is possible that the cited source itself states that these are the two important features. Earlier in the article, we have this: "Shahîd describes this passage as a mere flourish from Eusebius the panegyrist, "carried away by enthusiasm and whose statements must be construed as rhetorical exaggeration"; he does not take it as serious evidence against Eusebius' earlier accounts in the Historia, where he never refers to Constantine as the first Christian emperor." The claim that Shahid "does not take" something "as serious evidence" appears to be the claim of the WP editor, again moving to the realm of OR.
  • To a lay reader, it is hard to conclude that the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I don't see evidence of summary style in this article - rather, it appears to exhaust the sources and discuss the evidence in great detail. There are many symptoms of this problem. First, this article is several times the length of Philip the Arab itself; second, when i am reading the article, i get lost as to where i am in the overall argument; third, outlining and discussing the views of the secondary sources appears to dominate the text.

On balance, i would expect to find the text of this article in a journal rather than an encyclopedia. At the risk of evincing howls of protest from the article's creators, it appears to me that the final section, "historiography", if doubled in length to have a more detailed section on the contemporary analysis by Shahid, Bowerstock and others, would form the heart of the article, and be truly "summary" style. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting and engaged review. Thank you, Hamiltonstone. I will review and present the material of the cited sources to demonstrate that the instances in the third point are not, in fact, original research. I hope you can give a comprehensive list of unfamiliar terms you gave in your second point; I will attempt to make these clear. I contest, however, your interpretation of WP:SS, and, though I will not howl, I do not believe I can follow through on your closing advice.

First, let me quote WP:SS: "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." Nowhere does the policy make any statement on what should be excluded, or how WP is meant to treat sources. Thus, when you state that "outlining and discussing the views of the secondary sources appears to dominate the text", your point is tangential to the aim of WP:SS itself, which has limited aims: "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place". This is not a long article, so the essential precondition for WP:SS does not obtain. An "outlining and discussing the views of the secondary sources" is very much what WP:NPOV commends us to do in areas where essentials are in dispute among sources of comparable weight, as they are here.

Any argument on the point you develop in your fourth section would have to follow from our notability or forbidden content policies; WP:SS cannot sustain the argument you hope to pin on it. I believe that an attempt to "exhaust the sources and discuss the evidence in great detail", provide it stays within WP's other content guidelines, is a very good thing; I cannot accept that it is, as you call it, a "problem". WP:NOT#PAPER and all that. That I have not developed Philip the Arab itself is not really an acceptable argument either: when we review articles, we treat them in isolation, and WP:SS arguments cannot appeal to the evidence of other articles (WP:SS is designed to filter content downwards, not upwards). We must read it on the basis of its own structure.

You have said that you "get lost as to where [you are] in the overall argument". If you could specify and explain how I could help this, I would be happy to clarify the argument and clean up the style. As for your final suggestion, I do not think it would help us much. I think that section is the least valuable, to be honest. Expanding it would depend on the addition of content without the aid of a standard structure from the secondary sources. That is, your proposed article would veer much closer to WP:OR than anything presently in the article. I am not sure what the argument for your plan is, either. Do you believe this section less afflicted by, ah, WP:SS problems? Or WP:OR-ish phrasing?

Anyways, I'll go get Shahid to clear up the OR-ish problems you raise. G.W. (Talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, GW, but I'm not sure you are following the thrust of my argument - which may be my deficiency in explaining it. I will try to be more direct. WP:SS always applies. That is one of things that makes this an encyclopedia, not a secondary source, not a textbook, and not an academic journal. The current version of this WP article reads more as a scholarly journal article: it simply doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. The injunction to "preserve information" is not one i would apply. The discussion in the literature simply is not being summarised for readers - it is being presented in what to a lay reader appears to be great detail. I think the difference in our views is made clear by your comments regarding the historiography section. You call it the least valuable. As a lay reader, however, it is the most comprehensible and useful. If the entire article were reduced to the lead, a simplified version of the three background sections, and the section "historiography", i actually believe i would have understood what it was about. The final section gives rise to no ambiguity regards OR, in my view, but just so i am not misunderstood: fixing the perception of OR would not in my view resolve the article's biggest problems. Likewise, it isn't just a question of a list of technical terms, but the whole approach to the writing of the article, which to me appears to be targeted to professional historians or at least to those with a particular interest in, and understanding of, this field. Sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I am not sure what your grounds in policy are. WP:SS is limited in aim. It does not say "everything is a summary", nor does it make the point you make. When you write "The injunction to "preserve information" is not one i would apply", I would say: it does not matter which injunctions you choose to apply. The injunction holds true. Without argument in policy, I cannot find your advice conscionable.

WP:SS is not something that makes us not a secondary source, textbook, or academic journal; nothing makes us those things, except a demand to treat the general reader. But let me quote another part of WP:SS: "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. Thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic." No article is required to speak down to its audience, or to express in naive terms what is easily expressed in more complex terms. Without this in our guidelines, we could have no articles on higher mathematics; reviewers would constantly demand a full deconstruction of any formula above a seventh-grade level. G.W. (Talk) 03:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, i will await the views of others on this. However, i cannot agree that the article's present content "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" in respect of "Philip the Arab and Christianity". I cannot see any reason why the level of information in the present version is necessary for a reader to be informed about Philip's relationship to C. Second, actually it does matter "which injunctions you choose to apply": there is discretion, on at least three levels. First, the phrase from WP:SS is "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia..." We actually remove information from WP all the time, such as at AfD. In this case, while i am admiring of the scholarship of this WP entry, it does not appear to me to represent an encyclopedia article that will serve the necessary purpose. Second, WP:SS is a guideline, to be followed with discretion. And then there is of course WP:IAR, but i would not be invoking that in this context. I will be interested to read the contributions of others in this discussion, and am open to changing my view. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What I am hearing in this argument is this: (1) my view is nowhere directly indicated in policy, but (2) policy leaves room for editorial discretion, so (3) I reassert my view. But, hamiltonstone, most removals of information (as at AFD) are made on specific policy recommendations. And where there is no consensus on the application of policy, we keep the information; the system is designed to be biased in favor of information preservation (except where legal issues such as copyright and privacy are at stake). You are attempting to remove information without specific policy. Here you rely on your own view of what constitutes validity. You are permitted to do so, but you are operating at the very fringe of policy when you do so (in the IAR/guidelines as discretion). You are arguing that this article is a corner case, and is not effectively covered by standard policy. This is a very extreme view to take. G.W. (Talk) 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I will attempt to address your substantive comments here. My apologies for getting sidetracked. G.W. (Talk) 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would "churchmen" be better than "ecclesiastics"? The word is only used twice; I've switched it both times. G.W. (Talk) 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• I've removed that instance of "attest" and explained what the fully-developed synodal system indicates. I'm also going through the article to catch other "attest" variants. G.W. (Talk) 18:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've got all of them now. In once instance I've replaced an "attest" with a "speak to". Is that too legalistic (my mind goes to "speak to sentence")? G.W. (Talk) 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll address the near-OR here:

• The first sentence: "The passage contains two important features: first, the statement that the letters of Origen to Philip and his family were still extant in Jerome's time; and second, a strong affirmation of Philip's Christianity.[131]" Note 131 is a citation to Shahid, Rome and the Arabs, 73–74. Here is the relevant sentence from that source: Shahid first quotes Jerome in Latin: "et ad Philippum imperatorem, qui primus de regibus Romanis Christianus fuit, et ad matrem eius litteras fecit quae usque hodie extant.²¹ Noteworthy in this sentence is the fact [page break] that the letters were extant when Jerome wrote as well as the explicit, emphatic statement on Philip's Christianity." G.W. (Talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• The sentence you cited: "Shahîd describes this passage as a mere flourish from Eusebius the panegyrist, "carried away by enthusiasm and whose statements must be construed as rhetorical exaggeration"; he does not take it as serious evidence against Eusebius' earlier accounts in the Historia, where he never refers to Constantine as the first Christian emperor." Here is the page cited, Rome and the Arabs, 82:

It is noticeable that in the HE Eusebius does not refer to his hero Constantine as the first Christian emperor, which would have been expected from a panegyrist and a historian of the Church who had based his chronological system on the reigns of Roman emperors, most of whom had been non-Christian or anti-Christian. This is indirect evidence that Constantine was not the first; Eusebius could not very well have presented him as such in a work that had referred to one of his predecessors, namely, Philip, if not as primus, at least as Christian. But the problem of giving the palm to Constantine must have been on the mind of Eusebius. In 325, all he could do was to rehandle the HE by toning down Philip's Christianity lest it should diminish the glory of Constantine. But ten years later, in a work that was devoted exclusively to Constantine and in which there is naturally no reference to Philip, Eusebius comes close to using the term primus and as an encomiast does not find it difficult to do so when in chapter 3 of the Vita³⁸ he refers to Constantine, "who alone (μόνος) of all that ever wielded the Roman power was the friend of God, the Lord of all, and has appeared to all mankind so clear an example of a godly life."³⁹ The judgment on Constantine, especially its second part, is patently untrue. The biographer who forgets the crimes⁴⁰ attributed to Constantine and writes on his being the exemplar of a godly life is only a panegyrist who is carried away by enthusiasm and whose statements must be construed as rhetorical exaggeration. Nevertheless, the judgment is significant in this discussion of the problem of the first Christian Roman emperor and represents the last stage⁴¹ in Eusebius's handling of the pair—Philip and Constantine—which began with the revision of the Chronicon and the HE in the twenties.

• It is important to remember not only the actual text of the page cited, but also its place in the chapter and argument; here it follows on the statement on page 77 that "The examination of the various relevant passages in Eusebius on Philip undertaken in the preceding section yields the conclusion that Eusebius does not vouch for Philip's Christianity". The section which follows, including page 82, is Shahid's account of, and arguments against, the alternative critical opinion. So the passage in the Vita, for Shahid, is not enough to disprove the earlier evidence of the Historia, which he develops in the pages from 67 to 77. On these grounds, I believe the inference that Shahid "does not take [the Vita] as serious evidence against Eusebius' earlier accounts in the Historia" is fair and non-original. G.W. (Talk) 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• I reassert that I do not believe this constitutes OR. If hamiltonstone has suggestions on how to improve the sense of the text so as not to give these "sense" of OR, I would be glad to hear him out. G.W. (Talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• G.W. has left messages on my talk page asking me to explain my review more fully. G.W. says that my reading that the points raised by other reviewers had not been addressed is incorrect. Sorry, but I disagree.
  • "The article is not readily accessible to the vast majority of readers. There is some jargon, but the main problem is a lack of clarity and fluency in the prose which makes comprehension difficult, especially for non-experts." - remains un-addressed throughout the article.
  • "The lede goes into lots of non-essential details. Cut these sections and turn them into summaries, not theses." remains un-addressed
  • "Copy-editing is not the problem; I find almost no grammatical errors, and the prose is technically correct. However, it should be accessible for more readers, and that requires cleaner and clearer writing." not addressed.
  • There are still inconsistencies in spelling: "honour" is British English, as is "favour", "colour".
  • Modern sources: Books published since the introduction of ISBNs should have them added, likewise journal articles should have issn and / or oclc numbers.
  • I concur with hamiltonstone's points above about unnecessary detail, it really is too much and not suited to an encyclopaedia article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  And now, to make another reply that my interlocutor will not read, as before:

  • "remains un-addressed throughout the article" is, again, a totally unsatisfactory response. You cannot make a blanket statement like that without giving instances and explanans; there is no reasoning here, so there can be no response..

  ... <G.W. (Talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)>

  <Discussion moved to to reassessment talk page>

• Comment. I have moved some of the discussion between nominator and GAN closing reviewer to the talk page of this GAR, as it was starting to drift off-topic, with both sides restating their view and limited progress being made. In terms of this GAR, so far the most substantial new input has come from hamiltonstone, who has indicated, with reasoning, that he believes the article does not meet the GA criteria at present. Can I urge all editors to focus on whether the article meets the GA criteria. Geometry guy 14:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The nominator has asked for specific examples to illustrate reviewers' comments that the article is hard to follow. I hope it is then helpful if I concentrate entirely on the first section, "Christianity in Aurantis" (or is it Auranitis?). The dates in this section jump about in a very confusing way. At this point, we have not been told when Philip the Arab was born, although we may recall from the lead an impression that he flourished around 240. Although we are told Auranitis (or Hauran?) "was among the first regions to convert to Christianity", the article refers to Philippopolis (the later name of the birthplace), the mid-third century synodal system, and the date of 325. "By the time of of Philip's birth..." I was starting to wonder if I got my dates wrong, or that there might be some scholarly convention that the third century is a hundred years later than I am used to! But no, we are travelling back in time to 204 for just a moment, before leaping ahead to the fifth and sixth centuries. Having been told that the Hellenized settlements of Auranitis were extensively Christianized, we are then told that Philippopolis wasn't. I had to backtrack to the first sentence to see that the birthplace was a village, then forward again to the mention of cities to presume that villages don't count as settlements. In the next paragraph, we return to 200 AD and are introduced to a new place Osroene (or is it Edessa?). I was not able to understand the relevance of Bosra, the third century heretical bishop there, or the use of Greek in the debate. The sentence on minting of coins also surprised me, until I concluded that these sentences were trying to tell me that the people of Hauran (or Auranitis?) probably spoke Greek.

In conclusion, a short introductory section which I hoped would set the scene for the me, left my head spinning. Geometry guy 15:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your specific comments, Geometry Guy. I will try to resolve these for you. First, though, I will add that, in consultation with Malleus Fatuorum and Iridescent, I am developing a new opening section that focuses on Philip's person and career alone. It should be clearer than what exists at present. G.W. (Talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and that you have asked for a peer review, which I hope will also generate useful comments. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have corrected the spelling: it's Auranitis. Sorry. G.W. (Talk) 18:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have now added the mini-biography and done some clarification and re-arrangement in the section you covered. (I will try to apply your methods to the rest of the article later.) G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've re-arranged the sentences so that "...Philip's birth..." precedes Nicaea. G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• I've added a brief note that the Arab peoples would have had their own Christianization, independent of Hellenic elements, to explain the transition to Abgar. G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know what I can do to make the village/town elements clearer. I've reminded the reader that "Philippopolis...was a small village for most of this period". Does that help? G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know what I can do to make the Hellene/Arab elements clearer. I hope the opening sentence on Arab peoples having their own Christianization helps there, and that the clarifications I've made to emphasize the distinction between small village/city clears this up. Suggestions? G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've looked over the rest of the article, but your method—noting and clarifying technical and thematic shifts—does not seem to work as well for the rest of the article, where the subjects are documentary and literary, rather than what the French would call événementielle (don't think we have a word in English for "concerned with events"). Could you give me some suggestions on how to proceed? G.W. (Talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not familiar enough with the particulars of the subject matter to make useful comments about the content, but certainly on the surface, the article seems thorough, serious, and non-ideological in its approach. I would make one suggestion: the lead section is too densely argued. The lead section should be a reader-friendly overview — almost like an abstract of a scholarly article. I'm not sure you need the meticulous attribution of who thought what; just a statement of the general terms of debate. If necessary, a footnote could point to the relevant section that presents the contentious point in full. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. In the absense of fresh reviews detailing why the article now meets the criteria, this reassessment may be closed, without listing the article, to allow for renomination at GAN. Geometry guy 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dancing the Dream

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

Result: No action. The review raised some valid concerns. Articles can be renominated at any time, so in the absence of further comments, it is best to close this reassessment to allow for a fresh review. Geometry guy 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this article was inappropriately quick-failed. I was able to address in minutes the concerns left at the review page that I felt were reasonable. No time was allocated to discuss or amend issues. It was stated that only "one or two reviews" were used. Only one or two reviews is what is available on this book. It was stated that two section were copied word-for-word from a book, which is untrue. It was stated that the said book was unreliable, which is untrue; it is reliable and used in the FAs We Are the World and Michael Jackson. It was stated that a seperate sub-section should be created to detail the changes between both editions of the book. There are no changes in content between the two editions. I know this because I have both. In summary, I disagree with the quick-fail and think that more time should have been given to address the actionable issues raised. Pyrrhus16 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Since the article was waiting so long for review, I did not know if original editors were still ready to tackle issues, this is the main reason I did not put it "On Hold". I also judged it to be too far from the standard required to be revised within 7 days, the usual holding time. If it is possible to reverse the decision and put the article On Hold I would be happy to do that. I did not say the article breached a core pillar, and thus making it liable for "quick fail". The fixes made were merely incorporating some examples of poor writing I highlighted. I still feel the entire article needs to be copyedited by a third party.

However, I stand by, and will defend if asked, the other comments in the review. Though it could be put "On Hold" as the article stands now it fails several of the WP:WIAGA.

Would it satisfy you to return the article to hold status and try to resolve some of the problems?

Regards, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've resolved the issues I felt were actionable and reasonable. I would not like you to place the article on hold, as I feel we will not agree on what constitutes a good article. I would like to hear the input of other editors here. Pyrrhus16 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • ref #8 [4] is a dead link, can't find it at the Internet archive.
  • Background section: doesn't appear to have any connection with the subject of this article, it is about another book, which could be mentioned in passing.
  • Publication and reception: "Following the entertainer's death in June 2009, it was announced that the British company Transworld would be reissuing the book in July." needs updating to accord with statement made in lead (assuming that it was reissued.
  • No other concerns. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. I've removed the dead link, removed the background section and integrated a bit of it into the publication section. I've also updated the Transworld bit. Pyrrhus16 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done, I guess as this is a community assessment we'll wait for User:Geometry guy, but as far as I am concerned this is good to go as GA status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. In terms of process, this was not a quick fail, as the reviewer left a complete review. Placing articles "on hold" is at the reviewer's discretion; if a reviewer believes substantial changes are necessary, a nomination can be failed without a hold.
  • In this case, the article does need substantial work to make better use of the available source material. Although I agree with the nominator that the article mostly does not copy Campbell word-for-word, a quick comparison reveals that is is a very close paraphrase, with similar sentence structure, illustrative examples, and emphasis. Since the book has been reviewed by other authors, who also precis and quote content, such reliance is unnecessary. Furthermore, it is allowed to use the primary source in a precis! The primary source can also be used for simple facts of reader interest: how many pages is the book, how many pieces are there (I counted 46, not 20 – perhaps Campbell means c. 20 poems and c. 20 essays), how is it formatted?
  • The comparison also raises some citation issues: Campbell does not mention that Ryan White had HIV/AIDS, so this needs another source; also Campbell should be cited for the sentence "In fact, this was incorrect as some of them had been featured previously..." and not for the sentence "The 100 photographs in Dancing the Dream were billed as being "previously unreleased"." – instead this should be attributed and cited to whoever billed it so (presumably, the publisher).
  • Finally, "Lord Gnome's Literary Companion" is a compilation, by Francis Wheen, of anonymous reviews in Private Eye magazine. The review comments should not be attributed to him. Geometry guy 14:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've took a stab at rewording some of the sections, to make it less similar to the Campbell book. I've added notes on the amount of pages and on the number of written pieces in the book. The emphasis on the illustrative example has been removed, and it is now integrated with the text. I have added a cite for Ryan White's illness and death. In regard to the last point made, I have reworded the article to reflect the authorship of the review in Lord Gnome's Literary Companion. Pyrrhus16 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, Is there a consensus then that my review was an appropriate one? I did not breach any GAR policies. All of the points I raised during the review have been discussed here and found to be actionable and reasonable. The reassessment should be closed and the article re-nominated at GAN. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  It isn't the primary purpose of community GAR to approve or disapprove of a review. Instead, GAR aims to assess whether an article meets the GA criteria or not. In this case, some of the concerns in your review about the GA criteria have been accepted, and I hope you feel as a consequence that you did no wrong. The reassessment will remain open for a few days, because the article has changed, and it is possible that it now meets the GA criteria: any uninvolved editor may argue that case here. If no such case is forthcoming, the reassessment will be closed, without listing the article, to allow it to be renominated and receive a fresh review. Geometry guy 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  I had not meant to sound confrontational. I do not feel in the wrong, in fact vindicated. I had only asked because I feel GA reviewing is an important task not to be taken lightly. Of course everything we do on Wikipedia is to improve the quality of articles, but I had thought that this process was a quality check on the GA review. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator; several comments were made. Since a firm support or oppose was never given, I believe the appropriate judgement call is that the outcome from last reveiw still stands. Gbern3 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC).
(Result modified for clarity by Geometry guy 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC).)

I'm bringing this article to GAR because I believe it meets the GA criteria. I'm not renominating it because this article has already been through the GA process once and failed. I wanted to GAR it then but the main page says it's best to just renominate it. So I did and it just failed GA for a second time yesterday so now I'm bringing it here.

My second reviewer failed the article because he/she believes it doesn't meet criteria 3a; that the article needs more information in it that you would find in a "personal life" section. I disagree primarily because there is an "early life" section that provides the same information that you would see in a "personal life" section. In addition the infobox gives more fast facts. This article also has a sister wikiquote page for people who want more information.

1. I got this article peer reviewed in October and it wasn't brought up as a problem there. I also got it copyedited and my copyeditor, Per Edman stated that it was "well-rounded". So I don't believe this is an issue of routine. As in, this is how biographical reviews normally go; a "personal life" section is routinely asked for in peer review if it's missing.
2. MOS:BIO does not state that there needs to be a "personal life" section in biographical articles so I know it's not a policy issue.
3. Lastly, I went to Category:GA-Class biography articles just to make sure I'm not crazy. I picked eight random articles. Of those eight, four of them (Al Williamson, KevJumba, Auguste Rodin, Sun Tzu) did not have a "personal life" section. So it can't be an issue of precendence because precedence shows you don't need it.

I encourage you to read the full discussion here. // Gbern3 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I didn't originally put this information here but now I feel the need to bring this up because I'm having an issue with my editor's integrity. Before I created this page, we got a second opinion from another editor and my reviewer failed the article an hour later and simultaneously brought up 10 bullet points of new issues he/she now has with the article, two of which I strongly feel are artificial/made-up. Read the "Conclusion" section here. Note: this was done without giving me opportunity to respond to either the 2nd opinion or the new issues. I just think that's wrong. Just so you're aware, the editor who provided the second opinion was very neutral and did not state whether they felt the article should pass or fail. // Gbern3 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I was the reviewer in this instance and, for the record, I'm a he. I failed the article with great reluctance because it did not appear to me that progress was being made towards addressing my concerns. As I've just told Gbern3 at Talk:Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo/GA2, very few edits have been made to the article since I took over and he insists on rebutting my every word rather than attempting to improve the article. On the technical matter of 3a, besides the early life section (which is very good, as far as it goes) there is absolutely nothing on what they do other than choreograph. I know where they grew up, I know how they started dancing and I know what they do now and what the highlights of their career have been. I don't know if they have children, who their parents are, which branch of the military he served in, why he didn't got to medical school like he planned, how they met (other than "at UNLV"). It doesn't require great detail, but reading the article, you get a feeling that something's missing from it. I won't return here unless asked to because I think it would be best all round for uninvolved editors to come to their own conclusions now I've explained my decision to fail it. Also, for the record, this is not and never was anything personal. HJ Mitchell | April Fool! 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I have not yet reviewed the article closely enough to form a view on whether it meets the GA criteria, but I have a couple of comments based on past experience. Requirement 3a asks for broadness, not comprehensiveness, and in the past this has been interpreted as meaning that for articles on groups (or even individuals) in public life, detail on personal life is not required unless it has been of significant public interest (and hence there are reliable sources to back it up). Second, reviewing is a hard job: one of the reasons is that reviewers are often experienced editors with their own ideas on how to make an article better, but have to review the article how it is, not on how they think it should be. In this case the reviewer thought that the article should be written more like a biography, rather than a band. This goes beyond the GA criteria, and my advice would be to focus on whether the article can or does meet the GA criteria in its current format. Geometry guy 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have left it open, but, frankly, I have better things to do than have a nominator stonewall me, argue with every suggestion and generally do nothing to improve the article. He didn't attempt to address the concerns of the previous GAN nor my concerns, so I failed it. It's the first article I've ever failed (and I've reviewed 40) and I hope it will be the last, but GA requires effort. Now, please excuse me while i bang my head against a brick wall, I think it would be a more productive use of my time. HJ Mitchell | April Fool! 21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration. That happens a lot on Wikipedia. Talk pages are the best place to discuss such matters. Geometry guy 22:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Can you please stop saying that I have not made an effort to improve the article. You keep asking me for material, tangential information (i.e. their parents indentities), that I do not have a reliable source for. I've told you eight times that I need a reliable source in order to add any of the information requested. Even the editor who provided a 2nd opinion brought this up; the availability of realiable sources This is how the article looked before I did a major rewrite. Please know that I care about improving the article. It's not that I don't see the value in having a "personal life" section. Check out the Stacy London article I did a major rewrite to. It has a "personal life" section. I put it there. I had reliable sources for it. I've Googled, Yahooed, Binged, Asked, Wikied, Kosmixed, CCed, and Exaleaded for every reliable source I could find for the Nappytabs article in order to please you. I've done the work. If there was another source with information like who their parents are, I would've found it. I have not purposely ignored your requests.

For example, in addition to who their parents are you wants to know if they have kids. They don't. I know this b/c I read their twitter. But twitter is not a reliable source. So how can I edit the article by adding this information if I don't have reliable source to prove it. Their parents: I haven't read anything about who their parents are or what they do. I don't even have an unrealiable source. So I can't respond to this request and edit the article at all. I need a reliable source. Why didn't Napoleon go to med school? I already answered that at the end of the "Early life" section. In short it's because he decided to become a choreographer. So since the information is already there, I don't need to make changes to the article. It's not that I'm purposely not improving the article and being open to suggestions. If you want me to add personal information, I need a reliable source. Please stop saying I'm not trying. Sorry for being long winded. I just felt I needed to say all this to make my point. // Gbern3 (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I said I'd be out of it, I'll answer that since it's directed st the azrticle and not at me. Essentailly, you're missing my point. It's not the laack of one of these pieces of informarion that the article falls down on (nor, for the record, is it about pleasing me, but I don;t think that was your point). It's the lack of any personal information after they were about 21 (making a general point, rather than specifically usinfg 21 as an example) that makes the article feel incomplete to even a casual reader. There's some stuff in your very first reference about how they find it working and living together. Most of it is, granted, tabloid crap and fancruft, but if there isn't something in there that's useable, it's likely that exists elsewhere. It's not about being able to name parents and grandparents and great aunts twice removed, it's about having a little more to the article than a record of their career (and that's not meant slightingly, it's obvious that you've put good work into the article) and it could very easilyy sit next to the career stuff rather than havign its own section. I apologise for the typos and any incoherency but it's late here and I've spent my whole day on a train. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The article looks pretty good in most respects, but I can see where HJM is coming from. I have only read two references so far - both already used in the article: "Talking about the Impact of Dance with Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo..." and "Everyone has a story:" - and I've already established:

• Napoleon served for four years in Germany
• The couple live in Sherman Oaks
• Tabitha's mother is Cynthia Cortopassi

The former fact is not in the WP article; the second is only in the infobox. In contrast, the same reference ("talking...") is used as the citation for the fact that Napoleon went to Apple Valley High School, but that information is not in the reference. gbern has said in the text above that the refs were checked and s/he doesn't know who the parents are - yet at least one of those parents is named in only the second of the existing refs that i read. So my gut feeling is that this hasn't been prepared as thoroughly as gbern thinks. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say above that the existing refs were checked and it was not my intention to come off this way. When HJM brought up incorporating more personal information I didn't recheck the refs I already had; I went searching for new ones which is why I provided all those links to the different search engines. I already knew about Napoleon serving in Germany but HJM asked for what branch of the military he was in and I don't have a source for that. The Talking about the Impact... reference I used as a source for Napoleon being in the military (which is why it appears right after "miliary" rather than at the end of the sentence), not for what high school he went to. I don't remember where I got that information from (his high school that is) and I know I don't have a source for it so I will remove it. Totally missed the mention of Tabitha's mother. My mistake. I will add the bit about Tabitha's mother but I do think under HJM's standards, (HJM you can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't like talking for people) I would have had to provide more than this to get this article promoted. After all, it is still early life/before 21 information. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we're making progress. After all, the aim here is to get a better article and I think we're getting somewhere. I probably wouldn't have passed it just yet but, again, rather than specific things, it's about building up a picture. If there's no source for the branch of the military, that's fine (likewise for his parents, grandparents and great aunts twice removed) and I often find things in references that I missed the first time I read them. The service in Germany is interesting (not hugely important, but it's part of the bigger picture). It's not about any one of the things I've mentioned specifically, they're all just examples but I think you might have misunderstood my point Gbern.

Btw, this (ref #3) could be useful for gleaning some more information. It mentions that Napoleon was planning to become a biologist rather than a physician is that might be worth a mention. My suggestion to you Gbern is to have a look through all the sources you've got already (which, for an article of this sort, are very good) to see if you can find a little more information- it just lacks information on what they do outside of work and I'm sure that there'll be some information of that sort in the existing sources. Also, as an aside, the flags in the infobox are probably in violation of MOS:FLAG but that's not a big issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HJM about it being the overall biographical picture that is the issue. Gbern if you go back through the sources and see if you can build that picture any more (esp the more recent stuff), then the article will probably be OK at GA. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Hamiltonstone. As always, your input is very much appreciated. Gbern, I agree with Hamitonstone and if that information can be found and added, I will not stand in the way of listing this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

May I chime in on this? Coming into this as a late arrival--I noticed a post on one of the talk pages asking for another pair of eyes. Here's my take on the article. It could probably be filled out some more, based on the material I saw in the refs alone. These two sound interesting. The initial "back" life (early life) seems sketchy to me, and I think the advice about reviewing existing sources (those already in use) to glean a little more would be beneficial here. I also think smoothing out some of the prose would help. For example: what is the relationship with him enlisting and the family moving to Vegas? If he was in the military, presumably he had left home. So after he went into the military his parents and siblings moved to Vegas? Consequently, when he returned home, he returned to Vegas? Is this what you're saying? Then I think you need to say, Napoleon enlisted in the military and served three years in Germany. While he was gone, his parents moved to Las Vegas. When he left the military, he returned to his parents house and attended UNLV. Or something to that effect.

There are also many prose and style issues. The placement of punctuation vis a vis citations is inconsistent (I prefer the citations after punctuation, but I'm not sure that 's MOS thing); there are various "awkward"moments--husband and wife choreography team sentence in the lead is the one that jumped out immediately. Additional uses of "choreograph" as a verb are not quite in the Transitive verb usage (you need subject and object). Lots of the sentences are either too long or too short, but I would pass a GA despite the latter. Does this help? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the sentence where you don't treat choreograph as a transitive verb: Napoleon and Tabitha have also choreographed for NFL and NBA dance teams..."

Oh, and btw. Sun Tzu is an ancient chinese military theoretician. Given the age of documents on, about, or by him, it is unlikely that there are sources to discuss his personal life. it would be like having a personal life of Socrates or Noah. Rodin and Al Williamson have material that normally would be included in a potential personal life section in the "early life" section. The last, a You Tube personality, ... I would have challenged that GA rating on the basis of this. So don't claim, please, that a "personal life" coverage is not required in GA. I'd say it is imperative, although in some cases material might not be available, or might be of dubious credibility. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial if my presence here were scaled down since I don't want to appear to be in anyone's face nor to be dominating the discussion, however the anorak in me can't help but answer the MoS points. Citations can go before or after punctuation (WP:FOOT I think) but the article must be consistent. As for the prose, while it's not brilliant here, 1a of WP:GA? is a lot less stringent than 1a of WP:FA? and there are no glaring spelling or grammar issues so far as I can see and the meaning is clear enough, imho, for GA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth55, to address your comment, I do not believe that personal life information shouldn't/isn't required in GA. The point I was trying to make was that I had already provided personal life information in the "early life" section. Aside from that, I looked through the sources I already had as requested and other than Tabitha's mom which hamiltonstone spotted, I was able to find their influences. Other personal information requested: where their passion for dancing comes from, whether or not they have kids, Napoleon's parents, and where/how specifically on UNLV they met, is not in there. Since I don't have sources, I can't provide this information. I'm going to close this discussion now. I think it's safe to say that this discussion is leaning toward "fail". // Gbern3 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)

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

Result: List/Keep as GA per consensus below. One objection was raised, but I have commented on this below. Geometry guy 20:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I recently reviewed and passed this article, however, another editor is now challenging my decision to list it, so I'd appreciate outside opinion. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support listing: The article is comprehensively referenced, images appear to be correctly licensed, reception is covered, including some not particularly positive, would have liked more detail on production, but that may not be available; and I see that GaGa wrote, produced, played on and performed the track, so there may not be more to say on this. My only (minor) criticism would be that the article (like the video perhaps!) might be too long. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Where's the discussion about why not to list it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The comments that prompted me to seek broader input are at Talk:Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/GA1. You might want to see Talk:Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/GA1/archive for the background. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, for general information, the most recent individual GAN/GAR review is usually linked at the top of a community GAR like this as "Most recent review". Geometry guy 20:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As being the nominator, I'm not sure whether I am allowed to say anything, hence just wanted to say that the challenger of the listing, has previously made dubious and ridiculous claims that in order to pass the article, one should contact the artist's management and get their consensus. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral There are a few minor issues, the inaccurate use of Britian in the lead. An unreferenced Credits section. I find the tone good. There are quite a few quotes but I think they are in balance, it certainly is a valid point to consider them but on the whole I think the objections to GA based on that is overstated. I lean towards support listing especially if the rather trivial correction of Britian and the credits refferences are resolved. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I corrected them. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • 'Britain' occurs three times in the lead but not in the body of the article. Britain is a normally taken to mean Great Britain which is not the same as UK, so the terms are not interchangeable. For song articles you want to use the term UK because The OCC is an official body for the UK charts and there is no charts for Britain. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Britain has been removed. I did not add it, someone else did. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Support listing, with the caveat understanding that it's not difficult to find faults if one tries. Therefore my support is not saying that it is perfect or done in the best way, just that it is a decent article which is acceptable for GA. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This article is unencyclopedic. Many rules for writing are to encourage better writing. The argument for Good Article turn those purposes on their head: Maintaining that anything that follows the rules must be good writing. That does not follow at all. I would like the editors involved to find some article in the "Encyclopedia Britannica" that is similar to what has been done here. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Much of what you say here is correct. The problem is a 'Good article' doesn't have to be that good. It just has to meet the criteria set out in WP:GACR. There are many GA articles that I would class as quite poor, but things are getting better and if you compare a GA today to three or four years ago, it's very much improved. As you seem to be a well intended editor can I suggest you spend some time over at WP:FAC, WP:FAR and WP:TFAR, there really is a requirement for high quality editors such as yourself to bring on the standards of the top articles. Those FA articles have much higher standards and so you'll both find your comments more welcomed and the results over time appear on the main page of Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • This user is biased as usual, and has no clue as to what is required or not for a song article. I don't find his/her comments as useful, rather hillarious. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Legolas, please remember to be civil. —Mike Allen 02:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Nothing I said crossed civility. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I've only taken a quick look at the article; at first glance I see no glaring reasons to delist. That said, the article is dense with details and will benefit from pruning. Alternatively, consider spinning off certain sections as daughter articles. Majoreditor (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Examples where the coverage is more complete and which are more readable are Let_It_Be (song) and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction. These articles have details about the performance and recording of the songs themselves, which this article almost entirely lacks. To be noted in particular in those articles is lack of trivial concert detail, "atta-girl" relatively uninsightful critical reviews, and of remixes. Those articles are a readable length which leaves space for later covers. If the current article was retitled "Lady Gaga's Performances of Paparazzi" it would be more to the point, perhaps. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Ignoring the fact that two most original researched articles are pointed by you, Im not sure what exactly do you want? You want to add unsourced background and recording information? Or you want me to make up some junk and add it? In previous discussions it has been pointed out to you that if information is not available, then Wikipedia cannot add it. And critical review of a song is the most important addition and reflection of it and any other aspect. If you cannot understand that, then please don't make silly comments like renaming the article to so and so. If you donot understand GA criterias, then no one here can help you. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support – this definitely meets all of the GA criteria. Piano non troppo, you seem to have a strong, rather odd, opposition for this to be a good article. Why? "Let It Be" and "Satisfaction" are much older songs by much more notable artists than Lady Gaga, so of course recording info will be easily available. I own the The Fame album on which this appears and the liner notes contain very little information on the recording process, and only what is included in there is included in this article. No other source that I know of has provided any more recording information. This article may not have as much as you like, but you can't make up facts. This article is not just about the song's writing and recording process itself, otherwise it would not meet the GA criterion that articles must be broad in coverage.
  
  Piano non troppo, in the most civil manner possible, I advise you stay away from the GA status of this article, be it reviews or reassessments. I'm of course not saying you have to, because you have the right to do whatever you wish here on Wikipedia that is within policy, but your constant additions of the same comments without further explanation (beating around the bush, you could say) is likely getting rather tiring on the editors of this article and those who have been monitoring your ongoing criticisms of this article. Don't be a dick. –Chase (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per User:Chasewc91. Aaroncrick ^TALK 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments. Given the supportive comments here, I think this can be closed soon, retaining GA status. The single oppose is based on comparisons with articles about very different songs, and with Encyclopedia Britannica. Comparisons with EB can often, in my experience, be unhelpful for several reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a general encyclopedia, but "an encyclopedia [which] incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Second, Wikipedia is not paper, and that dictates a different approach to detail and size issues. Third, although the input of expert editors is greatly valued, Wikipedia articles cannot rely upon the expertise of the editors (unlike EB): everything must be sourced, with no original research.

Because comparisons with other encyclopedias may not be valid, it is a matter for community consensus to determine what is or is not appropriate content for a Wikipedia music article. It is not appropriate for GA to take a position in that discussion, beyond ensuring that music articles meet the GA criteria. (Similarly, it is not appropriate for other projects to add to the GA criteria for music articles, beyond helping reviewers interpret the criteria based on consensus.)

Anyway, I checked out the article with a view to closing this GAR, but found a couple of minor problems. The prose is a bit choppy, with a few examples in the lead that don't meet 1a in my view.

• "Initially, "LoveGame" had at first been planned to be released as the third single release in the United Kingdom, but it was decided that Paparazzi would be released instead because of the potentially controversial lyrics and music video of LoveGame." This repeats "initially" and "at first"; it also uses awkward passive tenses in both clauses ("had been planned" and "it was decided" - by whom?). I also wonder how much of this sentence is lead material anyway.
• "It is a mid-tempo dance song whose lyrics show a stalker following somebody to grab attention and fame." The body of the article has "up-tempo", but I'm not sure what these terms mean. Also I wanted to change "show" to "describe", but I'm not sure this is accurate.
• "The song was written by Gaga to portray her struggles for fame." I suggest either "struggle for fame" or "struggles with fame": the body of the article suggests the latter interpretation, or possibly even an expanded phrase such as "her struggles with her quest for fame". Or it could be completely rewritten :)
• " 'Paparazzi' has been critically acclaimed for its fun-filled, club-friendly nature and is considered the most memorable and telling song from the album." This is hyperbole. The reviews in the article contain both positive and negative views. One review refers to it as the most memorable, and another as "telling", but the latter review is discussing how much the song tells about Lady Gaga's approach to her music career. Using "telling" in the unqualified narrative voice is unclear and not neutral.
• "The accompanying music video shows Gaga as a doomed starlet hounded by photographers, and in the process almost killed by her boyfriend." This is a garden path (the process was almost killed by her boyfriend?). It could simply be reordered as "almost killed by her boyfriend in the process", but the reader may wonder "what process?".
• "Gaga performed the song live at her first headlining The Fame Ball Tour, where it was the opening song; the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, where she won Best Art Direction and Best Special Effects awards; and on Saturday Night Live in October 2009." In trying to be efficient this sentence does too much: The Fame Ball Tour was her first headlining tour, not her first "headlining The Fame Ball Tour". Also, I may be old fashioned, but semicolons are not used like that; they are used in one of two ways: to join two closely related sentences; or to separate items in a list after a colon. Personal preferences aside, this sentence needs reconsideration.
• "On the second leg of the tour Gaga performed the song in a Wizard of Oz inspired dress alongside a giant fish creature." To avoid the awkward long noun phrase, and disambiguate the likely cultural reference, I suggest something like "On the second leg of the tour Gaga performed the song in a dress inspired by The Wizard of Oz, and alongside a giant fish-like creature".

I also found one (possibly) unsourced statement, which I've tagged, but I expect that can easily be fixed. Geometry guy 21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this wonderful review Geometry guy. I corrected them. Please check. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Got to agree. Great comments by Geometry guy. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked, and this looks better now. Geometry guy 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Notification of intention to close. Per my above comments, I believe this reassessment can be closed if no further objections are received in the next 48 hours. I am willing to do so if no one else closes it sooner. Geometry guy 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Can we close this now? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

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

Result: Delist. Judging from this discussion alone, it is clear that the POV issues have not yet been resolved, and there are WP:OWN problems going on that appear to be impeding a resolution. Because of this, the page is too unstable at the moment for it to remain a Good Article. Although articles can be re-nominated at any time, I would recommend re-nomination once a solution is reached (possibly through dispute resolution). Khoikhoi 03:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. This is an article about the theory that Jesus may not have existed as an historical figure. It was listed as a GA on February 22 this year on this version after a review by User:Afaprof01. I'm nominating it for a community reassessment because I feel it should not have been listed in the first place. I can't delist it myself because, although I'm not a major contributor, I'm currently in a content dispute on that page.

  The article has fallen under the control of three editors, Eugeneacurry, Bill the Cat 7, and Ari89. They have very strong views against the theory that Jesus did not exist, and have created an article that seeks to ridicule the theory and its sources. I became involved after the article failed two featured-article nominations; one in February and the second in April. It is POV, contains original commentary, reliable sources are missing, sources are insulted, there is little in-text attribution, editors who disagree are insulted, and the three of them revert constantly. There is also a concern that the article is a content fork. One editor raised this at the time of the review as a concern, but the reviewer did not heed it.

  Eugene has written a highly POV FAQ, and they insist that new editors read it before being allowed to comment. Their latest idea is to request that the article be protected against further contentious edits, which no admin would do, but it's illustrative of their failure to understand policy. The article has never been stable on a consensus version that I can see, and the talk archives are full of experienced editors voicing the same concerns going back many months.SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delist Comments - I entirely agree with SlimVirgin. I raised concerns regarding WP:NPOV at the article's FA candidature in April and other reviewers agreed that this was a problem. The article's Talk Page has become a hostile environment and attempts to reach consensus are difficult and very time consuming. The article in its current form violates WP:NPOV and should not be listed as a Good Article. Graham Colm (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delist Comment There are numerous issues with this article. Some are detailed here. Anthony (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a good article due to ongoing POV issues, and uncertainty over the very meaning of the term. See the article's talk page. By all means close this discussion, but delist first. Anthony (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have edited on this article on and off for several years and there is always disagreement on the talk page as you would guess. Recently however the talk page has become toxic and the disparaging comments in the article have ramped up massively, with Eugene leading a mission to write a "debunking" of the CMT. The theory is minor with an interesting history and some current popular support. It should be possible to illustrate its lack of academic acceptance without "skinhead", "flat-earth" and "moon landing hoax" insults. How this ever became a GA I don't understand. Sophia ♫ 09:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I am completely uninvolved in the content of this article but have taken administrative action including full protection of the page and blocking of at least two editors for issues related to it. Quite apart from the fact that a number of editors consider that there are issues with the NPOV of the article, the main problem is that it is clearly not stable when unprotected and therefore should not be a Good Article at this time. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Further comment I have had to fully protect the page again today due to the issues mentioned above. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delist I agree with SV, this article is biased and should be delisted. Sole Soul (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I believe this article is biased and fails to meet WP:NPOV. Looking at the anti-myth sources, they seem heavily weighted in favor of theologians and seminarians, who are trained from early childhood to believe unquestioningly that Jesus existed. To expect such biased sources to objectively and scientifically consider whether his existence was a myth, derived from other religions and myths, considered by them as heresies, defies common sense and cannot be seen as neutral or scientific. I think the article should be sourced primarily to professional historians, who have no dog in the race. Crum375 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. As I noted elsewhere on this page, the article fails NPOV by focusing too heavily on religious authors, who were educated from early age to believe Jesus existed. Also, the article's title and key concept is CMT, but I have yet to see a clear and non-confusing definition. When I asked the article's editors below to please define it for me, I got two widely disparate responses. And when I asked them to categorize a list of simple statements, trying to find where the bright line between pro- and anti-CMT position falls, I was told it was "silly" to try to classify the statements, as it's like trying to decide "who is fat." I also feel that this article is a POV fork from the Historicity of Jesus, and should be merged into that article. Crum375 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Further comment Here is another demonstration of the fact that CMT is ill-defined. A respected scholar wrote a recent book called "The Messiah myth", where according to the book's publisher, he "argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed." According to another reliable source reviewing this book, the author "is saying, a la Bruno Bauer, that someone in the Hellenistic period saw the need for a fictive ego-ideal/personal savior and invented Jesus to play that role." You'd think this would be a classical example of a "pro-CMT" author. Wrong. According to the article's main editors, this author, despite the above, does not qualify as a "mythicist", since the above sources are unreliable. So this respected Messiah Myth author, which a disinterested observer could easily see as a poster-child for CMT, is not included in the pro-CMT camp. Crum375 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on this further comment Crum's statement here is almost a text book example of the tendentious and arguably dishonest criticism the Christ myth theory is routinely subjected to. Crum asked about Thompson on the talk page. Two different editors explained to him why Thompson isn't a mythicist. Rather than accept those explanations though, Crum dredged up an advertiser's blurb and a personal blog article in which the author admits that he's guessing at Thompson's point. Two long-time Christ myth theory (CMT) article editors explained to Crum that neither of these qualify as reliable source. Crum disagreed and posted to the RSN... which uniformly rejected the advertisment as a reliable source. But that hasn't deterred Crum; he just keeps right on attacking the Christ myth article, pretending that his proferred sources are reliable. As I said, this is textbook, and it illustrates the sort of motivation that underlies the complaints that the article is unduely negative (POV) in it's depiction of the CMT. Editors assume the theory is respectable, find that the article includes an ocean of reliable sources that indicate otherwise, and rather than defer to the sources the editors just assume that something fishy is going on. Please take these objections with several grains of salt. Eugene (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply Eugene, I believe you are out of order. First, if you disagree with my Delist and brief comments, you should do so on the Talk page, not thread into my comments, just as no one has threaded yours. Second, I provided a link to the talk page thread, where everyone can follow it and form their own conclusions. Third, your statements about me are very rude, and close to a personal attack. I don't recall ever attacking you, or anyone else. I try to focus on content and policies, not on editors and their personalities, per WP:AGF. More specifically regarding the sources I referred to above, per WP:SPS, we are specifically allowed to rely on an expert publishing his views on his private website as a reliable source. And regarding the publisher's summary which I "dredged up", as you so kindly put it, I have yet to hear an experienced editor explain to me why, when a publisher of a book says that the author says X, we can't use that as a reliable source that the author says X in that book, according to the book's publisher. Crum375 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. Indeed there are major POV problems with the article, as well as sourcing concerns, and WP:RS issues. The article is not at GA quality status at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as GA This nomination violates WP:POINT. SlimVirgin attempted a major rewritting campaign at the article, encountered major resistence, and then listed the article for review as revenge. She was aware of this article months ago (through its first FAC) and while she objected to it, she didn't bother submitting it then for GA review. That only came after her ego was bruised a bit on the talk page. Eugene (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Comment: The POV issues have been resolved through discussion on the talk page and compromise; no disparaging insults appear anywhere in the article now--neither in-line or in the footnotes. Stability has also been greatly improved since the lock. Given these improvements (and the issue I mentioned above) please do not delist. Eugene (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I have moved the long threaded discussion to the talk page. The focus here should be on whether the article meets the GA criteria. Further discussion on the talk page is welcome, as are clearly summarized views here. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delist per second comment by Crum375. PYRRHON  talk   04:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as GA per Eugene. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delist, primarily for stability reasons, but also with concerns about the maintenance of NPOV. The POV problems are complex. The present version's lead gives the impression that the Christ myth theory has more scholarly credibility and adherents than appears to be the case. The present body text appears more thorough than the older version, but also has some subtle framing techniques (for example the lack of statements in the background section regarding the theory's minority nature, and the prevailing scholarly view) that appear to present a more sympathetic view of the myth theory than i understand the prevailing scholarly literature would support (i say that not having read the sources, but only the article and the talk page). Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum from the lead, the attempt to tag it as a "pseudohistory" article involves POV pushing in the opposite direction. Hence the NPOV problems and the stability issues are related. I have no particular view about the article's subject matter (other than that it is obviously a theory with few adherents), but the article does not appear to meet the criteria for GA at this point. Incidentally, I was disappointed to see the levels of aggression and ridicule being exhibited on the talk page by a number of contributors, much of it targeted toward Slimvirgin. Slim has an impressive track record of taking on WP articles about contentious subjects and working to ensure their compliance with WP policies and with NPOV (the main cases where I have seen her at work are her FACs Muhammad al-Durrah incident and Ian Tomlinson). Her good record and good mind should be giving more pause to the critics than appears to be the case. This discourtesy is probably contributing to the instability. I think delisting may have an additional side-effect of removing a little bit of the heat from the discussion, but the rest of it is up to some of the talk page participants. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This GAR has now been open for some time, and so could be closed by anyone who has not contributed significantly to the article. Given the balance of views above, the obvious conclusion would be to delist the article. Unfortunately, I cannot do so, because I do believe that the article has improved significantly, and that some of the criticisms are now out of date. Instead I would prefer that this GAR be closed as "no action". The goal of Wikipedia is not to change the world, but to describe it as it is. The most useful slogan in my mind is "let the reader decide". Mainstream views should be presented as such, whether editors agree with them or not. Also Wikipedia does not need to endorse the mainstream: we should simply describe it and give it appropriate weight. We should likewise not ridicule alternative views, but simply describe them.

No one can really know what happened 2000 years ago: an encyclopedia reports on what we do know and what are the views of current scholarship. I believe this GAR has served the purpose of improving the article in this light, and drawing editors together accordingly. Geometry guy 21:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, GG, there's been a further deterioration since I posted the request to delist, and there's clear consensus on this page that it shouldn't have GA status. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with G-guy. The article has improved and this GAR should be closed as "no action." That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Rabbitt

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

Result: Delist per comments below and lack of subsequent interest in fixing them. I tried to brush up the prose a little on my read through, but this needs renomination and a fresh review. Geometry guy 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer, I think I might've been a little hasty. There are plenty of unsourced statements throughout, and some issues.

Yeah, because you removed them. Ain't it funny how you remove sources then put up tags and list the page here? If the sources were bad, perhaps you could've replaced them yourself rather than dragging it through this process. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

For instance, I pruned the references to http://www.musicianguide.com, http://www.lpdiscography.com, http://www.oldies.com and http://www.waymarking.com, but had the first two reverted by the article's main editor (who has a long history of WP:OWN). Overall, the article feels a little underdeveloped in the prose, and the removal of the questionable sources has left a few sentences now unsourced (last two paragraphs of "later career" and a quote in "musical styles"). There are also occasional issues with OR, such as "the R&B flavored "Suspicions" from his 1979 album Loveline, was an even greater crossover success." There are also very few reviews outside Allmusic cited. Surely Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, etc. grabbed onto his albums too.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Concerns

1. Copyright violations from {http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/eddie+rabbitt/biography.html} found using this tool.

   Strike that, the copyvio is the other way, lifted from an earlier version on Wikipedia. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

   I have sent a standard copyvio email to LyricsFreak. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

2. ref # 23 [5] redirects to the front page of a record shop

• • Dead link

1. Prose: His body was interred at the Calvary Cemetery in Nashville, following a private burial on May 8. Interment and burial mean the same thing - were there two burials?

• • Un-addressed –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Citation needed tag needs addressing

• • Still un-addressed –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The pet ownership stuff seems a little like trivia.

• • Still un-addressed –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The death section might be better after or as a part of the personal life section

• That's all for now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Two disambig, American Boy; Calvary Cemetery –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

AS nothing appears to be done about the concerns raised, I think that this should be de listed now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• This article is a good B-class article, but a poor GA-class. There are quite a few sections which need citations, and I've tried to do a bit of copyediting where I can. Ironholds (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hazel Miner

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

Result: No action. The article has been rereviewed (and not listed). Geometry guy 19:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was appropriate to delist this article last fall. I added inline citations but the article is still of the same quality it was when originally assessed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The GA reassessment was at Talk:Hazel Miner/GA1. As the article currently stands the lede is not really the best summary and fails WP:LEAD, and there are lots of unseemly short paragraphs, for example of one or two sentences length. -- Cirt (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: This article has since been nominated at WP:GAN, has been reviewed and was not listed. See Talk:Hazel Miner/GA2. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This re-assessment was not templated on the article talk page, which is why I proceeded with the GAN review. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)