Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 52

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 53)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 51) →

Fyodor Kulakov

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

Result: Delisted. The issues brought up haven't been addressed. Szzuk (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is way off being of good article quality. It had several misspellings, and has poorly written text and missing decades of his life in places,. It is completely uneven and unstructured. Most paragraphs lack any strength whatsoever. Should never have been passed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Delist. Not the best of GA reviews. Article bearly scrapes any of the criteria that it requires. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Drew Carey

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

Result: kept Issues raised have been addressed. Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Several unsourced sections in the Drew Carey Show, Improv Television and Price Is Right headers.
• Other roles and appearances section begins almost every sentence with "In/on [date], Carey x". This should be copy-edited to remove the proseline and one-sentence paragraphs.
• Unsourced BLP info under Personal Life regarding his weight.
• More "In [date], Carey x" sentences in Sports Involvement, plus an unsourced final sentence that's also a one-sentence paragraph.
• Is it really relevant to Drew's article to say that The Price Is Right changed several things after he took over?
• Multiple Bare Urls.
• At least two citations to YouTube videos. These should be removed.
• Citation #55 (Gerweck.net) is 404.
• Is XBOX Solution reliable?
• I doubt the reliability of Xbox365.com since the article is attributed to a screen name ("Coola").
• Same thing with Everything2.com.

There was a previous GAN in 2009, but it was a two line reassessment that basically said "well, this has flaws but I still think it's a GA". To call that a GAN is ludicrous, so I'm giving it proper reassessment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As the person who reassessed it a couple years back, it does look like it's in much worse shape than I remember, so a delist is appropriate unless the issues are fixed above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is one of my earliest and most unwatched GAs (I really haven't given it a major cleanup in awhile). A lot of things have snuck in since he took over as host of PiR, but there are some older grammar and sourcing issues that should be replaced/revised. I'll address these issues this weekend. I definitely have learned that celebrity articles are the hardest to maintain of any GA/FA I've worked on, followed closely by films. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed the above issues, replacing several of the sources and adding new ones. Several sections have also been re-written and excessive detail removed. If any other issues are still prevalent, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Socialist Party USA

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

Result: Kept. There have been no comments it is therefore a no consensus outcome which defaults to keep. Szzuk (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a mistake for this article to have passed the Good Article Review, over a year ago, when there were terrible errors of fact, violations of WP policy, and stylistic problems. I request that its GA status be withdrawn, given the problems of the previous review.

This article falls short of meeting the following criteria for good article—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The second paragraph of the lede illustrates the article's need for copy-editing:

The party is officially committed to left-wing democratic socialist ideas. The Socialist Party USA, along with its predecessors, has been met with varying support. Some attribute this to the party having to compete with the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively and judicially entrenched two-party system.

This quote reveals other problems, particularly POV regarding "the" 2-"party" system. There is a huge literature on the question "Why no socialism in America?", which is just ignored in favor of the party members' fantasies.

The most egregious problems concern reliable sources and NPOV:

Verifiable with no original research:

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

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

In 1958, the Trotskyist Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman dissolved to join the Socialist Party of America. Shachtman, whose politics had changed since his days as a Trotskyist leader, argued both for militant opposition to Soviet-style communism and that the Socialist Party should work within the Democratic Party. By 1972 Shachtman's Unity Caucus had taken control of the Socialist Party and blocked a resolution opposing the Vietnam War. In the 1972 presidential election, Shachtman's caucus initially backed hawkish Cold Warrior Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, then adopted AFL-CIO President George Meany's position of neutrality between the two candidates nominated by the major parties.

In response, two groups broke off: the Coalition Caucus led by Michael Harrington supported antiwar Democrat George McGovern and went on to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (later becoming the Democratic Socialists of America), while the left-wing Debs Caucus backed People's Party anti-war candidate Benjamin Spock. The Debs Caucus formed the Union for Democratic Socialism, which officially reconstituted the Socialist Party USA in 1973, when the Shachtmanites who remained in the Socialist Party re-named their organization Social Democrats USA. Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA.

Even here, I had removed some of the most egregious errors and POV biases in this account, but it was still written from the perspective of an enthusiast of McReynold's faction, which was the smallest of the three— so small that it is often ignored in accounts of the name change to SDUSA. (For example, Harrington's memoirs ignore it. The phrase "numerous local and state branches" participated in the reconstitution is wishful thinking. The crucial fact that is not mentioned is that the convention voted on proposals, and the heroes of this tale, McReynolds and Harrington, lost every time. It, like much of the conspiracy websites of the far right and far left, attributes everything to Shachtman, who was roughly 70

AND DEAD!!!!! ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

at the time, and fails to mention any of the other leadership: For example, the notorious ex-Trotskyists and followers of Shachtman (sarcasm), A. Philip Randolph and the chairman Bayard Rustin. This is just not serious, as any honest and knowledgeable editor should readily admit.

User:Orange_Mike previously assured us that this material was indeed in Heilbrunn's article, which would thus seem to differ from the book. Mike, given my difficulties verifying the reference to the WP excerpt, would you please post some relevant quotations with page references here?

IMHO, this paragraph seems to derive from p. 164 of SPUSA officer Busky's book, which is not a reliable source, at least not on U.S. politics (see the sarcasm "because labor was the motor of all social change" on p.164, for example).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This material was added without any references, and certainly no reference to Heilbrunn.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The misleading reference to Heilbrunn was added by User:TIAYN (User:TrustIsAllYouNeed), who also added several paraphrases (sometimes unsourced) of SPUSA positions and introduced the COI/Primary book by SPUSA officer Busky. This edit does raise the question of whether TIAYN is too close to the party, given such edits, and so editing this page appears to be a COI.

I have spent the last weeks cleaning up this and related articles. A comparison of this article, as it now stands, and its state a month ago, demonstrates that this article was very far from GA status. I have discussed criticisms on the article's talk page (and on the talk page of Socialist Party of America). However, I don't have the will to finish cleaning up this article, whose second half seems to be cherry-picked items shedding a a positive light on the SPUSA. To go forward, I believe there should be some admission that there were serious problems with the article, in particular with its extensive paraphrasing of unreliable sources, often from the SPUSA websites or written by its activists (Busky). I believe that editors with conflicts of interest need to declare them (perhaps to a neutral administrator by an e-mail) and be doubly scrupulous about NPOV issues.

I should clarify that pro-SPUSA material (with reliability NPOV problems) was added perhaps 4-5 years ago by editors with no apparent connection to SPUSA, probably somewhat naively in good faith, and without a substantial understanding of history, which would have alerted them to problematic phrases. (Of course, there is positive information on the SPUSA that is free of COI/reliability problems, also.)

I would encourage editors, even with SPUSA ties, to please help with improving the article. Just be mindful of the COI policy. Again, I think that regular editors have avoided COI problems in these articles. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a thorough checking of the second half of the article, especially for WP:Reliable and WP:Secondary issues, even before copy-editing can begin. After these issues are addressed, then the article can be considered for GA status.

Thank you!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Saprang Kalayanamitr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: Kept The article was updated and no new concerns were raised AIRcorn (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how a completely outdated biography can still have Good Article status. It seems that it has not been updated for nearly four years! -- RJFF (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. Article is outdated and as it isn't updated regularly there appears little chance it will be. Szzuk (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• There doesn't appear to be much else to say. The end of the article notes that he was retired after the coup. Since then, the sources say that he's still retired. It appears that a politician accused him of plotting a coup, but that appears to have been a hoax. We can't really "update" an article if nothing's changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think the main problem is the lead section: it suggests that he still holds these positions, what he AFAIK does not. -- RJFF (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And you have not boldly fixed this because... why, exactly? WP:Be bold applies to all of our editors, including you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• The lead seems to be updated to 2010 now. Are there any other updating concerns or general GA concerns? AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It still doesn't look great but I'll switch to neutral. Szzuk (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator. Replaced all references to a proper format, removed all unreliable sources and replaced them with reliable sources, fixed grammatical issues, added proper text to uploads and images, added alts to images, improved cast section, and corrected errors involving formatting and Wikipedia guidelines. Reassessment reviewer approves of all the changes.

The problem here is that the article is not a Good Article. User:Elencia very first edit was this, something strange on a newbie. Simple sight, the references have not the correct format, e.g.:

• Ref 131: "GERMANY ALL TIME OPENINGS". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2011-07-07. -> This reference fails WP:ALLCAPS. Also, the date is different to the reference 138 -> Tony_Bacala. "Transformers Dark of the Moon Blu-Ray in November". Transformers World 2005. Retrieved July 9, 2011.
  • Here, also "Tony_Bacala" should be "Bacala, Tony".
• References 79, 124, 125 and 127 have different formats, even when they come from the same site, Box Office Mojo.
• 4 bare URLs.
• A lot of inconsistences: YMD/MDY dates; publishers/workers/authors/dates missed
• Many dead links
• 3 dablinks
• ALT text missed

Now checking the article itself:

• 18 references in the lead. If the information is (supposed to be) in the article, it is not necessary to cite here (expecting WP:LEADCITE.
• The cast section should be like this.
• The infobox includes Japan release, per Wikipedia:FILMRELEASE: "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release", and it already includes Moscow International Film Festival and North American ones.

Prose review

• It is the sequel to Transformers and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and was released on June 29, 2011 -> It is the sequel to Transformers and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and was released on June 29, 2011
• The film was released in both 2D and 3D formats, -> The film was released in both, 2D and 3D, formats
• As the Autobots continue to work for NEST - a United States military-Autobot alliance, they discover a hidden alien technology in possession of humans, -> As the Autobots continue to work for NEST—a United States military—they discover a hidden alien technology in possession of humans,
• "and John Turturro reprise their starring roles, also Peter Cullen returned as the voice of Optimus Prime and Hugo Weaving returned as the voice of Megatron. Kevin Dunn, and Julie White have also reprised..." -> copy-edit needed
• "who collaborated in the writing of the second film, was again involved in the writing." -> per above.
• "their roles as Sam Witwicky's parents." -> Who is Sam?
• "With Fox's character (Mikaela Banes) being dropped," -> What's doing Banes there?
• "The film is currently" -> "Currently" is not appropiate
• "The film is also currently the highest grossing Michael Bay film," -> The film is also the highest-grossing film directed by Bay,
• and the highest grossing Paramount-DreamWorks film of all time -> Overlinked
• The film was then released one day earlier, June 28, in select 3D and IMAX theatres, nationwide.[15][16] The film is currently the 2nd highest grossing film of 2011 (behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2) internationally. The film is also currently the highest grossing Michael Bay film, and the highest grossing Paramount-DreamWorks film of all time and also currently stands as the 7th highest-grossing film of all-time and highest-grossing film in the Transformers series and the only film in the series to gross over $1 billion.[17] The film is currently the 10th film in cinematic history to cross the $1 billion mark-in unadjusted dollars-and the third film in 2011 to cross the billion mark.[18] -> The film is currently, and, and, and, and. This deserves a copy-edit.

Discussion – This is just the lead and the references. I'd continue my review, but it is just a waste of time. This article does not meet the WP:GA? criteria, and it was only a bad review made by Elencia that would ended in a quick-fail. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The issues you've left me here have been addressed by me. If you would review this article any further, I'd be more than happy to correct them to retain the article's GA rating. Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, not all of them. The references still needing the correct {{cite web}} format. As you are working on the article I'll review all the article in the next days. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Still working on the references. It is indeed a mess now that you've mentioned it. Fanaction2031 (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also edited the Cast section so it could be similar to the one in Ironman.

Fixed most of the references, please review the article now. Fanaction2031 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'd also like to verify the authorship of File:MichaelBayShootingin3D.jpg. The image is claimed to be self-made by Fanaction2031, by the metadata indicates photo credit to go to Jaimie Trueblood, and a quick Google search pulls up images by the author here and here. If image's rights are not owned by the uploader, it needs to be deleted. File:OptimusPrimeTF3DOTM.jpg should be reduced in size and the fair use rationale expanded. More details need to be included to warrant the inclusion of the image of Prime per WP:FILMNFI, otherwise it currently looks decorative by its inclusion. If File:Transformers3Promotion.jpg is considered non-free, it needs to be reduced in size for fair use requirements. --Happy editing!

Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the problems. Fanaction2031 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You resized the images, but the bus image should still be a bit smaller, try shooting for a 300px side for one of the dimensions. If you did not photograph the Michael Bay image, it should be put up for deletion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the Michael Bay image. I'd also agree with Geometry guy about the character image for Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. As a free image of here is potentially available (have been searching over the last few months but haven't secured one yet), it's inclusion is merely decorative. There are other free images of the cast members, search Wikimedia Commons for some others to add to the article. Looking at the content in the article, I think you'd be better off including a screenshot of the Driller rather than Prime. The quote indicates it's more complex than animating Prime, so it would better assist with the readers' understanding rather than showing something that required less work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to upload a screenshot of Driller. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the caption for the image. I also was able to get a free image of Huntington-Whiteley, which I added to the release section. Feel free to move it if you have a better place. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions! Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Practically all of these complaints are examples of WP:What the Good article criteria are not:

• Fails ALLCAPS? Who cares? ALLCAPS is not one of the five MOS pages that GAs are required to comply with.
• Dead links? Who cares? Dead links are permitted, and their removal may be prohibited by WP:DEADREF (which was revised earlier this year).
• Dab links? Who cares? GAs are not required to be free of dab links.
• No alt text? Who cares? GAs are not required to have alt text.
• Inconsistently formatted citations? Who cares? GAs are not required to have consistently formatted citations.
• Citations in the lead? Who cares? LEADCITE permits citations in the lead.
• Cast section not formatted in your favorite way? Who cares? GAs are not required to have any particular style of cast section.
• Infobox doesn't comply with FILMRELEASE? Who cares? GAs are not required to comply with FILMRELEASE.

While I'm glad that the article has been improved, none of this is grounds for de-listing. This should not have been listed here. If the nom wanted the article to exceed the actual criteria, then he could have done that on his own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Another user that uses essays as rules. I'd be rich if I won a dollar each time I find a person like you. I have to remember you that the first point of the WP:GA? is: "Well-written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct"; not "Well-written: the prose may be clear and concise (sometimes), and the spelling and grammar are correct, when is possible. I really like to know if you understand the WP:GA criteria, becasue as if "no one cares" about "essays of people that are mad with P&G", let me nominate Doug DeMartin as a Good Article right now. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've pretty much did everything you've listed on the article reassessment page. If you would kindly review the entire article, I'll fix the rest of the problems you will list. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not exempting the article from the requirement that it be well-written. You will not find your (already fixed) complaints about the clarity, concision, spelling or grammar of the prose anywhere in my list. I have listed as non-criteria only those things that are actually not criteria.

You may be interested in reading WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. Some of our most important and widely supported advice pages, including WP:Use common sense and WP:Bold, revert, discuss, are "just" essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because an essay is used by people, does not mean that it is a policy or guideline, nor that should be followed. Either way, "common sense" redirects to an essay, not the simple policy (and there is nothing that can be ignored here). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• However... "Illustrates the character's appearance during the film" is not a valid fair use rationale for File:CarlySpencerDarkoftheMoon.jpg. The image is eye-candy with no educational purpose, and it is not discussed in the article. Geometry guy 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The lead must not contain references (because it must not contain anything new that is not present in the article; it only summarizes the below mentioned information) unless they are direct quotations. 50.19.78.29 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, removed the references from the lead. Fanaction2031 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP says "The lead must not contain references," but nowhere does WP:LEAD state that. It used to state that the lead does not need references (two or more years back), per the rest of what the IP stated, but it does not state that anymore. In Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, it says, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." So I'm wondering where the IP got the idea that "the lead must not contain references." Plenty of good and featured Wikipedia articles include references in their leads for more than just direct quotes. Sometimes the lead may even include something that is not covered in the lower body of the article, which can be fine. I'll mention this below in the #References section, where the most recent discussion is being had. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is just the first part of the review. Due it is very long, I need additional time to check every phrase and reference on in. I'll add the second part tomorrow. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

First review

*Lead Link Autobot, if Cybertron is linked why the first not. "Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and John Turturro have reprised their starring roles, and Peter Cullen returns as the voice of Optimus Prime. Hugo Weaving returns as the voice of Megatron, and Kevin Dunn, and Julie White reprise their roles -> this still wrong, "reprise" and "return", both, are used twice in the same sentence. This needs to be copy-edited. "The film was then released one day earlier, June 28, in select" -> in selected "The film is the 2nd" -> wP:NUMBERS below ten are written out "the 5th" -> as above "in the Transformers series," -> overlinked Plot Autobots and Decepticons -> link both "During a mission to Chernobyl to investigate" -> During a mission to Chernobyl, to investigate Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC) "fuel cell from the Ark," -> The first "The Ark" is italized. Consistency needed. Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC) On second thought, since a user named "Boycool42" suggested that spacecraft should be italized (Enterprise, Millennium Falcon et cetra), what are your thoughts on this? Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Nevermind that, scratch it, I removed the "Ark" from the lead, and re-italized and linked it to the plot. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC) "There they discover a comatose Sentinel Prime" -> Remove the "there" "They locate two surviving Russian cosmonauts who reveal" -> They locate two surviving Russian cosmonauts, who reveal "concealed Decepticons from the Moon to Earth and Carly" -> concealed Decepticons from the Moon to Earth, and Carly "avoid war but as their ship leaves Earth it is destroyed by Starscream" -> avoid war but, as their ship leaves Earth, it is destroyed by Starscream Cast stated that this would be his last film in the series, he also concludes that the director will not return for the fourth installment. -> As a living people. needs a source. "franchise like Transformers 3 or even" -> franchise like Transformers 3 or even "or even now Hangover 2" -> "or even now Hangover 2", and link Hangover 2 to its link Per consistency, File:OptimusPrimeTF3BotCon.jpg needs ALT. link Industrial Light & Magic. transforms into a police car, & -> WP:& should be replaced for "and" Production "As a preemptive measure, Michael Lucchi and Paramount announced a July 1, 2011 release date in IMAX 3-D for another Transformers film before completion of Revenge of the Fallen." -> As a preemptive measure, Michael Lucchi [who is this person, what he did on this film], and Paramount [Pictures] announced [when?] a release date on July 1, 2011, in IMAX 3-D for another Transformers film, before completion of Revenge of the Fallen. Replace the bracketed comments if it is possible Industrial Light & Magic -> unlink it here, and put a "(ILM)", because you'll use it later Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) the next Transformers film being -> the next Transformers film being he'd found -> if this is not a quote, make it encyclopedic "In a hidden extra for the Blu-ray version of Revenge of the Fallen" -> "In a hidden extra for the Blu-ray version of the previous film" "Revenge of the Fallen" is mentioned later. "Orci said he would like" -> Orci has not been mentioned beyond the lead, mention his name and link it here Don't really get what you're saying here. Sorry. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) In simple English: change Orci said he would like to Roberto Orci said he would like Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Okay, done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ultimately the producers decided to forgo -> Ultimately, the producers decided to forgo .[27]</ref>[28] -> typo and Moscow.[30][31]. -> and Moscow.[30][31] (remove the extra period) Ironic, a small little mistake took me forever to find. Fixed. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC) There is an easy way. Just press "Ctrl + F" and later a searcher will appear. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I know, but there were two reference codes that were making it harder to find the period. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC) were spent in Chicago. -> unlink Chicago here and link it before temporarily delayed on September 2, 2010 in -> temporarily delayed on September 2, 2010, in... What happened with Cedillo's family lawsuit. If there is information include it I've added some information. Wonder why it isn't crossed yet. "Her attorney, Todd Smith, said "This was an attractive 24-year old girl who had dreams and aspirations involving acting, and this kind of injury may well have a serious impact on her dreams."[51] The filed complaint reads that "Cedillo has endured and will in the future endure pain and suffering; has become disfigured and disabled; has suffered a loss of the enjoyment of a normal life; has been damaged in her capacity to earn a living; has incurred and will in the future incur expenses for medical services, all of which are permanent in nature."[51] In response to the suit, Paramount released the following statement: "We are all terribly sorry that this accident occurred. Our thoughts, prayers and best wishes are with Gabriela, her family and loved ones. The production will continue to provide all the help we can to Gabriela and her family during this difficult time.”[51]" Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) "The film's lead visual effects company is Industrial Light & Magic" -> The film's lead visual effects company was ILM. "ILM's Scott Farrar, the VFX supervisor" -> Scott Farrar, the VFX supervisor, ""not only were the film's effects ambitious, they also had to be designed for 3-D.[12]" -> Remove the reference here, the quote has not ended Michael Bay considered -> Bay considered "Michael also stated that he wasn't going to do all" -> "Bay also stated that he was not going to do all" "Bay also stated that he was not going to do all his films in 3-D, but he felt that this particular film was appropriate for 3-D.[56] The film was shot partially with Cameron-Pace Group’s 3-D Fusion camera rigs developed by James Cameron’s team." Should be crossed also. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) "I did some tests with the robots,”[56] he says," -> Shouldn't be "he said"? " "I did some tests with the robots,”[58] he said, "where we were close-up on a robot – and you know Optimus Prime has 10,000 pieces[58]. Should be crossed. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) "In one sequence, when Bumblebee catches" -> Bumblebee is mentioned before, but not linked there "Farrar says, "This shot is a good example of why I enjoy working with Michael Bay so much. "It’s like a big magic..." -> typo between 'much. "It’s' Bluescreen -> Link it to Chroma key "Though the Chicago battle in" -> overlinked Central to Michael Bay’s -> Central to Bay’s for a Transformers film -> for a Transformers film to real cityscapes." -> remove the ", apparently the quote continues I don't really get it. "So for a couple of months there, I was in a helicopter shooting aerial plates of the real buildings. And we’d add destruction to all the backgrounds – smoke, fire, debris, fighter planes, war, battles, torn up streets – to real cityscapes." The quote ends here. Please elaborate. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) "the shots in Chicago" -> overlinked Since Michael Bay always -> Since Bay always Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) 6 months -> six months "According to Farrar, "just under 600 3-D shots"[52] were made for the film and digital domain did about 200 shots." -> I cannot acces to the video, but it shouldn't be "According to Farrar, "just under 600 3-D shots" were made for the film and digital domain did about 200 shots.[52]"? The external audio located on the right is pretty much the exact same thing without the video. Fanaction2031 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC) I refered that the reference should be after "200 shots" not "600 3-D shots". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Oh. Okay, done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Sentinel Prime, the film's main antagonist, before Leonard Nimoy was cast into the film, ILM had everything -> Before Leonard Nimoy was casted into the film, as Sentinel Prime, ILM had everything battle to Michael so -> battle to Bay so "work on the film and finaled work" -> I do not speak English, but, what does "finaled" means? "The film had many positive reviews" -> by whom? Fixed pretty much everything you've currently listed. Still waiting for more. Fanaction2031 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the second part of the review. The only part that is missed is the References, because thare are many of them. I'll have them as soon as possible. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much did everything, except for ""A thirty-second television" -> Consistency needed with the numbers". Please elaborate more on that, sorry. Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Throughout the article you have written out numbers bigger than ten, excepting here. thirty-second -> 30 second. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments

*About this edit, if spacecraft is italized, put italics in all "The Ark". I just told you that consistency is needed Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Marketing "on FOX" -> on Fox, per MOS:TM Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC) the next day on May 19 -> The "May 19" is unneeded File:StevejablonskyDOTM.ogg "Listen to a clip from "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" composed by Steve Jablonsky, featuring 30 seconds of his work." -> Non-free material is used to explain something that cannot be expressed by words alone or couldn't be replaced, (e.g. 1, 2). Add a better summary or remove it. Also, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples it has to be reduced from 31s to 27. Done, but I need help of deciding what the "back up" tune is. Like in "Alejandro", where it was described as "synth beats." Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, I got it. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC) June 28, 2011 but Amazon -> June 28, 2011, but Amazon but Amazon -> but Amazon.com Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC) It was available for download on Amazon on June 30, 2011 -> unsourced and too short. Try to merge it is approximately fifty nine minutes and fourty seven seconds long -> why not 59:47 minutes long? and Michael Bay. -> overlinked "The single follows "What I've Done" being used" -> The single follows "What I've Done", being used "The app was developed by EA.[86]" -> Too short, merge it. Also EA -> Electronic Arts per MOS:TM In a High definition -> "High-definition" and unlink it Release Its special effects — and 3D shots — are -> Per WP:MDASH: "Do not use spaced em dashes" File:RosieHuntington-WhiteleyJun2011.jpg -> Since you are using it on the Reception section, you should talk about how critics received Rose's acting. "IGN gave the film a 7 out of 10, also " -> IGN gave the film a seven out of ten, also rating it 3 and a half out -> rating it three and a half out the TIME magazine -> MOS:TM "$347,440,989 in North America, as of August 15, 2011 (2011 -08-15)[update], and $731,278,472 in other territories, as of August 15, 2011 (2011 -08-15)[update], for a worldwide total of $1,078,719,461," -> This may need an update (not necessary for this GAR) behind the #23.2 million debut -> $23.2 (16 days) in record time but lost all records -> (16 days) in record time, but lost all records records to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2. -> Overlinked, and should be "– Part 2" the United States and Canada, -> Countries are generally not linked, per WP:OVERLINK behind Harry Pottger and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 -> two typos: behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part – 2 non-opening Thursday of all time[113] as well -> non-opening Thursday of all time,[113] as well Dark of the Moon's -> Dark of the Moon's "marking the second largest opening weekend of 2011 behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2" -> "marking the second largest opening weekend of 2011, behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2", and overlinked Spider-Man 2's -> out-grossing Spider-Man 2's out-grossing Spider-Man 2's $88.2 million gross -> Synonym needed #1 spot -> number one spot that of Revenge of the Fallen -> Recently linked, overlinked ($139.6 million) and its -> ($139.6 million), and its better than Pirates 4 in... -> better than Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in all 58 markets where 70 percent of the grosses came from 3D (this was a higher 3D share than Pirates 4... surpassing On Stranger Tides's previous -> overlinked surpassing On Stranger Tides's previous -> surpassing On Stranger Tides's previous record of Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides -> italics The "Accolades" subsection is based only on the TCA. I suggest to merge it into prose in the reception section until it receive more nominations. Done with pretty much everything except for the audio preview, which I will fix right now. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC) "A thirty-second television" -> Consistency needed with the numbers Are you suggesting to put it in numerical form? Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Yip. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC) ocean of Haterade — the snarking, the Razzie Award, the mean reviews — that -> WP:MDASH: ocean of Haterade—the snarking, the Razzie Award, the mean reviews—that Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am finally done with the references. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed references

:Ref 1.- Paramount Pictures -> "|publisher=Paramount Pictures. Viacom" (Just change the |work= to |publisher=); Also add |date=2011-05-23, because the work was published that date. DoneFanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 2.- Paramount Pictures -> |publisher=Paramount Pictures. Viacom Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 3.- Jeff Labrecque -> Labrecque, Jeff; insidemovies.ew.com -> |work=Entertainment Weekly |publisher=Time Warner; |date=2011-05-20 Don't get how to add (insidemovies.ew.com) after the name. Sorry for being so naive. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, the insidemovies.ew.com is incorrect. The site is published by EW. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 4.- link the British Board of Film Classification Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 5.- It is published by Prometheus Global Media Done. (Was already done.) Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 6.- It is published by Amazon.com (|publisher=Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com) Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 7.- Why Andrew McCants is a reliable source? Seems like this is already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 9.- It starts with "Rumor", so, why we are posting rumors? Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 10.- It is published by TV Fanatic; its author is Marsi, Steve Done. Ref 12.- I don't know if TFW 2005 is a reliable source, but I would use http://www.craveonline.com/tv/interviews/161975-ken-jeong-on-community-hangover-2-and-transformers-3 , which is the source where the interview was taken from. (|author=Topel, Fred |publisher=CraveOnline. CraveOnline Media, LLC |date=2011-03-23) Already done by someone. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 13#b.- "giant snake-like creature used in the film led to many challenges, and confusion" -> "confusion"? where? I see nothing on the reference Most of the effects section was reworked by Igordebraga and Boycool42. So, technically this is done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 14.- Sciretta, Peter made the interview; Slashfilm -> /Film (ignore the redlink here, it'll be normal in the article) Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 16.- Overlinked (already linked in Ref 15) Refs are changed. Don't know what's overlinked. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 17.- Sciretta, Peter made the interview; Overlinked Already done (I think). Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 18.- Variety -> |work=Variety |publisher=Reed Business Information Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 19.- MTV -> |publisher=MTV. Viacom; Ditzian, Eric made is the author Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 20.- UsMagazine.com -> |work=Us Weekly |publisher=Wenner Media, LLC Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 21.- /Film. People.com -> |work=People |publisher=Time Inc; Authors= David Caplan and Jennifer Garcia on May 19, not May 20 Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 22.- GQ -> |work=GQ |publisher=Condé Nast Publications Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 23.- Alex Billington -> Billington, Alex; date=2009-06-30; FirstShowing -> FirstShowing.net Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 24.- How it is a reliable source? Changed source. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 25.- As I noted before, how TFW 2005 it is a reliable source? Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 26.- Fischer, Russ is the author; Slashfilm -> /Film Done. Ref 27.- Ditzian, Eric is the author; |publisher=MTV. Viacom; |date=2010-05-19 Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 28.- Inside Indiana Business -> Inside INdiana Business Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) File:Sean Connery 1980.jpg needs ALT per consistency. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 12.- TheHollywoodReporter -> The Hollywood Reporter; it is published by Prometheus Global Media Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) To be continued tommorrow. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 7.- It is published by Associated Newspapers Ltd Ref 10.- |publisher=RelzChannel. Hubbard Broadcasting Ref 11.- Accessdate missed Ref 12.- THR is overlinked Ref 17.- Michael Bay is overlinked Ref 18.- People.com -> /Film, which is the correct publisher Ref 20.- it is published by Gannett Company Ref 21.- |publisher=Michael Bay Official Youtube Channel. YouTube Ref 27.- Alex Billington. -> Billington, Alex Ref 28.- calcuttatube.com -> calcuttatube.com or Calcutta Tube (without italics) Ref 29.- /Film -> /Film Ref 32.- it is publisher by Entertainment News International Ref 33.- |publisher=comingsoon.net. CraveOnline Media, LLC Ref 34.- |publisher=WTSP. Gannett Company Ref 36.- myfoxchicago.com -> |publisher=WFLD. Fox Television Stations Inc Ref 38.- worst previews -> worstpreviews.com Ref 39.- Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel -> |work=Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel |publisher=Journal Communications Ref 40.- Any Blogspot page is an unreliable reference. Ref 41.- As ref 35 Ref 43.- Variety -> |work=Variety |publisher=Reed Business Information Ref 44.- Simon Wakelin -> Wakelin, Simon Ref 46.- Unlink MTV. |publisher=MTV. Viacom Ref 47.- Sciretta, Peter is the author Ref 48.- |publisher=Moviefone. Aol |author=Jancelewicz, Chris Ref 50.- It is published by Tribune Company Ref 51.- Link BBC News Ref 52.- RadarOnline -> RadarOnline Ref 53.- Deadline -> Deadline Hollywood Daily (per consistency) Ref 54.- It is published by The Wrap News Inc. Ref 55.- jalopnik -> Jalopnik Ref 56.- |publisher=DCist. Gothamist LLC Ref 58.- FX Guide -> Fxguide Ref 59.- CG Society -> CG Society Ref 60.- it is publihsed by Internet Archive Ref 61.- As ref 58 Ref 62.- Legend3D -> Legend3D Ref 63.- As ref 35 Ref 65.- Slashfilm -> /Film. Sciretta, Peter is the author Ref 66.- it is published by CBS Studios Inc Ref 67.- As ref 35 Ref 69.- As ref 35 Ref 70.- Publisher, author, date and accessdate missed Ref 71.- As ref 35 Ref 72.- Matt Joseph -> Joseph , Matt Ref 73.- Kofi Outlaw -> Outlaw, Kofi Ref 74.- |publisher=Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com; accessdate missed It is boxoffice.com, I will update the accessdate. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 75.- "Apple Inc.." -> To avoid the ".." put it like this: Apple Inc. Also remove the italics Ref 76.- FilmMusicReporter -> FilmMusicReporter Ref 77.- Amazon -> Amazon.com Ref 78.- MTV -> MTV. Viacom. Authors Montgomery, James and Kim, Audrey Ref 79.- Twitter -> Twitter Ref 80.- DeVILZn1ght is not the copyholder, so WP:ELNEVER apply Ref 81.- Michael Kelly -> Kelly, Michael Ref 83.- WP:ALLCAPS; publisher missed Ref 84.- "Seibertron.com is an unofficial Transformers fansite", fails WP:RS Ref 85.- WP:ALLCAPS. |publisher=EA -> |publisher=Apple Inc Ref 86.- As ref 35. Ref 87.- |publisher=Rotten Tomatoes. Flixster Ref 88.- |publisher=Metacritic. CBS Interactive Ref 89.- It is published by Sun-Times Media Group Ref 91.- Rolling Stone -> Rolling Stone. Also, it is published by Wenner Media, LLC Ref 92.- The Philadelphia Inquirer -> |work=The Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia Media Holdings Ref 94.- New York Post -> |work=New York Post |publisher= News Corporation Ref 95.- Consistency needed (Ref 7) Ref 99.- daily.bhaskar.com should be Dainik Bhaskar, an it is published by D B Corp Ltd.. Author (Samira Shaikh), date (02/07/11) and accessdate missed Ref 101.- Screenrant -> Screenrant Ref 102.- Neil Schneider -> Schneider, Neil Ref 103.- Anders, Charlie Jane is the author Ref 104.- The Hollywood Reporter-> The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media Ref 107.- The Hollywood Reporter -> The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media Ref 108.- Box Office Mojo. -> Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com; Subers, Ray did the work on 2011-07-05 Ref 109.- MovieWeb -> MovieWeb Ref 111.- McClintock, Pamela is the author; The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media -> both missed Ref 114.- Gray, Brandon is the author and he did it on 2011-07-04 Ref 119.- Subers, Ray did the work on 2011-07-10. Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com, both missed Ref 120 and 121.- The Hollywood Reporter -> The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media Ref 108, 123 and 125 are the same Ref 124.- Bare link: title='Transformers 3' Scores $400M+ Opening at Global Box Office ||publisher=The Wrap News Inc. |date=July 04, 2011 |author= Frankel, Daniel |accessdate= Refs 105, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133.- Box Office Mojo. -> Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com Ref 35.- why it is a reliable source? I keep this. It still being a fansite Found reliable source, from Current TV, positive this problem will now go. Going to go to sleep, and will do more tomorrow. Fanaction2031 (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 49.- As ref 35 I keep this, "This blog works with caffeine and WordPress." New source. Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Refs 134 and 135, as ref 35 (why it is a reliable source) As before. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Isn't ref 134 "The Hollywood Reporter"? Fixed 135. Also fixed 136, as it was linked to "TFW2005" which is an unreliable source, but was not spotted by you (surprisingly). Fanaction2031 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As I stated in the #Discussion section above, the IP says "The lead must not contain references," but nowhere does WP:LEAD state that. It used to state that the lead does not need references (two or more years back), per the rest of what the IP stated, but it does not state that anymore. In Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, it says, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." So I'm wondering where the IP got the idea that "the lead must not contain references." Plenty of good and featured Wikipedia articles include references in their leads for more than just direct quotes. Sometimes the lead may even include something that is not covered in the lower body of the article, which can be fine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And you needed to put this two times? Although WP:LEAD does not say "The lead must not contain references" there is no valid reason to have references on it, is it? The information is in the article, and have references on it is redundant and useless. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No need for the attitude. I posted it twice because I wanted to. I certainly was not going to leave it higher where it may not be noticed. And WP:LEADCITE makes it quite clear that there may be valid reasons to have references in the lead. It also says "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Saying "The information is in the article, and have references on it is redundant and useless." is simply opinion. To some editors, having them in the lead is useful for quicker reference. I don't care much that the references have been removed from the lead. I just wanted to point out that the IP was/is wrong that "the lead must not contain references." And I did. In my opinion, clarifying this to Fanaction2031 was/is useful, for future reference, so that Fanaction2031 doesn't feel the need to remove references from any and every lead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I will only do something when I feel it is right. If doing something "big" like removing references from the lead, I will have to either discuss it on the article's talk page, or only do it when being told to. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus to have/have not references here. If there is one add them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is it, if those references are fixed or replied its all by my part. If no one have more objections this will be kept as GA. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear God, this is gonna take a while. Will do them tomorrow. It's 1:42 here. Fanaction2031 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

FINALLY, I am done. Took me a while. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no other concern about this article. If no one has one this GAR can be closed. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

How do I close the GAR? Fanaction2031 (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See "Guidelines for closing a community reassessment discussion." at WP:GAR. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bommarillu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: no consensus. The nominator has raised issues with the article, especially the sourcing. However these concerns are rather vague and generalised. A list of sources that the nominator considers unreliable has been provided, but as has been pointed out by another editor, there appears to be no clear consensus about their reliability. In the absence of progress on this the only outcome can be no consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

• No pictures
• Bolding problems in Cast section
• Unconventional Soundtrack section with POV comments for each song
• Almost all references are from websites considered unreliable in other Indian GA reviews, with for example, heavy reliance on Idlebrain.com

BollyJeff || talk 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. There is OR in the soundtrack section, I checked the first 10 refs and 2 were dead, extrapolating there will probably be 10 or so dead links, no opinion on the reliablity of the refs that are there. This needs fixing or it'll be delisted. The pictures and bolding aren't a problem. Szzuk (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that the OR parts of the soundtrack section can simply be removed; that would only leave the potential references issue. Bollyjeff, it would probably be helpful to point to the reviews where the sources were foun to be not reliable (and the context in which they were used). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Here is a review that blasted a lot of sources, and it has pointers on how to identify good/bad sources as well. Maybe this reviewer was too tough, but others have expressed similar feelings? BollyJeff || talk 09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah possibly a bit tough, but that's not uncommon. I think that if nobody's ready to fix the article or to respond to what's being said here, the only sensible option left is to delist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a reminder that the GA criteria do not prohibit dead URLs... which is a good thing, because editors need to comply with WP:DEADREF even in GAs.
• Delist per above. No one's trying to fix it up, and most of the sources are terrible. The lack of picture is also telling. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I added an image, but I want to know why you say that the sources are terrible? I was told by WhatamIdoing that sources should not be deemed as always bad, and their validity varies depending on the content that they are sourcing. Ever heard of this? See the last point here. BollyJeff || talk 18:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Szzuk that the formatting and absence of images is irrelevant. I'm not sure what the lack of an image is supposed to be telling us: Maybe that some Wikipedian is slightly more scrupulous about copyvios than necessary? That would be a nice change of pace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and fixed some of the formatting issues that were considered unimportant by some. Now we just need to deal with sourcing issue. BollyJeff || talk 13:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Aganin, the article doesn't look that bad now you've edited it. Again the main issue for me is sourcing. All dodgy sources should be replaced. What fails these three articles is sourcing. I think they now just scrape it aside from that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I note that User:Ncmvocalist has delisted this article with these edits,[1], [2] and [3], which I have reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why revert, was the procedure wrong? Do I have to do it? Help. BollyJeff || talk 13:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/archiving, which is in the bottom panel of header of the GAR page. Click show to see all of the guideline. Basically, I reverted beacuse there was no proper closing of the GAR by a non-involved editor. The GAR has only been there 3 weeks, the guideline says a minimum of 4 and as User:Bollyjeff has been involved in the discussion, they certainly shouldn't be closing it. I will take a look when another seven days have passed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It would help if the references which are considered unreliable were to be tagged with {{unreliable source}}. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, I have seen reviews where the reviewer said many sources (there is a list here) are not to be used. Another editor commented as such above too. This article uses many of those sources multiple times. I have also been told by another editor above that sources cannot be blacklisted, but must be reviewed on an individual use basis. I don't know how that is supposed to work, but there is a real discrepancy in review style here. BollyJeff || talk 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically the reliability of a source depends on the information it is supporting. If Joe Blogs writes a Blog saying that the Earth is flat, then it can't be used to support a sentence stating that the Earth is indeed flat. It could be used (as long as we are certain Joe Blogs is writing the Blog) to say that "Joe Blogs wrote that 'the Earth is flat' on his blog". Whether Joe Blogs opinion is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia is a separate (and important) issue to whether the source is reliable or not. Care also needs to be taken to make sure any statement is not taken out of context (it could quite easily be a joke or sarcastic reference). AIRcorn (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it is time for the nominator to shit or get off the pot. The nominator needs to tag the references which they consider unreliable as that appears to be the only unresolved issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are very rude to use that kind of language here. No, I will not tag more than half of the references in the article, and I will not rewrite it to say "Jeevi from Idlebrain.com said this and that". I have provided a list of suspect sources two times already; here is a third: IndiaGlitz, Andhra Cafe, IdleBrain, Andhrakaburlu, Upperstall, Cinegoer, Kollytalk, Bollywood.allindiansite, Nowrunning, Indiglamour, Radiosargam, KeralaDaily, Behinwoods. Now, there is another reviewer that has agreed to examine the state of this GAR and close it out after the fourth week here. Let's just wait for other comments until then. BollyJeff || talk 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the reviews that you say indicate the refs are unreliable. The discussion appears to say nothing conclusive at all and be somewhat irrelvant to this GAR. I have no way of checking the reliablity of those refs myself and don't know enough about the culture to even guess. Szzuk (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gene Amondson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: kept The nominator claims that the article is biased and some statements are unsourced. A close examination of the article finds no outstanding issues. Other editors have indicated that there are no outstanding problems. No comments have been made in three weeks so the article is kept as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The first issue I have is the fact that the original reviewer User:Xtzou was actually a sock puppet and the "real person" account as well as the SP accounts have all been blocked. Many of the members who do most of the work on the article are biased editors (pro-party) and connected to the blocked accounts.

I also take issue with the fact this article, about a little known person in a little known party Prohibition Party, gives so much detail on un-important subjects like the content of his car's bumper stickers. And it has phrases (w/o sources) like "described by acquaintances" etc which paint him in a "do-no-wrong" light which violates NPOV. In fact I can't find anything but praises. Now he may have been a nice guy but there's no way his life, views, off-handed comments 20 years ago, etc could be flawless and without disagreement. Just because he ran for US president (like 166+ people are currently for 2012) doesn't mean his bio should be given so much weight and detiled info about his life, small hobbies etc.

Accuracy: A number of statements lack sources. Neutral: In my opinion it isn't. Large editors are connected to the PP, blocked accounts and a good many sources comes from Gene's own sites & writings. Coinmanj (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which editors are connected to the party?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you can find any reliably sourced criticism please add it to the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this article could be copyedited by a Copy Editors' Guild member. [[User:Things That Will Bite|User:Things That Will Bite/Font 1 StartTxiиg$ Tx&τ W!ll]] + 81TE 02:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If the reliable sources provide only praise, then the only NPOV article is an article that also provides only praise. Similarly, if the reliable sources waste a lot of ink on the guy's bumper stickers, then the only possible NPOV article will also spend a lot of time describing his bumper stickers. That's the basic definition of NPOV: talk about whatever the sources talk about, not what some editor (e.g., you) thinks is important.

As for unsourced statements, the GA criteria require inline citations for exactly five kinds of statements (which is more than the content policies require). If you see uncited material that falls into the five kinds for GA, then I suggest that you tag it as {{citation needed}}. (Don't get forget to check nearby citations; we don't require editors to duplicate citations after every single sentence that is supported by the citation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anand (2004 film)

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

Result: Delist Szzuk (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC) GA nominee and others have mentioned some of the sources aren't reliable.

• Formatting problems in Cast and Soundtrack sections
• Unconventional Soundtrack section with POV comments for each song
• Almost all references are from websites considered unreliable in other Indian cinema GA reviews, with nearly a third of the sources coming from www.Idlebrain.com
• Generally not up to par with other Indian cinema GAs

BollyJeff || talk 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Again, the GA criteria do not require the article to be "up to par" compared to other articles, because we're not grading on a curve. They also do not require any particular system of formatting, or require that the contents be "conventional"—and your belief that a description of the song's subject is "POV comments" strikes me as very strange. Where exactly is the "POV" in "This song is about the rain bringing in joy and happiness"? So your three or your four complaints are irrelevant: Articles are not delisted for these reasons.
  The sourcing complaint could be significant. I suggest that you use {{Verify credibility}} to identify the specific sources that you believe are unacceptable so that others can consider whether these sources are being used appropriately. (No source is always unreliable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and fixed some of the formatting issues that were considered unimportant by some. Now we just need to deal with sourcing issue. BollyJeff || talk 13:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Article doesn't look that bad, hardly the best GA we have on Indian cinema though. The main issue for me is sourcing. Musicmazaa.com and heavy reliance on Idlebrain. All dodgy sources should be replaced. If I reviewed this for GA I'd have failed it because of the shoddy sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, does the Indian WikiProject appear to be struggling? Only 26 of the 10,984 Indian cinema articles are currently marked as GA quality. Of those, 1 article came from 2006, 5 from 2007, 9 from 2008, 3 from 2009, 4 from 2010 and 4 from 2011. Other than those, only 5 of the 10,984 articles are at FA quality (at a rate of about 1 a year). That means less than 0.3% of the Indian cinema articles (or indeed, Indian articles in general) are up to a "good" quality. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too excited about that. There are plenty of western film articles way better than this one that are not GA either. In fact the percentage of GAs for all of WP is 0.34% BollyJeff || talk 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been off the 'pedia since quite a bit due to personal reasons. I logged in only to see a couple of articles that I brought to GA status listed under reassessment. Wanted to check how these were faring and here I am. I agree that the sourcing is a huge problem with articles of non-Bollywood films including this one. This problem is even more for older films. Unfortunately sources like idlebrain.com among other such non-RS were among the only sources that I could find for this article at the time of its GA nom. Invariably that's the way it has been for films of that time whether we like it or not. However I do recognize the importance of GA-criteria and the reasons for reassessment. I want to have my thoughts listed down as the main editor and GA-nominator for this article. By the way, hello Ncmvocalist. How have you been doing? Mspraveen (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Unnale Unnale

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

Result: Delisted Consensus is that some of the sources aren't reliable. Szzuk (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Formatting problems in Cast and Soundtrack sections
• Generally not up to par with other Indian cinema GAs, with some very brief sections and not many sources
• Many sources are from websites considered unreliable in other Indian cinema GA reviews, including blogs and gossip sites

BollyJeff || talk 15:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• The GA criteria do not require the article to be "up to par" compared to other articles, because we're not grading on a curve. They also do not require any particular system of formatting. So your first two complaints are irrelevant: Articles are not delisted for these reasons.
  Your last complaint could be significant. I suggest that you use {{Verify credibility}} to identify the specific sources that you believe are unacceptable so that others can consider whether these sources are being used appropriate. (No source is always unreliable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and fixed some of the formatting issues that were considered unimportant by some. Now we just need to deal with sourcing issue. BollyJeff || talk 13:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Article doesn't look that bad now you've edited it. Again the main issue for me is sourcing. All dodgy sources should be replaced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad Syukri Ridwan

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

Result: delisted Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)}

Article was apparently nominated and passed by its creator, in violation of the GAN process. The article is not very good quality. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Article shows no establishment of notability at all, so I went ahead and deleted it. The GA tag probably could have just been reverted in this case rather than a GAR started. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome fix! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A Beautiful Mind (film)

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

Result: delisted Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm regrettably nominating this article for reassessment because many of the required criteria for GA are decidedly lacking from it. I've bulleted the points that I feel don't meet GA status.

• Firstly, the plot runs at a whopping 1150+ words! That's over double the amount that is acceptable for a plot summary.
• There are several statements in the article that are lacking in references.
• The references are not correctly formatted and everything is in italics for some reason... (there is also some sort of reffing error with this: "^London Academy of Media Film & TV,Russel Crowe" at the bottom of the list.)
• There are 2 bare URLs in the reflist.
• The Home Media section reads like an advertisement as noted by the template. (This section is also mostly unreferenced).
• The article is unfocussed in its prose.
• Ref 13 is unreliable (from about.com). Ref 25 doesn't work.
• The article has an inappropriate external link at the very bottom of the list.

Thank you. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It needs a copyedit for the issues raised, if someone was interested that wouldn't take long to fix. A quick read made me wonder if there was any challengable material that needed a cite, that would be a bigger problem? Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re plot length: I don't think there are any concrete limits on plot length; the plot for a 2+ hour long drama needs to be longer than the plot of an 80 min. kid's film. The length does seem a bit excessive though so I'll take a look to see if there is material that should be removed.--RDBury (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:MOSFILM#Plot. Between 400 and 700 words. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It's a guideline and, like I said, I'm working on it. Turns out it's harder to shorten prose than to lengthen it.--RDBury (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I know exactly what you mean. Am currently trying to shorten the plot to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (to prep for GAN), but it's tougher than it seems. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment. The GA criteria only includes WP:LAYOUT from the MOS. Szzuk (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I did some major work on the section and, with a bit of help, it's now at 716 words. (I rewatched the movie while I was at it.) It's possible that it might be shortened more but I'm probably too close to it now to do it well.--RDBury (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No need, you've done fabulously, the plot is now averagely sized. Good job. There are still the issues mentioned above however. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
      • You're welcome, I enjoyed doing it.--RDBury (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re advert: I believe I have addressed this.--RDBury (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re bare URLs: I removed one, a cite that Nash won the Nobel Prize which is unlikely to be questioned. I couldn't find the other one so perhaps it's already been fixed.--RDBury (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re refs formatting: I replaced some of the italics with double quotes, and removed some other ones. Not sure how detailed the GA criteria get on this kind of thing but it's a start at least. I also cleaned up the London Academy line at the bottom, probably more trouble than it's worth to figure out what that was intended to be.--RDBury (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re external link: I assume you mean the Film Insight link. The External links criteria are pretty broad, as long as it's on topic and not blatant spam it should be OK. So I claim it's a non-issue.--RDBury (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re unreferenced statements, unfocused prose and everything else: Could you be more specific? It might help to add "citation needed" tag to point out specific statements that should be supported. I'm not sure what to do about unfocused prose, perhaps that's would be a concern for an FA review but I don't think GA requirements are that high. Now that the Plot section has been trimmed the Production section stands out as being too long and overly detailed. Much of the material comes from the DVD commentary and featurettes which I regard as somewhat dubious as sources, they often have patently non-noteworthy information. I removed a small amount of such material but didn't want to hog wild on it.--RDBury (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delist - It's very light on sources at only 32. The budget is not sourced. A check on Boxofficemojo shows the budget is 58 million, not 60 million as stated here. A lot of unsourced statements in the 'Production' section. Looks like plenty of original research in the 'Divergence from actual events' section. I think this article needs more than a quick fix to check everything out and source it properly. BollyJeff || talk 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't have an opinion about the article overall, but I do have an opinion about some of the "criteria" that the nom suggests are required. GAs are not required to have properly formatted citations. Bare URLs may be evil, but they are a kind of evil that the GA criteria do not prohibit. Similarly, the GA criteria do not prohibit dead URLs—which is a good thing, because WP:DEADREF basically prohibits you from deleting a citation merely because the URL isn't working today. Similarly, compliance with the External links guideline is simply not required. I find no recommended maximum number of words for plot summaries in any of the five actually required MoS pages.
  So what you're left with is complaints about:
  • unspecified unsourced sentences (which may or may not fall into the five categories that GA requires citations for—noting that if they don't, then the absence of a citation is not grounds for de-listing, since the GACR do not require one citation per sentence),
  • a ==Home media== section that needs a copyedit, and
  • "unfocussed" prose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The home media section is gone, having just read I think the prose while not the good could scrape a pass, in that I can understand what is meant but I wouldn't write it that way myself and there are no spelling errors etc. So we're left with some inline cite requests. RDBury has done quite a fair bit of copyediting, credit for that. Szzuk (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the cite requests.Szzuk (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Article has been improved and appears to pass. Szzuk (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delist: Still some concerns, I have added {{citation needed}} templates to unsourced statements, also a {{clarify}} tag to a puzzling reference to (apparently) an unspecified book. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• An overdetailed section, such as an overlong Plot section, would fall under criteria 3(b) ("unnecessary detail"). I have personal views regarding Plot sections - I find they are frequently overlong, and tend to include interpretation and opinion. Personally I would rather all Plot sections were built from reliable secondary sources rather than the commentary of various Wikipedia editors, but that's outside the scope of this GAR, and indeed of GA as a whole. The judgement of reviewers would be - "Is this Plot summary appropriately informative?" That it, does it give the readers enough, but not too much information? It's always a difficult judgement, as there are no reliable sources to measure against. A reviewer would need to have seen the film fairly recently to be able to make such an informed judgement. I have seen the film, but it was long enough ago for me not to remember the plot enough to be able to make an informed comment on the appropriate length of the Plot section. However, going by the plot summaries at IMDb, at Rotten Tomatoes, at moviefone, and Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook, it appears this article's plot summary is longer than necessary. Even though not actually required, I think it would be helpful to use and cite sources when building plot summaries. Sources are not much used in the article. The cast list is poorly done - it tends to repeat plot information, rather than give casting information, and is in list format, which is discouraged. Formatting of cites is not required for GA. I note that the Home Media section has been removed. I agree that the prose lacks focus - the Production section is fuzzy and unclear. It appears to be a series of cut and paste notes that haven't yet been written up into an informative overview. External links aren't covered by GA. It's worth looking at WP:EL to see if the links are needed. They do look excessive to me, and some are already used as references. Adding to the original points, would be that the lead is inadequate. It doesn't meet WP:Lead in that it doesn't appropriately summarise the contents - the Divergence from actual events and Production sections in particular are poorly represented in the lead. I feel that the article is significantly far enough from GA criteria to require rather more work than can be achieved in a reasonable time. Given that this GAR has been open for over a month with a range of significant issues unaddressed, then this is a clear delist for me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fawn M. Brodie

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

Result: Kept Consensus is keep and take to dispute resolution. Szzuk (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am listing this page for reassessment based on Good article criteria #4 and #5 (mainly #5). The same issues that No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith has, Fawn M. Brodie also has, as it's author.

• 5. Is it stable?

Ongoing edit wars since prior to May 2011 (instead of October 2010):

• 4. Fair representation without bias:

This is directly in regards to #5. The "Fair representation without bias" cannot be determined. If one side of the edit war is correct then the article is bias in favor of the "apologetic Mormon" viewpoint. If the other is correct the article is bias in favor of Fawn McKay Brodie hypothesis, at the exclusion of DNA research. Therefor the Good article criteria #4 can't be agreed upon.

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

I think it would make more sense for you to take this article through the normal WP:Dispute resolution processes. An edit war between partisans is not going to be solved here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not about the disputed content of the edit war nor I edit the page since 11 March 2011. This is only about the above items and the fact that there has been an edit war ongoing since october. A GA cannot be involved in an edit war and this one has been since May 2011. This article has undergone almost 100 changes since the GA Review on July 1, 2009, most of which are not "Vandalism" changes. Can you honestly say that it has been stable'? Additionally, how can it be a "Fair representation without bias", when no one can agree if the article is Bias or not? If these do not apply to the Article, then it is not GA anymore.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An article is not required to stay the same after it's listed as GA. Almost 100 non-vandalism changes in the past two years is a good thing. Most articles that meet the GA requirements—or even the FA requirements—can be and are improved after their listing. The fact that changes happen is not grounds for de-listing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So then please explain to me at what point dose a page, involved in an edit war for months, deserve to be delisted. The changes are not the issue, its the "stability". I honestly don't understand.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• We do delist articles which are unstable, though we first seek out a means to stop the disruption. I agree with WhatamIdoing that GAR is not the best place to resolve edit wars or content disputes. It is better to come here after attempts at dispute resolution have failed. There is nothing significant on the talkpage or on ARTEST4ECHO or John Foxe's talkpages. I note that there is some personal friction between the two, though I don't see how that directly relates to this article. Unless someone disagrees in the next few days, I will close this GAR as a keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

First, I have only made one edit to this page and it is was a minor edit (adding a wikilink) unrelated to any edit conflict on this page. I have nothing to do with the edit war or content dispute on this page, and this GAR has nothing to do with the contents of that dispute. This has to do with the fact that this page has had an ongoing edit war since May 2011 and is therefore "unstable".

Second, To ignore delisting an unstable articles based on past "some personal friction" between myself and John Foxe on a different page is not WP:Assuming good faith. I listed this page for the reasons above and for no other reason. To ignore a legitimated request based on a different page and different issue is unfair.

I still haven't gotten a good explanation as to when a "unstable" page should be desisted. One month, six months, a year? The only reason either of you have given is that "we first seek out a means to stop the disruption". This page has gone to those "means" and are still not stable. So that doesn't explain how a Good article can be involved in an edit war and still be a GA. The Good article criteria #5 clearly say "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." This page clearly doesn't meet that criteria anymore, therefore I don't see why this page should be a GA.

However, Since it seems that there is no consensus on this and it appears to be leaning towards "keep", I am more then happy to have you close this GAR, but I would still like to have a good explanation on how long it take for a "unstable" page with and ongoing edit war to be delisted. Your welcome to close this page and explain it better to me on my own talk page if you wish,so that the GAR can be closed.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't ask that someone attempts to resolve a dispute themselves if they have history of conflict with someone involved in the dispute; but we would ask that they raise the matter of the dispute at a dispute resolution forum rather than at GAR. If an article is still unstable AFTER appropriate steps have been taken to resolve a dispute, that is the time to bring the article to GAR.

My point above is that I looked on the talkpage of the article, and on the talkpage of the GAR nominator - ARTEST4ECHO, as well as the main contributor to the article - John Foxe, and found no attempts at dispute resolution. I did, while I was looking, note there was some friction between these two people, but that the friction appeared to be unrelated to this article. That is, the communication I noted between the two people was not related to this article, and so couldn't be seen as being part of the dispute on the article nor any resolution process. So it looked as though the nominator had gone straight to GAR rather than first attempt dispute resolution.

I hope that's a bit clearer. I do dispute resolution myself, but I'm already involved, so I wouldn't want to take this one on. Try Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. And good luck! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

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

Result: Kept Consensus is keep and take to dispute resolution. Szzuk (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am listing this page for reassessment based on Good article criteria #4 and #5 (mainly #5)

• 5. Is it stable?

Ongoing edit wars since prior to October 2010:

• 4. Fair representation without bias:

This is directly in regards to #5. The "Fair representation without bias" cannot be determined. If one side of the edit war is correct then the article is bias in favor of the "apologetic Mormon" viewpoint. If the other is correct the article is bias in favor of Fawn McKay Brodie hypothesis, at the exclusion of any DNA research. Therefor the Good article criteria #4 can't be agreed upon.

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

I think it would make more sense for you to take this article through the normal WP:Dispute resolution processes. An edit war between partisans is not going to be solved here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not about the disputed content of the edit war nor have I edited the page since 29 July 2011. This is only about the above items and the fact that there has been an edit war ongoing since October. A GA cannot be involved in an edit war and this one has been since October 2010. This article has undergone almost 150 changes since the GA Review on June 23, 2009 most of which are not "Vandalism" changes. Can you honestly say that it has been stable'? Additionally, how can it be a Fair representation without bias, when no one can agree if the article is Bias or not? If these do not apply to the Article, then it is not GA anymore. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, I have now edited that page "After" my last post here (ie 19:49, 15 August 2011) where I said that I hadn't posted since July 29th.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not you personally engaging in an edit war; the problem is somebody is engaging in an edit war. The edit war needs to be resolved. GAR is not a useful place to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, that doesn't explain how a GA which, per #5 cannot be part of an edit war, is part of an edit war, ongoing since October 2010. You realize this is almost a year. At what point dose a GA deserve delisting when it no longer meets the GA criteria. I could buy your argument if this was a one time issue lasting a few days, but not a year.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

George W. Bush

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

Result: kept. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

George W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. This article is extremely lacking in NPOV. I found that various forms of the word "critic" are used more than 35 times, that's twice per section. I also found information that was incoherent and very poorly sourced in the Marriage and Family section which I deleted. I'm sure it is not the only poorly sourced information. It seemed to me that this article should have been called: George W. Bush Slander.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It will help if you provide specific examples of incoherent phrasing and poor sourcing in this GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The article is so big it would be a considerable effort just to read the article nevermind look for problems. Szzuk (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I didn't read the article completely, but it seems to me that there are plenty of good things said about Bush, as well as criticisms. This reflects his place in reliable sources. There is at least a decent NPOV there. Jujutacular ^talk 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not seeing the POV problems, either. There are things I wish had been done differently (e.g., relying more on a handful of biographies and less on news stories from 20 years ago), but none of them seem to be problems that violate the GA criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I reviewed the article and found not a single POV violator. The George W. Bush Slander thing is unnessary. Mike 289 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep For such a sometimes controversial topic the article tries it's best to stay neutral. I don't see glaring POV issues either. GermanJoe (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles on major contemporary political figures are tricky to bring into balance. On the whole, this article doesn't tilt toward a particular POV. However, it would benefit from certain improvements:
  • The "Marriage and family" section is largely devoted to his alcoholism, almost to the exclusion of other important details.
  • The Richards lesbian rumor takes up too much space in the "Governor of Texas" section; this section whould be evaluated and key topics appropriately weighted.
  • There may be opportunity to improve the bloated "Economic policy" section by trimming some of the excess. This section should be a succinct summary of the daughter article. I suggest trimming some (not all, mind you ) of the economic performance statistics and focus on describing the economic policies.

As a final note, I've spot-checked a few of the refs and photos. All of the ones I examined were in order. Majoreditor (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was going to close this as a keep when I read the vague nom, and saw that everyone was calling for keep; however, when I looked at the article I felt there were a number of issues - many of which are directly GA related. This is a high profile article so it is appropriate that we ensure it meets basic standards, even more so when we are declaring that we have vetted and approved the quality of the article. Fails criteria 6 (b) - some of the captions are overlong, giving a cluttered and messy look to the article; and not all the images are needed - many appear to be there just for decoration, and again give a cluttered, messy look which is diverting from the text. Still on images - some are squeezing the text, which is against WP:LAYOUT on criteria 1 (b). The article has a number of short sections, which is also against WP:LAYOUT on criteria 1 (b). There are six paragraphs in the lead, which is unhelpful and gives a disordered and off-putting appearance. Such poor organisation is apparent through much of the article, with a number of short paragraphs. Sometimes a short paragraph is appropriate - but this article has more than needed, and a period of attentive copyediting would benefit the article and so aid the reader. Linking is not part of GA criteria, but worth mentioning that the article is overlinked, adding to the messy look. It would be worth looking more closely at 3 (b), as some sections appear to contain "unnecessary detail" - the Approval section, Post-presidency section and Iraq section. I haven't examined other aspects of the GA criteria yet, but already I have serious concerns, and before we endorse this article as being one of our best, I feel a tidy up would be in order. If the article is not cleaned up, or if there is no ongoing work to clean it up within a reasonable time - say seven days (the GAR has been open over a month), then I would support a delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Question While this is at issue with a lot of eyes. At Talk:Bill Clinton/GA2, we are debating the inclusion of "Slick Willie", "MTV President", "Comeback Kid" and "Boy Governor" and it has come to my attention that "Dubya" or at least "W." as recognizee in the film W.is not mentioned in this article. Isn't wikipedia suppose to present to the reader alternate names and nicknames.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Feel free to add that information (please), but I doubt that anyone would accept a claim that a nickname is a "main aspect of the topic" and therefore a matter for GAR to worry about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, I just read the article and found no major issues. It is neutral and has plenty of citations. meshach (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• is this GA review over? Pls post on my talk page if any reply. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dayton, Ohio

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

Result: Kept Consensus is keep. The only remaining issue isn't explicitly part of the GA criteria. Szzuk (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

Aside from there being many unsourced areas, many parts of the article were copyright violations, which I am in progress of removing, and upon all of them being removed it won't have the prose necessary to remain a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios and the like removed, and while there weren't a huge amount, there are nonetheless clear spots that need improvement in this article for retention. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Overall, it's a promising article. However, it suffers from stubby sub-sections and embedded lists; see the demographics section for examples. There may be other issues as well; I've not read the whole article with care, nor have I checked references.

Despite its shortcomings, this article can be brought up to GA standards if editors are willing to pitch in and help. Majoreditor (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep; Sure there are a few issues with the article, but I am not sure that it qualifies being delisted for that fact. Stubby sub-sections and embedded lists are only a minor issue, and it should not be delisted for that reason. See the Cleveland, Ohio article. It is full of embedded lists and the like similar to the Dayton article and it is a featured article. Also, the Dayton article is mostly neutral, well written, factual, well sourced and recently underwent some cleanup. I feel that is deserves the stay a GA, but is not near ready to go further than GA status at this point. 99.23.126.7 (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, see the most recent review (Talk:Dayton, Ohio/GA1) of the article, this was performed only a year ago and the article has not changed much since then.99.23.126.7 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep I took a closer look at the article and there were several issues that needed to be addressed. I removed some unsourced content, removed some unessessary sub-sections as mentioned above, removed some red-links, and cited places that required citations. After the cleanup, I can now agree with the IP above, the article should remain GA status. There are still a couple of minor issues with the article, but not enough to delist.Texas141 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - history of Dayton is very sparse section. Content for 19th century and between wars largely non-existent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Delist – The "History" section is an integral part of a city article and this one is severely lacking. Unlike the Cleveland article that has been mentioned here, Dayton's "History" section reads like a list of factoids and does not tell the story of what shaped the city that exists today. (Only the sentences about the canal and flood acknowledge lasting impact on the area.) There is also about a hundred-year gap in cited history in the section, starting in the 1890s. So the article does "not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study", which is characteristic of a C-class article according to WP:ASSESS. Plenty of books on the topic are available to anyone interested in improving the section. No doubt they contain sufficient information for a FA-level History of Dayton, Ohio, article. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Striking my "delist" based on Texas141's expansion of the "History" section. It's serviceable now. The article is still a little too list-y on the whole, but I believe it meets the GA criteria. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - took advice from Two Hearted above and added significantly more information to the history section. Texas141 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Could publishers be provided for refs? Right now they're pretty much all url, title, and accessdate, and some don't even have that. If all the refs can get those four points added I'd be willing to consider this a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

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

Result: Kept There has been a considerable cleanup and there are no outstanding delist arguments. Szzuk (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

I have placed this article up for GAR due to multiple problems that weren't addressed in the article's GAN review. Problems include:

• Number of non-free images.
• There are paragraphs that are only 1–2 sentences long (EX:Super Mario RPG Original Sound Version, Legacy).
• The "Virtual Console" section looks like it has undue weight and should be combined with legacy.
• Some sources don't look like they meet with WP:RS (I don't think saying Adam Sessler saying that the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi series are spiritual sequals make it a reference.)
• The Reception section should be expanded and referenced a little more.

There;s maybe more problems I didn't address so if anyone find more please add it to the review. GamerPro64 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Mucked with the audio section, which cleared up the Super Mario RPG Original Sound Version problem. --PresN 18:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my review:

Prose issues

All good, unless I see anything more. –MuZemike 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:JARGON --> Normally, after spelling it out once at the first occurence and then providing the jargon/initialism afterwards (such as SNES or RPG), you can generally use the same initialism in the rest of the article. Much of Super Mario RPG's gameplay is outside of monster battles, where the game plays much like an isometric platformer in which both traditional Mario features, like punching floating question blocks from below, and new ones play a key role. --> That is not grammatically correct. while this is easily correctible by moving that third comma to after "ones", I'm not sure "and new ones" is the right phrase to use. Perhaps "and new features" would sound better? Also, when I read "where the game plays much like an isometric platformer", it sounds like that is referring to "monster battles". How about "...is outside of monster battles and much like an isometric platformer..." to get rid of the possible confusion? Please go over User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing in which quite a few sentences in this article apply. Stuff like this: The player starts the journey controlling only Mario. --> could be easily corrected to The player controls only Mario at the journey's beginning. Please remain consistent with terminology. For instance, "fight" should be "battle", as that is a common RPG term. Same with "game play" versus "gameplay". Names of seasons (i.e. "spring" or "winter") are not capitalized. The game's sound effects were produced by SNES own internal sound processor chip, the SPC700. --> Shouldn't it be "the SNES' own internal..."? The sound chip's built-in function was not something unique to this game, with a primitive simulation of a reverb effect through a short delay (or echo). --> I'm not understanding what this sentence is saying. Is it because the sound chip's function is not unique because it has reverb effects through short delays, or something else? Please clarify. ...making it the third best selling game in Japan in 1996 --> What makes something "best selling"? How about "highest selling"? Though various aspects of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars have received somewhat mixed opinions, ... --> "somewhat" makes it sound like you're editorializing. On a second read, "reviews" sounds better than "opinions"; the latter editorializes too much. –MuZemike 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) the settings of the game have been well received overall and have garnered praise for the quality of the graphics and visual style in particular. --> The "settings" have garnered praise for the quality of the graphics and visuals? Wouldn't that be the game overall? Nintendo Power's review claimed the excellent 3D graphics... --> "claimed" is not a very good word to use there (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Synonyms for said). Please substitute that for a more neutral-sounding verb. Please double-check quotation marks and make sure they comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside, as a few of them in the "Reception" section do not. Especially in the "Virtual Console re-release" section (as well as other sections, but not as bad as this section), you mention the title of the game way too much; in that section's first (albeit short) paragraph, you mention the title three times. Usually, in such cases, you should mention it once and then substitute common nouns or pronouns afterwards such as "the game" or "it", respectively. With guidance from Miyamoto, Square developed the game in Japan combining parts of its traditional RPGs, Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger, with Nintendo's platform games. → "Square developed the game in Japan" seems out of place, considering the general meaning of that sentence (i.e. that Square combined various RPG elements of other games with Nintendo's games). That clause should be removed from that sentence. Overall, this article needs a good copyedit, especially in the grammar/usage department, as well as other minor MoS issues.

MoS issues

Good. –MuZemike 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
First paragraph in the Gameplay section (also please check the rest of the article, too), you have redundant citations there, i.e. citation #2. All you need is one citation at the end of what you're citing (or the end of the paragraph, whichever comes first). In this case, remove the citation after "a key role". The same applies to the second paragraph of the section.

Verifiability issues

Good. –MuZemike 22:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot section: You're citing some of the material to reliable sources or even the game itself (which is fine, as long as you're not making inferences from the source material while describing the plot), but the rest of it remains uncited, which is rather inconsistent. You can cite the game itself via the {{cite video game}} template (which is ideal for RPG game articles such as this) to make sure all this can be verified. Ref #7 should just be GameSpy, though I am also questioning the reliability of that source as well (see below). Refs 10-13 are incomplete citations. If they're from Nintendo Power, then you need to fill in those citations appropriately. Issue numbers are needed for those print sources. I know for Nintendo Power and EGM, you can easily find them somewhere on the Internet. Also, for future reference, video gaming magazines normally utilize the {{cite journal}} template, as they're basically a journal-type format. –MuZemike 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Lots of potentially unreliable sources have been used. What makes [4], [5], [6], [7],[8] (which looks more like a user-generated review), [9], [10], [11], and [12] reliable? The Armchair Empire is not considered a reliable source per this discussion a while back. Console Obsession → I, personally, am not convinced of its reliability, as I do not see any evidence of editorial oversight, fact-checking, reputation, etc. Many of the references have not been completely filled out, and a few (as I mentioned above) are likely unreliable to use.

Conclusions

delist per significant prose and verifiability issues. If this was a regular GAN, I would fail this nomination, as putting it on hold would not do much good. My suggestions, as noted above, are to improve the prose quality, make sure the basic MoS guidelines are being followed, and use reliable sources with more complete citations. –MuZemike 21:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't delist it; I'll address these issues through the next couple of days-SCB '92 (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Images: With the removal of the soundtrack cover, the number of non-free images looks fine now. And I expanded the FUR of the gameplay image, so I think the images are of no concern now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

Conditional Delist If after the customary one-week time frame to fix the issues it doesn't meet standards. The Good Article Nom review was a joke to be honest. I would suggest someone of more experience than I coach the reviewer as this is the second time I've seen this problem with them. I take issue that someone with less than 150 edits is reviewing GANs. --Teancum (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the reassessment nominator's issues have been addressed, all the prose and MoS issues have been addressed, and some of the verifiability issues have been addressed; should I renominate the article for GA for a more detailed review?-SCB '92 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If the editors here believe there are no longer any issues, then the article retains its GA rating. So another review would be unnecessary in that case. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

First off, I don't see any of the possibly unreliable sources addressed. Moreover, this was added just now, which is not even accompanied by any source, and it's a quote on top of that. I can take a look at the prose later, but the verifiability issues remain. –MuZemike 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This was also just added, which is not sourced anywhere and smacks of original research. –MuZemike 19:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Got rid of all unreliable sources, but I think GameSpy is reliable as it is part of IGN Entertainment; if IGN is reliable, then GameSpy is reliable; so I guess everything has been addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Once the remaining content is sourced with reliable sources, we'll take another look at the article, which by the way, is making good progress.

In regard to the GameSpy link, yes GameSpy is part of IGN's network, and we consider both to be reliable. However, the sub-sub domains of Classic Gaming were essentially fan pages hosted by GameSpy. Those we can not accept as reliable because there is typically no editorial oversight and community-wide acceptance as an authoritative source. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC))

Okay, got rid of it; replaced most of them with reliable sources, got rid of a sentence altogether (for being an easter egg), while other sentences already had enough relable sources, that didn't need to have replacements; everything's addressed, it's up to the reassessment nominator to decide whether to (hopefully) keep or (hopefully not) delist the article-SCB '92 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't decide if the article will keep its GA status or be demoted. Since this is a community reassessment, it will stay up for weeks at the WP:GAR until someone eles decides on the article's status. GamerPro64 20:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I still owe a response, anyways, with regards to the improvements, so I would ask that it would not be closed until I have had a chance to go through it again. –MuZemike 20:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have crossed out issues that I saw were resolved in my review above; some issues still remain before I can consider it comfortable for endorsing for GA. Now, there are two sources in the "verifiability issues" which I did not cross out, Square Enix Music Online and the-magicbox.net, which have come up in a recent FAC and that are still being sorted out. I'd be willing to let those two go for now, until it becomes more explicit that they are not reliable to use (i.e. it's not fair to penalize on an sourcing issue in which said sources have been disputed). –MuZemike 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

took care of the prose issues: the names of the seasons were already capitalized after you re-reviewed it, so I don't know why you didn't cross it out, unless seeing the sentence "a giant knife/spring-like creature", where "spring" is nothing to do with the seasons; I went to Google cache and saw that there are only one use of each "Spring" and "Winter" (in the development section); you changed "opinions" to "reviews yourself"; I rewrote the "settings" part; I already changed "claimed" to "commented" before you rereviewed it; I'm pretty sure the quotation marks comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside in the Reception section; and i deleted "in Japan"

for the verifiability issues, you said how the citations are inconsistent (I didn't put these citations in the plot section, in the first place); could I just get rid of the citations completely in the plot section? quoting User:David_Fuchs: "It's generally accepted that since a work's plot sections are referencing the work itself, you don't necessarily need plot citations; I generally only do it if there's something potentially contentious." so I guess it's optional, and I don't have the game itself, so it'd be quite hard to find quotes from the game; also, the Issue numbers have been taken care of-SCB '92 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find that citing everything is a good practice, regardless if it is contentious. A handful of citations in that section would probably be a good idea. I'm sure some of the reviews can be used for simple parts of the story. I remember for Kingdom Hearts, I checked the game scripts at GameFAQs for quotes to include. This game has a script there as well. I have the strategy guide at home. I can check to see if it can provide additional citations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Okay, I used quotes from the game, by using that link, and put as many citations as possible in the story subsection; after all this work, it feels like it could be a candidate for a Featured Article, let alone a Good Article; please tell me that this is it to just meet the good article criteria, because I don't think I can improve it anymore; right now, I'm working on getting Fallout 3 to GA status, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to FA status-SCB '92 (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in the review as I have been rather busy as of late, and I have been trying to work on other projects. All prose and MoS issues look like they have been addressed, but I have listed two more verifiability issues above, which should be addressed. –MuZemike 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Will it be okay to just delete the paragraphs of Armchair Empire and Console Obsession review? so I don't need to replace it with reliable source? also, is AllRPG, Netjak and Gamervision reliable? if not, then can't really expand the Reception section for criticisms of the game-SCB '92 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The VG project has a list of sources we've vetted as reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Those three don't look like they have been checked yet. I'd err on the side of caution and remove them, especially since they are not used in the prose section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC))

Okay, I removed the unrelible sources and replaced the paragraphs with RPGamer, Allgame and 1UP.com's criticisms of the game (though their quotes were used for the praise of the game in the same section)-SCB '92 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to tentatively support GA status per the improvements made to the article. I would still prefer to see the plot information cited, but I can leave that to the others' opinions if that is necessary. –MuZemike 22:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Err, I did cite most of the story subsection in the plot section with quotes from the game, but thanks for the support of the GA status-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

After going through most of the article, there are some issues (namely in the "Development" section) that I think need to be addressed to keep its GA status. I'll try to post a list as soon as I can. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 08:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

I think it was the changing tense that were the issues in that section, so I edited it and made sure it was all in past tense-SCB '92 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the remaining issues I noticed.

• Development
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph seems out of place. Such analysis of the gameplay seems more suited for reception rather than development.
  • The third sentence of the second paragraph doesn't seem clear to me: "In December, further development delayed the game for the translation as well as improvements to the gameplay." Does it mean that further development and improvements to the gameplay delayed the translation of the game?
  • SA-1 Demonstration Program at SNES Central looks like a fan site. What makes it reliable?
  • The content in the last paragraph of the section is not it the source cited. Such level of detail needs a source.
  • The same content needs to be reworded for the layman. For example, we understand what "faster RAM" means, but other probably won't unless we say "faster access to the Random Access Memory". Also, the order of the sentence is confusing,. I assume that "greater" applies to "memory mapping capabilities, data storage and compression", but the current structure does not portray that.
  • In regard to your recent edit, some development content should be past tense while other should be present. Anything that the developers did, occurred in the past and should be in past tense. But anything that the game does, occurs when it happens, which can be the present and should be in present tense. It can get a little fuzzy sometimes. Let me know if you'd like further clarification.
• Reception
  • If an author is listed in the source, you should attribute it to them in the prose. For example, "Allgame stated that..." → Skyler Miller from Allgame stated that..."

Once these are addressed, I believe that the GAR can be closed as "keep".(Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC))

I've addressed everything you said-SCB '92 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Things are much better now. Here are the remaining issues:

• The last sentence of the first paragraph still seems out of place. After re-reading, I think it's describing what the gameplay was like at 70% completion. However, this is not completely clear. I suggest some copy edits to the first paragraph to better convey this.
• The new source for the technical info doesn't completely match up with what's in this article.
  • Article says "one of seven games" while the source says "one of three".
  • The source makes no mention of the sound processor and reverb effect.

Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

Done, apart from finding a reliable source for the sound processor and reverb effect; all I see are unreliable sources about it; is MobyGames a reliable source?-SCB '92 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Something that specific should have a source. We've been shying away from MobyGames more and more over the years. They use to be fine for some basic info, but I don't know if that's true anymore. If there isn't a reliable one available, then the content should be removed. Have you tried a search at Google Books? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

I searched Google books, but it's just a strategy guide, that's unlikely to have anything about the soun processor and reverb effect, and I don't have the guide; okay, I guess I had to delete it, let's finally close the article as a keep then-SCB '92 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep: My main concerns have been addressed. I believe that the article meets the GA criteria and should retain its rating.

SCB 92- I suggest you apply some of the changes made here to Super Mario Galaxy 2. I noticed similar issues there and it would be best to update the article to preempt a GAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

Specifically what are the similar issues?-SCB '92 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Using reliable sources (unreliable ones: LittleBoBeep, The Tanooki, GoNintendo, and the Wikipedia link to Nintendo Power#Nintendo Power Awards), strengthen the FUR of the gameplay image, probably should remove the album image, and some light copy editing. The issues aren't prevalent as they were in this article, but the sourcing is something that could warrant a GAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

• Keep - Compared to what it looked liked before the review, I can agree on this article keeping it GA status. GamerPro64 22:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: delisted Although there has been little comment on the GAR, there still remain a number of citation needed tags whixh are unaddressed since July, also a close paraphrase notice. As no-one has done much to address this and there have been no comments in over three weeks, I am closing this as delist. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for GAR because:

1. It lacks in-line citations, especially in the sections "Following the acquittal" and "Awards". In the section "Anna Politkovskaya Award" not a single reference
2. Several dead links and redirects
3. The article's structure is in my opinion really bad; it contains too much mini-sections, which can be easily merged with other sections. The beginning is OK, but sections like "Poisoning", only 2 sentences, are really unnecessary.
4. Several m-dashes make it hard to read
5. The references require a MOS clean-up

Currently I don't think it passes the GA criteria. --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 20:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of your reasons are irrelevant: The GA criteria do not prohibit dead links or redirects. In fact, removing them may violate WP:DEADREF (which was revised a few months ago, so you might want to read it again). GAs are not required to have consistently formatted citations.

The lack of citations in one large section is certainly a significant problem, but some of the others are fairly trivial. Have you attempted to fix the simpler problems that you identify? The primary goal of GAR is to get problems fixed, not to de-list articles without lifting a finger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First Time (Lifehouse song)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: no action There have been no comments since 28 August. The article has poor prose, e.g. "First Time" is as a pop-rock song that contains adult alternative; In January 2008, Lifehouse performed the song as part of a set list on the PBS show Soundstage
; n September 2006, Lifehouse started writing songs in the studio for Who We Are, and recorded most of the songs the day they were written at Coles' Ironworks Studios in Los Angeles.; He further noted how he appreciated recording songs with many takes to capture the initial thought of a song. Could certainly do with severe copy-editing throughout, also with more substantial coverage from RS - perhaps this will be forthcoming in future years. Currently there isn't much there apart from quotes and chart listings, hardly broad coverage. The article should only be re-nominated when these concerns have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have put this article up for good article reassessment because it was failed in the last nomination and I believe it meets the good article criteria. The last reviewer believed that it did not meet the criteria for being broad in its coverage, while I disagreed with this even after expanding the article. Therefore, I want multiple opinions to show for certain whether this article meets all of the good article criteria. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The last sentence in the review seems odd to me. The reviewer says that it is (apparently) not possible for the article to be broad in coverage, apparently meaning that zero reliable sources discuss things that the reviewer wants discussed in the article. "Broad in coverage" is usually interpreted as meaning "covers whatever the sources do" rather than "covers whatever the reviewer wishes the sources would". Have I perhaps misunderstood the complaint? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I can't see anything wrong with article. Also it may be quicker to withdraw the GAR and renominate. Szzuk (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – Based on the Wait Your Turn GAR, my interpretation of criterion #3a is not in line with the community's. I agree that renominating the article is the way to go, because I did not give a full review before failing its GAN. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I recommended GAR earlier – I forgot that my review didn't go beyond scrutiny of #3a. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Percheron

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result:

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

Result: keepThis was originally nominated due to stability issues, but the nominator was partly responsible for causing the instability. The missing references were covered in other sources and multiple sources are not needed for uncontroversial statements. Of the final list; the neutrality claim relating to regional bias is weak (France is mentioned prominently in the article), the units argument is not part of the criteria, the broadness criteria does not have to cover every major fact and raising exponentially as a peacock word is minor. As this looks like a disruptive nomination and no solid arguments for delisting are presented I am closing it as keep. Feel free to take any other concerns to the talk page or improve the article yourselves AIRcorn (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article no longer meets good article criterion number 5, "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". There has been edit-warring ([13], [14], [15]) over content between two editors, of which I regret that I am one. I suggest that it be de-listed until that matter is resolved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just looking over it quickly there looks to be less sources and references than I typically expect on a GA, and much less than on the other horse GAs.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, the cure for stopping stability problems when you are one of the problem editors is easy - stop edit warring (and discuss on the talk page). I've removed your unit tag because all units are given in hands, inches and cm for height and pounds and kg for weight - very balanced. Inches are needed for non-horsey American and other inches users, and hands are given first when the source does that. Rafiki, I've removed the cn tags you added. In all of the areas you tagged, the information is covered by the next reference - I know, because I wrote the prose and had the sources in front of me (since returned to the library, but I checked the history to make sure that nothing had been added later that wasn't in the source). We don't need references after every sentence, and everything in the article is sourced.

On a more general subject, Tsaag and I are working on the article (or will be, once I get a few free minutes), with an eye towards heading for FAC sometime this winter. While more information on all subjects needs to be added, I'm not sure that the globalize tag is justified at the moment. At this point, over 2,000 new horses are registered in the US every year. According to the French stud book, they received less than 800 applications for registration in 2010. While the breed originated in France, they also have an extensive history in the United States. There is also information on their use in Britain in the article, as well as their export to and use in other countries.

In summary, I don't think this GAR is justified. Also, the article is currently being worked on, with an eye on FAC, so it will continue to improve over the next few months. However, at this point, the article fully meets the GA criteria, in my opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems a POINTy move, it's unclear why you would jump to a reassessment rather than discussing this on the talk page Jebus989^✰ 15:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources - If thats the case then I would then say theres the risk of sections relying too much on one source. If possible it would be good to see statements confirmed by some references independant of the existing references. With some of the sources coming from the breed orgs themselves confirming more of the statements from less partial sources would seem fair. Like with the UK advertising and publicity statement the visibility of those areas would surely mean an additional example wouldnt be hard to find.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This particular request is not only made in extraordinarily bad faith, but judging by the editing patterns of JLAN and Rafiki, I believe we have a case of potential meatpuppetry. It has been a long-settled issue that units for measuring horses are given in hands, JLAN raised this issue at WPEQ and lost rather overwhelmingly, JLAN has also been exhibiting a strong tendency to raise issues that are opposed by others and then twisting the words and viciously attacking those people (particularly yours truly) when they disagree with him. This particular request is very "pointy" indeed, and should be dismissed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@Rafiki - I'm confused. You placed one banner and two citation needed tags. The banner was in the "20th century and today" section and I am assuming (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it was referring mainly to the first paragraph, which is sourced all to one source. This source is a book specifically about heavy horses, written by a neutral third-party expert author. One of the citation needed tags was on another sentence sourced to that same book, and the other was to a sentence sourced to another book by a reputable (and neutral) equine author. Neither of these sources are published by breed organizations, nor do the authors (as far as I know) have any bias (either pro or con) related to the breed. Do you question the source on the UK advertising and publicity statement? There is no reason to add an extra reference just because, and this is (again, as far as I know) not a contentious statement. This author has been kind enough to sum up the Percheron's uses in a very thorough manner, and I see no reason not to use her to as the sole source. Again, there is absolutely no policy-based reason to use multiple sources for a non-contentious statement - just pick a good, high quality source (like the one currently in use) and stick with it. Are there any points sourced to the breed organizations that you feel are contentious? At this point, it rather seems that you are asking for more references just to have more little blue numbers in the text - you have yet to bring up a contentious statement or a reference that you believe to be false. Dana boomer (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• There is no basis for this ridiculous reassessment. I suggest that the nominator simply stops edit warring. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• As above, if we reassessed evert GA or FA for this level of disagreement the corresponding boards would be very busy places. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So, if no-one has any further bilious remark to add, perhaps we could look at the article itself? I see the following problems:

• It does not remotely meet criterion 4, "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each". As it stands, it suffers from strong regional bias: quite disproportionate importance is given to the United States in this article on what is a rather famous French horse. Comments above by User:Dana boomer appear to confirm that this bias is not just acknowledged, but in some way justified. I disagree. Specifically, the second paragraph of the lead section begins for no obvious reason with a discussion of the American breed registry; inexplicably, priority is given in the Characteristics section of the text to the American breed standard over that of the country of origin; in the History section, about 90% of the 19th century sub-section and all of that on the 20th century deals with the horse in Britain and the United States.
• The question of units of measurement and conformity to WP:UNIT does not form part of the Good article criteria. However, the priority given in this article to a customary unit (which would be entirely appropriate in an article on a topic with strong regional ties to Britain or the United States) serves to reinforce the regional bias towards those areas.
• Although the material on the Percheron in the United States is extensive, it is also far from impartial. In particular, there is no account of the very interesting confusion and controversy over the registration as Percherons of draught horses of uncertain origin in the fifty years or so prior to 1934, as discussed in detail, for example, by Margaret Elsinor Derry, Horses in society: a story of animal breeding and marketing, 1800-1920; detailed but not necessarily impartial history of part of this period is in Sanders, A history of the Percheron horse. It is to be expected that the Percheron Horse Association of America, obviously an interested party, should make claims such as "Over 70% of the purebred draft horses in America were Percherons"; it is not to be expected that such claims should be copied verbatim here, particularly in view of the previous rather chequered history.
• On a trivial level, "exponentially" is a WP:PEACOCK word – unless of course there is a reliable source confirming that the growth may be described by the function y = e^x?

I see the following possible solutions:

• Rewrite, condense and reorganise most of the material relating to the Percheron in Britain and the United States into separate and suitably-titled sections, with another for the Percheron in the other 15 or more countries in the world where it is represented, and expand the remaining matter to cover the breed in general and in France. Or,
• As has already been suggested by User:Tsaag Valren, split this article into two, the present one and a new one for the American Percheron, where the criticisms of regional bias and so on above would have no relevance whatsoever.
  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, your continued use of language such as "bilious" demonstrates quite clearly that you still seem to have difficulties with WP:AGF. Please cease this tendentious, meaningless argument for the sake of argument. You are making distinctions without a difference where the breed has a worldwide impact and the different nations clearly recognize one another's bloodstock as purebred, even if they have varying priorities for the breed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Endgame (Megadeth album)

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

Result: Not Listed The user initiating this review has mentioned on the nominators talk page that they are willing to put it back through the review process [16]. It is attracting no responses here and that is probably the best and fastest venue to get it re-reviewed AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am seeking a re-assessment of Endgame (Megadeth album), because I do believe that the original reviewer made broad judgments without scrutinizing the article closely enough where he made criticisims, offered little in terms of advice/assistance and refused to address my concerns about the quality of his assessment. It was my belief that a reviewer was supposed to be more helpful than auto-failing, and saying to fix it without clearly explaining what needs improved, and more importantly how it can be improved. I would appreciate any opinion from editors other than the original reviewer (he knows who he is) (actually, to be fair, the original editor should have the right to voice his opinion, although I would prefer it if he respected my request for a re-assessment by not participating in this). Thank you all for your time, --L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Condition of the article at the time of the fail -> here. I am the reviewer, and I completely stand by the quick-fail. The article wasn't and still isn't GA-worthy. And no, it is not a reviewers job to take a C-class article and baby-feed you the answers. Read up on the GA-criteria and nominate a proper article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment having looked at the original reviewer's edit history, and his past conduct, I suspect that part of the rapid failed is because the original reviewer had no interest in the subject matter, since it had nothing to do with Mariah Carey, Lady Gaga, or Katy Perry. For example, one thing the original reviewer noted is that the sources were "in shambles" (if I remember the quote right). However, I compared with some of the more recent Mariah Carey GA-rated articles, and I really don't see a difference in the quality of the citations. Not to say that the article doesn't have other issues, but the citation FORMAT wasn't much different originally.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, and also the article was originally B class; the original reviewer subsequently de-rated it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You are upset you nominated a sub-par article and it was failed. It has nothing to do with the subject. Whatever I sign on to review, I review to the best of my ability, so cut the crap and focus on earning an honest GA.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      • All I am going to say is that I really have had enough of the original editor he wasn't particularly helpful before and never addressed my the concerns I expressed to him initially about his original review; I found that to be arrogant, condescending conduct. I really would have greatly appreciated if the original editor had at least addressed concerns I had. I would really welcome a THIRD PARTY to the discussion.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
        • If you would have given me damn time to respond, I would have. No, I'm not going to address any more concerns after you have opened this page. Let the other editors tell you. And understand, give others time to weigh in their opinions. That's your issue, learn to be patient.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I waited 2 weeks until my page was looked at. I was understanding of a backlog in the system, but I would expect that a reviewer would not just leave a discussion for an extended period when concerns were pending. The reviewer acknowledged the fact that I had concerns, but he made no attempt to relieve me of said concerns. He dismissed them.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Furthermore, I would like to say in response to the original editor that I am not trying to earn an easy GA. I presumed that any GA nom would not pass immediately. I was looking for a reviewer who would provide helpful feedback and allow me time to implement such improvements so that the article might reach GA status.
      • TO THE ORIGINAL EDITOR: I don't really care about your opinion anymore. He made no effort to address my concerns then, so I have no reason to believe he intended to address them at all. The original editor only talked around them without ever addressing them--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

JUST TO CLEAR THINGS UP REGARDING THE ABOVE EXCHANGE: Nathan and I have settled our dispute via talk pages, but additional feedback regarding Endgame is still requested.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I still am requesting a new, independent and objective review from an editor other than the original editor. To the re-assessment committee again, thank you for your time and consideration. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, your best course of action is to renominate at WP:GAN. GAR is not a place to to provide a substitute review. The review was not very thorough; the article was ill-prepared. I suggest that the nominator focusses on providing more reliable sources and that the reviewer takes more care in reviewing in future and refrains from unhelpful comments such as "This is resulting in a quick-fail. Far too many issues to outline now; the article is simply under-prepared"; "You need real improvement here buddy." Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside, I removed Songfacts as it's user submitted, and a personal blog on Blogspot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Gears of War

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

Result: Delist Sourcing concerns and no editors working on fixing the issues AIRcorn (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of unsourced material in the article, which makes it fail criteria 2a, 2b, and 2c-SCB '92 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• In its current state with all the material uncited, I'm for delisting it. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delist: on sourcing as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Meg & Dia

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

Result: Delisted Szzuk (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How in God's name did this ever get to GA? The sources are terrible. It completely fails on almost every level:

1a. 2008-2009 is broken up into individual sentences, many of which begin with In or On. I also see at least one sentence fragment. Elsewhere, the prose is completely disjointed (jumping from how Dia's work has sold to her children's novels).

1b. The discography is completely out of style. Take a look at nearly any discography on Featured list to see how the albums should be formatted.

2a.Entire swaths are unsourced. "Something Real" and the discography included.

2b: I see citations to YouTube, iTunes Store, MySpace. Those have to go. And that's a good 2/3 of the sources. Also, I removed a listing of iTunes Charts, which are on WP:BADCHARTS.

3a. No sections on critical reception of their works. Also, I know Dia Frampton charted a duet with Blake Shelton, but no mention of it is made. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment The referencing and prose is particularly bad. This needs a lot of work and the major contributors are either retired or have not been active for over a year. Unless someone is willing to put in a lot of work soon it will have to be delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I removed most of the bad sources and did some maintenance tagging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Delist Worst references removed, but still a few suspect ones and now even more is unsourced. AIRcorn (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The article suffers from stubby sections and underdeveloped single sentence paragraphs. Annoying parenthetical phrases litter the article; for example:

Nick was Meg's car mechanic after she was involved in a minor car accident (Which also is the result of the name for the EP What Is It? A Fender Bender).

There are also citation issues. Some references aren't formatted correctly, such as Teen Vogue interview; in at least one other case a citation doesn't support the claim. Majoreditor (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delist clearly fails #1, #2 and #3 of WIAGA. The section "The Meg & Dia Band" consists of quotes; this is the first time I have seen something like this.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Corrs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: delist This article remains substantially unimproved since its nomination for community reassessment over three weeks ago, the primary contributor is semi-retired and the projects have been informed. There are unsourced statements and many dead links, which could possibly be replaced by someone who care to research them. the reliability of several sources has been challenged but no response has been made to these challenges. The prose is not very good and the article as a whole lacks a consistent flow. A thorough copy-edit would be beneficial. The article does not appear to have been updated for nearly a year. I believe that in its present state the article does not meet the GA criteria, so should be de-listed as there is a clear consensus to do so. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Citations to acharts.us should probably be replaced.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Absolute Divas
  • Ask Men
  • Executive Visions
  • Showbiz Ireland
• There are a ton of dead links.
• Citations to Amazon and IMDb should be removed. If all you need to cite is the track listing, use Allmusic.
• The infobox shouldn't have had the dates in it (i.e., how long they were signed to each label). I removed these.

Overall, it's obvious the article isn't being maintained (mainly the extreme linkrot, but also the ancient League of Copy Editors tag that was drive-by-tagged). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article is in poor shape, I notified the primary contributor, but they do have a semi-retired notice. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have also notified the projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few MOS issues (although not all of these need disqualify GA status) including those in: WP:Not #, WP:YEAR, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics and WP:ORDINAL. More significant for GA status are the issues in WP:Title, the many deadlinks and handful of missing citations already mentioned above. The writing style is a bit of a problem as well and needs a copy edit. This is a bit more than I am prepared to dip in and fix quickly I am afraid.--SabreBD (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• If it was just the dead links they could be fixed up relatively easily, but too many of the references used are not reliable and finding replacements is a harder task. As no one seems to be interested in saving this I suggest delisting. AIRcorn (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manda Best

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

{ Result: Closed with recommendation to renominate at WP:GAN The nominator believes that the GAN review was inadequate. Consensus appears to be that the best solution is to renominate at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

I am nominating this article for GAR, because I feel the reviewer was wrong in his decision to quickfail the initial GAN. The reviewer cited the article's lack of references in the lead and plot section as reasons for the quickfail, but per WP:MOSLEAD and WP:TVPLOT, this is not necessary. The reviewer has decided to stand by his decision. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As the original nominator for the article for GA, I do feel it was an unfair review, so will be standing behind Eagles24 decision. If this article is worthy of being a GA that is a different matter MayhemMario 08:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the guidelines above - specifically: "It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it." Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page then? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Primarily, it is used for checking whether existing GAs meet the standards. The note at the top of GAR says: "Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status. GAR can also promote articles to GA status, but this has been infrequent occurring occasionally following delisting from GA status or after failing a good article nomination. GAR can sometimes provide more feedback for delisted articles or failed GA nominations. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not."

Generally, it is better to renominate a failed nomination, with a note on the article talk page as to why you have done so. After all, you presumably wish to have a full GA review and GAN is generally faster at doing that. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Do not list. The article looks like it was written by a teenager or fan, possibly both. That isn't to say the article has no value to WP, it certainly does. But the GAN reviewer was correct in his fail and the reason for the fail, the reason seems to have been muddied with further discussion however that is irrelevant. As already noted it would better to withdraw this GAR, rewrite and renominate. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Resubmit at GAN. Geometry guy may disagree with me, but I don't think there's anything much that GAR can do about a poor review that comes to perhaps the right conclusion even if for the wrong reasons. Having said that though, the nominators do deserve better feedback from the nomination process than they received to help them get the article to meet the GA criteria, so if it's resubmitted then I will undertake to review it and provide that feedback. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that renomination is the best way forward, as Malleus says. If no further comments are forthcoming, I am inclined to close with a recommendation to renominate within the next few days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apple

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result': kept It appears that the issues raised by the nominator have been addressed. Sources are reliable, statements are cited, lead adequately summarises the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Intro is too short.
• Could more be said on genomes?
• Fallen apples section tagged for OR since March 2010.
• Apple Allergy section tagged for unsourced-ness and factual accuracy.
• What makes solarnavigator.net, gardenaction, faostat.org a reliable source?
• One-sentence paragraphs in "Health benefits".

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified the primary contributors and the projects that cover this article? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Notified User talk:VMS Mosaic, the only active editor in the top 20 contributors, and the two listed Wikiprojects. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Fallen apples section has been removed (not by me). I've rewritten the allergy section with refs. Solarnavigator.net has been removed, along with the sentence it supposedly covered (which was unintelligible and not in the source anyway). FAOStat is the agriculture statistics database for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - definitely reliable. Will work on the others when I get home to better sourcing tonight - I just stumbled across this review, so this is the first I've had a chance to work on it. Dana boomer (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Update - Apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I've now expanded the genomes section a bit; please let me know if there is further information you would like to see here. There is a lot of really technical information out there, but I think most of it is TMI for a general article. I've also replaced the garden action refs and combined the short paragraphs in the Health benefits section. I think the too-short lead is the only thing left in your list - I will try to get to it in the next couple of days. In the meantime, please re-review the article and let me know if you have further comments. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything has been fixed apart from the lead which still looks a little bit light. Szzuk (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I keep meaning to get to the lead and keep getting distracted by other stuff. I'm still planning to work on it - I apologize for the delay. If anyone has any further comments on the article, though, besides the lead, please let me know and I'll work on them as soon as I get a free second. Dana boomer (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned because the GAR is due to close. Szzuk (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right; guess I missed that part. I'll make sure this is top priority for this evening, then. Dana boomer (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually found a bit of time this afternoon and have had a go at expanding the lead. If there is anything else that needs to be done, please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead looks good. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. All of the noms issues have been addressed. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: delist Concerns have been raised about referencing and the lead which does not summarize the article in the manner required in WP:LEAD. Embedded lists and poor prose are also concerns. Editors and projects have been notified but no remedial action has been taken. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've listed for GAR, because I feel the that article does meet the GA criteria 2b since the "Communitarianism" and "Types of community" sections is completely unsorced. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 11:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. There are so many unsourced sections I can't see this retaining GA status. It had a GAR 3 years ago in a sweep and the article looks almost identical. It shouldn't have been kept then, I didn't check how the article compares now to GAN however. I don't see the point of keeping this one open much past the due date, its not a very sexy topic and not a well maintained article - I doubt anybody will source now or anytime soon and there is too much to do. Szzuk (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been just 2 article edits since the start of this GAR. Vandalism and revert. Szzuk (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with the above about the referencing. The lead needs work and the prose in general could do with a quick once over and not too keen on the use of embedded lists in sections. Notified the Wikiprojects Community (which looks stale) and Sociology plus User:Sunray so it has a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delist No improvements to article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the above, as well - but, then, I'm new here.Meclee (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thomas S. Monson

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

Result: Kept There have been no delist comments. Szzuk (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

NPOV - seems pro mormon rather than neutral. Few non-LDS sources.andycjp (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GAc4 is that an article "represent viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each." What evidence is there that the article does not accomplish this? What specific information is either excluded from the article or presented in a POV way? Also, seems inconsiderate for the nominator to have rushed to GAR without discussing specific grievances on the article's talk page first. —Eustress ^talk 13:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the nominators opinion based on a diff on the article's talk page is that the article is "Marketing rather than encyclopedic" and that it is not NPOV because "No criticism or controversies at all? Hard to believe." However we've already been thru this several times, both before & after the initial GA Review, as the nominator of this reassessment would have seen if they had looked thru Talk:Thomas S. Monson/Archive 1. I think this nomination for reassessment is premature and not well framed, almost to the point of being an wp:IDONTLIKEIT discussion. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eustress and 208.81.184.4. It would appear that Andycjp's nomination is a wp:IDONTLIKEIT situation where he fails to address any specific issues. This Nomination should be rejected and the article should remain a GA.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment It would help if the nominator can detail any instances of language he feels is not neutral or source any criticism that is missing. The overuse of biased sources is a bit concerning, but not strictly disallowed in a GA as long as it is non-controversial, attributed and the information is presented in an unbiased way. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You admit overuse of biased sources, yet you still insist it's a good article? Makes perfect sense. It was a mistake to ever nominate this as a good article. 208, are you LDS ?- I can't tell from your user page. As for critics not included, how about this- there clearly is a side to Mr Monson the LDS do not want the world to see. [17] There clearly is negative stuff out there if you are willing to look. Shame on Wikipedia for taking LDS hype at face value and not giving Ex-Mormon sources a fair hearing. This may be of interest. [18] One more, not specific to Monson but this is the type of group he runs:[19] Good article status was premature. andycjp (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions are appreciated on Wikipedia, but the way the GAR nominator is going about it is uncivil and a manifestation of POV (per comment above, This is the type of organization [Monson] runs.). The "ex-mormon" information presented by the nominator comes from unreliable sources and is unencyclopedic, and no concrete evidence has yet been presented that proves GAc4 is in violation. I admit the article is not perfect—not even Featured Articles are perfect—but it still appears to meet the Good article criteria.

As an act of good faith, I put forth the effort and incorporated 11 new sources in the article that are from reliable sources that are also unaffiliated with LDS. If the GAR nominator has concrete suggestions how the article can be improved, I hope he will consider discussing them on the article's talk page in the future. Regarding this case, considering the nominator's editorial POV and failure to engaged discussion on the talk page first, in addition to the lack of concrete grievances and my good-faith additions of 11 new non-LDS sources, I recommend this GAR be closed. —Eustress ^talk 03:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a citation needed tag still present and if possible it would be good to either incorporate some of the one and two sentence sections or expand them. While complimentary, there was nothing overly promotional about the tone from my read through. I agree that the given sources above are unreliable, I did a Gnews search and found nothing criticising Monson. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've addressed the citation tag with a non-LDS source. —Eustress ^talk 19:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is not perfect, but I feel it passes the criteria; so keep once the nuetrality tag is removed. AIRcorn (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed, cheers —Eustress ^talk 14:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There's usually no smoke without fire- are you really going to whitewash this guy? All of the sources you have added about him opening temples are merely PR- not serious analysis. This is exactly the reason why I nominated the article for not good in the first place. Eustress, please be honest- are you an LDS member? LDS sources are unreliable. Remove all LDS sources as unreliable and it will be a neutral article. Bradford points out here some good non Mormon academic sources on the LDS. I would like to see serious academic sources refered to before the article is 'good'. andycjp (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this meets the good article definition of neutrality. Please stop commenting on other editors, it doesn't matter if they are LDS or not. You are not helping your case. AIRcorn (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is a good article wikipedia sets the bar too low.andycjp (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It may well do. But that is a discusion for another forum. AIRcorn (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between criticism of the theology and criticism of the man himself. 76.27.41.184 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep No specific reasons given why it should be reassessed. The article clearly passes the Good Article criteria.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Ivan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: delisted Contributors to the discussion expressed concerns that the article focussed too much on preparations in the US, with not so much from Caribbean countries. The aftermath section was also considered substandard. There are a number of unresolved dead links, I managed to fix a few. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This article has degraded over the years and no longer meets the quality and content criteria for Good Articles. There is a severe lack of information in regards to the response to the storm (Aftermath) from all countries effected. The preparations section is mostly centered around the United States with only a tidbit on elsewhere. Impact needs to be restructured and refocused to better convey the proper information. Overall, I believe this article is no longer of GA quality; however, rather than immediate demote it, I wanted to see the opinions of others and have a community vote on the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Aftermath is all too small, there can be tons more impact too, from the sub-articles and elsewhere. Hurricanefan25 | talk 00:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I think it should get the Isabel treatment. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's good to see some action being taken on this. A lot of articles in the project no longer satisfy the GA criteria, and sadly Ivan is one of them. Auree ★ 02:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This process is supposed to give interested people a chance to address any concerns. A new guideline was recently implimented asking nominators to notify major contributors and Wikiprojects.[20] Has this been done for this article (I'm guessing some of Wikiproject hurricane know)? AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Its easy to see that this article no longer meets the criteria for Good Article status. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, the article has improved since its GAR, and we should give it another week or so before demoting IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• Keep A lot of work has been done in improving the article and I believe all the nominators stated concerns have been addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Am happy with Auree's suggestion below. AIRcorn (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As the aim of this is to improve the articles to good status I have asked the early delist supporters to take another look at the article in light of the subsequent improvements. AIRcorn (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Although I commend the editors that worked on this article in attempt to bring it up to standard, I feel it's not entirely there yet. My concerns in specific are with GA criteria 1 a), 1 b), and 3 a). The article is aesthetically displeasing; its structure is disorganized and disjointed in that it incorporates a lot of loose and stubby paragraphs and subsections (in particular the impact, which has several non-sequential subsections on Caribbean nations). I also feel the lede is inadequate in summarizing the essence of the article, specifically the meteorological history. Furthermore, the wide variety of editors has caused several inconsistencies in terms of prose and style. Finally, some crucial details are still missing, for example the impact in the ABC islands (and probably other Caribbean islands). In this case, a lot of significant information (including a damage total) on the ABC islands can be found here, on page 19. Some more impact for the islands (Dutch source, easily translatable with Google Translate) can be found here, and some aftermath here. I suggest looking into this a bit more especially for the Lesser Antilles. Per the style issues, I will go over the article to give it a copy-edit, but I suggest requesting uninvolved editors from outside the project (e.g. at the Guild of Copy Editors) to look over the article and give it a thorough copy-edit and rid of glaring style inconsistencies. I hope this helps, Auree ★ 01:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to write the article anew over the next week or so. Trying to tweak the current content will lead to more inconsistencies and possibly incorrect or synthesized information. I have created a WikiProject Sandbox so we can start from scratch and produce a fresh, well-structured article with recent sources, void of outdated content. Auree ★ 18:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the status on this?? -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone uninvolved in this discussion should assess the consensus here and close it. A note could be left at the talk page asking for someone. AIRcorn (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warcraft II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: no action There was clear consensus that the best course would be for renomination at WP:GAN as the article had previously failed at GAN in July 2010 and had never been listed. It also appears that comments at the previous GAN and the peer review have not been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I request a community reassessment, because:

• At 20:14, 3 August 2010 User:Geometry guy moved Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/2 wrote, "Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/1 ‎ (Unnecessary new reassessment: move to first one and merge histories) (revert)".
• Then at 22:24, 3 August 2010 Geometry guy deleted the individual reassessment with "Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/2" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Reassessment moved, clear page". The deleted individual reassessment said, "Comments made here may help editors and reviewers approach that challenge with realism", without give me a change to ask what "challenge with realism" mean. --Philcha (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Warcraft II/2" was not an individual reassessment, but a community one, and it did not contain that comment. I also fail to see how community GAR can be of any help here. The article needs to be renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 23:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• User:Reach Out to the Truth insistants on everting the article's title. Could GAR reviewers please comments on this situation. --Philcha (talk)

• Close GAR. This is housekeeping. This is housekeeping that is 1 year old. It is so unimportant I don't even know why i'm commenting. Szzuk (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Delisted As I said elsewhere[21], the place to get these re-listed is the nomination process. AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bhagavad Gita

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: delisted Although the nomination for re-assessment is rather vague, I found a number of long outstanding citation needed tags and dead links. The prose could certainly do with a brush up and the organization of the article is poor. I would suggest a thorough clean up, followed by a peer review before renominating at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I request the re-assessment of the article bhagavad gita, because :

• The article does not provide relevant information in the relevant section.
• The introductory paragraph sounds awkward,as it contains referenced appraisal by some other persons, which is not the way to introduce a major book of a major religion of the world and may not represent a worldwide view of the topic.
• The article, related to a major religious book is relatively less informative and neutral than the other major religious books of the world , like quran,bible or guru granth sahib.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)‎
  • Comment: I see no evidence that primary editors or projects have been informed, which you should do. I fixed the article talk page as the GAR template had not been transcluded. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Atlas of Australian Birds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: delisted It appears that there are outstabnding problems with this article. The prose is poor, some strange word choices ("atlassers"), there is apparently dated material (Ongoing developments), there is little or no coverage of the book(s) themselves, some coverage of Birds Australia would be useful, the article is sourced only to primary sources. The absence of an infobox is not a consideration for GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC).

• 1b. I think it likely that there would be a relevant infobox - perhaps the infobox for websites. The layout may require an extra early section explaining the project holistically followed by sections on the two books and the database. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• 2b. Quite a lot of specific information (and therefore likely to be challenged) is not sourced. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• 3b. It seems to me that there is a relevant information that is not in the article. Examples probably include lack of information about: Birdata, WildlifeLink program, the huge collaborative nature of the project. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:The New Atlas of Australian Birds.jpg is used as a thumbnail but has no caption. 6a. It claims Fair Use and so should include who the copyright holder is (likely the publisher). I disagree that the presence/absence of an infobox is a GA criteria, but relevant to 1b I think the "Ongoing developments" section violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references (The Atlas is now in its ongoing phase and is now accepting...) -maclean (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.