Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 59

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 60)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 58) →

Freedom from Want (painting)

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

Result: Closed as no consensus for promotion. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This article was just failed at WP:GAN although I believe that most will feel it meets WP:WIAGA in its current state.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Just as I feel most will agree that it doesn't. But Hey....let us do what we must! I am an artist and an enthusiast of Rockwell. If you don't like my review...then re-nominate it. Right now...you have ignored far too much that I have pointed out to list this as GA. I will watchlist this discussion. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment I haven't gone through it point-by-point, but first of all, I think it could be a wonderful Good Article. It would be good to follow Mark's recommendation and go through each of the assessment items and ensure that they are met. What first caught my eye was that there were bits that were not cited, there needs to be a bit of copy editing (perhaps tightening up the lead, or is that just me?), and there's a mixture of short and long citations. Since most are long citations, it would make sense to make them all long citations and not have a bibliography or sources section (I don't remember what it's called in this case)... and there are a couple of citation error messages, but I set my preferences to see them, so maybe you don't. I'll look at that. I hope you keep hanging in! It would be great to have this made good article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The point of a GAR like this is that a point-by-point analysis is required. He thinks he has found valid violations of WP:WIAGA and I think he is misinterpretting some things. E.g., we have gone back and forth on the necessity of a 10-point NFCC FUR. He contests museum description pages as valid WP:RS. Also, we disagree on whether the essay is overweighted in this article to the point of failing GA. A nominator can not request a 2nd opinion during a review. GAR is the proper recourse. So here we are. You need to render an opinion on whether he has identified proper points of failure. That is the issue here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I made some copy edits to the intro, fixed the short/long citation issue and tagged one citation - Encarta as needing a better source, and added a few cn tags. I think going through each of the items point-by-point is still a good effort. For instance, under "Well written" copyright / close paraphrasing concerns are identified. It's nice that the sentences are not all together now, but some of the sentences seem to be the same language and in the same order as the source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything else like this that can be tweaked or resolved from the previous assessment?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

For instance, it seemed to me from what I read that you said the 10-point review of the NFCC FUR was fine, at least that's the impression I got from reading that section. I guess I'm not seeing a concern with the use of a museum's description pages, but I'll look at that a bit. Regarding the essay, is there a way to copy edit it so that the reader gets the salient points with fewer words? And, are there some other things that came up during the review that would be good to look over?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never supported a 10-point FUR. As I stated, many of the 10 NFCC issues don't need specific mention in the FUR. I think it is unnecessary and overkill. I have never seen a 10-point FUR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the part about "He contests museum description pages as valid WP:RS" and I don't think that adequately stated his position. I basically agree with him, although I think that something written about the essay could be more than 2-3 sentences... it would seem to me that 5-6 sentences should be able to get to the salient points. Right now, it's a bit difficult for me to understand the intention of the essay section. If nothing else, it would seem to me that since there is a tie in that Rockwell's painting did accompany the essay, the content should probably be focused, then, on just that... what were the key points from the essay. That's my take.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please explain his/your position on the reliability of a museum description page as a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

I don't consider the museum's information unreliable. I think of it in terms of how they are inter-related and how much does it further the story of Rockwell's painting. There's nothing that suggests to me (including "The Norman Rockwell Museum describes it as a story illustration for The Saturday Evening Post, making the essay and this painting complementary works.") that Rockwell created "Freedom from Want" as an illustration specifically made for that essay, if he had, I'm guessing it wouldn't look as it does. It seems to me that the magazine wanted to have a good Thanksgiving issue... got a great "hook" to select someone people wouldn't ordinarily expect to write the essay... and had Rockwell, who regularly made paintings for them, create Freedom from Want and paired them together in the magazine. Even if that wasn't the case, the article is about the painting, not about the essay. If the essay and author are strong enough to stand on their own, perhaps there's a new article there. It may not be as large as you'd usually write (i.e., GA/FA status), but one that would be interesting and could be linked to from this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, you have made a ton of stylistic changes to the citations which run counter to the formats that were approved in my prior three Category:FA-Class visual arts articles that I got promoted in the last 13 months. I am not sure why you don't want the books to be listed separately with short author page citations for specific citations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'd constitute making "short citations" into "long citations" as a ton of stylistic changes. In the past I've run into an issue on VA articles where there was a mixture... and I needed to choose one way or another. If you want to go back to the bibliography style go for it. You'll notice that I didn't recommend that for the Four Freedom's article, nor attempt changes there... and that was because 1) there was consistency in approach for use of short citations for books and 2) there were multiple uses of the same book, which is when a bibliography section makes sense. If you think it's right to have them the other way, put them back.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have faith and confidence that CaroleHenson is on this with the correct reassessment but Tony really has to let go of his POV (which may be very slight, but still) and see that there are real concerns here about undue weight and a mischaracterization of the museum page reference. as well as other recommendations. I don't think he was looking for a rubber stamp, but I do get the feeling he may not have encountered this sort of review before just from his reaction thus far. I suggest this be closed as not meeting GA at this time unless the major changes suggested are made and kept by Tony. This article is very much one that could be a GA article but I sense a little more than slight resistance to the needed changes.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully changed the link to my page from a template to the traditional brackets and very much agree with Mark.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) + struck out "Thanksgiving" from my response above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Carol, you seem to be misunderstanding your role here. This is review is an assessment of the state of the article at the time of the original review decision, the reasoning for that decision and WP:WIAGA. You need to clearly state why the article should have been failed or passed based on the elements of dispute between the reviewer and the nominator. When you say "There's nothing that suggests...that Rockwell created "Freedom from Want" as an illustration specifically made for that essay" you should evaluate text like "Hibbs alleviated Rockwell's concern that his work did not match Bulosan's text." Saying that the museum description, which states it was an illustration, is not unreliable but saying you don't consider it an illustration is WP:OR. You need to present RS that outweigh the museum and say why you support Mark Miller's claim based on such RS otherwise it seem you should point to the RS that you say is reliable (in double negative form as not unreliable). The same with the other points. You need to state why a 10-point FUR is required. That is what this review is about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was: before there's a thorough assessment there's a couple of things to take a look at from the prior assessment. It's a lot of work to go through and complete an assessment and to not have tackled the issues raised and gloss over them is an issue. I thought I was pretty clear about what they are, but sure, I will summarize the items:

1. The copyright issues brought up in the initial assessment do not seem to have been completely addressed. For instance, under "Well written" copyright / close paraphrasing concerns are identified. It's nice that the sentences are not all together now, but some of the sentences seem to be the same language and the words are in the same order as the source. (See the prior assessment)
2. There's a mixture of short and long citations. Since most are long citations, it would make sense to make them all long citations and not have a bibliography or sources section
3. The cited text for Encarta needs a better source
4. Even though the essay and painting have been deemed by the museum to be "complementary works," the article is about the painting, not about the essay. There are a couple of options: 1) rewrite the section to focus upon the points being made by the essay in a few sentences 2-5 and/or 2) consider starting an article about the essay author and/or essay, if it passes notability.
5. Address what else needs to be resolved from the prior assessment before moving on to this assessment.
6. From the last points made in the "Criteria" section of the previous assessment:

• But since they are a part are what does need to be checked against to comply to the "Media specific" policy and "previous publication" I like to add them, specially when I add them in a review.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• I kinda have to in that situation, but I figured someone might see the message and If not, I would have done the work. I don't have an issue with that.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's asking a lot of someone to go through the entire assessment until you've tackled items from the initial assessment. That's what I was trying to say (I had hoped, politely).

I agree with Mark's comment: "I suggest this be closed as not meeting GA at this time unless the major changes suggested are made and kept by Tony. This article is very much one that could be a GA article but I sense a little more than slight resistance to the needed changes."--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am not understanding this list. The copyright issue in the review was about images and you are talking about text. I don't even recall a debate about short and long citations. The original assessment made no comment about reliable source issues. What are you talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It would help if you looked at the prior review.
    • Regarding copyright/closeparaphrasing: Talk:Freedom from Want (painting)/GA1#Well-written
    • We have talked about long/short citations - If you do a find (Control-F) on "short" - you can find each of the places.
    • I added the point about Encarta (Control-F) on "Encarta".
  • I am beginning to run out of energy for this. I am very happy to have summarized the items for you. The real question is: Do you want to work on resolving the issues? If not, I am with Mark, let's close this out until the issues are resolved.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The section you are sending me to regarding copyright/closeparaphrasing says "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct" What corrections do you think I am suppose to make to address this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about (Control-F) on "short" in this discussion or the one that is at issue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the word Encarta at the discussion at issue although I will seek to find a better reference.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm gobsmacked and done. To clarify

1. The Control-F on "short" is for this talk page... it's the conversation we had. I wasn't part of the initial review. I had thought that would be clear... when I said our conversation. So, just look for the instances of "short" citation. Same for Encarta. I bolded them so they are now even easier to find.
   1. Handled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Regarding the copyright, I copied over exactly the information that was posted. I put the initial bit that just says what the criteria in <<no wiki>> so you could see that "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct" is the criteria that was being used to judge and formulate the following comments...

copied comments from review

<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}; and</li> There were some clarity issues in the lead that I attempted to address so no need to go over what was accepted. The remaining portion of te lead needs some work. In the lead we have this portion: "Freedom from Want was published in the March 6, 1943, issue of The Saturday Evening Post with a corresponding essay by Carlos Bulosan as part of the Four Freedoms series.[2] The painting was included as the cover image of the 1946 book Norman Rockwell, Illustrator, written when Rockwell was "at the height of his fame as America's most popular illustrator."[3] Although the image was popular in the United States it caused resentment in Europe where the masses were enduring hardship at the time. Drawing comparisons to John Steinbeck, Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring the socioeconomic hardships domestically rather than those enduring sociopolitical hardships abroad, and it thrust him into prominence." The Bulosan material needs to stay together tightly in the lead as it has context and relevance, however it should not bookend other content or given undue connection or weight to the subject or the article. "Freedom from Want was published in the March 6, 1943, issue of The Saturday Evening Post as part of the Four Freedoms series.[2] The issue included a corresponding essay by novelist and poet, Carlos Bulosan of the same title, considered one of the authors most notable works. The painting was included as the cover image of the 1946 book Norman Rockwell, Illustrator, written when Rockwell was "at the height of his fame as America's most popular illustrator."[3] Although the image was popular in the United States it caused resentment in Europe where the masses were enduring hardship at the time. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

I have no idea why you are bringing this up. This content has not been in the WP:LEAD for some time. It was edited long before this article was failed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am unwatching this page and my name being used won't return me to this page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you have jumped ship, but you seem to have generally pointed to things in the prior discussion that are not actually things that needed editorial attention. If I am understanding your issues above they were the following:

1. Attend to a close paraphrasing issue which was neither pointed to in the original discussion nor presented actionably here.
2. Pointed out a ref improve wish and three citations needed that were not in the original discussion
3. Corrected a long/short citation issue even you admitted was a matter of preference and not at issue in the prior discussion that you would not mind if I reverted.
4. Stated that the museum description page is not unreliable, failed to present alternate sources to contradict it and somehow come out on the side that the reliable source is wrong or something. I just don't understand your point here, especially given the corroborating facts.
5. Concurred that the essay content should be reduced (which was an issue of the prior discussion).
6. It is unclear to me whether you said you think the 10-point FUR should be required.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let me state that in terms of the amount of essay content in the article, It will likely be determined consensus, but the content was requested by Novickas.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a placeholder, since I'm not in a position right now to coherently discuss the Bulosan essay inclusion. Hopefully within a few days. Novickas (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, Novickas is the person who suggested expanding the essay content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, now they can explain to us why your hesitance is appropriate to keep this open. I await that with absolute pleasure.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what you are saying, although I am fairly certain it is not very collegial.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Not everyone takes your tact here Tony. You have been the less collegial and very much unable to collaborate here. But if you truly did not understand I guess I should explain it for you. You attempted to explain who another editor was in regards to this article and I was stating that it was my hope that they could also explain your hesitance to simply take the suggestions from two separate editors and still try to keep the reassessment open when you have not listened to the editors concerns. Over explanation of what others have already disagreed with is not working in good faith. It is simply not hearing others. There are other concerns now from a third editor over the clariy of the writing and I agree with those comments as well. Simply put, this isn't a GA article. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I believe you have misread the third editor, Novickas. He has said this GAR is unclear and not the article, if I am correct. He said the GA discussion was hard to follow and needed more structure not that the article did.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The GA discussions have gotten, for me, kind of hard to follow – it’d be nice if the critiques and replies were more structured, or summarized below – it would help the next reviewer.

IMO the accompanying Carlos Bulosan essay deserves a section in this article, because it has been covered, in depth, in many reliable sources, and discussed in terms of its juxtaposition with the painting. It’s encyclopedic information that I don’t think should be moved elsewhere. Including analysis of an accompanying text is, I know, a somewhat unusual situation for a painting article – but Rockwell did describe himself as an illustrator in his autobiography. [1]. The WP Illustrator article currently reads “An illustrator is an artist who specializes in enhancing writing or elucidating concepts by providing a visual representation that corresponds to the content of the associated text or idea.” This painting illustrated two texts, two concepts – primarily Roosevelt’s speech, but also Bulosan's essay. The Post selected the essays, including Bulosan’s, before the paintings were finished, and there is sourced commentary about Rockwell’s take on B.’s essay. And creating a stand-alone article about the essay using the image, or putting it in the Bulosan article, would stretch the limits of the image’s fair usage.

This has happened before and will happen again – there are more viewable Google book results about the painting than there were just a few weeks ago. Scholars now see his works as an acceptable subject. I’ll mention them, along with a few other suggestions, at the article’s talk page. Novickas (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been no reliable source that states the Rockwell painting is or was ever intended as an illustration of the Bulson essay. The essay is far from the idealized depiction of Rockwell's "American ideal" at that time. Simply saying that Rockwell is known for illustration is simply not enough for me to support this text remaining in the article with such undue weight. Two editors have made their review, now please justify the claims being made or find a way to stop avoiding two editor reviews. We need a clear and unambiguous claim that the painting was an illustration of the essay that is as far from that painting as one can get. As for now, if even Novickas is returning to the talk page for discussion I find this community reassessment to have failed. The article in it's current state is simply not GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The only claim is that the painting is an illustration of the same theme as the essay (as stated in the article).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Then it is indeed undue weight to give a biography of Bulson on this page. Yes, of course a few lines, 2 to 3 maybe even 4 or 5 (if the information stays on topic, focused and does not give undue weight to information not needed on the article), but we do not need an entire section devoted to the essay on the Rockwell Painting article.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But there are multiple reliable sources describing the paintings as illustrations of the essays. The Norman Rockwell Museum [2] ("Story illustration for “The Saturday Evening Post"). From ‘’Dictionary of World Biography’’, Routlege, Rockwell’s entry: “The paintings were published as Freedom of Speech (February 24, 1943), [the other three],…to illustrate essays on these topics.” [3] From the ‘’Heath Anthology of American Literature’’, Cengage, (snippet only): “The Saturday Evening Post paid nearly a thousand dollars for Bulosan's essay “Freedom From Want" (an essay which was illustrated by Norman Rockwell and displayed in the Federal Building in San Francisco)…” [4]. From ‘’The Continuum Library of American Literature’’: “Freedom from Want (1943), an essay published in the Saturday Evening Post and illustrated by Norman Rockwell…” [5]. From ‘’Distinguished Asian Americans”, Greenwood Publishing Group: “The four essays were published in the Saturday Evening Post along with illustrations by Norman Rockwell.” [6]. From ‘’Common Destiny: Filipino American Generations’’, Rowman & Littlefield: “In 1943, when the war had finally lifted the United States out of the Depression, the Saturday Evening Post published articles on the Four Freedoms…and ran them in a special issue with Norman Rockwell illustrations.” [7].

Now, I realize that this way of framing the essays-paintings relationship is less prevalent than the ‘accompanied’ construct, and have no problem with using accompanied in the article. But it’s a significant minority viewpoint and since the essay has the same title, was printed alongside the painting, and has had so much coverage, I still think it belongs here. And I don't think a short recap of Bulosan's background is off-topic, because the sources Tony used discuss his life story in the context of the essay. Novickas (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, those references are not impressing me and do not state everything as clearly as you state here. I do not believe they support your claim. In fact I think you are pushing things way too much. Sorry. I don't see those references as supporting that claim or the undue weight of the mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If it would help, I would be happy to summarize the issues clearly in a Template:GAList so that at the end of the conversation, at least, there's clarity about the issues - it would be a shame if this article isn't resolved to go to GA status.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not about anyone's assessment of the current article. It is a debate about the failed version and the GAList for the GAN discussion at that time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Because I see this went to GAR, the point from the start was that issues from the initial assessment were not addressed and a few other issues were identified, which are in my listed items 1-6 above at 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC).--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary

I have been told by parties such as Cirt and Wehwalt who have participated in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2 that this debate has gotten WP:TLDR and that the back and forth has gotten hard to follow. I have been told to try to summarize what is at issue. This is a GAR regarding Talk:Freedom from Want (painting)/GA1 which resulted in a failed nominee. I am contesting the fail because I feel this version of the article at the time it was failed met WP:WIAGA. Thus the result of the fail should be overturned and this should be listed as a GA.

It is my understanding that this article was failed over the following disagreements between the nominator (TonyTheTiger) and the reviewer (Mark Miller):

1. Whether the Fair use rationale on File:Freedom From Want.jpg is sufficient. (reviewer beleives a 10-point FUR that responds to each WP:NFCC element is necessary and nominator feels the FUR was sufficient when it looked like this). Although this was a contentious issue, it was moot at the time the article was failed because the reviewer revised the FUR to reflect his belief before failing the article.
2. There was extensive debate regarding whether the Norman Rockwell Museum's description page is valid WP:RS for the painting. The debate over whether this painting is an illustration of the accompanying essay or an independent work continues to be contentious.
3. There is ongoing debate on whether there was excessive content regarding the accompanying essay in the version that was failed.

The article was failed on January 12. The above were the issues of contention at the time. After the fact comments were made at the original GA1 regarding poor prose but this was not a contentious issue at the time the article was failed although a full week after closing the review the reviewer commented that he agreed. After the fact, several issues have been raised by CaroleHenson that were not part of the original disagreement. She claims close paraphrasing was an issue. She says citations formatting was an issue. She believes that one of the sources (Encarta) was not a WP:RS.

It is my understanding this type of GAR is an assessment of the whether the issues raised at the time the article was originally failed were proper. My summary is stated above as succinctly as possible. Please review the version of the article that was failed and assess whether you think it should have been failed and whether the reviewer stated valid reasons. HTH.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, this GA was failed because it did not meet GA standards and there was little movement to correct issues, period. It was NOT failed (not listed as GA) because of any "disagreements".--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That being said, it is up to GAR discussants to look at WP:WIAGA and the version of the article that was failed and determine if failure was correct.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What? No. See WP:GAR. GAR is "used to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status." Failed GANs go back to GAN after the issues raised in the GAN are addressed, which you appear to have not done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The ed17, I don't see your quote in the rules. I think you are referring to " it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it", but I am not saying it did not have a proper review (where I interpret proper review to mean opposite of quickfail).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and to Tony's point, the second sentence that I wrote in this discussion was " It would be good to follow Mark's recommendation and go through each of the assessment items and ensure that they are met."--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It continues to be my assertion that each assessment item was satisfied at the time the article was failed, which is why I brought the article here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

• NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Wikipedia:Good article criteria Review assessment

1. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Well-written: Writing quality is concise throughout. Recommendations: I would suggest changing Notes sect to be called Footnotes sect, as Footnotes refers to notes about article text itself, and Notes refers to actual citations in the sect. Parody and satire sect: Might be nice to expand this sect further, but that could be fodder for future quality improvement after GA Review.
2. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Verifiable: Article is duly sourced throughout to appropriate citations. Norman Rockwell Museum is most certainly a reliable and verifiable source. There might be future concern if the source is durable in nature. Might be good to make sure it gets saved via Internet Archive and or WebCite.
3. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Broad coverage: Each subsection is of appropriate length and breadth. Good scope and structure for article throughout. I particularly like how the intro lede sect, followed by Background, and Description, help to ground the reader in the information presented.
4. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Neutral: The article is written from an NPOV standpoint. The presentation is neutral throughout. The wording chosen and stylistic structure is matter-of-fact.
5. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Stability review: Looking back two weeks -- article edit history shows some changes but they appear to be constructive in nature. Inspecting article talk page history I see a good deal of discussion but it does also appear to be of positive quality improvement recommendations and there appears to be progress being made here. Y
6. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Image review: File:Freedom From Want.jpg = fair use image, appropriate fair use rationale on image page. Y. File:Rockwell-Norman-LOC.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, but please format using commons:Template:Information, thank you.  Not done.

A few minor recommendations, above. Otherwise, the article seems fine as per this above point-by-point review according to WP:WIAGA.

• NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

---

Hopefully this is helpful, — Cirt (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

G-spot

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

Result: No consensus to demote. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The article makes bold medical claims as well as being improperly sourced. It seems to have been reviewed and found a good article without taking into account medical or anatomical requirements for a good article. See WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. CFCF (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Serious sourcing problems here, in direct violation of Wikipedia's policy for biomedical assertions sourcing guidelines. To take just one example, using CNN to source claims in Wikipedia's voice of G-splot related "physiological differences" detected between women. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no "policy for biomedical assertions." There are only guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated here: CFCF has blown this matter completely out of proportion; the G-Spot's existence has never been proven and it is a highly debated topic, with the vast majority of gynecologists, doctors and researchers doubting its existence, as shown here, here, here and here, except for when acknowledging that it is likely an extension of the clitoris. In fact, most material on this topic concerns whether or not it exists. ... This topic is far more of a social topic than it is a medical or anatomy topic. Furthermore, with regard to the WP:MEDRS sourcing, note where it states the following at Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." The "need to be relaxed" part of that text is exactly the case with the G-Spot topic. And the G-Spot article most certainly is not advocating for G-Spot amplification; it quite clearly has one paragraph stating that the procedure is sought by some women and how it is performed, and one paragraph making quite clear that the medical community is generally against the practice. Also take not that the G-Spot amplification material used to be an article, and I merged that text into the G-Spot article because "there isn't enough material on this topic, especially medical material, for the article to significantly grow beyond what it was. Not to mention, medical authorities are against the surgery." Also see Talk:G-Spot amplification.

As for there being recent material on this topic according to PubMed, including reviews, this topic is still far from requiring strict WP:MEDRS sourcing (sourcing that allows news sources, by the way, especially for social material). Again, most of the information with regard the G-Spot topic is about whether or not it exists and its impact on society. Treating this topic as a serious medical or anatomy topic is dubious.

As for "Wikipedia's voice," I don't understand what you mean on that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to any biomedical information on Wikipedia, wherever it occurs. "In Wikipedia's voice" means a statement is made directly by Wikipedia ("G-spots have been found to change during orgasm") rather than in the "voice" of some other party ("According to a 2008 survey by Dr X, G-spots change during orgasm"). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I know that WP:MEDRS applies to any biomedical information on Wikipedia; I never stated that it didn't. I merely pointed to an aspect of WP:MEDRS that supports the type of sourcing in this article. Another is Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular press. As for Wikipedia's voice, I know what that is. However, "Wikipedia's voice" is generally used in Wikipedia articles. For example, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Writing style states, "Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other 'qualifications' of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation." Similarly, Template:Whom states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So you think "Studies using ultrasound have also been used to identify physiological differences between women[8] and changes to the G-Spot region during sexual activity.[6]" is correctly presented and sourced well? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No. But then again, I didn't add that information. If you go back into the history of how this article got promoted to WP:GA status, back during a time when WP:GA standards, even for medical articles, was lower, you will see that I had little to do with this article at that time. I have tweaked and added things to it since then. But a lot of what is in this article, including the "physiological differences" material that you object to, was already in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"I didn't add that information" ← Did anyone say otherwise? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just making things clear since I'm currently billed as the top editor of that article and such billing can be deceiving with regard to content expansion. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The article goes deeply into anatomy, physiology, gynaecology and other areas of medical research. It should adhere to WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS for GA status. Ochiwar (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should. However, most of the journal sources on this topic are WP:Primary sources. And strict aspects of WP:MEDRS do not, from what I see, generally apply to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Reminder and additional comment: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is clear that it should not be used for article cleanup. And like I stated on the G-Spot article talk page, I do indeed see this reassessment as article cleanup, since only some sources should be replaced for better ones and the G-Spot topic is not a serious medical or anatomy topic. I told CFCF that WP:MED generally does not want articles like this (articles that are not primarily or mostly medical), which is confirmed by a different editor in the discussion on the talk page. I told CFCF, that, with regard to primary sources... Let me rephrase that: It is the proportion of journal primary sources compared to the proportion of journal non-primary sources that is one issue, [which is why] "Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence" addresses [that this] can be an issue for certain topics. There are not an abundance of non-primary review articles on this topic. Go ahead and see how many systematic reviews you find on it. CFCF is treating this topic as though it should adhere to strict aspects of WP:MEDRS, when it generally should not. The most it can generally adhere to with regard WP:MEDRS sourcing are book sources such as this one (cited above). And being an anatomy editor, CFCF knows very well that we generally do not go by the standards of "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" for anatomy articles, including for recent WP:GA anatomy articles such Stapes, mostly because information on anatomy is generally consistently the same.

I repeat that there are not a lot of medical publications on this topic that are reviews, or an abundance of systematic reviews out there on it. What we generally have to work with regard to sourcing this topic are WP:Primary sources, book sources and news sources (which is what the article already does), unless of course someone wants to apply the "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" standard to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Since we are talking about a controversial topic, yes the body of knowledge has changed and is constantly leaning towards different subjects. Reviews in the last 5 years on pubmed (5): [8][9][10][11][12], 36 articles in all from the last 5 years. There is no reason to use very old books, or very old articles. Other anatomical topics haven't changed to the same extent. This is not a clean-up question, the work needed to move this article back to good article is substantial. CFCF (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Also this [13] CFCF (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The article does not generally use very old sources. And the body of knowledge on this topic states "the G-Spot does not exist." It keeps stating that over and over again, every year or so, far more than it states "the G-Spot does exist." And when scientists are not stating that it does not exist, they are asserting that it is "an extension of the clitoris" or is somehow a result of clitoral bulb stimulation. I see that you've cited a source I have already cited above. But with regard the Puppo source you've cited, keep in mind that Puppo is given space in the G-Spot article and that you might want to become more familiar with him and his odd claims with regard to female anatomy. Not to mention that he constantly pops up in the discussion section of articles about the G-Spot and/or clitoris in order to spew his views that are in stark contrast to what mainstream scientists believe; one example is Puppo commenting in this discussion section. If we are going to be using review articles that are on Puppo's level, simply because they are review articles, then the G-Spot article will truly be in dire need of help. The primary thing that Puppo agrees with scientists on with regard to female anatomy is that the "vaginal orgasm" does not exist. Other than that, he has significant WP:Fringe views on female anatomy. But whatever the case, one cannot validly state that this unproven entity (the G-Spot) generally has support from gynecologists, doctors and researchers; it does not. There should not be any WP:Undue weight given to the "it exists" side. And I told you: Discussion of whether or not the G-Spot exists is as much, likely more so, a social (media and/or political) matter as it is a medical matter. You are acting like high-quality sourcing is needed throughout this article, as though news sources cannot be used for it at all. Well, high-quality sourcing is not needed throughout. And "high-quality sourcing" for this topic is lacking anyway, at least with regard to strict WP:MEDRS sourcing. Needing (emphasis on "needing" rather than "wanting") a handful of better sources is no valid reason whatsoever to make this article into an "immediate attention" matter. Other anatomical topics? Those other anatomical topics are known to be a part of anatomy; they are not in dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:MEDMOS certainly does not apply to this article...for obvious reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There are most definately other disputed or at least debatable anatomical articles: Cranial nerve zeroAnterolateral ligament, what obvious reasons makes MEDMOS irrelevant here specifically? That there are few good sources doesn't in any way indicate that we should rely on bad sources. Can you find any comment on these Fringe views, if so they should also be brought to attention. I was merely linking relevant reviews where you said there were none of relevance. CFCF (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Additionally I'm not debating whether or not the G-spot exists, but pointing out flaws in the sourcing as well as other things. CFCF (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In general, "other anatomical topics are known to be a part of anatomy; they are not in dispute." And I know of no anatomical topic that is in as much dispute as the G-Spot. As for WP:MEDMOS, exactly how do you think that the G-Spot entity, which has no known structure, except for being called bean-shaped by one or more sources and sometimes being described as a part of already existing anatomy structures, fits with Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy? That there are few good sources means that we should not be overreaching and needlessly throwing out decent primary sources. And I did not state that there are no relevant reviews on this topic. Either way, the article's talk page indicates that this matter is solely a sourcing issue. Not an issue that yet needs WP:Good article reassessment. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The large scale resourcing needed makes this very much a candidate for reassessment. The way in which to make it MEDMOS compliant is to discuss structure in the way MEDMOS does etc. Whether or not the structure is debated is a non issue. CFCF (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion with regard to "a candidate for reassessment." And stating "The way in which to make it MEDMOS compliant is to discuss structure in the way MEDMOS does etc." makes absolutely no sense. The topic has to have a documented structure first. Why do you think there are all those qualifiers in Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy? Those qualifiers are with regard to information existing on those aspects. The existence of the G-Spot is not proven; it has no documented structure, except for "it's bean-shaped" claims and claims describing it as part of existing structures. We most certainly are not going to WP:Synthesize material to create a structure that is not proven as existing. You are big on going by anatomy books for anatomy articles. Well, no anatomy book (no valid one anyway) details the anatomy of the G-Spot, except for a few mentions that, if it exists, it may be a part of the Skene's gland and/or clitoris. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And in what way is it not possible to have such a discussion under a structure heading? CFCF (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that a Structure heading is the only listing from Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy that has the possibility of working for this topic, other than "Function," "Society and culture" and "History." But either way, in this case, it is not a good idea to suggest that there is a structure by having a Structure heading. Furthermore, the vast majority of the discussion about the G-Spot topic is the debate over whether or not the G-Spot is a distinct structure (its existence or non-existence). So, essentially, all of that material could fit under that heading; one heading with a bunch of material under it (does not sound pretty). This discussion should be had at the G-Spot talk page instead of here, regardless. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

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

Result: No consensus after four weeks. Consider an individual assessment next time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to be GA reassessed due to some of the outstanding issues with this article. It has a {{ref improve}} tag due to the fact that some sections have very few references, and there are citation needed tags interspersed throughout the article. A lot of paragraphs have no sources at all; two sections, "Law Enforcement" and "Bridges and tunnels", are totally unsourced. The lack of references may not be enough to justify delisting of this article from GA, but at this state, the article can be downgraded to B-class or C-class. Epicgenius (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Speak Good English Movement

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

Result: delisted The article was resubmitted to GAN; as the article currently stands, it's nowhere near GA quality. Wizardman 02:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On 23 November 2010, this article was reviewed and passed by Goodmami, as one of his first few (and last) edits. Its lead section is rather short and prose should not contain external links, but the article is certainly salvagable. Hence I would appreciate input on what should be done for this article to meet the GA criteria. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Terrible article. Agree to demotion. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Zesh Rehman

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

Result: Delisted. Consensus that the first two good article criteria are not met and the article has not been brought up to standard in the two months since this GAR was opened. C679 12:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This article no longer meets the criteria. There are loads of unreferenced stuffs in addition to a citation needed tag. Also some sections like Pahang FA and Kitchee have become overburdened with unnecessary details. RRD13 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agree to demotion. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Belarus at the Olympics

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

Result: Delisted (clear consenus, no progress) – Hardcore Metallica Fan (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Page was given GA status in 2008, and is highly outdated, with the lead taking a statistic calculated after the 2006 Turin games. The "latest medalists" section contains no rationale for "latest" and has no mention of Winter medals. I added brief summaries for the games which had not been added to the article, and the subsections on each games seems to be a good enough description, although overall the page is falling short of GA status The Almightey Drill (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agree to demotion. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delist -- Lead is not adequate per WP:LEAD (far too short). Sections on 2010, 2012 and 2014 Games are not adequately referenced. National Olympic Committee section is out of date. Sections on 2010, 2012 and 2014 also warrant expansion. Nothing mentioned of Nadzeya Ostapchuk notoriously getting stripped of her 2012 London Gold for doping!? Think the article could be bought up to standard without too much work, but it's been up for reassessment for six weeks now, so happy to delist. -- Shudde ^talk 11:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo

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

Result: Consensus is for delisting - Hardcore Metallica Fan (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC).

I've done a fair amount of cleaning up of this article, which makes me kind of involved and concerned that an individual reassessment might not be appropriate. It is my opinion that it should never have been listed as a GA because, for example:

1. Unsourced statements
2. Misrepresentation of sources
3. Garbled prose, poor punctuation and spelling
4. A complete failure to understand WP:CITEVAR, WP:OVERLINK and similar basic guidance
5. An over-reliance on a primary source, ie: the autobiography of the subject
6. An over-reliance on non-independent sources, being the Foundation etc that bears the name of the subject
7. Missing source details - page numbers, publisher etc

Examples of all of the above are visible in edit summaries made by myself and at least one other. I am not sufficiently familiar with New Age philosophy etc to determine whether much of the latter sections are valid and of due weight etc but, generally speaking, this is just a mess. I've done my best to improve it and can do a bit more yet but I doubt very much that I can raise it to GA level. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the article once and agree to Sitush on the points he has raised. There is much more work to do in this article to make it to a GA level. All the points raised by Sitush are valid and need to be resolved. Logical1004 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just had to do this in the opening section. It's not merely expansion of relevant information (given Aurobindo's future involvement in religion and freedom fighting) but wholescale fixes of incorrect citations and facts. This is so frustrating. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Small note on the Autobiographical notes, please note that the book is not an autobiography ,it is actuall corrections made by Aurobindo himself on claims of biography which various authors were claiming when he was alive, so we can really find contradicting statements in the book itself, I guess Sitush you are already working on this corrective measure(yes it is frustrating too) Shrikanthv (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

South Sydney Rabbitohs

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

Result: Delisted Hardcore Metallica Fan (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

This was promoted to GA last 2007 and survived its reassessment on 2009. Now as I look the article and checked the criteria, it looks like it fails some of them. First we start off to the references, here it says ref no. 3, 6, 21, 38, 32, 30, 29, 31, 33, 52, 27, 8, 77, 12, 15, 49, 50, 54, 69, 42, 51, 34, 1, 28, 41, 10, 72 and more sources are dead links. Second, there were some sections with no references like "2014 Signings/Transfers", "George Piggins Medal" and the "2014 Squad". There is also an empty section in the article, "South Sydney Leagues Club". Third, it doesn't seem neutral to me especially in the "History" section which needs to be copyedited. Overall, there are many issues to be fixed and I opened this discussion to the community to decide whether to keep this GA or not. FairyTailRocks (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Mostly unsourced. Agree to demotion. DragonZero (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014

Malaysia–Vietnam relations

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

Result: Consensus stands for delisting. — Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This article was promoted on 20 April, two days ago, by Hurricanehink. I found it while looking for articles to brink to DYK (as newly promoted GAs), and noticed immediately that there were significant issues with the prose. I did a bit of copy editing to a few sections (1, 2, 3), but I'm not an experienced copy-editor, the entire article needs copy-editing, and I don't think that I can do a proper job of it.

As it is currently written, this article fails criteria 1a, and should not be listed as a Good Article. While I have not done an assessment of the other criteria, I will withdraw this reassessment if the article undergoes a comprehensive copy-edit, and the concerns about criteria 1a are addressed. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what is so poorly written about it? I've read through it, and it reads well. I addressed the grammar concerns in my GA review. Can you give any examples? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are five problem sentences from the first two paragraphs of the "Diplomatic ties" level two subsection. There are other issues in those paragraphs, but these were the most obvious.

• "An agreement was reached between the two countries' ambassadors were reached in 1975"
• "Prime Minister Hussein Onn had once nostalgised Vietnam's Communist regime as one that has a common goal of eliminating colonialism in the region during bilateral summit in August 1977, and also promised to provide economic and technical assistance to rebuild the then-war torn economy."
• "However, relations quickly soured when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, coupled with the influx of refugees into Malaysia in the late 1970s and 1980s which posed economic and national security issues as a result."
• "Vietnam also expressed its interest to join ASEAN with Malaysia's support in 1994 as both countries continued to foster close economic ties with each other. Vietnam later joined ASEAN in 1995, whose entry was warmly welcomed by Malaysia."
• "Emphasis would be given to maritime security whereby Vietnamese fishermen have encroached Malaysian waters for fishing activities and piracy control."

It is very obvious that the article's primary author(s) do not speak English as a first language, as there are grammatical errors and confusing sentences throughout the page. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think only the first one is a pretty major grammar concern (which I fixed, it's an honest mistake). The others are admittedly long sentences, but I don't think so bad that it jeopardizes the GA review. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Spot checked three sections and I agree it should be demoted. The prose is weak in all three sections. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I really have to question what spotchecks I missed. Most of the things mentioned above were fairly minor. Is a good article expected to be perfect now? I've been on Wikipedia for nine years and have never had a good article review of mine questioned, so I'm sorry if I'm a little out of line. I'm just really curious what was so wrong with my review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't mind me, maybe my standards are high. Here was the sentence that stuck me the most when spot checking "The Fall of Saigon in 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War saw the first Vietnamese refugees escaping in boats beginning in 1975.". Overall, the prose just felt weak. I doubt the user could improve it to the level I'd feel would satisfy GA as I could see from his response. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

So there might be some minor redundancies. I've seen worse GA's. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Give me a time for a few weeks, I will tried to fix it if I had a time. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 17:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As per reasoning above, I agreed that the article should be demoted. I've also had a quick scan and found a few extra grammar errors, as well as some referencing issues:

• The earliest record between present day Malaysia and Vietnam date back to 1469.
• The Embassy of Malaysia in Hanoi is currently located at 43-45 Dien Bien Phu Street, which it has been located since 2004.
• Sizeable chunk of the 'Social developments' section has gone unreferenced.

Sotakeit (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000

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

Result: Delisted — Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The article fails GA criteria 2. It has large amounts of unreferenced material that contains neither in-line citations nor disclosed references to verify the content. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Agree to demotion DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'd prefer to nix a lot of the in universe unreferenced material rather than just summarily demote it. But I probably don't have the patience to revert it to something like this (which in my obviously biased opinion clearly passes) and then restore information about changes to WH40K post 2008. :( Protonk (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Webber

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

Result: Kept, no consensus for delisting. Please seek individual reassessment next time. — Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The article does not follow the Manual of Style guidelines in general, especially regarding the lead. Its overall quality doesn't seem to be very good and more weight is given to certain segments than to others.KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We Don't Need to Whisper

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

Result: Kept. The article received copyediting and the issues with the prose were cleared. Hardcore Metallica Fan (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC).

After promoting this to GA status, I was notified of some further prose issues in the article. I gave it another read-through, and after doing so realized that the prose (and tone especially) is not GA quality, and that I should not have promoted it. I notified the primary author of the extra issues a while back, but the article has not been touched since, and as a result I am bringing this here. Wizardman 16:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not simply fix up the prose errors yourself? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've noted the same problems with the prose. I think that we'll need input from the nominator on this one. The issue appears to be serious and I suggest delisting the article if corrections aren't made in near future.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I recommend making a GoCE request to copyedit this article. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm copyediting We Don't Need to Whisper. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Don%27t_Need_to_Whisper&diff=605999062&oldid=599341261 }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 07:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Don%27t_Need_to_Whisper&diff=606003382&oldid=604856907 }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 07:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been one month since I copyedited this article, and no response. I'm taking down my Midtown Madness GoCE request. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I made a GoCE request to copyedit the somehow-related Blink-182 article. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The Sword of Shannara

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

Result: Kept, no consensus for delisting Hardcore Metallica Fan (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting that a GA reassessment be done on Sword of Shannara. Rationale: there has been a lot of water under the bridge since it became GA in 2008, many subsequent edits, and Wikipedia standards for sources and general notability have changed considerably since 2008. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to point out the unreliable sources present in the article? I mean, now that the unreliable sources you added and one other are now removed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up that text following the Merge! I certainly had no intentionality in adding any unreliable sources; I merely completed a Merge that had been the consensus of a recent AfD (and that source article seems to have had a number of non-WP:RS sources) in it). I have removed that part of my comment above. I have no particular problem with any particular sources that are currently in the article now.

I continue to think that the article should have a GA reassessment six years on, for the other reasons I've stated above. I'll also add one more: it appears that the Plot summary is rather excessively long, per WP:Plot summary. I won't tag the article with {{plot}} however, and will just leave it to other GA reviewers to evaluate the article against all current GA criteria. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Demote due to prose issues. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per bad-faith nomination. Even if the plot summary is a a bit lengthy, that's not a large enough problem to warrant demotion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Haplogroup E-V38

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

Result: Delisted. Although we don't have a consensus for this action, the issues that WeijiBaikeBianji raised shouldn't be ignored. — Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Looking over the article while following wikilinks from another article that has long been on my watchlist, I get the sense that this article is one of the best efforts of its sponsoring WikiProject, but I wonder if it meets current good article criteria, particularly in light of the considerable updates to the reliable sources content guideline and content guideline on reliable sources for medicine-related articles since this article passed GA review. My concern prompting a call for review is insufficient use of reliable secondary sources, rather than preliminary findings from primary research journals. There have been article changes since GA status was achieved, many by bots and by I.P. editors, with some talk page comments that the article may not be improving recently. (It does seem to have increased in length since it passed GA review.) I am not a subject matter expert, but I have good access to sources and expertise in related topics, so I thought I would refer this question to the community rather than handle it with an individual review. Many thanks to the editors who have already worked on the article, whom I will attempt to notify with talk page notices. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't a have a strong opinion on the GA status of this article, but I'll note that this is a genetics/physical anthropology article, not a medical article. I am of course always in favor of better sourcing, but MEDRS doesn't apply here, nor is MEDRS required for GA status. Also declaring a result with no discussion is premature; this isn't speedy or proposed deletions. --Mark viking (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Two responses are possible to your thoughtful points. One is, if an article about human haplogroups and their distribution among different human populations isn't a medical article, what is? But more to the point of the GA review requested here, primary sources are not the preferred kind of sources for a Wikipedia article on any topic per WP:RS, and good article criterion number 2 is that the article is "Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research." Any onlooker here who can point to reliable secondary sources that can be used to verify the facts in the article will of course be doing a service to all of us in helping to improve the article. Thus far most of the source citations in the article are to what are plainly primary research reports, and the article talk page discussion suggests that there is not complete agreement among the article editors about the synthesis of the primary source findings in the article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There really are no secondary sources in phylogeny research. Everything is from primary sources. If that was the sole reason for the page being delisted, it should seriously be reconsidered. -- Brout8 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Dystopia (Iced Earth album)

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

Result: Delist due to achieved consensus. — Retrohead (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

A few reasons why I think the article should be delisted:

• 8 of 10 reviews from the "Critical reception" are from unreliable sources: Metal Army America, Imperiumi.ne, Hallowed.se, Ultimate Guitar, The Metal Critic, Metal Storm, The Newreview, and Kaaoszine.fi)
• The prose is verbose at some places: "would go about writing"→would write, "prior to the album's release"→before the album's release, etc.
• I have no idea what is the purpose of that huge quotation in the "Songs" section; not to mention that the heading fails to analyze the majority of the album's tracks.

I will contact the nominator and the reviewer to inform them that the article is undergoing a reassessment.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delist not only due to unreliable souring (About.com is also unreliable), but the reference themselves also aren't formatted correctly. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delist the article relies a lot on the primary source. There are a number on unreliable sources and a few sources are just formatted as the URL.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Curtis (50 Cent album)

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

Result: Delisted. The author has been inactive since 2009, and the related WikiProject hasn't shown interest in dealing with the issues. — Retrohead (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The article fails the third criteria; it's not well researched.

• The lead doesn't summarizes the entire article and fails a few criteria per WP:LEAD
• The background and recording sections are poorly researched giving the publicity of the artist. I mean, even somebody who doesn't listen rap music has heard of 50 Cent.
• Not all songs are covered in the "Music & lyrics" section. Again, this album received significant media exposure and information about all tracks can be easily found.
• The "Commercial performance" has one missing citation. Furthermore, it reads tiring with the sales listed week-by-week.
• Only the critical reception fullfils the criteria and is well referenced. It is perhaps the strongest section in the article.

I'll inform the related Wiki-projects about this nomination.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delist as nominator.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Toil

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

Result: Kept, as all of the issues were successfully addressed. — Retrohead (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Issues that need to be adressed

• Add songs' duration in "Track listing"
• What makes AMP Magazine a reliable source?
• You need to mention the reviewer's name in the reception.
• The majority of the album's track are not discussed at the "Writing and composition" section.
• It seems that the information in the backgound is not well researched, but since I don't know the band well enough, I'll let others comment on that.
• It is not recommended to have cites in the infobox and lead if the information is already mentioned in the article's body.

  I will address each point individually

  • Not in the GA criteria but  Done anyway
  • AMP was a magazine that was in print from 1997 until 2013; it had a editorial board and such. In March of 2013, the editor-in-chief decided to shut the magazine down due to financial problems.
  • While you may want this, no policy says this needs to happen. Even if this was in some part of the MOS, GAs are only bound to are lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
  • I am working on this.
  • This is all that existed as of the writing of this GA in 2013. I will look around some more.
  • If info is likely to be challenged, it needs to be cited per WP:GA?

  --Guerillero | My Talk 18:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Guerillero. Regarding the reassessment, great work so far on the article. Just one more thing. Can you mention who was the Christian reviewer (tagged with "who")? And can you mention some of the names of the reviewers in the reception? For example, who was the other reviewer who called the song a "crowd favorite"? The reviews in the box should be arranged in alphabetical order. Fixing these and the article is a definite stay. Great writing skills.--Retrohead (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wanted (2008 film)

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

Result: Kept, as all the concerns were addressed. — Retrohead (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article has had quite the fall from grace in the last five years. Currently, from what I can tell, it does not possess x qualities of the good article criteria.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

Two MOS:QUOTE violations in the "Reception" section. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Lead does not cover the whole article, and fails to be consistent with other information (Russian-American film, infobox says U.S., UK and Germany produced). Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

Two articles bound for link rot (easy fix) and three dead links (maybe not so easy fix).

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

Plot is grossly overlong, to the point that there is a maintenance tag. Good articles shouldn't have maintenance tags. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

Article has had a lot of changes back and forth from one piece of information to another fairly frequently. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The poster is sufficiently licensed. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

1. B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Absolutely no body images. Seriously, none. Not good. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The way I see it, this article either needs a serious rehaul to get it up to standard, or it needs to be demoted. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger directed me here since I am still the most prolific contributor despite not editing the article in a major way since 2008. However, I never strove for Good Article status. My observations are as follows:

• The "Cast" section could be better structured; maybe merge the "Casting" subsection to it since role preparation is not really part of casting (IMO).
• The "Production" section is sloppily written with parts like "Mark Millar became much more enthusiastic about the project" (I really hope I didn't write that originally).
• The "Release" section should have the most important information more upfront, such as the actual release date and the box office gross.
• The "Reception" section is probably the weakest section in the article. I'd prefer to see the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic language improved, especially to identify how they classified reviews. In addition, there is excessive quoting. There do not seem to be any passages that were paraphrased. Wikipedia should be able to write in its own words and formal tone, especially to get away from the slang that some critics use.
• The "Sequel" section is overly detailed and suffers from proseline.

I do not find this to be a Good Article, but I am personally not motivated to clean it up. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat. I'll try to improve it, but I definitely don't have enough time at the moment to get it back up to GA status. Any other people you think we should ping here? Corvoe (speak to me) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a poor job reading the guidelines for a reassessment, I apologize. Pinging original nominator Igordebraga, contributing editor Shaunthered, and GA reviewer Hunter Kahn. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Corvoe, can you notify all the projects tagged on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TonyTheTiger. I'm not doing such a great job handling this, the help is much obliged! Corvoe (speak to me) 16:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Since my name was brought up and I can't get away from the little things the article is lacking on, already started to work in it. igordebraga ≠ 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Igordebraga, how's work going? Are all the issues addressed and when can I close the reassessment?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on it. igordebraga ≠ 18:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21)

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

Result: Withdrawn Sotakeit (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
No major edits were made to the article since its creation last year. No active discussion since that time. I took the liberty to make significant changes. Improved bare links, removed controversial sources, added additional academic sources, improved citations, added pictures, reworded and included different point of views. I want to draw the attention because the article was never reviewed by the community or administrators. The discussion on the talk page is from last year. Only 3 editors were involved, out of them 1 is blocked, 1 is not active anymore. I think it makes a chance for good article status. Also additional review of others would be welcome in this controversial ethnic cleansing article Thanks. Dunderstrar (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason you aren't simply nominating this through WP:GAN? WP:GAR is typically for challenging the outcome from a nomination (either pass/fail). Chris857 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't knew, should I change it to WP:GAN? Dunderstrar (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm closing this reassessment as it seems the nominator was intending on opening a WP:GAN review. The article is not already listed as GA. Sotakeit (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Peak oil

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

Result: Delisted, due to unresolved prose and reference issues. — Retrohead (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This article was reassessed by user:Nehrams2020 back in 2009 and significant improvement was done at that time. However, since then there have been a lot of changes and some of them compromise the quality of that article as GA. First of all, it has been tagged for several months which is during the review process is enough for failure without further review. The article at its current stage also fails 1b and 2b, and there is a question about criteria 4. Namely, there are issues with WP:PROSE and WP:IC. Also, there are dispute about the content. Although this dispute as been died away at the talk page, one can't say that the issue has been resolved. The article also needs some trimming, cleanup and copyediting. Beagel (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a very weak review. Please use the Template:GAList and be specific about what you think disqualifies the article from GA. For example, "It has been tagged for several months..." - I see no tags so, to which tag do you refer? Why does it not meet 1b and 2b, etc.? As for the controversy, that will likely not be resolved in my lifetime. As long as all sides are presented, that does not disqualify the article from GA. I don't necessarily dispute that the article could use some updating and re-organization, but please present a well-reasoned argument for why it should be de-listed. Meclee (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This was not a review but a request for a community reassessment to be conducted. As I am among the top10 editors (by number of edits) for this page, I will not conduct the review myself. However, I provided some of my concerns about the current stage of this article for the review process. I also never said that the article should be delisted, I just have concerns that this article may not meet all GA criteria, as of today. This is an issue to be clarified during the re-assessment review process. As for your questions concerning the tag, I referred to the {{unreferenced section}} at the top of the 'Definitions' subsection. This unsourced subsection is also a reason why the article fails by my understanding 2b. As for 1b, it fails WP:MOS, namely WP:PROSE and WP:LAY at the same subsection. WP:PROSE applies to the embedded list. The problem with WP:LAY is that there is two subsection under separate sections about the same issue (unconventional sources). There may be other issues which may come-if if appropriate review is conducted. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Article is very dated.

• Comments about what Simmons and Deffeyes predict, in present tense in lead: Simmons dead for 4 years and Deffeyes unavailable for RS reporter questions about failed predictions. (Surely their predictions are very old? And Simmons had some crazy talk predictions of $500 oil, which sure has not come to pass. So becomes a little bit of a questionable spokesperson.)
• In article, spots where a series is discussed as '1900 to 2005' or the like [endpoints many years ago].
• Also, the US and Texas graphics need updating, but then won't sure won't fit the story as well.

This article is a holdover of the mid-2000s Internet buzz about peak oil. There is the famous graphic of how Google searches for Peak Oil are down (peaked actually) and for fracking are up. At this point, there are even RS's to discuss this Internet phenom in the rear view mirror (TOD dying, Campbell/Deffeyes unavailable for comments, Ruppert's suicide, ASPO not having conferences anymore, Savinar becoming an astrologist, Ghawar not watering out, etc.) In actuality oil production has plateu-ed, even slightly increasing over last 10 years. Definitely not the bell curve like predictions of Campbell (2%/year drops post 2005 was what he said) and others.

Small nit: Campbell sure did not popularize the term "peak oil". He just was a bigwig in the latest Internet peak oil buzz. But the term itself was common in the 70s, 80s. Try a Google Books search for Hubbert AND "peak oil". You will see the term peak oil used with blithe familiarity.

For balance (and for an RS), some of the research from The Quest (good book by a Pulitzer Prize winning historian) should be used. The phenom of peak oil fads is documented as having occurred before.

Peak oil is a concept that needs an article. And yes, oil will peak eventually. I guess with enough effort a GA could be constructed, perhaps even by a very fair, sober peak oil advocate. But it will be hard given the concept itself has some strong political overtones (alliance with environmentalism, with the left wing). Also given the complexity of the phenomenon: are we talking about peak oil (the oil itself) or the term or the social hypes around it. I guess it should be all 3. But it's not a simple topic like a biography or an animal species.

68.6.152.250 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a very strange comment. When I do a search in research journals for articles about peak oil, I get nothing that supports what 68.6.152.250 says. Peak oil is a slow moving story, and the steadiness of what researchers and petroleum engineers have been saying about about the basic premise and issues bears that out. Here's just a tidbit[14]. If 68.6.152.250 has something to add to the discussion, I think the talk page would be a good starting point. Reading through the history of the talk page (where just about everything here has been discussed already) would be even better. 108.242.176.37 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Desolate North

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

Result: Kept. All of the reviewer notes have been addressed. — Retrohead (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for delisting:

• The prose in the "Reception" is unclear, and a questionmark is not a rating.
• The article doesn't have information about the personnel.
• The prose is confusing at some parts: "Maybe six or so copies of Ashen were sent out to various people" (what does this mean?), "as everything was recorded and played by Anderson" (what is everything in this context?), and etc.
• The infobox is not properly filled; the duration field is empty, must be an exact release date and a producer (certainly can't be "none").

• Delist as nominator.--Retrohead (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delist reception is not broad at all, and article and its redlinks negatively affect stability per WP:STABLE. Many references are also not properly formatted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delist because:

• Infobox has no information of the producer. It is just mentioned as none.
• Ashen and Bindrune Recordings are linked multiple times even though there pages don't exist.
• Prose should be better written.
• Reception section is really poor and needs a re-write probably. The box includes Allmusic ratings but only ? from pitchfork media and decibal magazine. While the content in the section mentions no significant reviewer. The name of reviewer should be mentioned instead of "One reviewer".
• Tracklist has no details of personnel and the article provides no information related to personnel throughout.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Who are you people? Would the polite thing to do if you're initiating this sort of process be to notify the article's author? Yeah, probably. Equally, if I was to block one of you people, I would probably notify you. Why don't you start again, and behave like a minimally intelligent human being? J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well its correct that the author should have been notified but on reading the article what makes you feel that the article deserves a good article status. Instead of pointing out the mistake done (probably the nominator didn't remember) you could have notified the author and major contributor. I don't mean to offend you but that would have been better. The GA status must not be thrown away at any article.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The author has a week to complete the notes.--Retrohead (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

First off, this article was written years ago when standards were generally a little lower, so it's inevitable that, reading today, problems will be found. I appreciate that this is no excuse, and I'm happy to fix issues identified.

• I have copyedited the article, including the reception section and other sections specifically mentioned.
• There is no personnel section as Tanner Anderson, Celestiial's one member, literally did everything. This is explained in the recording section- it is obviously not the case that "the article provides no information related to personnel throughout".
• I have expanded the infobox as requested.
• I have left redlinks in the article, as there is nothing wrong with redlinks. I have removed the badly formatted references, though I appreciate that formatting isn't perfect. I can fix others if you think there are serious problems.

If there are other problems which you feel need to be urgently fixed, please list them here and I will deal with them. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the criteria were lower back then, but the fact that the article didn't receive a proper review remains. I still stand by my opinion that this article isn't a GA, regarding it's inconsistent reference formatting (why so cites in the track listing?) and prose comprehensiveness.--Retrohead (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide concrete examples of the inconsistent formatting and what is lacking from the prose? I really can't do anything about it unless you tell me what the problem is. The citations look OK to me, and it's not a GA requirement that they are perfect. (I've reworked the tracklisting.) J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are things to address:

• Remove or correct all the redlinks per WP:STABLE (these are found in the lead and infobox

• WP:STABLE is neither a policy nor a guideline, and does not mention redlinks. There is nothing wrong with redlinks, at all; see WP:REDLINK, which is a recognised guideline. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, it reads "A stable article"..... "has not red links". They should be removed as they negatively affect stability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, it doesn't matter what that page says (and the passage doesn't even make grammatical sense). It is a rejected idea; not a policy or even guideline. WP:REDLINK is our actual guideline on redlinks. Many, many featured articles have redlinks, and that's just fine. I've never understood the opposition to redlinks- in years gone by, they were loved, because they encourage encyclopedia-building, but now people (falsely) seem to believe that they are a bad thing. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• My guess is because they are seen as unhelpful for not leading to anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• If that's your view, that's fine, but it is explicitly not the view of the Wikipedia community, which is explained at WP:REDLINK. When we're writing, we should act in accordance with guidelines unless we have a good reason not to. "I do not like the guideline" is not a good reason. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The music is extremely slow"..... I don't think everyone is going to automatically know what this is supposed to mean unless you include things like "slow rhythm" or "slow instrumentals"

• Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:OVERCITE, a ref shouldn't be used more than once in a row per paragraph (refs#1 and #3 have this issue in "release" section, and it happens again with ref#1 in "Imagery" section

• Removed some. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Expand the "reception" section by including more reviewers in the score box, and by providing more names of reviewers.

• Done. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• The "M" should be capitalized for AllMusic. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Done. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Replace or remove refs#15, #18, and #19 as they are dead

• I have removed/replaced them, but I note that, per WP:DEADLINK, this is not strictly necessary.

• Either include publishers for all refs or none. For example, All Media Network is the publisher for AllMusic, and Ryan Schreiber is the publisher for Pitchfork Media.

• Should be more consistent now.

Best of luck getting this back up to GA quality. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of your comments. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Another thing I should note: When using multiple refs from the same source (i.e. multiple links to AllMusic), the work/publisher should only be linked in the first ref that uses them per WP:OVERLINK. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK does not say that- quite the opposite, in fact. "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Encyclopaedia Metallum and Handmade Birds are not reliable sources
  • Encyclopedia Metallum is used only for the track lengths. I could take them from a commercial source if preferred, but linking to shops is generally looked down upon. Handmade Birds is the record label which re-released the album, and is linked to only because of that (and because AllMusic mistakenly calls the label "Hand Made Birds"). I rely on neither source for anything close to controversial. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The related Wikiproject clearly states that those "should never be used as sources"→Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid. If you think that Encyclopaedia Metallum should be used, initiate a discussion to be removed from there.--Retrohead (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I can remove Encyclopedia Metallum if you like, but that'll just leave the track times without a reference. Is it something that needs a reference? No, probably not. What do you want me to do? J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've found a primary source for the tracklisting and replaced Encyclopedia Metallum. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• ref number 5, 6, and 16 are dead
  • Dealt with them. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• what makes Sea of Tranquility and Maelstrom reliable sources?
  • Sea of Tranquility is a former print magazine run by professional journalists- see their about page. Maelstrom is a well-established ezine which publishes commissioned pieces and has an editor/editorial team. These both strike me as appropriate sources for analysis of albums such as Desolate North- per our guidelines on reliable sources, context is important! J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Why is there an external link to Allmusic when that's already used in the reception?
  • Removed. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well a lot of work has been done on the article through this discussion. I would also suggest removal of dead links as wikipedia is read by millions of people and most of the readers are not its users or interested in editing. So, as the redlinks lead to nothing this would only reduce the quality of the page for a general reader. The deadlinks should be taken care of too. Otherwise most of the problems are addressed. All the best.Abhinav0908 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm frustrated that I have to repeat this, but here goes- WP:DEADLINK and WP:REDLINK are both accepted guidelines. The removal of redlinks and deadlinks is not required, and the removal of redlinks can actually be damaging. If you disagree with the guidelines, take it up on the village pump, but please do not ask me to do things which are against established guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• A question: What is the purpose of the photo? Is it part of the booklet or something? How can a picture of bark demonstrate the band's natural imagery? Where is the band pictured?--Retrohead (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a publicity photo used by Celestiial. Anonymity is important for Anderson- he sent me that picture to use as a picture "of" the band. I suppose the feeling is that a hand holding bark gives a better impression of what Celestiial is "about" than another moody shot under a bridge! J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Milburn, I don't know what makes you think that this article is on level with the rest of the GAs, but since it wouldn't be moral of me to close the GAR myself, I let someone else uninvolved in the discussion to do that. Hope you're not still irritated by the minor misunderstanding with me.--Retrohead (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you still feel that there's a problem, please tell me what it is and I'll do what I can to fix the article. In every case, I've changed the article or explained why I am not going to do with reference to guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

One other comment: It says "various" for the time it was recorded. If known, I would provide specific date ranges for recording sessions (years and months or simply years will suffice). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Various" refers to the locations- I've clarified that it was recorded in 2005. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:PLACE, you must explain what various means. Leaving it like that is simply not suitable for the infobox. Either clarify it, or omit it. "Various" can be anywhere.--Retrohead (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The infobox currently reads "Multiple locations in 2005". Could you please quote the part of the guideline you feel shows the wrongness of this? You'll have to excuse me if I'm sick of being hit over the head with WP:IRRELEVANTCAPITALS. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that "multiple locations" can be ambiguous as they don't tell much about where they were recorded. The lead also seems to consist of three stub-ish paragraphs, maybe merge them into two large ones if not expand. In fact, there's lots of paragraphs that seem to be stubbish. If they can't be expanded to more complete paragraphs, merge them to make larger ones. Any more reviews available? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't give any more information about the recording locations without saying more than is appropriate to give in an infobox. A stub is a very short article, not a short paragraph, and I'm not going to artificially merge paragraphs; that's just bad writing. I have rewritten the lead. Do you want more reviews, or more from the reviews I've already cited? J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Both more reviews and more detail from them would be quite nice. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Various places where? In Denmark? On Mars?--Retrohead (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There you go. I am completely bored of this stuff, now. I have changed the infobox to read "2004-5, United States". Any more specific will drift into OR or too much information for an infobox. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A brief example.--Retrohead (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doing that, it looks ridiculous. I am not interested in discussing this issue any further. If you have any real comments about why you feel that this article needs to be demoted from GA status, please list them below. If you want to continue to bicker about minutiae and misrepresent policies/guidelines, go away. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep GA is not FA. The article currently passes the criteria. The fact that you may not like something isn't a reason to delist. If you want to argue about small pieces of policy, look over here --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. There were definitely issues with the article previously, but J Milburn has fixed all the things I would have pointed out. I don't think the red/dead links are a huge issue and this article's GA review isn't the place to debate them. Sotakeit (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubuntu (operating system)

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

Result: Delisted.–--Retrohead (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots of single sentences, poorly structured, although reasonably well referenced. Might be salvageable if somebody wants to take it on. James^x12345 13:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been any significant progress, so I'm delisting it. The article really needs one person to bring it together to a coherent whole, as it is there is a lot of redundant information and a large number of single sentence paragraphs. James^x12345 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OS X

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

Result: Delisted because the issues were left unaddressed.–Retrohead (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

My main concern is that there is a massive number of [citation needed]s throughout. The article was promoted to GA back in 2010, and upkeep has been scant. The "features" section is also very scattershot and choppy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia

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

Result: Delisted.–Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has seen a substantial amount of edit warring recently, and the talk page is full of disputes. The infobox as I see it now has several {{fact}} and {{verification failed}} tags. This doesn't look like a GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The disputes would eventually settle; the tag bombs are by a single user, which is part of the edit-warring.Forbidden User (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I count at least five people with edits I would describe as "major reverts" - [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Even disregarding that, I can see several unsourced claims (eg: "They [rules on non-English Wikipedia] have since diverged to some extent", "However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair", "the number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the word is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar (Google, Facebook, YouTube) that they no longer need explanation and are on a par with such 20th-century words as hoovering or Coca-Cola"), "Hardware operations and support" has an "outdated" tag, the paragraph describing h2g2 is unsourced, and there are several other {{fact}} tags in the text. It might have met the GA criteria in 2006, but I don't think it does anymore without some substantial work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333. The article has too many unsourced claims and other issues to continue with GA status. Folklore1 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Agree- I have counted nine claims with CN templates, along with some others including clarify and not in citation given templates. In addition, there are a lot more unsourced/ unverified claims than that. Also, the Hardware operations and support section is outdated.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Agree Bigbaby23 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree-for such a long article, the 9 cn templates are few and far between. For such a popular topic, I'm surprised more information hasn't been scrutinized, but I'd expect some cn tags to come up since its GA nomination. They're likely easily fixable, and so minor that it shouldn't involve de-listing.--ɱ (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: did you not see that the page has issues other than the uncited claims?Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems like except your claim that a bit of information is outdated, there are no complaints here listing problems other than that there's some unsourced information.--ɱ (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you think it was put there in bad faith, the presence of a section tag can generally be considered a deal breaker. Add the instability and unverifiable content, and that would probably be enough for me to quickfail this article if it was presented for a GA review now - wouldn't even bother putting it on hold. A GA should have zero citation needed tags at all times. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion, there's no rule saying a GA can't accumulate cn tags over time, and likely many will over time, after a certain amount of neglect from dedicated authors, but that doesn't mean that the article's quality has lowered down to remove its GA quality. Anyway, I'll stop arguing and perhaps just try to fix these minor problems everyone thinks are a big deal.--ɱ (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia would a group of authors want to bicker over problems on their own article rather want to than fix them.--ɱ (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• ahem* - we should fix them, but until we do, the article should not have the GA flag, and it should go through a full re-review. That is all I am really getting at. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is that? And reassessments can and should involve active editing, otherwise probably every GAR would fail... I'm fixing your problems right now.--ɱ (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but don't bother formatting my cites, I'm using Reflinks to do it.--ɱ (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we replaced all of the cn tags and/or removed unverifiable content. Are there further problems?--ɱ (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment while one or two "citation tags" alone wouldn't lead me to fail an article, lack of stability would receive an automatical fail from me without further review. If there were a large amount of such tags, I would fail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

But now there aren't any cn tags. Also, please tell me of this article instability you describe; I can't spot any. IP vandalism shouldn't be an obstacle from keeping an article a GA.--ɱ (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism indeed does not affect stability, though I was just making a general comment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delist I concur with Ritchie, there's lots of content not supported with sources. As a general rule of thumb, the end of each paragraph should be cited (not counting those in lead). There are multiple uncited paragraphs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The Lead is blatantly in violation of Wikipedi'a guidelines in the Summary of the criticism section. By using WP:SYNTHESIS & WP:COAT it completely distorts and nullifies the vast Criticism section. It is Violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for the purpose of WP:Promotion. as OP linked to the differences (originally 6&7) [20], [21] (I'm the contributer of [9]) Bigbaby23 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Since I wrote the above ("there aren't any cn tags"), the replying user Snuggums decided to tag everything with a cn tag, which in my book is nothing but editing to make a WP:POINT. His disruptive edits ought to be reverted, as a start.--ɱ (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't exaggerate, ɱ- I didn't tag everything. While not every sentence needs a citation (WP:OVERCITE), every paragraph does need at least one reference except for lead sections (WP:LEADCITE) and plot sections of shows, books, movies, TV episodes, concerts, and such. WP:V is policy. As a general rule of thumb, it's best to have at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. You also do not WP:OWN the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Never said I did, but your idea of one ref per para is not a policy or even a guideline. Your edits appear to be merely disruptive and as opposition to my 'there's no cn tags to worry about' statement. Clearly you want this article delisted, and will mark it up as much as possible in order for that to happen.--ɱ (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, it wasn't to go against your statement. Assuming good faith in others who mean well is policy per WP:AGF, and it offends me how you are openly assuming bad faith when all I wanted was to know what sources support certain statements and for such statements to be supported. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delist - Far too many issues as stated above.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Then please go ahead and try to fix some of them. I've tried, although other users are creating and noting more problems to further the likelihood that this'll be delisted.--ɱ (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Closing note: Apart from one opposing vote, all of the other participants in the reassessment suggest delisting the article. I'll be archiving this process shortly.--Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ada Wong

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

Result: Delisted.–Retrohead (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This article's contents are hardly neutral. Not only are there next to no mentions of anything negative about Ada Wong in any form, but the article is full of seemingly unnecessary and repetitious references to how great she is. It reads more like an advertisement for the game than like an encyclopedia article, as it is filled with quotes praising the character for various things that wouldn't look out of place on the back of a game box in a store. Since neutrality is a requirement for good article status, I would think that this article does not meet that status. It very clearly was written by a fan of Ada Wong, and by my estimation would merit a fairly large amount of editing before being eligible for good article status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roflcopter gamer (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Note: this reassessment request is the first (and thus far only) edit on Wikipedia by user Roflcopter gamer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If this will be the only edit the nominator will make on the site, I can keep an eye on it. GamerPro64 19:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see where the nominator is coming from: I didn't see any criticism of the character at all, and that's just unnatural. I mean, I'm a big fan of Lightning, but I did my best to include a wide range of opinions on the character, positive, middling and negative. Added to that, the lead section does not conform with WP:LEAD and some of the references seem a little suspect. It should be noted that the user who seems to have contributed most to this article has an occasionally questionable history in the eyes of the WikiProject Video Games community. I remember trying to make some edits to the article to tidy it up, but most of them were reverted or deleted. This just reads like an effusive tribute to the character. In the face of this, I think that this article should be downgraded and undergo major work, then possibly renominated when it seems ready, to stand or fall at that time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

With respect to reception, pretty much all reception sections in articles on this topic and all reviews of the games may as well begin "Resident Evil is very badly written but...". Have you attempted mining the reviews of the film she was in? Those are less likely to have gaming journalism's positivity bias. --erachima talk 23:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Positivity bias? erachima, are you talking about the Four Point Scale, or about overenthusiasm toward female game characters who aren't helpless princesses? Tezero (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

All of the above and then some. The reviews are half advertizement, the expectations for writing are set VERY low due to the medium and franchise she's from, she's naturally reviewed in contrast to the president's deadweight daughter, and so on.

In short, the current reception may well accurately reflect the published opinions of reviewers, the real issue is that there's a load of systemic bias in there. --erachima talk 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that seems to settle it. We can't inject any more "Your character is bad and you should feel bad" into the page than neutral mentions of the apparently hideous reception given to the games she was from and her cast-mates in them. Things like this are why, despite its use for conveying objective facts that might be useful in purchasing decisions, I very much disvalue the ratings/qualitative-assessment aspect of game reviewing. (There's also the fact that not all gamers value the same things, but that's getting off-topic.) Tezero (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the major omission I'm noting is that the reception says nothing about what people thought of her in the movie other than some vacuous "fans are excited" thing that probably shouldn't even be in there. --erachima talk 05:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness though, "Play editor Gavin Mackenzie criticized her perceived "bitch" personality in Resident Evil 4 in retrospective from the events of Resident Evil 2" and "Matt Cundy of GamesRadar found Ada's outfit from Resident Evil 4 to be unsuitable for the game's theme, ranking her iconic "out-of-our-price-bracket Shanghai hooker" look as the most impractical of all main outfits of the series' stars and commenting that anyone dressing like her to fight zombies would have to be certifiably mental" constitutes as reasonable criticism of the character. Besides, reception of Ada Wong seems to be almost exclusively positive, so demanding equal amounts of positive and negative opinions on her would be undue weight. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not only the bias but also that there are tons of repetitive references to multiple sources essentially saying the same thing about the character. Also, the reception section on this article is larger than reception sections on most actual games, and does not seem at all justified in being so large. I don't think Ada Wong needs a larger reception section than the game she came from... Also, there are numerous issues with the rest of the article. For instance, is it really relevant how much the wig an actor wore while portraying Ada cost? Is it relevant what that actor thought of the character, or what the producer thought of that actor, shouldn't that information be on the page for that film, rather than the page of this character? There are many issues like these in the article, and I cannot see why it ought to earn good article status in its current state. Roflcopter gamer (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability is an extremely shaky and fickle ground to stand on for fictional characters, especially video game characters, so honestly, the more coverage that can found to stick in Reception, the better. Tezero (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As to the length, I blame the common confusion among our writers of summary and synthesis. It tends to result in overblown and redundant writing, as they'll have five sources that all say the character was badass but rather than saying "X, Y, Z, Α, and Ω all said the character was badass.[1][2][3][4][5]" they'll quote every one of them individually. --erachima talk 20:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem here is that editors often give the source's reasoning behind why the sources say what they say, such as in this case Ada being "badass", and different sources give different reasoning. I believe that there was a debate on WP:VG a while back whether "list" sources of characters constitute significant coverage (such as "Top 10 most badass characters" or "Top 25 hottest video game women") and the general consensus was is that they shouldn't unless reasoning is given (as an example "Source X listed Ada 7th on their list of most badass characters" isn't significant coverage, but "Source X listed Ada 7th on their list of most badass characters because Y" is given more weight). Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 22:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an issue of whether the list actually has any editorial endorsement, since lists like that can be either official "best-of" stuff or pointless intern-generated clickbait. --erachima talk 23:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't get what you mean, though for me "Source X listed Ada on their list of the badass characters" is less comprehensive, informative and useful for the reader than "Source X listed Ada on their list of badass characters because Y". That being said though, I'm neutral in this debate as to whether the article gets delisted or not, having no strong feelings either way. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a hallmark of Niemti/Snaake's awful writing: a parade of one liners and list positions which does not convey any kind of coherent themes (other than repeated sledgehammer references to sex), and is bloated and barely readable. bridies (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not perfect, I agree, but I think most of the fault lies with the game reviewing industry. As for the rest, well, I'm undecided as to whether it doesn't meet the GA criteria or simply doesn't meet FA. As a whole I'm also neutral in this debate. Tezero (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I see someone actually made this point above, but: even if there are loads of instances of these kind of quotes in the secondary literature, they should be summarised, not listed exhaustively and repetitively. Also, being familiar with Niemti's contributions, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't whole other patterns of commentary, not deigned worthy of inclusion because they didn't discuss tits. bridies (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think this should be downgraded, if this wasn't clear from above. bridies (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Demote - I don't think this article can be salvaged in terms of improvement. GamerPro64 15:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not sure what the general procedure is with this. Should I just remove the status? Is there something else I should do? Do we need more discussion first? Thanks for your help. Roflcopter gamer (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think in this process, an uninvolved editor looks for consensus on the discussion and determines whether to have the article keep its status or have it delisted. Also, its worth mentioning that Niemti, the nominator of the article for GAN, has been indefinitely blocked from editing. GamerPro64 02:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing note: It appears that the article has issues with its neutrality and comprehensiveness that will take time to address. I'll be archiving the reassessment shortly.--Retrohead (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Chalcogen

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

Result: Kept.—Retrohead (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Axiosaurus has expressed concerns on the talk page of this article that certainly warrant a reassessment of the article's GA status. I therefore request a community reassessment to fix the problems Axiosaurus has pointed out, as well as point out and fix new ones, so that the article may conform to the GA criteria. Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Jakob, I'm struggling to see what the nominator finds unsuitable in the article. Judging by his comments at the talk page, I assume he doubts whether you are academically knowledgeable in this area, but that is against the Wikipedia pillars, which say anyone can contribute to the project. Unless he points out what doesn't meet the GA criteria, I'm inclined to keep the page under the good article status.--Retrohead (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrohead, Axiosaurus has pointed out what they deem to be omissions in the article in Talk:Chalcogen#Possible improvements. I think Axiosaurus' key issue is that the article tries to treat oxygen with the other chalcogens; this can get very forced because O is too different from the rest of the group.

The chalcogens are one of the hardest groups to cover well because the elements are very different despite all having six electrons in the outer shell – something which the article does not address. The group basically splits into O (high electronegativity, easily forms double bonds and H bonds), S and Se (similar), Te (similar to S and Se but a little different and more metallic), Po (suddenly metallic, though not so well-characterized), and Lv (laboratory curiosity). Trying to cover them all together is very forced and the article would be massively improved if it covered these separately.

Re qualifications – yes, you don't need to be academically knowledgeable in the area to contribute, but to make a good article I think you need to do some research and consult at least the usual references in the area (most of which split O away from the rest of the group at the very least). Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I well-educated in chemistry, but according to the Mendeleev table of elements, all of them fall in the same category. What I think the issue is here, you believe the article should be divided in smaller pages I order the topic to be better presented. That's fine, but the thing is none of that actually endangers the article's grade.--Retrohead (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't believe that. What I believe is that the chalcogens are a diverse group and that the article should state the differences. However, it doesn't: it glosses over them, and tries to explain away O as being similar to the other chalcogens. It just isn't so.

There are also many other major omissions in the article that can be seen from looking at how the topic is presented in many chemistry textbooks. There is not enough mention of the difference between H₂O and the other hydrogen chalcogenides – and here the differencing in forming chains between the chalcogens proper can be talked about (but isn't). And there are also inaccuracies like the mention of tellurate as TeO²⁻
₄ – usually it is polymeric instead. And oddly, despite the article's continued insistence of grouping O with the chalcogens even when it doesn't make sense, nitrogen compounds aren't included with the chalcogen-pnictogen compound discussion. Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

To quote from the lead section: "Often, oxygen is treated separately from the other chalcogens, sometimes even excluded from the scope of the term "chalcogen" altogether, due to its very different chemical behavior from sulfur, selenium, tellurium, and polonium" --Jakob (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so why not accentuate these differences throughout the article? You can have separate sections for O and everything else when covering compounds. (Also, Po isn't really similar to S, Se, and Te, though everyone calls it a chalcogen: you might want to also mention this.) Just like the hydrogen chalcogenides are mentioned in many places, but oddly don't have their own section, which they certainly deserve. Double sharp (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing note: After little more than a month, it wasn't established a clear consensus for delisting the article. Subsequent improvements on prose didn't take place either, so I'll be closing the reassessment soon.--Retrohead (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

An interesting process. Because I have been engaged elsewhere I was unable to contribute. Reading the above I too see no concensus for change of status but as the debate has only two protagonists, one of whom was the main author of the improved article that is hardly surprising! Perhaps others should have been involved or the time limit extended. Anyway putting to one side the suggestion that the thrust of the article is misplaced and should focus on trends, many of its problems relate to its scientific /technical content. Simply put key areas have been missed and there are inaccuracies. The article should be derated as it fails the Good article criterion relating to breadth of coverage (sic "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). As said earlier anyone can add material to an article, and the natural wikipedia process of commenting and editing then leads to the removal of any inaccurate / inappropriate material. This process was not given sufficient time to occur before the article was put up for GA. The rating process is a little different from editing. The rating of any article places an implicit onus on the reviewer to ensure that they have a sufficient understanding of the topic involved to make a judgement on the breadth of coverage. Chalcogen is a very broad topic, usually covered in two chapters in text books, and I would hope that anyone rating chalcogen either had a good knowledge of the topic or at the very least had researched it. Axiosaurus (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Satake clan

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment while it may meet a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Cornwallis in India

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment let alone a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary I of England

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment while it may meet a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment while it may meet a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Nanbu clan

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment while it may meet a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You failed to catch the obvious damage to the article, please check for obvious concerns between the successful review and the current version for signs of alteration and vandalism. A single sentence lead completely fails a GA requirement and it should have been an obvious sign that something was amiss. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ben Affleck

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

Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is long overdue. This article has been in shambles for quite some time now and, I'd say, is not deserving of the GA anymore. It is frequently vandalized. Edits wars are common. It is full to the brim with superfluous information which is either supported by bare urls, dead links and unreliable and unstable sources or completely unfounded at all. The article itself is, as is, rather poorly constructed, overwhelming to an average reader and more of an assortment of facts rather than a coherent written piece. GA worthy content is still there and kicking, but is too few and far between. Plus, seeing as Affleck is set to play Batman in the new Batman v Superman film, the article is surely going to receive a lot more traffic. EDIT: so many bare urls. ProKro (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of work on this article in the past six months and agree that it needs to be better, given the Batman interest. It's obviously still a work in progress - there are definitely a lot of bare urls and some sections need to be trimmed back. However, there actually isn't much vandalism and there are no edit wars. I actually think the Early Life and Political Activism sections have improved since the GA-reviewed article!

I'm not aware of any unfounded statements in the article - please outline them and I will quickly remove them. If you tell me some specific areas to work on, I can get to work on improving it. For example, what sort of information is superfluous? How should the article be constructed? Popeye191 (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your work is apparent and commendable and excuse my original upheaval, as the article is in more or less good standing, in line with other good articles but plagued by small nuisances. After giving it a read I realized it is not as bad as it first seemed, but is not the article that was reviewed as it has expanded immensely. What really needs cleaning the most are the bare urls and bad sourcing, dead links, especially YouTube and Twitter links which, although not completely unreliable, ought to be replaced with a better source if there is one to avoid link rot. I'd categorize most statements supported by person's Twitter tweets unfounded as it can be considered a primary source. The text structure is sound but certain sentences could be improved. The structure such as "Also in 2002, he appeared in The Third Wheel. Also in 2002, he was named Sexiest Man Alive by People Magazine" and all other similar sentences that follow the pattern "In (year) this and that and then in the (year) he also..." followed by more identical sentences should be avoided and made more coherent with the rest of the text, if possible. It is not alarming by all means, but it would make for a much more enjoyable read and feel less like just one factoid after another. Edit wars claim are my bad, I was looking at the much older dates while writing, all of which have since been resolved. As far as quantity goes, the article is large compared to other biographies, which is fine so I'd suggest maybe cutting down on including new information as it comes and filter the most prominent if there are several to pick from. To give an example, it reads the Affleck supported and donated to President Obama's campaign with a fixed amount, which is and should be included, but "In 2003, he made donations to the presidential campaigns of both Dennis Kucinich ($1,000) and Wesley Clark ($2,000), and, in 2005, he donated $500 to Deval Patrick, a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. In 2008, he donated $2,300 to the Congressional campaign of Pennsylvania's Patrick Murphy while, in 2010, he donated $1,500 to the Senate campaign of Kirsten Gillibrand." seems a bit too much and could be shortened to include only names without the amounts. Again, just a minor observation, can be easily fixed. I haven't noticed any major grammatical mistakes or deviation from established writing style, it is all in unison as if written by a single person. That's pretty much it for now, I'll be sure to give it a more thorough read in the future and point out any problems if I happen to stumble upon any. To be clear, I wasn't calling for delisting and never will, but rather minor tweaks and routine quality control. All the best, ProKro (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delist while the bare URL's have been filled, many are malformatted. This article is beyond bloated with trivia; for example, "sports" and "professional poker" sections are entirely unneeded. The lead also needs reorganization, probably best to have first paragraph be introductory and career beginnings, second paragraph to extended primary career, third paragraph for achievements and other endeavors. I was going to put it up for reassessment myself, ProKro, if you hadn't already done so. It is beyond repair. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: ProKro, Popeye191, SNUGGUMS and DragonZero, with this edit, I noticed a few minutes ago that the article no longer has its WP:Good article status. Looking at the article, it is far from a bad article, it is significantly above B-class, and it could have easily kept its WP:Good article status. I don't see where the WP:Consensus was to delist the article, since ProKro stated, "To be clear, I wasn't calling for delisting and never will, but rather minor tweaks and routine quality control." Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice a lot of WP:Citation overkill with the article in its current state, though. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked anything since October, but as far as I can see the cleanup banners might be the sole reason, as per the criteria (so no census needed, maybe). Aside from the bare urls which have since been dealt with, the formatting and unnecessary trivia were the main problems I encountered. There is a citation overkill, yes, but that can be easily solved. ProKro (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just acting on consensus and have no opinion on the subject. It was a GAR open for two months. It'll have to go through the nomination process again. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

ProKro and DragonZero, thanks for replying. Regarding WP:Consensus, DragonZero, I'm stating that I see none for a delisting. But, yes, the article can go through the nomination process again. Flyer22 (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake

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

Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This article was promoted to GA back in April 2008, and has gone through many changes since. I've tried to spruce this up a bit lately, but am not convinced that this is up to par with GA criteria after looking it through, or that it can be salvaged. Right now, here is how I feel it stands:

• Is it well-written?: Not too bad, but could be better. For example, his personal life probably doesn't warrant a separate section and could be integrated into a "life and career" section along with "early life" since there's rather little information on his dating life with simply Jessica Biel (his wife), Britney Spears (whom he co-starred on The Mickey Mouse Club with), and maybe Cameron Diaz (I'm on the fence whether she should be included). The lead could probably have more detail on his work with NSYNC. The "Television work" section could probably be integrated there as well given his prominence in TV.
• Is it verifiable?: In addition to having dead links, there's HARVref's to books not used, and some sources aren't even reliable (TMZ, "TripAdvisor", Daily Record, "So Feminine", "ShowBuzz", "Celebrity Gross", etc.)
• Is it broad in coverage?: Probably the weakest point. It doesn't really discuss his acheivements in terms of commercial success and major awards such as Grammys or MTV Video Music Awards, and doesn't really go into his musical/acting styles, his influences, or what critics have said of his works as the "artistry" section is rather short compared to other FA/GA singer articles. Given how he is often deemed a sex symbol within society, I would expect commentary from that here as well. Additionally, there is surprisingly little on his work in The Mickey Mouse Club, which played a critical part in his early career.
• Is it neutral?: Seems OK
• Is it stable?: No concerns here. In fact, this is probably the article's strongest point, as there hasn't been any major editing to the page in recent months.
• Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?: All image licensing seems to be OK, but I don't see how a photo of him golfing really benefits the article.

With all of this being said, I think it would be best to delist the article, work it up again, and take to peer review before renominating. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delist - Not as broad in coverage as most other similar GA-class articles. A lot of dead links and unreliable sources, as already stated. Needs to be delisted and revamped. ProKro (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

European Central Bank

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

Result: No improvements to article. Delisting endorsed DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for GAR because it was requested for a reassessment. Looking at the article, its tagged for not being up to date, looks to contain original research (The Executive Board normally meets every Tuesday.), and might all around need a re-write as a whole. GamerPro64 02:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave Lombardo

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

Result: Delisted. Consensus was to delist due to referencing / verifiability (criterion 2). Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The article is composed substantially of gross copyright violations, which are composed mostly of grossly unencyclopedic text. It's made of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR trivia. The article's original GAN discussion consists of people naming which articles around the Internet that they were planning on plagiarizing. I'm fairly sure that it was never in any way a legitimate Good article. I have no experience in these matters, but I can't let it stand, so I invite others to take over. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delist - There's a ton of unsourced content in the article, most notably the "Early years" section. Other parts are long meandering lists rather than well written prose. This GAN comes from 2007, when the standards were much looser. Article seems more like a current day C-class. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delist: there are a number of unreferenced areas in the article, so it probably doesn't meet the fully referenced requirement. As this is a BLP the unreferenced areas may potentially need to be removed (which would also impact upon the stability criterion). Additionally, some of the citations, such as "play the drum solo perfectly. [1]" and "already unique capabilities.[5] " use a manual system that make it difficult to determine if they still relate to the automatically numbered citations, which therefore also impacts on verifiability. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delist: It is clear that the referencing is far from adequate, and fails to meet the GA requirements on a number of levels. Indeed, a number of quotes do not have references immediately after the sentences they appear in or as, which is quite troubling. What I don't find is any evidence of "gross copyright violations". When I ran the copyvio tool, the copying identified seemed to me to be copying of Wikipedia by the other sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mars (mythology)

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

• Has everyone not have the time for this one? Please review. Adamdaley (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: Delisted based on consensus after two-month-long review Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment let alone a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delist: Unfortunately I don't think that this article (in its current state) completely meets the "verifiable with no original research" criterion at the moment as there are a number of sentences/areas that appear to be unreferenced. If references could be added where the nominator has marked with "cn" tags, I'd be more than happy to change my mind. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delist: while this article is in fairly good shape it does appear to be missing citations in a few key areas which mean in its current state it doesn't meet the GA criteria per ARs comments above. That said it doesn't look like it would be too difficult to salvage if someone with some knowledge of the subject matter was able to furnish the citations required. If I had the required sources I'd add them myself but unfortunately I do not. Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delist: With citations missing in many places in the article, it doesn't even meet B-class standards. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Omar Khadr

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

• Please review. Adamdaley (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: Delisted based on clear consensus among reviewers. Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article and adding {{citations needed}} to sections where I feel a citation/source/reference is needed. Other than that, I do not think that this article is deservingly of a "GA-class" assessment while it may meet a "B-class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delist: There appears to be a number of unreferenced statements in the article. As such, I don't think that this article (in its current state) completely meets the "verifiable with no original research" criterion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delist: as a BLP this article has a concerningly large amount of uncited material. In its current state it doesn't meet the GA criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delist: I concur with AustralianRupert and Anotherclown. As well as the unreferenced material, I have concerns that the article is overly detailed and lacking conciseness (1a and 3b of the GA criteria). Zawed (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delist: With citations missing in many places in the article, it doesn't even meet B-class standards. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reiki

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

Result: Consensus stands for delisting.--Retrohead (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

C'mon... I would like an explanation as to why this is a "good article" in the natural sciences category with other pages such as biology and medicine that are science based. Well, to be honest, no person can answer that question honestly and therefore I am asking the page be reviewed. Quackery and pseudoscience has no place among science based articles. I am absolutely positive any and all persons, who abide by and trust in the scientific method, would aggressively nod in agreement with me.

The GA criteria that this does not meet is that it is at the very least not in the correct category. Reike is not a science, it is based on belief and spirituality. It is not based on the scientific method. Therefore it should not be in the natural science category and not be a "good article".

So officially the GA category it does not conform to is GA 2 - Verifiable [science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. ConcernedPrude (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. This article has been the subject of constant edit warring and it shows. There are terrible WP:NPV, WP:V, and WP:OR issues raised on the talk page that have gone unaddressed. These cut both ways (both pro- and anti-reiki). There is no chance these issues will be fixed anytime soon in light of the article currently being a battleground. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delist - This article does not meet good article criteria. It is not:

• Verifiable. Numerous sources throughout the article are cited by author last name and year only. Many of the other sources are of highly questionable validity. In the course of removing numerous clearly self-published sources, I have left numerous statements to be sourced or removed.
• Broad in its coverage. It contains unnecessary detail, as evidenced by the limited number of reliable sources available on the subject relative to the depth present in the article.
• Neutral. Given the lack of in-depth coverage from reliable sources, the amount of detail given on reiki beliefs is unsustainable.
• Stable. While no one seems to agree on much else, I doubt anyone will contest this.

At present, there are over 30 cite needed tags, which I would categorize as a lot -- enough for an automatic fail, but everything is contentious here, so *I* won't do it. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delist as per the various reasons listed above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sivaji (film)

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

Result: Kept, all the notes were fulfilled by the main editor.--Retrohead (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have listed this article for GA reassessment because it was badly damaged by edit wars, content deletion and info not up-to-date (possibility of dead links). I want to therefore improve it. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792

Lead

• Empty the lead of ref's as per WP:LEAD. But the same content must exist in the body with ref's.

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Let the most notable cast members stay in the lead.

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox film has a parameter "screenplay" which has not been utilised here.

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Do some general copyediting, or at least remove whatever sounds informal, colloquial, figurative or idiomatic.

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot

• Seems fine, a few edits by a GOCE member should make it look best.

Cast

• Let the most notable members stay, while minor ones may also, if there is any source to prove their inclusion.

 Done Most notable members staying. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Production

• Does this image satisfy WP:NFCC? I don't think so, and it should be uploaded through Commons with permission from the image's owner, who is The Hindu!

 Done Removed the image. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Release

• This section needs serious copyediting, and "bagged" is not formal. Also, mention the Censor Board by its full name - the Central Board of Film Certification.

 Done Lstanley1979 has done a c/e on this section. CBFC expanded to Central Board of Film Certification. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 07:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Box office

• Information on the film's release can be shifted to "release".

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• "It grossed $101,779 in its full run in South Africa." - source?

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

3D conversion

• This section can be renamed to "3D re-release".

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Critical response

• Many review sites are not referred to here by name, when they should be.

 Done named review sites. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Accolades

• Source the entire section.

 Done sourced. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

• Decapitalise "Popular Culture", and expand upon the content.

 Done removed the section. Placed it in my sandbox. Will expand upon the content when I go for FAC. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack

• This section better come after "Production" and before "Release".

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the other mishaps in the article are glaring and explicit enough for you to correct. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Some minor points:

• I suggest to merge the lead into three paragraphs.
• "Shankar was paid a record salary of ₹ 30 million for this project". In the sentence, you do not need to have space after {{INR}} and so with the succeeding one.
• I suggest to tweak one of the sentences that have "record salary" as both look almost same thing.
• In the casting section, Nayantara and Asin need to be linked.
• I suggest to shift the sentence from the sub-section "Visual effects". The sub-section is not needed when it has only one sentence.
• The full stop (.) is missing in the first sentence of Release section.
• "The kanjira is a South Indian frame drum, is an instrument of the tambourine family." does not look sound to me. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done All of the above comments have been resolved. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Onassis

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

Result: Withdrew, not the right venue for this action. Retrohead (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am submitting this article for GAR as suggested by User:SNUGGUMS on the article's talk page who conducted the original review. I amended/fixed the article based on their insightful suggestions. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Promote after a couple of minor fixes - The issues SNUGGUMS discussed were gone. Just a couple more I found. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 18:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps adding the |death_cause= and |resting_place= parameters in the infobox
  • There are a lot of sentences starting with "Onassis" in the lead that makes it just sound weird
  • Perhaps mention Thyssen in the lead
  • Note Onassis's place of birth in the lead, not too specific, just the city or the state.
  • Did he die on scene or in hospital?

I've further amended it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Gareth E Kegg, this isn't the venue where we promote articles that failed the GA review. You can only demote articles from the GA status here, but not upgrade them. You should re-nominate the article and receive proper review.--Retrohead (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

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

Result: Delisted because of improper review and unresolved issues.--Retrohead (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears the article might have been passed accidentally. There is no actual review, and the edit summaries of the original GA review just state "is this how it's done?" I think there was some accidents made. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The promotion to GA-class was performed by me, and the review was not accidental. I just wasn't sure if I had done the review correctly. If anyone can provide me with advice on how to put up a proper review, please do, because, for the most part, the GBU article is of good quality. However, one area that does need improvement is the plot summary. Some people have been putting details that are somewhat excessive, but I feel that if I edit the plot summary further, I'll be dumbing it down and making it incohesive. Is anyone willing to take the job of editing the plot summary down? PatTheMoron (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pat, no big deal about the review, it just looks like there's no content there and to an average reviewer, no review! And the plot is pretty large as this is such a long film, but we could use a second or third pair of eyes on this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's redeemable. I'd make sure the plot is 400–700 words long and add inline citations for the following:

• Characters and descriptions
• "A scene deleted by Leone after the Rome premiere was also re-inserted:..... After being betrayed by Blondie, surviving the desert on his way to civilization and assembling a good revolver from the parts of worn-out guns being sold at a general store, Tuco meets with members of his gang in a distant cave, where he conspires with them to hunt and kill Blondie."
• "Lost footage of the missing Socorro Sequence where Tuco continues his search for Blondie in a Texican pueblo while Blondie is in a hotel room with a Mexican woman (Silvana Bacci) is reconstructed with photos and unfinished snippets from the French trailer. Also, in the documentary 'Reconstructing The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly', what looks to be footage of Tuco lighting cannons before the Ecstasy of Gold sequence appears briefly. None of these scenes or sequences appear in the 2004 re-release, however, but are in the supplementary features."

Shouldn't be too much work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Gentlemen (Andrzejbanas, PatTheMoron, SNUGGUMS), what's the progress here? Can you cast a vote in order to make a decision here?--Retrohead (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delist unless my above concerns are addressed. I'm willing to change my cite if they're resolved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

---

Gun violence in the United States

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

Result: This article was listed for GA reassessment almost 11 weeks ago, and the last comment was made over six weeks ago. The changes that have been made to this article since nomination for reassessment did not address GAR concerns nor did they address the problems indicated by the two cleanup banners placed at the top of the article. All existing comments on this thread are in support of delisting. Additionally, other comments made on this article's talk page are indicative of a consensus to remove GA status. Jacedc (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has not been reassessed since 2006 and there've been a lotta changes since then. Two big problems: the intro doesn't summarize the article, and some editors keep reinserting repetitive, non-neutral text. Felsic (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. To say the least, it needs to be updated. But it also needs to be refactored for simpler language in some parts and more exact language in other parts. As I read through the article more and more, I would say it'd be better to revoke GA status for now, in part due to out-of-date information and also in part due to non-neutral language (regardless of whether or not it's agreeable, the phrasing needs to sound more "simple fact"-ish.) This appears to be present throughout the article. Jacedc (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2015 (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.