Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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 16) Good article review (archive) (Page 14) →

To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion.

Archived Disussions

Fallen (album)

Result: Endorse failure 4-1 GA Nomination This article falls below GA standards at present - needs a lot more work. LuciferMorgan 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Write your reasons. Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do...;

1. All cites need to use a cite template and need retrieval dates.

2. Not comprehensive at all - compare this GA nominee to an album I recently got to GA, namely Christ Illusion. The difference is immense;

Critical reception? There's none there.
A section dealing with lyrical themes? Not present either.
Too many boxes. You're going for a Good article, not list.
A lead summarising the article? The whole lead has more prose than the rest of the article.

As I said, this article needs a ton of work. I suggest peer review, and being receptive to suggestions for improvement - I highlighted areas for improvement in the Amy Lee PR but nobody responded. Good luck getting this article to GA, but it needs a lot more work yet. LuciferMorgan 01:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the extensive work needed that I outlined above, I'm failing the article. I hope you'll consider addressing the concerns I outlined. If you feel my concerns are unjust, feel free to seek a review at WP:GA/R. LuciferMorgan 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? First, all cite need to use a cite template??? Who says that?? Have you read this WP:WIAGA??? Here says that citations are essential, but not that the use of cite templates is obligatory.
Second, critical recption. If you haven't read, under the charts is this.
Fallen spent 58 weeks on the Billboard Top 20, and 100 weeks on the Billboard Top 200. In the UK, the album spent 33 weeks on the Top 20, and 60 weeks on the Top 75. However, Fallen reentered the UK charts at Number 35 during week 41 of 2006, the week that The Open Door opened at Number 2.Fallen advanced to Number 34 the following week, before falling back out of the Top 40 two weeks later."Fallen" ruled the United World Chart for a total of eight weeks, (seven weeks in 2003, and one week in 2004) That's the critical reception, isn't it?? Looks like you haven't read the article very well.
A section dealing with lyrical themes? Not present either. Where is it mentioned that it's obligatory?
Too many boxes. You're going for a Good article, not list. Too many boxes??? You mean tables?? Is wrong that an article have tables??
A lead summarising the article? The whole lead has more prose than the rest of the article. Ok, maybe you are right here. Nothing of critical reception or cite templates or lyrics description is mentioned in the GA critera. I really think your review is bad. You may be right in that thing of the lead, but that other stuff have nothing to do with the GA criteria. Armando.Otalk • Ev 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not critical reception — that's an analysis of chart performance. While you're correct in saying nothing specifies critical reception in the GA criteria, I think for any half-decent article of this type you really ought to have at last some cited comments from reviewers to demonstrate what the overall response to the album was in the media. Otherwise the coverage doesn't look very comprehensive at all. Angmering 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Lucifer compared this article and said that Christ Illusion is muuuuuch better than this. Well, read.

Reception and criticism

Christ Illusion was released on August 8, 2006 by American Recordings / Warner Bros. Records. In its first week of release, the album sold 62,000 copies in the United States and debuted at number 5 on the Billboard Chart, the band's highest chart position to date, and their first top 10 charting since 1994's Divine Intervention.[31] Despite its Billboard top ten debut, the album dropped to number 44 the following week.[32] Christ Illusion reached number 9 in Australia,[33] number 3 in Canada, number 6 in Austria, number 8 in the Netherlands, number 10 in Norway and debuted at number 2 in Finland[34] and Germany.[35] The single "Eyes of the Insane" won the "Best Metal Performance" category at the 49th Grammy Awards.[36] Now Angmering, that's not critical reception?

Well, maybe you mean that this... Fallen spent 58 weeks on the Billboard Top 20................ is not critical recpetion, but reception. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

If anyone's wondering what the above is, it's taken from the talk page of a GAC I failed. The nominator has complained at my reasons for failing the article, so I welcome the comments of others from this page as to my justification or lack of in failing. LuciferMorgan 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse failure per Lucifer; article still needs a lot of work. — Deckiller 01:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse failure Fails criteria 1,2,3. Tables should be converted into paragraphs, all statements need references - under recording. Definetly not broad in coverage - lyrical themes? - it won Grammys yet no mention of them? - members quotes, where they surprised by the success?, opinions?, Moody receiving the platinum plaque and it didn't have his name on it? Music videos? Song meanings? When did recording start? What kind of tours did the band go on to promote the album? etc M3tal H3ad 06:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse failure. There's barely any information on the album, its mostly just a bunch of charts. Teemu08 07:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ok, it failed. Armando.Otalk • Ev 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sumo

Result:Delist 5-0 I'm recommending this article for delisting for substantial failure to meet GA criteria. It has been GA for some time, and although a notice was posted on its talk page on Sept. 25, 2006 that it was being re-reviewed for GA, because of an almost total lack of inline citations, it is unclear whether that re-review ever occurred. It underwent FA review beginning on Nov. 23, 2006, but failed fairly easily, mostly for the same reason. It is not a bad article, and is in fact quite informative, but it currently fails to meet at least the following GA criteria:

  • 1(a), because it is plagued by informal prose and one sentence paragraphs, especially throughout sumo#Professional Sumo (大相撲 Ōzumō).
  • 1(b), for example, the article begins by explaining how to win a match, followed by how a match begins and how the ring is set up, followed by the history of the sport, then into how the sport is professionally organized. Also, some sections need to be divided into subsections. Also, several subsections are inappropriately titled.
  • 1(c), the article greatly suffers from failure to adhere to WP:MOS-JP, as it uses many inconsistent methods to present, define, and translate foreign terms, and breaks various rules regarding usage of Japanese characters.
  • 1(d) a number of technical terms should be better explained, and used less often.
  • 2(b) this is a 41k article with only 8 inline citaions. Many large sections are entirely unreferenced - this alone should be sufficient for delisting.

Bradford44 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, the re-review likely never did anything because large amounts of contoversy over that criteria eventually annulled it in part, but there is no way that such a miniscule amount of references adequatly covers this entire article, especially because note 3 isn't even a reference itself, and two of the books cited appear to be POV in nature since they seem to be fan books. Homestarmy 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Well since the criteria is clearer I agree. It seems a pity because it is one of the best martial arts articles out there and I hope the process will get some movement towards fixing the problems.Peter Rehse 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above concerns. LuciferMorgan 10:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delsit per above. Teemu08 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been delisted.Peter Rehse 08:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katana

Results: Delist 4-0 I'm recommending this article for delisting, for failure to meet the following GA criteria:

  • arguably 1(a)
  • 1(c), specifically the WP:MOS-JP
  • 1(d)
  • very strongly 2(a)

This article is in need of quite a bit of polish, and needs many more citations before qualifying for GA status, in my opinion. Bradford44 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist It went Featured article review in February 2005 which it failed for a number of reasons. It was nominated for GA status 1st of August 2006 and promoted without comment two weeks later. In my opinion the FA request was very premature not only with respect to the problems but also due to the fact that the article was far from stable (read lots of contention). The same problems existed during the GA promotiom. Although the article is much more stable now there are far too few citations and stylistic problems.Peter Rehse 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been delisted.Peter Rehse 08:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Railroad

Results: Delist 4-0 Warned by me in December regarding lack of inline cites. Delist. LuciferMorgan 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Tarsier Foundation GA hold

Results: Failure valid 4-0 The GA evaluator placed the article on GA hold for 7 days. He failed it on the 6th day. The documentation and my response to the failed nomination which is found in Talk:Philippine Tarsier Foundation is copied below:

This is on GA hold for 7 days for: needs more refs (ex: all of background only has one), refs are not consitently formatted, not enough wikilinks. Sumoeagle179 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Failed GA, no action taken.Sumoeagle179 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am getting/working on the citations and have them offline, and isn't the 7th day on the 28th yet? Please re consider. Thank you. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Has the citation issue now been addressed by yourself? If so, on what date were they put up? Anyhow, a reviewer can fail an article on hold anytime from 2 to 7 days, though if the work was done after the 7th day then the failure was correct possibly. It may be best to send your article back to GAC. Good luck. LuciferMorgan 08:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This tag will stay in place for a minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 7 - can be failed anywhere in between, user did the right thing. M3tal H3ad 08:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This failure is valid. The reviewer did the right thing. The article STILL has not had one edit since it was put on hold. The reviewer finally failed it one hour before the 7th day. The submitter has no grounds to stand on. See submitters's comments on reviewer's talk page, making it even more interesting. Rlevse 11:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albrecht Rodenbach

Results: Delist 7-0 I already delisted the article as GA due to concerns about referencing and length. The article is not that long, and the author of the article stated he could not find many references. I went to nl.wiki and saw that the article there on Rodenbach was almost twice as long. Maybe we can request a translation at WP:RFT and then re-submit to GA afterwards, but for now, I think the delisting is appropriate. I want to know if my action was correct. Thanks. Nishkid64 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okaaay, looks like a WP:SNOWball to me, anyone mind if this is archived as delist? Homestarmy 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind. LuciferMorgan 08:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's already a failed GA and has 6 votes for delist, not including a nominator vote. LuciferMorgan 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese aborigines

Result: Filed in error Failed GA mentioned mixed referencing styles. Umm, where? The only thing that could (mistakenly) be considered "mixed" is the use of two-word excerpts from newspaper articles (e.g., (Premier apologizes 2002)). This is by the book, given that the articles did not have author bylines.

  • Failed GA also mentioned image probs.. umm. where? --Ling.Nut 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the reviewer that failed the original (twice, actually), I must note that SINCE I have reviewed the original, the two main concerns I had at the time I reviewed it have since been fixed. I can only base my review on what exists at the time of the review, not upon any changes made to the article after I reviewed it. My most recent review was on 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC), see dif [1] from a version dated March 6 (the next edit after my review was March 14th) of the state of the article at that time. The tone of the above implies that the problems I noted did not exist, and that my review was in someway faulty. This is not the case. Actually (please see dif) both problems were there at the time of my review. There was a mixed reference style: For example, the section titled History of the Aboriginal Peoples used paranthetical Havard notes, where the section titled Contemporary Aborigines used inline footnotes. Also, the image titled "Taiwan aborigine en.jpg" that I noted as a problem as been replaced with a free image(see file history: [2] dated March 5, which is what I reviewed. A new version was uploaded March 19). It seems that since the article has substancially changed since my last review on its talk page, that the article does not belong here, but should be renominated on the main page at WP:GAC so a new, full review can be done. I must note that all of the problems I saw in the version I reviewed have been fixed, but for procedural reasons, it would be nice to see this version formally reviewed like all other articles, and not shuffled off here as though there was a fault in my review. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, huh? Sorry! Somehow I confused myself. I could swear I saw that review on my watchlist this evening!!! I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Ignore this thread. I would archive it, but it may attract comments. Sorry again!

--Ling.Nut 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib Ali

Results: Delist 5-0 Same situation as last four, except this time i'm filing the review primarily because I object to the article being a GA myself, not just because there was some dispute i'm not involved with. I think a quick look at the lead is enough for most people to figure out that it is certainly not neutral, it starts with "Won the right to....", and together with excessive use of the word "victory" and the lauding of various political milestones in American politics, I feel the lead on this article is not exibitive of a GA, even though it is a very well-referenced looking lead. Homestarmy 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So which GA criteria does this article not meet in your opinion? LuciferMorgan 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD, because the lead is so concerned with political milestones, it fails to really summarize the article. Unless, of course, almost all of the article is concerned with lauding the political milestone represented by the subject becoming a state delegate, in which case it certainly isn't very on-topic since it wouldn't be addressing the topic, but rather the political importance of something the topic did. Homestarmy 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delist per Homestarmy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delist per Homestarmy's reasoning. Rlevse 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delist per Homestarmy's reasoning. Sumoeagle179 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delist per Homestarmy's reasoning. LloydSommerer 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delist per Homestarmy's reasoning. Wait a second.... :D Homestarmy 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the Bahamas

Result: 2 to 0, delist

This article is too brief, mentioning only two music styles. According the the lead, acts like the Baha Men achieved popularity, but are never mentioned in the body of the article. Also, it completely lacks citations, the Ripsaw section is not mentioned in the lead, and the first paragraph of Junkaroo seems to have trouble staying on topic. Warned by Agne last September. Teemu08 07:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per citation issues. LuciferMorgan 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainhill Trials

Result: 4 to 0, delist

Warned on the article's talk page by me in December regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Delist. Sumoeagle179 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, the writing isn't encyclopedic in some places, "This restaging should not be taken as accurate as there were major compromises made for television and because of the differences in crew experience, the fuel used, the modifications made to the replicas for modern safety rules, modern construction methods, and following operating experience. Sensible comparisons were made between the engines only after calcuations took into account the differences." by demanding that readers take information only one way, which I suspect stems from the problematic, well, problem of only having a single reference. This is likely limiting the content methinks. Homestarmy 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Spain

Result: 6 to 0, delist

Part three of the "Music of..." series might be the worst. The article has a one sentence lead, a ton of redlinks, a random list of performers, one sentence paragraphs, "Main article" templates that lead to redlinks, and no citations. Also warned by Agne in September. Teemu08 07:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per citation issues. LuciferMorgan 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist that lead sort of clinches it. Homestarmy 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist lead and no footnotes.Sumoeagle179 10:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of New Zealand

Result: 5 to 0, delist

An MoS nightmare filled with one sentence paragraphs and awful prose ("New Zealand reggae bands... are highly popular"). No citations at all, and was warned by Agne last September. Teemu08 07:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per citation issues. LuciferMorgan 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, three references appear to be rock and roll only, leaving only one to capture most everything there is about the Music of New Zealand. I don't think that's going to happen. Homestarmy 12:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per citation issues. Qjuad 19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Poorly written, lacking references. Vassyana 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Pacific Railway

Result: 5 to 0, delist

Warned on the article's talk page by me in December regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 03:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Sumoeagle179 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist History section ought to be separated into subsects with so much length, and the Chief Engineers section probably has bad MoS problems, no way that's standard formatting to list people like that :/. Homestarmy 12:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Delist Just browsing the Chief Engineers section makes this article look really bad. M3tal H3ad 06:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Reigning

Result: 5 to 0, promote

Another amateur GA reviewer failed this article for the second time. The first time because quotes were unsourced, although the source at the end of the paragraph covered this (i fixed this in about one minute anyway). Anyway

  • This article needs some expansion, however only expand it if the info is worth it - Everything i can think of is added, its clear the reviewer didn't read the article and made no suggestion as to what should be added.
  • Cite all your sources and format them properly, there are about three number 1's and three number 2's. I use the cite template and use the same source multiple times, which is apparently "bad"
  • Try not to repeat information (eg it was recorded at ?? centre in 2004), its highly annoying and this could stop it from passing in future. The lead is a summary of the article and all information should be in the body.
  • Add the relevant interwiki links to it, such as on dates etc (see [Wikipedia:Wikify|Wikify]]). Dates are wikified....so i don't know what he's on about. I would like some decent opinions please and perhaps a professional review, don't say re-list because it will happen again. :X M3tal H3ad 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it needs work.Sumoeagle179 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What needs work? What needs to be added?, You need to be specific and give a decent reply. M3tal H3ad 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer's review is frankly full of rubbish - format citations properly? The Slayer Wikiproject has 1 FA and 5 GAs, so knows how to format them. Can someone actually properly review the article for a change, as opposed to giving statements which are unhelpful and make no sense? When people needs work, can they say what needs work please? Which areas need work? Which aspects need work? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the GA failer says on his talk page; "I am going to stand by my decision again of failing it because the sections are very long and should be split up into sub sections, I think there should also be more images, although this is not an official requirement, if you have edited or made improvements to the article then thank you but I'm still going to fail it, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention and happy editing!!!" Now what criteria does that specify? Nothing - that's the lamest review I've ever heard, and I want people to please comment on how poor that GA reviewer has been in this instance as concerns his reasons. My reply to the user's reasons;

1. Very long? The article is 11kb including citations, which could be considered small - it's considered small by me and probably others.

2. More images. Criterion 6. b. of "What is a good article?" says "a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status", which even the user seems to be aware of. So why mention it in your fail? You cannot list that as a reason for failure. Or you promoting copyright infringement.

3. Should be split up into subsections? Criterion 1. a. says "(a) the prose is comprehensible, the grammar is correct, and the structure is clear at first reading.". Splitting an article this small into yet more subsections violates this, as it would make the article stubby. LuciferMorgan 20:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article and based on how good it is per WP:GA? which I suggest the reviewer check, I vote that the article should be promoted to GA. LuciferMorgan 20:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, if this reviewer tries passing / failing any more GAs I nominate, I will make a complaint against him to the administrator's noticeboard for violating the process. I suggest everyone else do the same if they've had the same trouble. LuciferMorgan 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promote, I see no real problems with this article, the topic is a bit limited which is probably why the lead isn't terribly long, but there's nothing wrong with a topic being limited. (Unless, you know, its so limited that its not article-worthy). Homestarmy 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promote per my comments over his talk page. The article is perfectly fine. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Homestarmy, me and the rest of us at the Slayer Wikiproject pledge to include any other reliable information we stumble upon to expand this article. It's been tough going finding information. LuciferMorgan 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are numerous nontrivial problems with grammar, vocabulary and punctuation. On the other hand, I agree that earlier comments by other reviewers kinda puzzle me. Toss a coin. I would not have promoted it in the shape I just left it, but... I think it could be worked up to GA level without huge amounts of effort. --Ling.Nut 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded lead to two paragraphs. There is controversy in the "Recording and Mixing" section, but it relates to that section so it would be appropriate there. This is the only decline comment "Tom Araya lost his piercing shriek that opens 'Angel of Death'" which is already in there. I planned on putting in two images but had no luck finding the ones i wanted, I'll look again, and thanks for the ce. M3tal H3ad 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did some digging around, found information about copies sold in its first week, rank on the billboard dvd chart, added a picture, added information in recording and mixing, gave it a bit of a copyedit. M3tal H3ad 11:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent). Promote after copyedits. --Ling.Nut 19:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Central Terminal

Result: 3 to 0, delist

Warned on the article's talk page by me in December regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) Delist. Sumoeagle179 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaperon (headgear)

Result: 4 to 0, delist

Same as the last two reviews, it seems Fred Chess had planned to file a GA/R on it some time in january, but that never occured, and I can't tell if the article was changed to his satisfaction or not. Considering how short the lead is however, I don't think this would truthfully be a GA even if it had been properly listed in the first place.... Homestarmy 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delist per one sentence lead, citation-less sections, unencyclopedic language (i.e. "Humble origins"), and a completely unnecessary gallery of images. Teemu08 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was passed on Jan 11 by badlydrawnjeff. The points Fred Chess (after that) raised have now been addressed, and the lead (never one sentence in fact) expanded. Johnbod 01:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said on Talk:Chaperon_(headgear)#GA.2FR, the article was -- as I recall it -- properly listed. I think it was listed for several weeks even. It was just that I had planned on failing it, when it suddenly was passed, and I scribbled down my thought about that, but then decided to ignore it due to my vaining faith in this page. Ok, most of the things I complained about have been fixed. But I'll make some further comments that I think needs to be addressed.
    • Lead section would benefit from being another paragraph long, per WP:LEAD. This is actually important to me, not just a mere formality: I'd like to get a summary of the history of the Chaperon without having to read 2,300 words.
I have expanded the lead section again, so that it fully meets what WP:LEAD says, which is that it should give a "very brief overview of the article".
    • There are two external links in the section "The height of fashion", that would benefit from being formatted as inline refs, conforming with the rest. Now, this can be regarded as a formality, but it shouldn't be too hard to accomplish...
Done
    • Finally, I requested refs for the statement "There were now many ways of wearing, and indeed carrying, this most complex and adaptable of hats:", and for the list that follows. You replied that the necessary refs were in the image gallery, at the bottom of the page. Personally I don't find this to be a sufficient way of referencing because it isn't clear to me what image refers to which item of the list; and also because it is not obvious at all that the two sections are connected in that way, and if it isn't obvious then the whole purpose of inline references is lost. So I wonder if it wouldn't be feasible to put relevant images into the section "Evolved chaperon"? It would provide a connection between text and images and I think that is always a good thing.
  • Fred-Chess 09:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said they were in the pictures. There are 6 styles mentioned (A-F), which are illustrated in pictures throughout the article, including the gallery, with the relevant letter given in the caption. I don't think I can get them all in to the one section, at a size where they can be seen without clicking on each image. I've added at the end of the section to refer to all the pictures, and also referenced some more captions A-F. Please remember it isn't always possible to decide which of A-F is being used, where you don't get a full view - especially in those cases where the difference depends on what is done at the back. In addition some styles described (the utilitarian and the vestigial) are not included in the A-F series of ways of wearing the evolved chaperon. The gallery is arranged strictly chronologically, which I think is correct, although I accept it means you don't have illustrations of the styles in sequence. I could reference Reed, but not very concisely, as she spreads the same material across various places in her work, and does not always define terms in the same way; my definitions are more those Campbell uses.
Comments by Johnbod 02:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Pictures -- aha, I see what you mean now. / Fred-Chess 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What concerns are remaining actually? Johnbod 03:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Subway nomenclature

Result: 3 to 0, delist

Warned on the article's talk page by me in December regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 09:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger car

Result: 3 to 0, delist

Warned on the article's talk page by me in December regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 09:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego and Arizona Railway

Warned on the article's talk page by me in December regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 09:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Transcontinental Railroad

Result: 3 to 0, delist

Warned on the article's talk page by me in December regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 09:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Mercury

Result: 1 to 1, No Consensus

The Freddie Mercury article definitely reads better than a "B." Among other things, it contains 40 references and is very easy to follow. In fact, I cannot find any explanations for why the article was rated so poorly in the first place. After all, the writing here is vastly superior to what is found on the Queen article, which is now being considered for Feature Article status. 138.67.44.86 03:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One comment is that the lead needs significant expansion. It doesn't even state his birth name, or where he was born! As well, statements like "He is remembered for his powerful vocal abilities and charisma as a live performer." are POV. Many of the inline citations need to be fixed; they are not of a consistent format. As well, there are WP:MoS issues such as "The world's first Indian and Persian rock star" for a section heading. I would also recommend the "Lasting popularity" section be delisted, and the "Quotations about Freddie Mercury" (another heading that is a MoS violation) section be removed. - Shudda talk 05:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the review, but it looks like it should of been fairly recent from the talk page discussion, and the failed template is there, is it in an archive somewhere? Homestarmy 03:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is interesting to hear your ideas here. For instance, I agree that the word "powerful" should be removed from the introduction. In fact, I tried to remove it, but it was immediately restored. Although a few of the tribute-related points could be removed, but I think that the legacy is an important topic. No, I never saw any reviews or anything explaining why the article had failed. If we could have some real criticism, then we could better figure out what we need do to make the article better/ 67.190.44.85 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account and your edits won't be reverted, however the references are all formatted differently, too many external links, title headers shouldn't repeat the name of the article. M3tal H3ad 03:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand exactly what I meant by some of my comments. By de-list I mean turn the section from a list of bullet-points into a paragraph or two. However I do believe that the quotations section should be removed. If the quotes are of significance then they could be added into the various sections of the article, rather then clumped together like that. The lead does need a lot of work like I mentioned above, and do please read the WP:MoS if you have not already done so. - Shudda talk 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Metacomment: I see comments but am having a hard time equating them to votes. Should this be archived, and if so, how? --Ling.Nut 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like just one vote for keep and no other votes, it doesn't look like there's a consensus to me, especially because there were plenty of concerns raised. Homestarmy 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks pretty good, but some parts of the bio are one or two sentence paragraphs that could be combined. I dont' know if the bio could be expanded, but any expansion would be helpful I think. It is close though to a GA, just needs soem tweaking. MY "vote" would technically be neutral.--Wizardman 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those book citations don't have page numbers!--Rmky87 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Article has no retrieval dates, is extremely listy towards the end and is full of original research as concerns the style used on each of Mercury's works - all descriptions about style must come from a reputable critic / magazine / paper. LuciferMorgan 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go

Result: 3 to 3, No consensus

The reason for failure for this nomination was that the Article was undercited. It has over 40 citations, and the material in the article is not noticeably challenged by anyone. Therefore, it appears to be material that qualifies as unlikely to be challenged by anyone. Although, I think the citations provided cover all of the claims in the article if they are read. I would appreciate a review of this decision. If reviewers want to challenge sections of the article, please verbosely indicate which sections you challenge, we will provide the references and renominate.--ZincBelief 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had reviewed the article, I would've failed it as its too listy. LuciferMorgan 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see what's wrong with it. Plenty of citations. And while there are lists (mainly in summary-style sections), I think they are appropriate: the lists are coherent and present the information just as well as text does. Regards, The Land 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The first part of the article is good but then there's heaps of one sentence paragraphs and too many lists, thus failing criteria 1. Software assistance contains external jumps, In popular culture contains unreferenced statements of It appearing in TV. Most references are either missing publisher, or date retrieved, and remove the |250px from Image:Go_pros_and_amateurs.jpg, as its currently too big. M3tal H3ad 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution

Result: No Contest

I'm filing this review because this article is on a list of articles that have unclear status, since they often seem to not of been handled correctly when passed or GA/R'ed previously. Plus, someone in the FAC in january brought up concerns which he/she apparently feels make GA status look lousy since this passes, so I figure we might as well make this article's status completely clear. Homestarmy 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria does the article not meet? Or is this a review to rectify the unclear status? LuciferMorgan 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second option, I don't have an opinion at the moment. Homestarmy 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.jpg, needs resizing in the article. LuciferMorgan 00:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLEU

Result: 3 to 1, List as GA

I'm listing this here to get more input. The article was reviewed by User:Anthony cfc, who failed it on the grounds that it did not have any images and "...It seriously violates the standards in Wikipedia Manual of style, in particular .. Jargon..." — I asked for clarification on the jargon point, and pointed out that I wasn't aware of any images that could be added. But I have received no response. I reckon it should be a good article. It is well referenced and complete (there is not a whole lot that can be written about this fairly small metric). Perhaps some background into machine translation evaluation might help? Basically I'm looking for a couple of things that I could do to improve it, but I'm stumped. - Francis Tyers · 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak List Haven't given this a full read, but it certainly doesn't need any images and the only jargon term I could find was unigram. Other than that it seemed a pretty reasonable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 March 2007
  • Pass I don't think images are necessary, at least not to be awarded 'good article status'. The only jargon I could find was n-gram, as posted above by ZincBelief. It's a good article, sources are cited, it is grammatically correct, well structured, broad in its coverage and does not go into excessive detail. --DorisHノート 18:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconvenient Truth

Result: 4 to 1, delist

Similar to the American Revolution review, this one apparently was never listed on the main GA page. I'm bringing it here because it seems somebody tried to veto the passing of this article in what appears to be good faith, yet that was reverted, which isn't really technically against the rules, but since it just seemed so much like the Jyllands Posten review mess, I figured I might as well bring it here so we can decide exactly what to do with this article. Homestarmy 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of one sentence paragraphs need need merging, expanding or removing. Box office contains a few very short paragraphs and the rest of the article is full of lists which should and could be easily converted into some paragraphs. M3tal H3ad 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the reference some are missing publisher, retrieve date, a title, and their access date is messed up on some. M3tal H3ad 00:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the objections standing. The one sentence paragraphs are necessary and do not need merging, expanding, or removing because that is all that is needed to say or quote from the source. Box office covers everything related to the film's reception in the theaters and film festivals it has shown in. And the only lists are those of the Awards, which for most articles are in list form. It's hard to make it into prose form because of the number of awards and that only a few awards really stand out to deserve mention in prose form such as the Academy Awards. Yes the references are not all inthe same format because some have been recently added or those who added it don't know how. As long as there are references cited, I don't see a problem seeing as this is only a GA and not an FA review. Berserkerz Crit 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With one sentence paragraphs it fails criteria 1. M3tal H3ad 10:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And where in Criteria 1 does it state that one sentence paragraph automatically fails an article? Berserkerz Crit 13:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally believe that it does. However, I think the article would be more professional looking if many instances of these one sentence paragraphs were emrged together. I can see several places were that could be done. Overall, it does give the article a bit of a stuttery feel when reading it.--ZincBelief 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. It is well written. If a new paragraph is needed to introduce something new and that paragraph is one sentence i don't believe it is 'well-written'. M3tal H3ad 07:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I wouldn't have passed it, but I can see how others might. Too many choppy sentences/paragraphs and the intro needs significant work. But it is a decent enough article.Balloonman 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "way too listy" part? Do expound and specify, general objections are not helpful. And reference styling is different from editor to editor, though it needs to be uniformed, might I remind you this is GA and not FA. Berserkerz Crit 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using 'this is not a FA process' will not help you. References need a title, publisher, author and date if there is one and date retrieved and should all follow a certain format. References 20 to 29 are formatted correctly where as others are not, we need to know where you got the source from. Change it and many reviewers objection will be obsolete. Political response is just listed, much like a trivia section and should be converted into paragraphs. If the article is full of lists it fails criteria 1., as it is not well written if you need to put all the information in list format. M3tal H3ad 06:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera

Result: 5 to 0, delist

I've just read this article, and it needs a decent amount of work to get back to GA status, especially with referencing. "Cite sources for the article" should generally not be an item in the to-do list of a GA. Aside from the copyright issues with the images (which I brought up at the talk page), here are some of my concerns:

  • For an article of 50kb, there should be at least three paragraphs for the lead.
  • There are insufficient references in the "Early life and career" section.
  • The names of notes are not properly formatted (they should be in scientific pitch notation.
  • There are unsourced sales figures all over the place.
  • There are uncited quotations (ex. "sounded 20", "reflection of her darker self").
  • Weasel words: "many of her fans believe".
  • Several external jumps.
  • There's a list of her "other" albums but not the studio albums.
  • The Grammy Award history has a very POV layout.
  • The references are improperly formatted; many lack retrieval dates.
  • General copyediting problems (ex. "The Album has sold 2.1 million copies worldwide and has been certified Gold(500,000)", "Mi Reflejo on September 12, 2000 [not linked]").

ShadowHalo 08:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sales figures alone warrant a delisting as it makes they are constantly unstable make make any section or paragraph look like bunkum. The lead used to be 3 paragraphs (as refrenced at simple:Christina Aguilera, but some editor said it was too redundant and shortened it to two. Early life and career is sufficiently sourced in my opinion, it is insufficiently covered. The uncited quotations are worrysome. Come to think about it, I'm delisting it (sad enough, I was the one who made it GA in the first place). --wL<speak·check> updated 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Thailand

Result: 5 to 0, delist

Warned by Agne last September about inline citations. Also pretty brief and contains external jumps. Teemu08 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snaefell Mountain Railway

Result: 3 to 0, delist (speedy)

Warned by me on the article's talk page in December 2006 regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen

Result: 4 to 0, delist

Warned by The Bethling last September about inline citations. Also concentrates too much on American kitchens. Teemu08 00:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, speedy if possible, first reference is German and thus inaccessable to the vast majority of English readers here on the English Wikipedia, and second references are just two collections from, as far as I know, arbitrarily chosen architect students. I don't think that's really representative of good references. Homestarmy 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to lack of inline citations. LuciferMorgan 11:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to lack of worldwide persepctive, though it is good on the history of some kitchens. Also, angle of article is wrong. It should start from the etymology and history of the word, and recognise that many other terms apart from "kitchen" are and have been used to refer to areas where food is prepared. Carcharoth 23:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this article should really be at something like History of cooking, which in turn should be a subarticle of Cooking. Carcharoth 23:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300 (film)

Result: 6 to 0, delist

Does not meet the stability criteria due to recent revert-warring based on the sensitive content of the film's controversy. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spore (video game)

I'm listing this here because the review failed the article on criteria entirely outside the scope of the Good Article process: unreleased products may still have good articles written about them; a lack of a review section is appropriate for an unreleased game; also, a lack of criticisms section does not mean an article is necessarily POV. None of the issues raised should fail the article on any of the GA criteria, in my opinion. --163.1.165.116 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse failure: No possible way this article could be considered stable, which means it fails GA criteria #5. Yeah it may be a decent article, it could possibly even pass the other criteria, but because the game is unreleased the article will be added to in the near future, substantially, which means the new version may or may not meet the criteria. Stability is a sufficient reason to fail an article. Suggest bringing it back once the game is actually released. IvoShandor 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The game is not due for release until "Septemberish", so it is unlikely to undergo significant day to day change any time soon. The GA criterion specifically states: "i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.". The article is not subject to this. --163.1.165.116 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Septemberish doesn't sound very sure. I have also heard, Mayish, Juneish, Julyish, etc etc . . . IvoShandor 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also if we are going to invoke the criteria word for word, it will change significantly from one day to another when it is released. That technically could be considered day to day, but this article may not pass the thoroughness criteria either. While not as strict as FA an article should cover all major aspects of a topic, a major aspect of a video game would be its release and reception. IvoShandor 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured it's not going to be any time soon. There is no concrete release date, but the last thing Will Wright said, was "Septemberish". If at some point it later fails GA for undergoing a large change (unlikely for at least four or five months) then it can be delisted. It certainly doesn't fail on criterion 5. I checked out your application of criterion 5 and I don't see why you wouldn't pass it based on this. --163.1.165.116 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the top of that page subject to my whims. I don't think this meets the criteria. Sorry. IvoShandor 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A recent diff [3] does seem to show signs of instability, and considering how much speculation seems to be in the article and the recent announced due date, I am inclined to think the reviewer was correct in his decision, wait until after its released I say. Endorse failure. Homestarmy 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fifty revisions over the course of a fairly long time, with a bunch of reversions because people can't read the talk page isn't "instability". --163.1.165.116 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, the large red blocks are people putting spaces between paragraphs or switching them between sections (as noted on the talk page). --163.1.165.116 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I admit, when on Wikipedia time can sure slow down when there's a bunch of stuff to do, the timespan on this diff is a mere four days. I know some of the blocks are people putting spaces, but one of the paragraphs was compleatly re-written, and it appeared several important facts near the beginning were being updated. And, once again, the speculative language in many sections is problematic, many of the phase sections admit that information is not available on certain things, the terraform and galatic phase section is still in list format, and it seems clear from the Expanded Universe section that there will be large changes in the future. Why do you think this article still should be listed as a GA after all of this? Homestarmy 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point about speculative language is noted - it's always going to be a problem where there is a lack of information. However, the reason I consider this to still be a GA candidate in the face of less information than will be included in the full game is largely because none of that information is going to be available for some time now. I could give the example of the page Tony Blair, a featured article. That could well be up for change at any time soon, given the current political climate. However, with the information it has at present, it still passes every FA criterion. Perhaps there could be better analogies, but the point I'm trying to get across is that I don't believe that a change which is likely not to occur for about half a year should cause the article to fail as being unstable. I'd like to return to the wording: "i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars." - I see this as being specifically designed to cater for articles like Spore (video game) which does not undergo large day-to-da changes. If people still believe that a potential change in the far future should cause failure on #5, then I suggest that the criterion be amended to note this, as I would not have submitted the article had I not thought that it would pass all the criteria. I hope that helps to explain my point. --163.1.165.116 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if the article passes every FA critera, you should try a peer review, GA isn't a necessary step to FA status, and peer review's often catch things that are necessary for FA status better than GA reviews. However, with the article already filled with information on the game prior to its release, why won't much more information come into the article much earlier than when the game really is released? Homestarmy 12:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not to say it's not a "good" article in other aspects of the word, I have read it. IvoShandor 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw three non-vandalism reversions in the recent history, all concerning the release date. IvoShandor 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is annoying. Unfortunately, these are mostly anon. editors who swing by trying to be helpful, but neither read the notes in the article commented out around the release date section nor the talk page. Not exactly an edit war, merely a revert to preserve accuracy in the face of misguided contributions. Hope that makes sense in the context of the article. --163.1.165.116 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there isn't even a set release date already tells me that this article isn't stable. Also when its released lots of information about reviews will be added and who knows how that will affect the article. I still stand by my original decision not to list it and I'm not changing my mind. Tarret 23:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse failure In addition to stability issues, I don't find the article particularly well-written. There are tons of one-sentence paragraphs (for example, the "Release" section contains thirteen sentences split into seven paragraphs), short sections, and a big list within "Terraform and galactic phases". Also, while this on its own won't fail an article's GA candidacy, all of the images are fair use when at least a couple of free use photos (i.e. a picture of Wright, or an image from an E3 or GDC presentation) could be used, and I don't like the image captions at all- two of them use SporeWiki as a source, quoting unnamed personnel (meaning that these quotes may never have been said). -- Kicking222 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Passes every FA criteria?, it's always the ones who say that who are wrong. External jumps in the image captions, lots of one sentence paragraphs and a list section violating 1a, references come after punctuation, some references are just blue urls and are missing titles, publisher, date accessed etc etc. M3tal H3ad 12:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to the two above users. Now we actually have something concrete to work with, and some decent reasons (instead of "lol article dont have no criticism lol"). I'll post those to the cleanup taskforce subpage. Thanks again. --84.71.123.157 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse failure Issues haven't been addressed. M3tal H3ad 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

Result: Erm, its kind of 1 to 1ish, no consensus

I passed this article after failing it once. The concerns were addressed, yet it was delisted (not following any procedure but the user's own I might add) shortly after I passed it. Thought I would post it here to get some other opinion. May have possibly been delisted by a POV pusher, not quite sure. Need more input here. IvoShandor 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the user has asserted that I said he had no right to delist it, I will emphasize that I said "possible" and "not quite sure." I think the editor's here need an accurate assessment of what my interpretation is, why I listed it here. If that upsets you, sorry, not my intention. IvoShandor 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I now endorse delist as this article is unstable and likely to now be the subject of edit warring. I however do not support the delist for the reasons delisted, just as a note. IvoShandor 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May want to take a look at the talk page for anyone looking at this. IvoShandor 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change position: to Neutral.IvoShandor 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted the article. It has been delisted by a signle POV pusher - this is not a valid procedure. Until a consensus at GAR is reached to delist it, it should be listed. Also, note that one and only one user is claiming POVness and disputing the GA status, and reviewers at WPMILHIST suggest A-class review for even a higher quality rank. Several editors spend months improving this to GA, a single user who has not contributed almost anything to the article should not be able to block the quality assessment of the article if there is consensus againt him.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear you resorting to name-calling Piotrus. Anyway, the objections to all concerned parties are explained at talk. The article fails GA by multiple criteria but I will now try to improve it. Until then, your repeated reattachment for the label would be perceived as a dirty trick. --Irpen 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What name calling? Do you deny you are pushing a certain POV - just as I am? We are all POV pushers, Irpen, and in this particular case it is very visible we are both POVed. Several neutral editors have reviewed this article and found no POV. Until there is consensus on GAR that this article is not GA-worthy (read: a consensus contrary to the current consensus it is GA-worthy), your repeated removal of the label would be perceived as a dirty trick. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, the GA label was attached not trhough a concensus but through an agreement of just two editors and was possible only because I missed your attempt to drag the POV-inflammatory article to a GA status immediately after it failed the nomination. I just keep getting things from you that I do not expect despite my thinking that I know you well enough. Once I started editing the article, you immediately transferred your revert warring from the article's talk to the article itself. I can't work like this. Not until you calm down. I am POV-tagging the article again and will return to it only when my attempts to edit it will not be subjected to your attacks. --Irpen 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA label was attached in due process. Even better - usually it just takes one editor, here two reviewers agreed. Your accusations that I somehow prevent you from editing, coupled with your ranting about POV of this article for months - but still failing to provide a single reference to back up your view - are the only thing that is disrupting this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was attached in due process, I had no interaction with this user or the article before I grabbed it off the GAC page. Just FYI. Veiled accusations of collusion are unappreciated and unhelpful. IvoShandor 13:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....Ooookay, I don't think we need all this fighting to figure this out folks. The person who speedy failed the article didn't include anything in their note to justify why the article didn't live up to GA standards, though I suppose one could go all hyper-technical and argue that he was merely using the original reviewer's explanation. However, since he didn't actually justify his position at first, I do think that it probably wasn't a very well-planned fail. But irregardless of all that, we're here now, and one way or another, we'll get to the bottom of this i'd hope, so I don't think there's a need for all the fighting. I'm inclined to think that an edit war caused specifically by the GA review and subsequent delisting is definently a WP:IAR moment, attempts to bring an article up to GA standards actually causing it to fail GA standards is a paradox I know I don't want to deal with, and i'd hope other people don't want to deal with it either, improving an article really shouldn't be grounds for not letting it be a Good Article in and of itself in my opinion. Just for the sake of helping this review along, I think it would be helpul if Irpen's justification for his fail (which he says he gave on the article talk) was copied here in some form so people who may want to comment don't have to go hunting for it. Homestarmy 23:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just off-hand, the second paragraph in the lead could probably do with some shortening, the article overall is pretty short, and the lead just needs to be a summary, not anything too amazingly detailed. Homestarmy 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Irpen's many-months long argument about this article being POVed boils down to 1) the title with the word invasion is POVed (despite being used by many academic sources) and 2) the article is 'Polish propaganda', portaying Poles as good and Soviets as bad (unfortunatly he fails to provide any more specific claims and/or any sources other than his POV). Such objections are unacctionable, and coupled with the fact that no other neutral reviewers pointed out to POV issues, I believe Irpen objections should be discarded.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the WP:LEAD could/should be trimmed down, as Homestarmy suggested. But after reading the article and plowing thru the talk page, I was not able to pick out any substantive arguments against the article. The only possibility is NPOV. I am not a histbuff so can't make judgments on that score. But I read the MILHIST review too, and it didn't seem to set off any alarms there. I'm not seeing any substantive probs. BTW, to the reviewer who just removed the over-long Molotov quote:Thank you! --Ling.Nut 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section contains my original review and, under Concerns addressed? Irpen provides reasoning. IvoShandor 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning is provided through the first GA fail Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#GA_nomination which looks like it was by Irpen. IvoShandor 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Henn

Result: Failure endorsed. I'm not sure why this article didn't pass the good article criteria, as I believe it meets all of them. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the prose style. However, it obeys NPOV, it is referenced, and the material covered is comprehensive.--ZincBelief 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it stubby where its split into sections to be honest, and as a result disjointed. Eg. the "Legacy" section is only a single sentence. I endorse failure. LuciferMorgan 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that anywhere... Seventy dot 03:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new, but according to the Good Article Criteria, this article passes. Seventy ... dot ... 13:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
struckout comments made by proven sockpuppet of blocked user User:Auroranorth. —Moondyne 05:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Failure Has wikilinks in titles, See Also comes before references, solo years are linked, references come after punctuation with no space, one sentence paragraphs and a one sentence section, not "well-written". M3tal H3ad 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oregon State University alumni

Result: Counting the original remover, 3 to 1, keep delisted.

This was removed as a GA (which it has been for nearly a year now) simply because it is a list. While lists may not be accepted as GA's now, at the time they were accepted and this list has nothing but improved since being a GA. I don't feel this should be delisted simply because lists are no longer accepted to be reviewed as GA's. This isn't ready to be nominated as a featured list yet as there are too many redlinks and there are still a few entries without sources, but I do believe this still meets GA standards, even if it is a list. I'll also take this opportunity to ask for any improvements people think this list could use as to better be prepared for a featured list nomination. VegaDark 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_review/Archive_15&oldid=1136454693"