Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

The Good article review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if Good article listed articles still merits their good article status, contesting former GA's that someone may think was improperly delisted, or request feedback on articles that have not yet been promoted. Articles on this list are graded against the good article criteria in which an article is checked to be at the GA-Class grade on the article assessment scale. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the article's status. This is not a Peer Review Process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer Review.

If you believe an article should be delisted If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it: Check that you have logged in, anons may not delist articles. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself. If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s). If possible, put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the criteria, you can delist it and remove it from the list at WP:GA immediately. To do this remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA|31 May 2024}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and decrement the good article count. If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please check that you have logged in, notify the editors in the article's talk page that it is under review, and provide a link to the GA Review page before listing the article here.

If you believe an article should be listed If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfill all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be listed as a Good Article.

Good article review (archive)

(Latest) →

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Include [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] in the section heading.

I Not Stupid

Several comments Jayron32 posted at I Not Stupid's peer review contradict ExplorerCDT's reasons for failing the article. As ExplorerCDT has not edited since 8 February 2007, I did not contact him.

For example, regarding the prose, ExplorerCDT commented: "[It's] not the best it could be. 5 on a 0 (terribly written) to 10 (well written) scale. Too many two-sentence paragraphs, short sections...". However, Jayron32 commented that "GA's [sic] require correct grammar, spelling, and no overt violations of the Manual of Style with regard to article organization. FA's [sic] require brilliant, compelling prose, with a strict adherance to ALL aspects of the MOS. Thus, GA's [sic] may be passed with less stringent requirements on the quality of writing."

Regarding broad coverage, ExplorerCDT commented: "[The article offers] only a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms [sic] Singapore's education system. Does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices, omits a few important themes of the movie." In contrast, Jayron32 commented that "GA's [sic] require only "broad" coverage while FA's [sic] require "comprehensive" coverage; thus GA status may be accorded to articles that are often far too short to be considered Featurable."

Who is correct - Jayron32 or ExplorerCDT? Since both are likely to be correct to a certain extent, who is more correct? Based on who is more correct, to what extent does I Not Stupid meet the GA criteria for prose and broad coverage? Completely, nearly, or way off? Note that ExplorerCDT raised concerns over images, which were not rebutted by Jayron32, so even if Jayron32 is deemed correct on both counts, I Not Stupid would still not meet the GA criteria until the issues with images are addressed. In the peer review, I requested advice on how to address the concerns with images, but to date, I have not received any such advice - could someone post such advice at the peer review?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Brian Adams (wrestler)

I quick failed this per the GA review of the Undertaker article. The editor has complained repeatedly on my talk page so I'm putting it here. Basically, the entire article presents his fictional career as a wrestler as a biography, (see WP:WAF). There's no information about his early life, personal life, contracts, motivations behind why he did anything, girlfriends, wives (is he married?), education, where he lived. Basically he was born, he started wrestling, then he stopped wrestling. His fictional career as a wrestler is presented as a biography, although there is ome out-of-universe perspective and its not as bad as the Undertaker, his wrestling career is written largely from an in-universe perspective and the sources are deficient (IMDb.com is used for biographical details and WWE.com, which treats the info from an in-universe perspective is used for all the matches).

For instance, instead of saying "x punched y because y punched x's girlfriend." A wrestling article should say, "McMahon felt x had the charisma to be a champion and so he scripted in scenarios which portrayed him as the hero, while y, who McMahon felt was only suited to be a villain due to his lack of charisma, was scripted to be x's foil and often did things such as punch women, steal, and lie. Y often complained to McMahon about the limitations he imposed on his character. Y felt he could be a charismatic champion, and ten minutes before his bout with x, y nearly refused to go on stage because he was scripted to lose." I'm not saying the whole article should be like this but it should contain more sources that explain why things happened. Unfortunately, these do not exist except is some rare cases. I looked over a couple of wrestling articles today and Montreal screwjob is a decent example, it's not great but a lot of it is written in a correct perspective. Quadzilla99 00:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the editor who didn't like this article being delisted has a very good explanation for this articles lack of information on his non-wrestling related activities, then Delist, it is nowhere near broad enough for GA status. Homestarmy 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was never up for delisting, I put it for GA Review (not FA Review there is a VAST difference between the two, though it seems sometimes people forget that). The reviewer, stated that the article "quick failed" review based on the Undertaker GA delist review. My "complaining" on his talk page was asking him nicely (4 different times) to explain to me what part of the quick fail criteria the article failed (I did express a little frustration and unhappiness about his objectiveness in my last reply, but I was still very civil). He NEVER ONCE gave an answer or even hinted at any type of an answer to my question on the quick fail; he didn't even refuse to answer the question, he just acted like I never asked him. I've never contented that the article was 100% GA material or that it wasn't able to fail review (though I think it's at least close to passing or I wouldn't have submitted it), I only asked on how to improve the article and why it quick failed. Again, I NEVER received, and the reviewer never gave, an answer on why he quick failed it.

The reviewer keeps saying (on my talk page and now here) that I used IMDb.com and WWE.com as main sources for the article when they were backup sources verifying other information already found in other sources...and even if they are the only source for match outcomes, what better source to use than the organization that put on the match and announces the official decision? Out of 42 total reference citations in the article, only 11 of them are from the two sources he is concerned about, and out of those 11 only 3 of them where not sourced (or able to be sourced) elsewhere (five were match results)...that is hardly the majority of the references used.

The reviewer never mentioned, until his last substantive response to me (his last response only said he was putting it up for review himself), that there were gaps in information in the article. I do see and acknowledge that there is little information outside of his career included in the article, and that is due to the fact that the information can not be substantiated by a source that would pass WP:RS, and rather than including unsourced info I didn't include the info (wrestling articles seem to be one of the most critiqued type of article on wikipedia and stuff that isn't required to have citations in a non-wrestling article is required in a wrestling article...but I digress). So, should I include the info without sources (which is allowable for info not likely to be challenged in a GA article) or leave the info out? I know the right answer, WP:IAR would tell me to put the info there without the sources, but other people on Wikipedia will not allow that for a wrestling article...but I again digress.

I don't know how bringing this article here will tell me why the reviewer quick failed the article...but at this point...I just about don't care anymore...it's not worth getting mad about. Maybe if I'm lucky this process will actually give me something to go on to improve this article so I can move on to other wrestling articles that desperately need improving. - Theophilus75 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A complete archive of our discussion about the GA Review can be found at User:Theophilus75/adams discussion. - Theophilus75 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave you several answers, you just refused to accept them. Lets' just let others comment that's why I brought it here. Quadzilla99 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, Theophilus's explanation, if its true, does sound like a very good reason for this article to not have key biographical information in it, if the information simply isn't there to be verified, then that's that. I'll look at this discussion though to see what else is in it. Homestarmy 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse failure Ignoring the arguments between the two parties and looking at the article itself. The Lead is not an adequate summary, the article is not comprehensive given it focuses solely on his wrestling career, there's unencyclopedic language in there ("gimmick", "and Vega were kicked out the group", should be "of the group" but still kicked out is not encyclopedic), grammar is weak (use of the clunky "would be" construction), "Wrestling facts" looks like a trivia section, a lot of it is written in-universe, and the sources aren't up to snuff. Aaron Bowen 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1973 oil crisis

Has several [citation needed] tags in the article, and some sections have no inline references at all. Promoted as GA in 2005, btw. Delist. -Malkinann 11:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Delist MrZaius^talk 13:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Little discussion of the developing world and the embargo's impact on countries outside of Western Europe and North America.
• References - Several sections completely unreferenced - 12 references for ~16 sections, discounting refs/see also/ext links. Low frequency of refs for even the referenced sections.
• OAPEC or OPEC? - Need expansion and clarification of leadup and which organizations took part and which countries tried to stay out of it, which non-members, if any, might have helped.
• End of the embargo - Could use a clearer explanation of how/when/why the embargo ended.

• Delist 1c, not enough sources. Also, needs some work on WP:DATE dates aren't wikified and some end in -th (on October 16th, 1973). Good informative article overall though just need some work. Aaron Bowen 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs

• Comments on WP:GAC are over a week old. Tried to contact the reviewer. Am concerned the page will languish on GAC interminably, since other reviewers will assume someone has taken responsibility for it.
• There are comments by the reviewer on the article's talk page. Originally I agreed, but now think the article is ship-shape for WP:GA.
• Thanks Ling.Nut 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed the "undecided" comment from the GA/N page. I also left a message on the talk page of the "reviewer" to let him/her know that is not acceptable. The article should get picked up by a reviewer soon. There is quite a backlog, but we're working on it. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

previous GA/R

Lead is too long, given the amount of time the article's editors have had to fix this issue since it was last raised. Removing extraneous text is simple and this article has been like it for what I would say was an unacceptable time-span for how long an article should be allowed to sit with issues before being delisted (2 months, anyone?).

I personally feel the article's main editor (UberCryxic) is resisting all change other than he himself makes, whilst this is... unhelpful, I don't (to be honest) care. The fact (and my only grievance) is it makes the article non-GA worthy in this case. The editor seems to be charged with a polarised viewpoint and it shows in the current version of the article.

The GA approved version: [1] and the current: [2]. Is this article GA status? I don't feel it has that neutral quality it once possessed, it's got too many album covers and other non-free images. It sucks.

Personal attempts to shrink the lead/effect basic changes due to lack of attribution for the claims made were reverted by the main current contributor (UberCryxic)[3] (note how this reversion of his reintroduces completely unsourced libel material about him being a part of a circuit involving prostitutes that has no source). Previous attempts to delist article (by another editor) were also stonewalled by by the same contributor "discussion closed in next edit with comment "Michael Jackson - Archiving Michael Jackson: Current discussion shows no hope of consensus. Vote is 5-4 after SIX weeks of discussion. Maintain status quo (keep).)".

The version actually given GA status [4] is nothing like this version either (notice the much shorter, definately more neutral lead - although that article also does not meet GA status requirements). The majority of editors to that version appear to have left editing duties of the article after UberCryxic joined.

Homestarmy, Nehrams2020, Quadzilla99 and LaraLove all pointed out the overlength of the lead in the previous review. This was not rectified. I previously ceased editing May 06 - May 07, on the basis I would make an more balanced attempt to take wikipedia forward on my return. This article has actually gone backwards in that time (unlike my favorite band article, Megadeth). I think we should revert to the GA status version of November linked to previously within my statement, although I would still advocate its delisting in that case until it really does meet the criteria which the November version also did not. That is not a condition of delisting (as if I am in a position to dictate, or to care to), although if you would support that move I'd ask that you state it, so we're in the clear, consensus wise on my idea to perhaps move forwards (even if it does seem like moving backwards). --Manboobies 23:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article just finished a GA review, no less than two weeks or so ago I believe. The result was to keep its GA status. As such, this second effort so quickly is completely null and void. Wait a few more months, preferrably three or four, before you renominate so as to give the editors a good opportunity to grapple with the issues raised in the previous nomination.UberCryxic 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Man's proposel isn't about delisting or keeping as much as it is proposing to revert this article to an earlier form. Homestarmy 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then that particular request should have been made in the talk page of the article, which is what I suggested to the user. Everything aside, however, this article simply should not be here at this moment; that is, undergoing a GA review.UberCryxic 02:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all not mentioning the fact that the original version that was promoted to GA status was quite atrocious, stylistically, encyclopedically, and in every other way. Ample evidence can be found in the archives of the talk page detailing the reasons for the changes. The original version became a GA article because of copious citations, but little else.UberCryxic 02:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think we should revert to the GA status version of November linked to previously within my statement, although I would still advocate its delisting in that case until it really does meet the criteria which the November version also did not" as you can see I clearly said that it should be delisted and reverted. Not that it should be just reverted. Is anyone here reading other people's comments fully?--Manboobies 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment While I too think the lead is laughably overlong, this article really shouldn't be here for the reasons Uber stated. I've never liked the idea of blanket reverting back to another version it basically undoes all the work people have done to an article over a course of time and is disrespectful in my view, it's like saying "Sorry but all your work was useless". Quadzilla99 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Quadzilla99. If this is not about delisting the article, as you state, then this is not the place for it. I would have liked to have seen this brought up on the talk page, discussing your opinions and remedies, before bringing it to here. I also feel that more time should be given before resubmitting it to a GAR. --MPD ^{T / C} 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I see no reason NOT to have another GA review, since the result of the last review was NOT "consensus keep". It was kept as a default. There was NO CONSENSUS, which is not the same as a "keep". The result was keep, but the discussion was deadlocked and thus closed and kept by default; not because there was a consensus that the article was GA quality. I am voting to Delist myself, for the following reasons:
  • Lead isn't well written. There shouldn't be new information in the lead, which is not covered elsewhere in the article, and this one has MUCH of that. The lead isn't really a summary.
  • As long as it is, the referencing is spotty in places, for example:
    • Most of 1958–1979: Early life and career
    • The last paragraph of 1979–1982: Off the Wall era
    • The first paragraph of 1982–1986: Thriller era
    • The second paragraph of 1991–1994: Dangerous era
    • The second paragraph of 1995–2000: HIStory era and Blood on the Dance Floor
    • Several paragraphs of 2001–2003: Invincible era (there's even a citation needed tag)
  • As a whole, the article is QUITE bloated. Much of the information on individual albums should be confined to the ALBUM articles rather than the ARTIST article. Plus, the organization is hard to follow as it doesn't really segregate his personal life from his professional one; they are really two narratives that need to be told separately and the way this article is organized makes it hard to follow. The way it jumps from paragraph to paragraph intertwining album and song reviews with personal life story makes it difficult for the reader to parse.
  • The image in the lead MAY be a problem, since it is NOT the image made by the US government. It is a derivative image, edited from a US government work, and I am not sure how it works. Its inclusion MAY be kosher, but the liscencing tag implies that THIS image is a work of the federal gov't. It isn't. The images was created by someone else by modifying the work of the gov't, and thus is the work of THAT person. Something needs clearing up to make that more clear.

Those are the reasons that I vote to delist it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayron, your initial argument is absolutely irrelevant. Even if you try to sugarcoat the result as "no consensus" or whatever, you're still left with the fact that....there was no consensus. In light of that fact, it is best to wait some time before making such a quick renomination. We are all more than happy to consider all of your points and those of Manboobies, but in the talk page of the article, not in a hasty and inappropriate GA review.UberCryxic 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

His initial comment is more than relevant. You are stonewalling any changes you do not want made and using the "I need more time" excuse to perpetuate a rubbish article as one of our best. It needs delisting. Also, please do not contact me on my talk page to give the mistaken idea we are communicating saliently on this one. You are reverting any changes I make, and this article sucks, it needs delisting, and reverting. --Manboobies 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And for something else: we can actually use this "GA review" as a vehicle for improving the article (kind of like a peer review), but bear in mind that there will be no such things as votes or what have you. It's too soon for that. The votes have no authority with this GA review because its very existence is faulty and misguided.UberCryxic 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, so your arguement is "No one has to listen to you because you lost last time..." Nice attitude. I am sorry you are not interested in seeking the honest opinions of GA reviewers, and instead are only looking to "Win" something. It is my honest opinion that this is NOT a Good Article, and it does NOT belong on the GA list as is, since it violates WP:WIAGA. These violations exist irregardless of prior votes on this. If you wish to improve this article to GA status, please do so, and I will be glad to endorse this as a GA when the time comes, but it is my honest opinion that this article should NOT be listed as a GA in the state that it is in. It's isn't about "winning". Its about the fact that having substandard articles on the list degrades the entire project, and that can't be tolerated, if only to say "I won this battle two weeks ago, so we must wait longer before we have it again." There are concrete reasons why this article should not be a GA; there are fixes that need to be made to get it there, I have listed many above. The problems are not minor, they are legion, and I see no reason to keep this substandard article around simply because there was a deadlocked vote two weeks ago. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please no strawmen arguments. Don't try to get an upper hand in this process by throwing around wild claims. I am more than willing to seriously consider a GA review at the appropriate time. Now is clearly not the appropriate time. It is a long-standing tradition in Wikipedia that if something fails to gain consensus, it is best to wait some time before making another major push. In fact, I would just like to direct your attention to this article's FA nominations (the third one is here). After a fairly quick renomination, some reviewers explicitly told the nominating user that more time has to be allotted to address the concerns that were raised in the previous discussions. The same thing has to happen here now. We can't just have a GA review two weeks after we closed a fairly thorough one. What is all this stuff about "winning"? Please leave that out of here. It has nothing to do with improving the article or the arguments that you and I are making towards that end. I am more than happy to address all of these concerns in the talk page, not in a misguided GA review.UberCryxic 03:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as you can see in the talk page of the nominator, despite reminding the user that many of these claims have been thoroughly addressed before, I still treat them as "very legitimate." I am not trying to dismiss anything. This is just the wrong method to go about improving the article. That's essentially all I'm arguing, as are several others.UberCryxic 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I was jumping to conclusions about your motives, and I appreciate that you want this article improved. I was wrong to make it appear as though you were making arguements when you weren't. Please accept my humble apology. I still feel that the article needs some serious work, and I hope you take my above suggestions to heart and use them to help improve the article. If you would like, please paste them (or I can) to the talk page if you feel that is more appropriate. I want to see this article improved, and I am sorry that I made it seem that you had motives that you did not. It was inexcusable for me to do so, and I offer no explanation beyond my apology. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. No harsh feelings and apology accepted. Process is very important though, especially in Wikipedia. We should give your recommendations, and that of every other person here, every ounce of effort once this GA review closes, and yes posting them in the talk page would be best. Right now, this review itself is the cloud hanging over the actual improvement of the article, amazingly ironic since improving the article is precisely what it's trying to do....it's just going about it the wrong way.UberCryxic 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware (for the general audience, although Uber almost certainly knows):

• It did not pass the last GA review. It failed to recieve enough support either way. It was a defacto pass by total lack of consensus, as the editor who removed the article summarised in his close-of-discussion post.
• I and many others had no say in the previous GA review, and I consider the complete lack of wider feedback inappropriate (you and a couple of other regular editors doesn't cut it).
• This article does not represent our best. It needs to go from the list. You are delaying the inevitable. You had 6 WEEKS to improve the article while that GA review discussion went on and you argued incessantly with everyone and did nothing of the sort that would improve it.
• You are doing your best to insist that the GA review will not reach a consensus because you say it won't. I refuse on this one. This article will be removed from GA status. You refuse to allow me to improve it, reverting my edits.
• I am making requests for editors because I feel we need neutral opinion. You posted on each one of my requests for outside users that: "users should be aware that the above GA review is meaningless. This article just passed a GA review about two weeks ago. It should not have been renominated so quickly. The current review will have no impact upon the article and, although we do appreciate the interest, you are encouraged to ignore it." You basically told potential reviewers that their views would not matter and procedure means nothing. Where are you pulling this from? You know for a fact that if enough people say this article should be removed from GA status it will no matter what time span and you are trying to delay the inevitable.
• "It is a long-standing tradition in Wikipedia that if something fails to gain consensus, it is best to wait some time before making another major push" Traditions mean nothing, this is wikipedia, and I choose to IGNORE ALL RULES on this one, which is policy. This isn't even a rule. Tradition is not policy. You are severely mistaken.--Manboobies 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A majority of those involved in the last GA review voted to keep this article's status. The user's characterization of what happened at the last review is completely incorrect as most of those who participated shared my opinions. Refer to what I told Jayron above; the lack of consensus, especially such a strong lack of consensus, is a good enough reason to wait some time before attempting something major with this article. We've already had neutral opinions before and we reached no definitive conclusions. Again, have some patience on this one. We can revisit the issue later, but even better, we can revisit the issues right now in the talk page, not here. It does not matter that you specifically were not here. There was plenty of feedback from others; many people participated in that GA review. It also does not matter that you refuse to believe what I'm saying; GA reviews are not bestowed with power and authority simply because someone creates them. This review has no legitimacy whatsoever. Furthermore, as was stated before, you are hurting your own cause it seems. We can talk about all of this in the talk page of the article. There is no need to heighten tensions by creating an unnecessary GA review and imposing loose time limits and forcing an issue at an uncomfortable moment.UberCryxic 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken:

• Everyone has commented the lead is too long.
• Everyone has pointed out the unsourced information.
• Everyone agrees on those two points bar you. That is consensus. Previously you drew it out for 6 WEEKS with another user who has now been banned for abuse.

These points make this article non-GA worthy, and it should be delisted. --Manboobies 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally I have struck through the text from you implying I have given this a time limit. There is no time limit for discussion. I have said repeatedly now is a perfect time. It is you who said on my talk page we should wait until August.--Manboobies 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not mistaken at all, and I can easily show why. Let's roll through these statements one by one, shall we? Ok. You stated, "everyone has commented the lead is too long." That's plainly absurd. Go here to see the last GA review of this article. First of all, there were four delists (one "weak") and five keeps. Let's just make certain we understand that. Secondly, plenty of people commented that they were happy with the lead. Some of those who voted keep made statements like "the lead gives me a good summary of the article" and "The problem seems to be the lead for most delisters. Note that the article is over 100k, meaning that the four-paragraph lead really isn't too long given the article's size." The person who made the latter comment is, of course, absolutely right. This is a long article and almost demands a relatively long lead (relative to other articles, that is).

I thoroughly addressed the arguments of people who wanted to trim the lead and I even complied partially, eliminating a lengthy quotation. As I explained to the main protagonist pushing for a shorter lead, however, the length of the Michael Jackson lead was not that much bigger than the length of the lead of the Michael Jordan article, an article that the user had recently taken to FA status. Instead of attacking me for not paying attention or something to that effect, I sincerely urge you to review my arguments against your position, which are quite detailed. Nevertheless, the point is that not everyone disliked the lead, so your assertion up there is completely false.

You then stated that "everyone" is attacking the "unsourced" information. Generally, they are not. You are the only one doing that. Know why? Because this article is heavily cited, and one could even successfully argue it's overly cited in some parts. One of the people in the review stated the following, also in relation to the lead: "I think it could be trimed down though [the lead], and leads generally shouldn't need that many references." Once again, your suppositions above are highly incorrect. Just out of curiosity: did you read what people wrote in the last GA review?

Your characterization of my interactions with the banned user are also vastly exaggerated. We talked for one or two days; that's it. That person was then banned and could no longer participate. Where did you get 6 weeks from? I don't want to insinuate anything, but again: did you look at the GA review? Just as many people came down on my side as did against (4). When the Supreme Court hands down a 5-4 decision on a controversial issue, it doesn't take up the matter two weeks later. The analogy has flaws for obvious reasons, but the larger point remains: a GA review now is the wrong thing at the wrong time for this article. Your concerns would be much better served in the talk page, and there only.UberCryxic 03:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Can we please not do this again? This is the second time a GA/R on this article has gotten out of hand to ridiculous proportions. So everyone is clear:
  • The last result was 4 regular reviewers voting for delist, plus the delist recommendation of the nomination. Then we have UberCryxic's keep vote, and four additional keep votes from users who (disclaimer as best I can tell) did not previously and have not since voted in GA/Rs.
  • The review ran from 28 March to 11 May. So, as stated above, about six weeks.
  • Past that, the issues addressed, as stated above, have not been sufficiently addressed.
  • I have left a lengthy list of changes that need to be made from what I have read of just the first part of the article and the references section (which I didn't get very deep into, either). I plan to review it further when I have more time. My basic issues are as follows:
    • The lead is too long and the length of the article, as I stated in the first GA/R, does not justify it considering it, too, is too long. WP:LENGTH states that articles over 100KB (which this one is) should be divided. Although this article is divided (with every section in the first half having it's own main article), it has not be sufficiently trimmed.
    • The article is not sufficiently or accurately wikified. It does not follow WP:MOS#Wikilinking standards nor those of the more specific wikilinking guidelines.
    • There are several issues with prose.
    • Referencing is inadequate. There are many statements/claims that require citation.
    • Referencing is also inconsistent. Some statements of a certain topic (i.e. chart positions, award wins, etc.) are referenced while others are not.
    • References are not accurately formatted and several lack all information. Many are missing credit to the author and date of publishing. Many work fields have been inaccurately filled (wrong capitalization, lack of wikification).
• I'll add additional issues as I find them. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 06:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify for those reading this: please refer to Lara's talk page and read my explanation regarding the user whose comments I crossed out. On the lead: for the article as it is, the lead does a very good job at summarizing the subject. Lara posits that there is "too much detail" but offers no specifics. The lead does perhaps the main thing that a good lead should do: explain the significance of the subject. Bear in mind that Michael Jackson is a living person, so unfortunately many of these supposed problems (especially relating to length), but some actual problems too, will persist until after he dies. Beyond this, I largely agree with Lara's other comments. This article has problems with reference formatting and lack of citations in some areas. We will get to all of those in due time. But, again, this is a debate that should be occurring in the talk page of the article, not in a GA review, at least not in light of what just happened with the last review closing only two weeks ago.UberCryxic 06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it's that difficult to figure out what needs to be removed from the lead considering it's been said multiple times between the two reviews. Possibly read back over the suggestions from both reviews. Also reading over summary may help. Remove specifics. He's inspired and influenced a generation... fantastic! Like who?, the readers will wonder... (Read the article). He's won awards and sold millions of records! What awards, and how many millions of records, and for what albums?! (Read the article). Entice the reader. Give them the basic information, but make them WANT to read the rest. And trim the article down so they don't lose interest or get discouraged when they see that four seconds of scrolling only dropped the bar down one inch. LaraLove^T/_C 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've begun an extensive process with the aim of taking this article below 100 kb. Right now, my edits have taken it from 115 kb to 108 kb. I'm informing people of what I'm changing in the article's talk page under the "Improvements and Suggestions" section. I am mainly focusing on Lara's proposals right now because her's were the most specific, although I am also changing a lot of things that I thought were problematic. I'll give a final assessment here and on the talk page when I'm done with my changes. Right now, the lead has been shortened significantly I would say. Obviously anyone and everyone is encouraged to help me, but please discuss anything and everything in the talk page. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article now stands at 105 kb and is getting shorter and shorter fairly quickly. Again, I'm trying to detail my changes in the talk page of the article for as much transparency as possible. This process should take a few days, so please be patient. Thank you again.UberCryxic 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus check

Tangental debates above threaten to derail what should be the point of this discussion. Below this header, I simply want to focus the discussion to the salient point at hand. What is your response to this question: Does the article Michael Jackson, in the state it is currently in, meet all the criteria as spelled out in WP:WIAGA? If you wish to answer this question, please do so below. If you wish to leave other comments, please do so in the above section.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist The article fails the following aspects of WP:WIAGA:
  • Criteria 1 (b): The lead is not a proper summary and the layout is difficult to follow.
  • Criteria 3 (b): The article does not stay focused on the subject. It does not obey a summary style as required by the standards.
  • Criteria 5: It is not stable. An edit war by proxy is going on here and other places. Until an agreed-upon version of this article can be put forward as the version we consider "Good" we should not list it as such.

For those reasons, this article should NOT be considered a Good Article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks as though the lead has greatly improved. I still recommend changing the organization of the article to a more logical layout: Maybe this heading organization might work better for readability. Reorganization could do much more than random cutting in making the article easier to read and follow. Consider this:

• Recording and performance career

• Jackson 5
• Off the Wall
• Thriller
• Bad
• etc. etc.

• Acting Career
• Personal Life

• Early life
• Marriages and children
• Charitable work
• Child molestation charges

• Influence

• Music Video
• Performance Style
• Themes and genres

• Discography
• Filmography
• Awards and honors
• Apendices (refs, see alsos, etc.)

This organization has the benefit of separating the public Michael Jackson persona (as a recording artist, performer, and actor) from the private Michael Jackson (personal life). You'll see that most GA and FA Biographical articles do this kind of organization, since really there are two narratives here, and the way they are intertwined now does not do service to the article. I am glad to see this article improving, and hope to see it reach GA status real soon. I am looking forward to changing my vote if this can improve. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep even though it is a strange "keep" given my feelings that this GAR is irrelevant. Anyway, Criteria 5 is definitely in danger of being violated here, although I wouldn't rush to judgment that quickly Jayron. This article was quite stable for months until just recently. Articles always have disputes creep up here and there at certain times; not a good reason at all to remove their GA status. What you mentioned would normally be a problem for an article on President Bush or someone like that. Criteria 1 and 3 are not violated.UberCryxic 17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - I believe the article fails the following GA criteria:
  • 1a: Prose needs work. There are several places that need to be reworded.
  • 1b: The lead, along with the article, is too long and not in compliance with WP:LEAD.
  • 2a: Many references are also incorrectly formatted and missing information.
  • 2b: There are several unsourced statements.
  • 2c: See 2b.
  • 3b: There is a large amount of unnecessary detail. The point of main articles for subtopics is to keep the article of the main topic trimmed down to a readable length. This is not the case for this article.
  • 5: It seems all attempts to make corrections to the article get reverted. This is unacceptatble. Edit wars fall under quick-fail criteria.

A thorough list of issues, as I find them, is being compiled on the article's talk page. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Little Hunting Creek

Article was failed due to length, which is not a good article criterion. Specifically, the reviewer questioned the notability of the article, which is also not a good article criterion. If the article is not notable it should be removed; there are no tiers of notability for judging article quality. Some more specific feedback is warranted, such as whether some major facets of the topic have been omitted. Ketone16 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• List as GA, While it is short, for a tributary off of the Potomac river, this seems like a sufficient enough description to be called at least minimally comphrehensive, though I don't really know what kind of standards creek articles go by, or even if there are supposed to be any, surely some creeks don't have nearly as much notability as others? Also, I found the article to nicely fulfill all other GA criteria, although the bottom of the watershed section isn't inline cited, it seems overall well-referenced anyway, and pictures are not mandatory. I'd add in a sentence or two in the lead though about the wildlife and recreation, generalizations will do. Homestarmy 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Fail - The lead is weak. History is inconsistent with website of topic. It is not broad in its coverage. Insufficient wikification. Although images are not required for all articles, images should be included when available. For this topic, images could easily be taken and included; for that reason, this article fails GA criteria 6b. There are some issues with the prose and minor grammatical mistakes (some of which I fixed). It's not a bad article. Impressive referencing, but it still needs some work. LaraLove^T/_C 06:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Some more detailed comments would be useful. How is the history inconsistent with the website? How is the wikification insufficient? The only problem I found was in the citation dates. What topics would make the article sufficiently broad? What are the grammar and prose errors? The only grammar error you corrected was replacing "3" with "three"; the rest were slight style corrections. Images are not yet available, but perhaps could be corrected. There are several good images of the creek online, but nothing suggests to me that they are in the public domain. The problem with taking photos of LHC is that you generally have to go into someone's backyard or travel by boat (or air) to get a shot of the whole creek, unless you want the view to be largely obscured by trees. You can take a photo from the stone bridge, but the creek takes almost a 90 degree turn after its mouth, so you don't see the whole creek in the shot. You can also take a photo of the stone bridge from a road that crosses the South Branch, but you only get a picture of the South Branch and not of the much wider creek. Ketone16 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Fail - the lead is insufficient (the lead should be a summary of the whole article), it doesn't cover the flora of the region, or the geology of the region, and a couple of paragraphs are only one sentence long. The article could be associated with, and use the style guide of, the WP:RIVERS project. A photo of the stone bridge would be nice, along with text about its building.-Malkinann 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the lead paragraph is "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, [and] explaining why the subject is interesting or notable" (WP:LEAD). Suggestions are welcome. A geology section may be more relevant for a river than a creek. Perhaps a couple of sentences about siltation in the creek should be added to the watershed section? Some information about flora could be added, but I'm not sure that the creek is notable for its flora. It contains mostly reeds and water lilies, and the banks of the river are ordinary Virginia deciduous forests. I climbed down into the briars and muck to get a photo of the creek -- it's tough to get a good one without going into someone's backyard or getting a boat. I was also lucky enough to get a shot of some nesting bald eagles -- the first time I've personally seen them on the creek. Ketone16 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Fail - the lead lacks, unfortunately.--Manboobies 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestions welcome. Ketone16 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the fail The review was inadequate, as no suggestions or specific problems with the article were listed. However, it does seem lacking, there are a few things specifically that need cleaning up, vis-a-vis the WP:WIAGA:
  • The lead has two problems:
    • 1) It includes information that is not part of the article. The lead should not do that; it should only summarize information that comes later in the article.
    • 2) The lead seems to give the short end to some sections of the article: The last two sections of the article, on wildlife and recreation, aren't well covered by the lead.
  • The history section seems to jump 200 years without explanation. Pourquoi?
  • The way that it jumps between measurement units (statute vs. nautical miles) seems random, and there is no metric equivalent given; not every reader of the article comes from a country where miles (either form) are a standard. Pick one unit, and stick to it, and include mile/km conversions where appropriate.
  • There are a few too many 1-sentance paragraphs that need expansion somehow. This might be the length issue that the original review was noting (though, I must agree, that there is NO length requirement at all for GA's, only a broadness requirement). The recreation section, for example, ends with two 1-sentance paragraphs that just hang there without any further explanation or comment.
  • Not that it has any bearing on the GA status, but have you checked any free maping sites (the U.S. Census bureau maintains one) or sought other means to create a map? This article could REALLY benefit from one (though I agree that it doesn't hold up GA status, I just thought it would really help the article in general).

While the review left with the fail looked inadequate, it does appear that the article is not quite GA status yet. It is a good start, if the above fixes can be made, I would recommend renominating it at WP:GAC for another go at it. There's some work to do, but it is not awful... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the detailed comments, Jayron32. I will look into these issues, but it will take a while. The primary reason right now why there are gaps or paragraphs seem short is a lack of sources. The creek became was notable because of George Washington, but I haven't found much that's notable that happened there in the years between colonial times and modern times, when the residential neighborhoods were built. A bridge was built over the mouth of the creek in the early 20th century, so I could add that. Fort Hunt was also built about a mile away, but I don't think the creek figured much into its history. As for the lead paragraph, the sentence on wildlife is written the way it is because that section is primarily a list of wildlife, and I didn't want to reproduce that list in the lead. As for the units, I prefer statute miles over nautical miles (especially because the branches aren't navigable by water for very far), but the U.S. Coast Pilot reference I cited uses nautical miles, so I retained the figure. I certainly can put in metric equivalents and think about standardizing the units. I can also look into other issues you mentioned, such as a map, which might go well in the watershed section. The colonial map is actually surprisingly good, but it doesn't label the branches (or even show the Paul Spring branch) or modern neighborhoods, or show the modern bridge. Ketone16 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dani California

It was failed due to a lack of fair use rationale in Image:Dani california.gif, but the rationale was added. Is the article able to pass now? igordebraga ≠ 18:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should be renominated in order for it to pass. Zeus1234 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The original rationale for failing WAS correct, and so does not need to be reviewed here. The person who failed it was right to do so. If the fixes HAVE been made, then the article has changed siginficantly from what was reviewed, and should be resubmitted for another review. It should also be noted that it is NOT GA ready yet, since there is an unresolved [citation needed] tag that makes it fail referencing requirement (Criteria 2). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The GAC nominator also needs to review {{citeweb}}. LuciferMorgan 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody's just come along and passed this, yet it doesn't even use {{citeweb}} and has an embedded link which commits a copyright violation. LuciferMorgan 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need citeweb, and which link is in violation? Homestarmy 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need citeweb? Because everyone else who's got GA has worked their ass off by adding citeweb, so why should this one be an exception? The violation is under "Reception and criticism", and if the editor was actually as thorough as he should've been he would've spotted this. The line says; "(The two songs are compared here [13].", and the embedded link is to an mp3 file with no proof that the copyright holders of both songs have given the site permission to do this. LuciferMorgan 23:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just never seen the necessity of citeweb before is all, it was my understanding that even lowely external links were acceptable for internal citations in regards to GA status. Homestarmy 23:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While that may be true, consistant referencing style IS required. Once the article has an established referencing style (be it links, footnotes, or parentheticals) further additions should be referenced in the same way. Since other refs us the citeweb template, the fact that there are some that do not (and even to a questionably copyvio song file at that) should raise concern.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Inverclyde Line

This is another train GA passed in March 2007 by anthonycfc. Due to citation issues, I vote speedy delist. LuciferMorgan 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delist Only one statement looks like it is for want of referencing, and the lead needs expansion. I'm not sure that this article needs much else. It doesn't have much references, but I am not sure that it NEEDS much more, since it is likely that all of this information came from a small number of reliable souces, and it does use inline citations where needed. I would like to see page numbers for the print source, and the image needs a better place (it clashes with the notes section). This one is not as bad as other train articles, it needs fixes to remain GA and those fixes are relatively minor. If there is NO editor taking custodial care of it, then the fixes won't be made, and it should be delisted, but it's not terribly far from GA quality. As an aside, if there is an issue with another editor, this is not the forum to discuss it. Please bring it up at that editors talk page. I see no reason to have what should be a personal conversation in a public forum like this.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the editor Jayron, so please don't hint at this. I don't need the hassle, no offence. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant no offense either. Since the Trent Valley Line discussion has been archived, my comments above seem out of context; there were several comments there made by several editors that were starting to degenerate into a discussion of the editor-in-question. My comment takes that into account as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, but I'm not questioning the integrity of the editor - I don't even know him. All I wished to know, as Homestarmy did in the other GAR, why he felt this one met the criteria that's all. LuciferMorgan 17:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate

Delist recommendation based on the following issues:

• Lead does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD.
• Inadequate wikification.
• Multiple tags and templates for referencing and cleanup.
• Citations are not consistently formatted.

There may be more, but that's what I noticed from scanning the article. LaraLove^T/_C 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per above, and fictioncruft. Carson 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per all of the above, AND I spoted a few external links in the main text, violation of WP:EL. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is work progressing on this article? At a quick glance the lead looks comprehensive. what's left out? I'll look this over more later on. Aaron Bowen 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: An entire section of the article deals with Physiological Effects of Chocolate; this isn't even mentioned in the lead. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars

Delist recommendation based on WP:MOS/style issues, misplaced info box, main image is copyrighted, substandard lead, multiple fact tags throughout article, many book references lack page specification, incorrectly formatted references, unstable (edit wars). Promoted Jan 2006 without review. --LaraLove^T/_C 05:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per above. Alientraveller 08:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist it might be NPOV, but according to LaraLove, it fails every other aspect of WP:WIAGA. I would agree with her assessment. Sionara... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. As concisely explained above, this falls well short of GA standards. Vassyana 10:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It should be delisted, but there is nothing wrong with the main image being copyrighted. The main images for all the individual movie articles in the series are copyrighted, and five of six of those films are FAs, also every company, sports team, etc has a copyrighted image as the main image. Quadzilla99 07:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wanamaker Organ

Has only four citations so fails verifiability. Delist. LuciferMorgan 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Promoted without review November 2006 by a Sysop user:DVD R W. Problems I found from scanning the article: Weak lead; Random wikification of stand-alone years (why does everyone do this?); article could use more wikification; copyrighted main image (says non-replaceable in the template, but it still exists, so it is replaceable with a free image); No page specifications for references; Reference 4 is incorrectly formatted; Article as a whole lacks sufficient inline citation. Potential COI: One of the main contributing authors, (User:Adambiswanger1), is the son of Ray Biswanger, proprietor of wanamakerorgan.com and author of Ref 2. The article seems balanced, however. It's not a bad article, but it does need some work, particularly with inline citation. --LaraLove^T/_C 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Unfortunate. It is a very nice article. It could use a minor tone down on the almost-promotional language at points. However, the main issue is the lack of citations and references. Vassyana 10:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

Warned by Agne in September 2006 regarding lack of citations, and only has 4 citations at present. Delist. LuciferMorgan 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What citations are you referring to? There seems to be an enormous bibliography in the end. Arcfrk 07:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to citations which aren't present. LuciferMorgan 14:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist, Set Theory section very POV and flowery, and doesn't appear to be referenced clearly. Even if it is referenced, it shouldn't be written so non-neutrally anyway. Homestarmy 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There also seem to be some instability: [5]. Homestarmy 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Needs infobox; There is random wikification of stand-alone years; Redlink "Wangerin", I assume that is for Friedrich Heinrich Albert Wangerin, which is without an article. The full name should be used; Quotes and challengable statements without inline citaion; fact check and fact tags; Incorrect spacing between punctuation and citation for 3 & 4 (minor, but still needs to be fixed). There seems to be sufficient referencing based on the bibliography, but it needs inline citation for GA. That's what I found in scanning the article. --LaraLove^T/_C 04:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. It needs a solid rewrite. Definitely some bloat and embellished language. It needs a lot of work in meeting the standards of the Manual of Style and our neutrality policy. Vassyana 10:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you, please, elaborate on perceived violation of neutrality policy? Arcfrk 07:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As far as the Wiki Project Mathematics is concerned, it is an A-class article, and one of the best written articles on mathematics in Wikipedia. What exactly is your idea of 'solid rewrite', and how is it related to Good article review? Arcfrk 07:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then the Maths Project needs to reconsider its rating since that is a wholly inaccurate assessment. LuciferMorgan 14:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I just had a look at this article through the eyes of a mathematician, and I have to say that this is definitely not a case of the non-mathematical community misunderstanding high-quality but technical mathematical writing. The article is devoid of inline references, to the point that when it emphasizes an interesting fact or development in Cantor's life, I instinctively look for the footnote and feel cheated when it's not there. It's wonderful that people have made the effort to build so large a bibliography, but there are no actual references in the article. Actually tracking down any of the claims would be tantamount to rewriting the article from the sources. That being the case, I guess I support the position that this article needs a "rewrite". I don't think the set theory section is particularly POV, though. Ryan Reich 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist 1c and MoS issues. Quadzilla99 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There is one major current biography, at least in English: Dauben's, duly listed in the bibliography. Implicitly, all assertions not otherwise noted, and not purely mathematical, are from Dauben, which I have consulted, and which does have an index. I have not systematically collated the article with the book; but I don't see any evidence that any of the delete voices have either. Since I see no challenges to specific points, I can only conclude that the article does in fact comply with 1c, as written. Don't bother to reply; this is best dealt with by restructuring, or deleting, this entire waste of time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hold off for a couple of days, I am sticking in those inline citations that you want, but it will take me a while to finish. Thank you--Cronholm144 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Any direct quotations need citations as well. This is really non-negotiable:"You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quotation" — (Wikipedia:Citing sources). Also, each para should have at least one citation, assuming all the info in that para comes from one source, on the whole it needs a lot of citations. I just wanted to make that clear as some of the editors of the article seem to resistant to inline citations. Quadzilla99 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To clarify what I'm saying see here:[6][7] and here. Quadzilla99 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• CommentI am not arguing that quoted material shouldn't be be cited, but I don't see quotation marks in the article that indicate a direct quote. Furthermore I don't know of any wikipolicy that requires a direct quote every paragraph. Is this a GA WP policy?

I said each para should have at least one citation, not each para should have at least one quote. Quadzilla99 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I'm sorry. I misread your words. However my request for a stay of execution still stands.--Cronholm144 04:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am somewhat surprised by some of the assertive and dismissive comments on this page. I agree that a few more inline citations would improve this article, but there is no requirement to provide a citation for every paragraph, and most of the quotes are sourced in the text. In any case, this is a GA, not FA, review. Good articles are not perfect, and the standard for inline citation is widely disputed. Some copyediting and stylistic improvements would also help the article, but it does not, in my view, need a "solid rewrite" to meet the GA standard. I am also disappointed that reviewers seem to "scan" rather than read the article, and make general comments rather than specific recommendations for improvement. Geometry guy 13:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: It should be noted that while the criteria between "FA" and "GA" differ in some important key areas, referencing is NOT ONE OF THEM. If you read the FA and GA reqiurements on referencing:
    • WP:WIAFA: ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."
    • WP:WIAGA: "It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;[2][3] and (c) contains no original research."

There are some minor differences in the wording because the guidelines were written by different editors; but substantively they require the same thing. <rant>Please don't treat GA as a place where failed FA's go for validation; like GA is some kind of dumping ground for substandard articles to feel better about themselves. The GA standards are REAL, even if they are different in some places than FA standards. It is expected that editors that apply GA status to an article do so by strict adhearence to the standards as outlined in [[WP:WIAGA]]; these standards are different than FA but we should not let stuff slide simply because "It is only GA."</rant>

All that having been said, the article needs to be Delisted for the following concrete reasons that are in clear violation of WP:WIAGA:

• There are numerous ^{[citation needed]} tags in the article. If statements are being challenged, they need inline citations to support them. I would endorse that most of these need citations; the statements they follow make interpretations of peoples motives and actions; they express opinions about why someone did something or how someone felt. Who else besides wikipedia has published these feelings?
• his exceptional skills in mathematics, trigonometry in particular, were noted. - Really? Who noted it? Needs a reference.
• In 1862, following his father's wishes, Cantor entered the Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich, today the ETH Zurich and began studying mathematics. - Who says it was his father's wishes? Who is psychoanalyzing his father that we know what he wanted? We need a reference here.
• Cantor was promoted to Extraordinary Professor in 1872, and made full Professor in 1879. To attain the latter rank at the age of 34 was a notable accomplishment, but Cantor very much desired a chair at a more prestigious university, in particular at Berlin, then the leading German university. Where is it noted that 32 was a young age to aquire such a rank? How do we know what Cantor desired? Where are such statements referenced to?
• However, Kronecker, who headed mathematics at Berlin until his death in 1891, and his colleague Hermann Schwarz were not agreeable to having Cantor as a colleague - How do we know this was Kronecker's and Schwarz's motive?
• Kronecker, now seen as one of the founders of the constructive viewpoint in mathematics, - According to whom? This is a superlative claim; someone besides the author of this Wikipedia article MUST have siad this earlier? WHO?
• In 1884, Cantor suffered his first known bout of depression.[citation needed] This emotional crisis led him to apply to lecture on philosophy rather than on mathematics. Every one of the 52 letters Cantor wrote to Gösta Mittag-Leffler that year attacked Kronecker. Cantor soon recovered, but a passage from one of these letters is revealing of the damage to his self-confidence: "... I don't know when I shall return to the continuation of my scientific work. At the moment I can do absolutely nothing with it, and limit myself to the most necessary duty of my lectures; how much happier I would be to be scientifically active, if only I had the necessary mental freshness." - COntains a direct quote; that needs a specific reference. COntains psychoanalysis of Cantor; that needs a reference as well.
• Cantor believed that Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare. During his 1884 illness, he began an intense study of Elizabethan literature in an attempt to prove his Bacon authorship thesis. He eventually published two pamphlets, in 1896 and 1897, setting out his thinking about Bacon and Shakespeare. Really? Where can I find this information? reference needed.
• The entire "Late Years" section, filled with further psychoanalysis and claims about his health, state of mind, and financial situation is unreferenced.
• Most importantly, Cantor was the originator of set theory, 1874-84. According to whom? Superlative claims need citations. Also, this sentance is fantastically awkward. What is with the random dates tacked on the end?
• Cantor was also the first to appreciate the value of one-to-one correspondences (hereinafter denoted "1-to-1") for set theory. Another superlative claim without reference.
• The rest of the "Work" section is ENTRIRELY unreferenced. It reports on analysis of his work; importance of his work, effects and causes of his work. We need references for each instance where such connections, analysis, and interpretations are made.

That should give you a start to improve the article. Honestly, I don't know why the custodians of this article are so dead set against making it better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you Jayron32 for taking the time and trouble to comment seriously on the article. I have just a few comments and points of information to add.
  1. You glossed over the crucial word "preferably" in the GA guidelines. This is substantively different from the wording in the FA guidelines. Inline citation is not a requirement if there is clearly a source, in this case the biography by Joseph Dauben. I will add a citation early in the article to clarify this.
  2. The citation needed tags have mainly been added during this process. (I am not here questioning their validity, although equally this does not mean they are justified.)
  3. I am not one of the custodians of this article, but came here because have discovered that many editors of mathematics articles despair that the GA process is completely broken. This is a sad situation, and I hope it can be resolved.
  4. I am also certainly not against improving the article, and have added some further citations in response to this GAR.
  5. This article is not a failed FA. It is not seeking validation from the GA process. Indeed many editors are doubting that the GA process really provides any useful validation, and the fact that essentially all your comments concern citation will probably not help. I have had a related experience, in which I was amazed to find that a totally inadequate mathematics article had been promoted to GA with the only criticism being that it didn't have enough inline references. Subsequently, you will be pleased to hear, the article has been improved. But it seems to me that the GA process really misses the point if it is about ensuring that every i and every t is dotted in some of the featured article criteria (such as citation), instead of ensuring that a GA article is basically sound across the board.

Finally, I would just like to mention the scientific citation guidelines, just in case any reviewers here are not familiar with them, as it appears to be in some cases. Geometry guy 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You mention in #5 that the GA we are trying to meet FA in some areas and not in others. To the contrary, the reason that GA and FA are identical in there stance on citing articles has to do with verifiability; a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is unique in its place as a reference work as it is freely editable. When the encyclopedia presents a piece of scholarship, it must be transparent in the way that it arrives at that scholarship. Look, if I take a magic marker and add nonsense, even well written nonsense, to a print encyclopedia, susch nonsense can be ignored; it is plainly wrong. However, anyone can add a piece of information to a wikipedia article. If all information added can be checked against a source, wrong information can be countered and corrected easily. Without such assurances, an article lacks specific verifiability that makes it trustworthy. To sacrifice this transparency for any other reason is unacceptable. This isn't a GA issue. This isn't an FA issue. It's a wikipedia issue. ALL articles should be held to these standards of referencing. The fact that many articles are not there does not excuse the rest.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA are not identical in their stance on citing articles: see #1. WP:V states that there should be a reliable source for any material which is challenged or likely to be challenged. It does not specify that the source must be provided by an inline citation. Furthermore likely to be challenged is a subjective criterion: common sense would suggest that it be applied less stringently at the GA level than the FA level. I am disappointed with the rest of your comment: WP:V is not in dispute, only its misuse to support inline citation of every nontrivial statement, so a rhetorical lecture on its purpose is unnecessary at this point. Geometry guy 17:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the objection to improving the article? That is all I want to know.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, in case you haven't noticed, it is being improved. I even made half a dozen edits myself, even though I am not usually interested in working on biographical maths articles. Geometry guy 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you firmly believe in the validity of scientific citation guidelines, I feel you'd be better served in requesting via the GA criteria page that this info regarding these particular guidelines be added to criterion 2. b. (the GA citation guideline). At least then if consensus is on your side, it will give your argument more footing. Up to you though. LuciferMorgan 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that footnote [2] of WP:WIAGA (which is cited under criterion 2. b.) already addresses this point. (Note also that WP:SCG is as much a guideline as WP:CITE; neither is a policy.) Geometry guy 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there's been so much hubbub over this article, i'll be more specific in my criticism of errors in the Set Theory section:

Thank you for a serious effort to comment on this article, which is worthy of some specific comments interleaved below. Geometry guy 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Cantor's 1874 paper, "On a Characteristic Property of All Real Algebraic Numbers", marks the birth of set theory." Usage of personification here is flowery.

  The language should certainly be improved, and this would certainly be an issue at FAC, but the statement is basically correct, and I fail to see why this is issue here. Anyway, it is easily fixed by anyone.

  • I'm not saying the statement is wrong, i'm saying that it isn't written encyclopedically. I could try to fix it by replacing it with some other term of course, but mathematics isn't really my thing, and what happens if there's some more correct way of saying this that i'm not aware of? Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Er, when I last checked, this project was a wiki. Anyone can edit any article right? Now why does this work? Well, because any mistake or bad edit is easily fixed. If there is some more correct way of saying it, then someone will either revert your edit or (better, and it is the norm in a relatively calm area of the project like mathematics) improve it. Because this is a wiki, it has a different philosophy to normal life. The reason that this process is broken, in my opinion, is that it is at odds with the entire philosophy of Wikipedia, which should be a collaborative effort, not an adversarial court-room style battle. I am not at all against reviews and reviewers: there is an important job to do here, but the system at the moment is not delivering as much improvement of articles as it could, and is demoralizing dedicated editors in the process. It is not working because it operates in complain mode, not in "lets-try-to-fix-it" mode.

    I have a concrete proposal to make: no one can comment on an article at GAR (or similar procedure) until they have made at least five edits (however trivial) aimed at improving it (and by that, I mean textual edits, not adding tags). They are then of course, quite free to point out all the other defects in the article. This has several advantages: such a reviewer has shown willingness to make the article better; they will have invested something in the article; GAR will yield more improvements to articles; reviewers will be more familiar with the articles they review. As you point out below, such familiarity may reveal that an article is even worse than you first thought, and should be delisted, but that's fine: at least the review process has yielded concrete suggestions, rather than a lot of tags and vague complaints.

    Finally, thank you again for offering the article editors more than just tags in these detailed comments. It is just a pity that efforts like you have made here are not more frequent at GAR. Geometry guy 09:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

    Based on my experiences reviewing articles, I can safely say that if I had gone with my gut feelings on some problems i've seen in articles and changed things the way I thought they might supposed to be, I would of introduced many factual innacuracies through articles by not knowing the subject well enough. The idea of criticizing articles without being mandated to actually try and change things yourself is practiced widely at WP:PR and WP:FAC, both of which are more established than GA. And who knows, some of my criticisms may simply be flat out wrong, so that if I actually tried to change anything, I would only make the article worse. Having someone review an article and identify problems is collaborative, that's what Peer Reviews are all about for one thing, uninvolved editors are often much better at examining an article than someone who has been editing it for a very long time, this is a well-established principle throughout English in general as well, when people write something and are too familiar with what they've written, its harder to look back on it and identify errors. Like I said below, if someone corrects even just most of the things i've identified, i'll keep reviewing the article, and eventually, it will probably be up to GA standards. (Though I haven't addressed the WP:SCG concerns yet, i've found that referencing issues are often much harder to fix than other things, but i'd still be willing to help) Homestarmy 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Previously, all infinite collections had been (silently) assumed to be of "the same size"; Cantor was the first to show that there was more than one kind of infinity." "Silently"? If they were truly silently assumed, how did anyone know that the assumption was going on? When Cantor's paper was published, did a bunch of mathematicians come out of the closet and declare they were secretly assuming that infinite sets were the same size all along?

  This is a standard synonym for implicitly in this context, and should proabably be replaced for clarity. Again a trivial issue.

  • I don't remember coming across this usage of (silently) anywhere else in Wikipedia, but an issue is an issue, no matter how trivial it is. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "He then proved that the real numbers were not denumerable, employing a proof more complex than the remarkably elegant and justly celebrated diagonal argument he first set out in 1891" This is the sentence that clenched my earlier vote. complexity, elegancy, remarkability, and the justice of celebrating something are all relative, and this sentence is a claim of absolute fact, just because there's a cite at the end doesn't mean the article can proclaim what's in the cite to be true.

  If this clinched your earlier vote, then it suggests flaws in the GAR process, because the sentiments of this sentence are widely agreed, and are supported by the references. All truth is relative (see e.g. Carroll's paradox).

  • I saw the start of the Set Theory section go from bad to worse, so I assumed that it wasn't going to suddenly become amazingly brilliant down the line, and now that i've reviewed it more precisely, I can see my assumption was correct. All truth is relative is a truth statement itself, and is one which I do not agree with. Remarkably elegant according to whom? Justly celebrated according to whom? More complex according to whom? Even if this isn't an NPOV violation, the text does not say who believes these things, and having a citation at the end of the sentence isn't the same as explicitly stating who agrees with these statements. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Since Cantor had just shown that the real numbers were not denumerable and that the union of two denumerable sets must be denumerable, it logically follows from the fact that a real number is either algebraic or transcendental that the transcendentals must be nondenumerable." This sentence seems to be ugly gramatically, I think that "from the fact...algebraic or transcendetal" is a parenthetical expression, but I had to really look at this sentence hard to figure that out, set it apart with comma's and introduce the expression correctly, such as "it logically follows, due to the fact that....is either algebraic or transcendetal,....", unless this is supposed to mean something else, which it might depending on how this parenthetical error could be fixed, but not being a mathematician well acquainted with set theory, I don't want to go guessing.

  Commas would certainly help you to parse this sentence: why not add them, and see if someone disagrees rather than complain about it?

  • As I said here, there is a possibility with many grammar mistakes that there is more than one logical way to fix something, not being well acquainted with this article, I can't be sure that the way I would fix this sentence actually results in the article being correct. For all I know, the error may of been caused by some vandal deleting part of the sentence. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "The transcendentals have the same "power" (see below) as the reals, and "almost all" real numbers must be transcendental." Self-reference bad, though its not a GA problem, but I don't understand why "almost all" is in quotations, emphasising this isn't necessary if that's what its for.
• "In an 1877 letter to Dedekind, Cantor proved a far stronger result:....." "Stronger"? Word choice not neutral.

  It has a standard meaning in mathematics: result A is stronger than result B if B can immediately be deduced from A.

  • Is there a Wikipedia article for this mathematical meaning of strong that could be wikilinked to? To the non-mathematical layman such as myself, it looks like an NPOV violation at face value. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "This astonishing result has implications for geometry and the notion of dimension." I'm certainly not astonished, and Wikipedia trying to convince me that it is astonishing isn't changing my mind one bit. If it has implications for gemotry and the notions of what dimensions are, the article should be able to demonstrate it, and a reader can then make their own mind up about whether the result in question is truly astonishing or not.

  You are not being asked to be astonished. You are being asked to appreciate that experts at the time found it astonishing. This could certainly be rephrased, but why not rephrase it instead of complaining?

  • True, i'm not being asked to be astonished, astonishment is being demanded of me by Wikipedia in this sentence, by simply stating as absolute, incontrovertiable fact that the result in question is astonishing. And what happens if I don't want to appreciate the experts, but rather, to know what they had to say? Encyclopedias are supposed to give knowladge, not garner support for the public to appreciate people. I could of rephrased the sentence, but since it doesn't actually link to any articles based off of set theory or provide any referencing for its claim, I would of been more inclined to delete this sentence than rephrase it, if I had to of made a choice. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "By agreeing to publish these articles, the editor displayed courage, because of the growing opposition to Cantor's ideas, led by Kronecker." Now it just sounds like a short story on the brave adventures of Georg Cantor and his wonderful Set Theory, rather than an encyclopedia article. I really don't see how this sentence is encyclopedic in any way.

  Good, so change it. Does a non-encyclopedic sentence prevent an article from being a good article?

  • Although I don't see this sentence as having any value, editors such as yourself who are more familiar with this article may of disagreed with me, I can't read minds, for example, in the Michal Jackson GA/R which was recently archived, (The one up now is separate) I saw the large amount of quoting of his various awards in the lead as useless, yet main editors of the article disagreed, and do not seem to like the idea of changing the lead any time soon. If I had tried to change it, I do not think my changes would of lasted very long.Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "For Kronecker, Cantor's hierarchy of infinities was inadmissible." inadmissable as what, proof of Cantor's papers on Set Theory?

  Unacceptable might be a better word. This is surely in the main sources for the article.

  • I didn't really care much about whether it was referenced explicitly here, my main concern is that inadmissable was unclear and left unanswered questions, as does unacceptable, why was it unacceptable? Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "The fifth paper in this series, "Foundations of a General Theory of Aggregates", published in 1883, was the most important of the six...." Most important according to whom? I certainly hope not Wikipedia....

  Generally recognised. There are references in the text. This could certainly be clarified, but I fail to see an insurmountable issue.

  • These small issues individually aren't enough for me to want to delist an article, but all of them together..... Homestarmy 05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to go on here? I didn't even finish the Set Theory section. Homestarmy 23:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither did you find a substantial objection. I appreciate that you made an effort to make complaints that went beyond a lack a citations and this motivated me to respond in some detail. But why can't editors devote more energy trying to fix problems with articles instead of trying to delist them?

My problem here is not about this article, which has plenty of flaws, but about this process. I can just about understand the complaining approach for an FAC, because there is usually then a dedicated nominator and other editors who fix the complaints of reviewers, but this methodology just doesn't work for GAR. If you have a problem with the article, try to fix it before you complain about it. I don't have a particular attachment to this article and do not have time or a strong desire to improve it. I have other things to do. I ask you to consider whether this process is making the best use of your time as well. Geometry guy 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to go even farther in my critique? A whole bunch of small problems in articles add up to one big problem of not meeting GA standards, (I have done this style of review three times before now, the American Civil War GA/R which is in a recent archive, Abortion-Breast Cancer hypothesis, and recently LGAT, and all of the articles had similar wording problems multiple times like what i've highlighted here, yet all of these articles seem better from my critiques) and i'm sure if I spent even more time on this article, it would simply become more and more evident that this is not a Good Article at all. It's never the one thing that does it unless its a Fair Use problem or BLP violation, (bad writing is one thing, but an article literally breaking the law is pretty terrible no matter how many times its done) but when the problems in articles start stacking upwards and outwards, I start becoming more and more skeptical of saying that an article does indeed meet GA standards overall. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that a user who has access to the appropriate literature has decided to fix the problems that you have outlined here, so I recommend holding off until he is done with his edits. It is good that he has the time and energy left to do so. I am sorry to say that I leave this process jaded, drained, and unhappy with the current state of affairs. For many others within the mathematics community, these recent events (Bertrand Russell on notice for 1 hour and 19 minutes before demotion and of course this GA/R) have only confirmed the serious doubts they had about this process. It seems GA and FA are rapidly becoming the same thing in terms of requirements. However, the two ratings systems will never be the same in terms of prestige, leading one to wonder if the GA process isn't simply an exercise in futility.--Cronholm144 03:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If somebody actually goes and fixes at least most of the problems i've listed here, i'll keep reviewing the article more if someone wants it. Homestarmy 05:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sinply unbothered by the mathematics community since recent events seem to indicate it thinks it's special and exempt from the citation criteria, when in fact all the other Projects have had to cite their articles in order to become GA. While the mathematics community has doubts about GAR, I have doubts about their desire to improve the quality of maths articles on Wikipedia at large. Every GA/R or FAR they become involved in usually descends into a citation dispute. LuciferMorgan 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Still has 1c issues and several fact tags. Aaron Bowen 02:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Julius Caesar

Nomination for delisting: I believe the article does NOT meet the GA requirements of referencing as found in WP:WIAGA. Of specific concern, the,many sections are ENTIRELY without references. These sections include:

• Conquest of Gaul - last two paragraphs
• Fall of the First Triumvirate - entire section
• Civil war - entire section
• Aftermath of the civil war - entire section
• Assassination plot - entire section
• Aftermath of assassination - entire section
• Military career - entire section
• Honours - Entire section

It should be noted that the rest of the article is VERY well referenced. Since the article passed almost a year ago, this would lead me to two conclusions: The article was passed under a different set of GA standards, and as the standards have changed the article no longer qualifies as a GA, OR the unreferenced sections were added after the original well-referenced article was passed, making the article substandard. Either way, this article needs to be fixed or delisted.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Attempt fix - This article was promoted with ZERO inline citations. Reviewed version. But it has great potential. I think a summary of necessary changes should be left on the talk page to inform the main contributing editor(s). They may be able to bring it up to standards within a few days. The article is extremely well-written from what I saw (although I've not read it all the way through), and it's layout is impressive. It's a bit lengthy and could benefit from some trimming, but overall, it's definitely a high quality article. LaraLove^T/_C 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note my comments on Tupac Shakur review as well. The article may be in process of become a GA, but unless the fixes are made in the next few days, I see no compelling reason to keep a substandard article on the list simply because it shows promise. If the article is at standard within a week from now, I would obviously vote keep, but given the sheer number of references that are needed, it may be best to delist it and let it be renominated later when it IS up to standard.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If there isn't significant progress over the next couple of days, I will change my vote. But I feel that, considering the only real issue is referencing, this can be addressed in a matter of hours. Reference what can be and delete what can't. If the contributing editor(s) take the initiative, it can be done in a day. It was promoted with nothing. To be at the point it is now shows that someone has taken enough interest in it to bring it up to a good quality without the goal of GA. If whoever has that passion is still active, I definitely think it can be brought up to standards quickly. LaraLove^T/_C 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - There has been no progress whatsoever. Although, there was an addition of OR. LaraLove^T/_C 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Much of this article has been plagerized from a British website that takes liberties with the history. There are a few contradictions as well. I was overwhelmed trying to correct the quotations from the Latin texts. A good project now that the term is over and while the article is still vandal protected. Legis Nuntius 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist The way I see it, if this article is plaugerizing, then it can't be one of Wikipedia's Good Articles if it isn't even compleatly our article in the first place, irregardless of its quality. Homestarmy 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Many of our articles, and most of the decent ones aren't "ours in the first place"; they're the 1911 Britannica's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Copied and pasted straight from Britannica nearly word-for-word? Homestarmy 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Except for wikilinking, yes. Check the first edit of almost any article with the {{1911}} tag. This does not excuse us from removing the copyvio here; but that's a legal and moral requirement, not an intellectual one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per Jayron32's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Nomination for delisting: This article currently fails wikipedia GA criteria - WP:WIAGA especially on point 2. There are numerous missing references, many citation request tags and above all an entire section which is under dispute and requires cleanup. The article is on the whole written to a good standard but at present I do not think it meets GA. LordHarris 23:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I actually think this article could be a relatively clear GA with just a little bit of work, the thing about his heart valve that isn't referenced can just be removed, the few other things with citation needed templates don't seem very important either, the Bodybuilding section appears to obviously be covered by like the first five references in the bibliography, and the personal life section doesn't seem to have an active discussion on the talk page, i'm inclined to conclude its not really being disputed by any editors there at present. Homestarmy 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Only the first part of the article is referenced. It needs a lot more to be considered GA class. Zeus1234 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Although it is a well-written article, it is in need of cleanup. There appears to be quite a bit of OR. Although it has an impressive layout of references that isn't often seen, there are still issues, like lack of page specifications for books, newspapers, and PDFs. I think this article has a lot of potential, but it will need to be renominated after being worked on. --LaraLove^T/_C 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've nominated this article for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Collaboration of the week. If passed, it will be over a week before work begins as another article is set to take this week. --LaraLove^T/_C 05:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If you feel this article would benefit from being the WikiProject Good Articles Collaboration of the Week, please vote at its nomination here. Thank you, LaraLove^T/_C 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I also think it is very close to a GA. I think with minor work it could pass. I think it is pretty well cited in general although maybe slightly less than important incumbent politicians. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This article is currently the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Collaboration of the week. I recommending letting this discussion sit until they have completed their work. LaraLove^T/_C 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Lara. Quadzilla99 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Large amounts of improvement, especially reference-wise, and I can't tell exactly why there are dispute tags over one section. Might want to remove this sentence though, "Schwarzenegger scrambled toward the political middle, determined to build a winning legacy with only a short time to go until the next gubernatorial election.", as it is compleatly meaningless to people unfamiliar with American politics, and it isn't referenced, and "scrambled" indicates to me a lack of neutrality went into this sentences creation. Homestarmy 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am still avoiding voting on this one, as it seems like it is still in process, and the first few sections on body-building and acting are quite good; however the entire article from "Political career" to the end still has major problems:
  • As a candidate in the recall election, Schwarzenegger had the most name recognition in a crowded field of candidates, but he had never held public office and his political views were unknown to most Californians. His candidacy was immediate national and international news, with media outlets dubbing him the "Governator" (referring to The Terminator movies, see above) and "The Running Man" (the name of another of his movies), and calling the recall election "Total Recall" (ditto) and "Terminator 4: Rise of the Candidate" (referring to his movie Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines). At first Governor Gray Davis refused to debate or talk about the issues with Arnold, instead only making a flippant reference to the way Arnold pronounced California. As the election came near and Gray Davis realized that Arnold was a force to be reckoned with, he tried to change his policy, but Arnold had already become a strong candidate. It would help if we had a reference or two where the nicknames are quoted. They say only "media outlets". Well, if there use as nicknames was so widespread, references should be easy to find. Get on it.
  • On October 7, 2003, the recall election resulted in Governor Gray Davis being removed from office with 55.4% of the Yes vote in favor of a recall. Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California under the second question on the ballot with 48.6% of the vote to choose a successor to Davis. Schwarzenegger defeated Democrat Cruz Bustamante, fellow Republican Tom McClintock, and others. His nearest rival, Bustamante, received less than 30% of the vote. In total, Schwarzenegger won the election by about 1.3 million votes. Under the regulations of the California Constitution, no runoff election was required. Stats do not arise from the head of Zeus fully formed. These came from somewhere. Where???
  • Schwarzenegger enjoyed a large degree of success and victories in his early governorship, including repealing an unpopular increase in the vehicle registration fee as well as preventing driver's licenses being given out to illegal immigrants, but later began to feel the backlash when powerful state unions began to oppose his various initiatives. Key among his reckoning with political realities was a special election he called in November 2005, in which four ballot measures he sponsored were defeated. Schwarzenegger accepted personal responsibility for the defeats and vowed to continue to seek consensus for the people of California. He would later comment that "no one could win if the opposition raised $160 million dollars to defeat you". Needs many references. There is a direct quote, which is unreferenced. There is critical interpretation ("enjoyed a large degree of success" - according to WHOM?) which is not attributed to anyone. Other terms of opinion, like "unpopular" or "backlash" or "Key among" also need references...
  • Schwarzenegger then bucked the advice of fellow Republican strategists and appointed a Democrat, Susan Kennedy, as his Chief of Staff. Schwarzenegger scrambled toward the political middle, determined to build a winning legacy with only a short time to go until the next gubernatorial election. Unreferenced.
  • The "Personal Life" section currently has TWO cleanup tags that need addressing.
  • "Accidents and medical issues" has a fact tag.
  • "Allegations of sexual and personal misconduct" has a fact tag
  • Overall, the organization could use some clean-up, especially the end, where we jump from issue to issue with no sense of context. This may not be a GA issue, but an article of this size is easily FA ready with some work; and that WILL eventually come up, so there is no reason not to fix it now.
• If these fixes are not made soon, then I will have to vote delist. This seems a well cared for article, so I hope to see the fixes made. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Would be very easy to source and cite everything to bring this up to scratch. Someone more invested should do it because it is a decently written article

Anaximander

I believe this article meets the GA criteria. It was failed today for the following reason:

Talk:Anaximander#More_sources_-_GA_comments

Please add more sources. I just had a brief look at this. Many sentences are not sourced. Please source them and renominate this for GA. Thanks" --Aminz 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing Sources quoting the policy in Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." As best I can tell, any fact open to challenge in this article is sourced. Not every line has to be sourced. The GA standard is different from the FA standard, and while I am strongly supportive of sourcing (and have failed articles for weak or missing sources) I believe that this article should be listed. I ask that you review and list Anaximander. Argos'Dad 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're familiar with this article, would you say the references given at the bottom cover most of the article? The problem with a lack of internal citation is that its quite impossible for a non-involved reviewer to know how much of an article is supposed to be referenced by the refs at the bottom and how much is OR just by looking at the article if there are no internal citations. By internal citations alone i'm sort of on the fence, but if the references below really do comprehensively cover this article, then i'd support it for GA status. Homestarmy 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not have much involvement with it before I nominated it, but I have done some work on this article and I do not see any OR in it. The sentences that are not sourced are not in doubt. The bulk of the article and any thing that sounds extraordinary is sourced. Argos'Dad 03:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse fail. The reviewer's comments are quite inadequate, as they give NO guidance for improving the article so it can be renominated, but I would have failed it for the same reason, and left the following list of sentances that require sourcing:

• Very few documents can provide details on his life. According to whom? This fact should be referenced to someone who said it, as it is an interpretation, and if the author of the article is the only one making the assertion, it is OR. Statements like this, that present an interpretation of something, need to be referenced to WHO made the interpretation. Several other sentances below suffer from the same problem...
• Anaximander would have reached the pinnacle of his career around the time of Polycrates, tyrant of Samos. Really? You just said in the sentance before we could not make such statements, as the documentary evidence does not exist. Who is making this assertion?
• It is very likely that leaders of Miletus sent him there as a legislator to bring forth a constitution or simply maintain the colony’s allegiance. According to whom?
• He is the first philosopher to employ, in a philosophical context, the term arkhế (ἀρχή), which until then had meant beginning or origin. For Anaximander, it became no longer a mere point in time, but a source that could perpetually give birth to whatever will be. Superlative claims are always challengable... Source this please.
• However, it is generally accepted that this quote is not Simplicius' own interpretation, but Anaximander's writing, in "somewhat poetic terms". Who offers the interpretation that it is "generally accepted"?
• Anaximander's bold use of non-mythological explanatory hypotheses considerably distinguishes him from previous cosmology writers such as Hesiod. It confirms that pre-Socratic philosophers were making an early effort to demythify the genealogical process. Anaximander's major contribution to history was writing the oldest prose document about the Universe and the origins of life; for this he is often called the "Father of Cosmology" and founder of astronomy. Again superlative claims. Who calls him these things? Who has called him "bold"? Who has noted that these ideas of his are noteworthy to report here?
• Anaximander was the first astronomer to consider the Sun as a huge mass, and consequently, to realize how far from Earth it might be, and the first to present a system where the celestial bodies turned at different distances. Again, superlative claim, so challangeable...
• The map probably inspired the Greek historian Hecataeus to draw a more accurate version. Really? Who is making this claim?
• Anaximander's innovation was to represent the entire inhabited land known to the ancient Greeks. Was he the first to do this? If so, and it is important, who says it is important. Again, superlative claim...
• Anaximander, surely aware of the sea's convexity, may have designed his map on a slightly rounded metal surface. How do we know he was aware of this? Who claims he designed his map this way?

Thats a start. When interpretations of data are offered, a source for such interpretations are required. When superlative claims are made, sources for such claims are required. Both of these kinds of statements are easily challengable...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks you Jayron32 for these precisions. As a major editor to the article, I'm very familiar with the subject. I can assure that the references provided cover the article. I mainly used Marcel Conche's book, which provided all primary sources and some secondary sources, all listed in the references, and I second checked them all to ensure they were accurate. What sometimes seems like OR is usually Marcel Conche's analysis. I don't have the books at hand, but I will try to get them back so I can provide the exact secondary sources for the points mentioned above. However, as Argo's Dad suggests, the article is not in nomination for FA, but for GA. Sourcing every sentence is not necessary. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never said once that each sentance needed to be referenced. An article that sourced every single sentance would be resoundly rejected at FA as excessive anyways. Also, don't disparage GA as a somehow inferior process where standards should not be upheld. GA's standards of referencing are largely identical to FA. See and compare WP:WIAFA Criteria 1(c):"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. and WP:WIAGA Criteria 2: It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:(a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and (c) contains no original research. Don't imply that GA reviewer should let things slide because well, "It's only GA". Our standards are real, even if different in some areas from FA.

Back to my point: where a superlative claim is made (So-and-so was the first to....) or where an obvious interpretation of data is done (It is believed that so-and-so did this because...), sources ARE needed because these statements are challengable.

Where an entire paragraph gives a straight set of facts from one source (So-and-so was born on XXXX to John and Jane Doe. He grew up in Anytown USA, where he attended Anytown State University and majored in Criminal Justice...) it is quite appropriate to reference the entire paragraph with a single reference.

Also, where an entire SECTION of the article is referenced to a SINGLE source, it may also be appropriate to simply indicated such in the reference section:

• Personal Life: Doe, John (2002). Biography of Tom Jones Any University Press, ISBN: 12323454376

Professional Life: Smith, Jane (1975). Tom Jones: The Greatest Guy Ever Dick Williams Publishing, ISBN: 94509800

Still, which ever method of referencing is most appropriate for this article, anytime a statement makes a superlative claim or expresses an interpretation, it is likely subject to challenge and should be referenced to a specific location where such a claim or interpretation is made, either a specific webpage or page number(s) in a book.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse fail per Jayron32's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse fail per most of Jayron's review. Additionally, I noted the small things, as I always do. They don't fail the article in themselves, but while we have our attention here: there is a missing comma in the lead by reference 2; in the first sentence of Apeiron, the hyphen needs to be removed from 4th-century; hyphens used in the third paragraph of the same section need to be changed to —s; Anaximander is over-used — "he" should be used in place of his name more frequently than it currently is; Cosmology, fourth paragraph, ref 10 should be outside of parenthesis; end of first paragraph in Multiple worlds constitutes full quote, therefore punctuation should be inside quotations; Meteorological phenomena, second paragraph, ref 19 has space between punctuation and citation; Origin of humankind, quote should use {{cquotetxt|Blah blah blah.}}. Also, I don't see where the moon crater comment from the lead is expanded in the article. Notes and references need to be cleaned up. There are references in the article in parenthesis, these should be made into notes and Footnotes should use {{reflist|2}}. LaraLove^T/_C 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  All corrected except for the cleanup in the references and the location of ref to the crater. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - If the moon crater comment is not necessarily encyclopedic and can't be smoothly worked into the body, it needs to be deleted. The lead is a summary of the article. No information should be in the lead that isn't expanded upon in the body. LaraLove^T/_C 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Though some cosmetic fixes have been done to this article, I still endorse its failure as outlined above because it still remains underreferenced. There are MANY statements that it makes which offer interpretation of Anaximanders work (he was bold to do this, or he was the first to do that) where we have NO specific reference to who is making that claim.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Most of the statements about Anaximander cited in this discussion are consensus among the scholarship; it would probably have been useful to check some other secondary source to avoid being colored by Conche's particular PoV. That being said, this is a perfect example of why it is better to write good articles than Good Articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  I see Giorgio de Santillana did one on the Origins of Scientific Thought; and there are several good anthologies of the Presocratics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Some more comments: You will find several good, experienced editors who will respectfully disagree with you on the level of referencing needed here. I think the level of referencing I have indicated above represent a fair middle ground; some editors are happy to fill articles with unreferenced material and leave it at that; others require multiple citations so that scholarly concensus is apparent from the referencing. I am only asking that where a statement seems to be making a superlative claim, or offering an interpretation of facts, that there be a reference to who is making that claim or that interpretation. Look, every world expert on Anaximander may agree that every statement made in this article is generally agreed upon, the problem is those people are not your audience. Since you are writing for an audience of people who are unfamiliar with the man, his works, and their proper context, it is vital to establish that context with specific references. When fantastic claims (and they may be true) are made such as "Anaximander was the first ever to think X, Y, and Z" or "Anaximander's work had a profound influence on A, B, and C", such claims may be plainly evident to people who know Anaximander well; but to the average reader of the article they have no means to verify the claims. What you are saying, essentially, is "we are the experts, so trust us, this is true". For other venues, that may be adequate, but Wikipedia's unique place in scholarship, in that it is freely edited, carries an additional burden. Look, let's say 4 months from now someone comes along and adds some false claim to this article, next to another true (but unreferences) claim, what gives THAT editor less right to include it? I mean, you have offered no verification to back up several claims made about Anaximander; so we have no way to judge whether or not one claim is correct and the other is not, since there is no specific reference to look them up. The problem is that Wikipedia is different and unique and thus has its own level of requirements.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Footnotes do not prevent or control that; statements can be added without attribution to an article with many footnotes as easily as with one. Text can be, and often is, reversed, leaving a footnote in place. And it is quite frequent for biased editors to include a footnote to a source which does not in fact support them. (I believe, but cannot prove, that this is often googling the key words in their claim, without actually reading the paper cited.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but one thing that footnotes DO that the lack of footnotes do NOT is allow anyone to check, and verify that the statements are correct. Is not Verifiability a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Fail for the following reasons in addition to those cited by Jayron32 and others:

• Themistius, a 4th century Byzantine rhethorician, mentions that he was the "first of the known Greeks to publish a written document on nature" and by this very fact, his texts would be amongst the earliest written in prose, at least in the Western world. - All direct quotations, such as this one, need to be sourced. I saw several unsourced quotations in the article.
• Primary sources should be used sparingly. An article that relies almost exclusively on primary sources for its citations appears to be original research (WP:NOR). Most citations should come from secondary sources because those sources are written by experts in the field who have experience interpreting Anaximander's text within its historical context. Almost every section lacks references to secondary sources. Readers can only assume that what is presented in the article is OR since no authority is given for these facts and interpretations. If the editors have indeed read the books in the "References" section they should find it easy to cite the claims they are making from secondary sources. WP:ATT
• The lead is not a summary of the article. The "moon" tidbit, for example, is just sitting there, all alone, with no context and is not part of the article. WP:LEAD Awadewit ^Talk 07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)