Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geometry guy (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 10 October 2007 (Archiving Bringin' on the heartbreak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 31) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 29) →

Result: Delist

Cannabis (drug)

Article was last reviewed on May 27, 2006 by Cedars, so it's been awhile. Has entirely too many 'citation needed' tags, and there could be issues with the lead section. Might want to check out the section called 'the high', too. Either way, it's probably good for this article to have another look at this time, since it's been awhile. Dr. Cash 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist as per nom. The citation tags are the only real problem though. Hopefully someone can adopt the article soon and fix them up. Otherwise a pretty good article. Drewcifer3000 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold it This looks like a job for Superman. Let me have a short while with it and see about the cite needed tags. What's wrong with the lead?--SidiLemine 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, glad to see someone's willing to work on it. Also, while we're at it, i noticed that the references are formatted inconsistently. Might want to check on that too. Drewcifer3000 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, will do. Can someone please add fact tags as needed, and I'll do it as they come. I think this could actually have a shot at FAC. What do you think?--SidiLemine 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest reconsidering which sources are cited on the more medical matters. Cochrane or other systematic reviews, such as [[1]], are better for reporting the state of play on current research than individual experimental studies. --Peter cohen 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm totally new to this kind of articles, and to medical quesytions in general. If you can, please point out the "weak" sources you find and I'll try to replace them with better ones.--SidiLemine 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link that I was suggesting replacing is the one with the ref name "Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer" at [2]. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get involved with checking all the other citations at present. (Another good article review post yesterday has already distracted me far too much and "interesting" things are happening as a result of my involvement.) If you're looking for the best citations on a topic then the phrase "systematic review" is a good indicator. Basically, it involves the reviewer(s) setting out clear criteria for what counts as something relevant to their area of interest and for assessing what they have decided is relevant. They then search article databases for as many relevant articles they can find and also the "grey literature" of findings that have not been published e.g. because they didn't have interesting results etc. These are assessed according to the defined criteria. Because systematic reviews assess the work of other researchers and put together the results of the papers that have been assessed as of a good standard using transparent criteria, they are just the sort of secondary literature that Wikipedia policy favours. Anyway, I'll put cannabis on my watch list and have a look when I have more time.--Peter cohen 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the good advice. I'll be sure to look into it.--SidiLemine 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement, but I would say some of the sections still need some in-line citations. I think that is just the nature of the beast: alot of the content of the article is "controversial or contentious" because the subject is controversial and contentious, therefore in-line citations are required. So the problem sections, as I see them, would be the last paragraph of Government debate, Criminalization and legalization (you may be able to lift some sources from the Legality of cannabis page), and The high. Also, the references still need to be properly formatted. I know this sounds like a ton of work, but hopefully still seems doable. Drewcifer 09:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would anyone mind adding tags where appropriate? That way I can sweep through and add references, etc. --SidiLemine 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through and add some tags. No promises that I'll have time to do the whole article, but it should get you going in the right direction. Lara♥Love 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as having potentially controversial uncited facts, including {{fact}} tags present. Article doesn't feel comprehensive, and the intro needs work. VanTucky (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist(EC) - A few things I've noticed while going through the article:
    • The lead is too long. It should be a summary of the article. Currently, it's too detailed. Note what chemical compounds it contains in the lead, but expand on what they do or how they affect the user in the body of the article.
    • Expand on Justice Thomas' filed opinion. His full name doesn't even come up. I also think the full names should appear first, followed by last alone.
    • References need to be consistently formatted.
    • Spell out numbers ten and under.
    • These things I'm correcting as I see them, but perhaps correct them if I miss some:
      • All dates need to be formatted for user date preferences. Currently there are some without this.
      • Use of U.S. needs to include periods (meaning no US). Also, there is a back and forth between spelling out and abbreviating. This isn't really necessary. U.S. can be used after the first spelled out occurrence.
      • Watch out for typos/misspellings.
      • There is a need for additional wikification. Lara♥Love 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Update] I'm leaving my delist recommendation. In addition to those things noted by Jayron, what's up with the external link in the lead? The references are not consistently formatted with all necessary information and there's a weird spacing in many of them. Lara❤Love 03:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article's summary is full of alot of mistakes and misplaced information:

for example:

I also think this line needs to be reworded to be more accurate

Humans have been consuming cannabis since prehistory, although since the 20th century a rise in its use for recreational, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes.

It should read

Humans have been consuming cannabis since prehistory for nutrition, fiber, religious or spiritual, and medicinal purposes, and since the 20th century there has been a rise in its recreational use.

I also don't think the section relating cannabis to other drugs is appropriate unless it is on the US policy section.

I also don't understand the |other methods| section, and I think it needs to be removed. gumballs in high school in ridiculous

I dont think there is enough external links and resources to continue good research on cannabis.

Kief is not the flowering tops of the cannabis plant, and and is not often mixed with tobacco, it is the trichrome matter from the flowering tops compressed according to the Moroccans.

Cannabis is clearly a Hallucinogen, which often exhibit symptoms of other drugs, and the classification is not confusing.

The new cultivation techniques should focus on the invention of hydroponics bc of the illegality. Not because it makes a stronger product.

This Line should be re written: 

The production of cannabis for drug use remains illegal throughout most of the world through the 1961 ......

It should read The production of cannabis remained legal throughout most of the world until the United Nations 1961........

Cannabis was legal for much longer then it was illegal, and the wording of this article makes it appear as if it has been illegal longer.

I would like to be given permission to go in and edit this article

Let me know if I can

--The Pot Snob 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Still way too many controversial or challengable statements that need referencing. Consider these:
  • The New Breeding and Cultivating section contains lots of statistics and references to studies where said studies are not supported with inline references, nor are statistics specifically referenced.
  • The Criminalization and legalization section is entirely unreferenced.
  • The Intoxication section is unreferenced. Also, pardon me for saying, but this section is also well below broadness requirements. It seems rather trite and terse; especially considering that the psychoactive effects of canabis are well documented...
  • Methods of consumption again, contains unreferenced statistics and other statements that seem to need verification.
  • Smoking section consists of a single hatnote. This needs to be expanded (with references, of course).
  • Eating section contains statements that beg for referencing, such as "The effects of cannabis administered this way take longer to begin, but last longer. They are sometimes perceived as more physical than mental, although there are many claims to the contrary. An oral dose of cannabis is often considered to give a more intense experience than the equivalent dose of smoked cannabis. Some people report unpleasant experiences after ingesting cannabis, because they experience a more intense effect than they are comfortable with." All this reads like someone reported it somewhere. WHERE are the references for this information.
Again, as always, it would be nice to see this article written so that it meets standard and then we could list it. It does not, and should be delisted.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Jayron32. Also, normally when I do a GAC review, I don't pass an article with any citation needed tags at all, and this article has one. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Jayron. Article still needs work to remain a GA. Even if it only has one fact tag, this still needs to be addressed. And I am also concerned with prose; there are several extremely stubby paragraphs composed of only one sentence, such as the last one under "Other methods." These one-sentence paragraphs for the most part would be better if merged into larger paragraphs, as then they would encompass a more complete thought. Rai-me 00:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cincinnati Kid

Result: Keep/List It appears the article was never listed, and this was a review of a GA fail; however it looks like it is GA quality now, and there are no reasonable objections to it... I am going to list it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cincinnati Kid (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

There have been two recent reviews, both of which raise similar critiques. The big sticking points seem to be the plot summary, the notes on play section and the DVD section. The reviewers are saying that the plot summary is too long. I disagree based in part on looking at Casablanca (film) which is a FA. The plot summary there is of similar length and detail. It was suggested that the proportion of article that is plot summary was unacceptable as compared to that of Casablanca, but since this is an effort to elevate the article to GA and not FA I can't really agree with that critique. For notes on play, again I look to Casablanca which has sections on things like rumors and bloopers. The notes section seems like a rough equivalent to those sections. As for the DVD section, I really don't understand this critique at all. Supposedly it unfocuses the article, but I note that in the template for upgrading stub film articles to start-class it requires "At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.)" (emphasis added). It makes little sense to me that a DVD section can be used as a rationale for upgrading a stub to start-class but would stand as a barrier to upgrading to GA status. Otto4711 16:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#The Cincinnati Kid|Good article review]] as the section heading.

Comment - since I was the original reviewer, I'll obstain from voting, but I would like to clarify my review. Please note that the article has been improved in a few ways based on my initial review, and that my critique of the article has changed a bit since the original review. The problems with the article, as I see them, are:

  • Lack of breadth - there are many sections, but all of them go into barely any detail at all. For instance, Production should go into more detail. The Reception section is also entirely insufficient: two quotes, no prose.
  • As for the size of the plot section and it's proportion to the rest of the article, I brought that up more as an indication of the article's lack of breadth rather than a bad plot section. As it is, the plot section is about half the article, which leads me to believe the article doesn't go into enough detail elsewhere.
  • The notes on play just seems like a glorified trivia section. It also seems particularly easy to incorporate into the prose of the Plot section.
  • The Final Hand section also seems odd. First off, it goes into too much detail about the hands - to a non-poker player like myself I have no idea what it all means. Also, I'm not sure about the symbols and colors within the prose. I've never seen an article do that before - though in all fairness I was unable to find any kind of MoS on that.
  • The DVD section seems unnecessary, especially since the DVD seems fairly unremarkable. However, upon further review of other GAs and some FAs, some have similar DVD sections of similarly unremarkable DVDs, so I could be wrong on this one. Although the section seems unnecessary to me, I wouldn't say that in and of itself is a deal breaker.
  • A few one or two sentence paragraphs.
  • A few issues with prose as well: "He did mute the colors throughout both to evoke the period and to help pop the card colors when they appeared." for example.
  • The in-line citations are poorly formatted. Drewcifer 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first I'm hearing of some of these criticisms. Taking them in order: Lack of breadth - I'm not sure what else you're looking for to get it to GA status. It has information on the casting process, the replacement of the director, information on differences in directorial style, information on the theme song...what aspect of production are you saying is insufficiently covered? The reception section could be stronger, but it's better than it was during your initial review. Plot summary section - the notion that the proportion is an issue because of coverage in the other sections is a new one. Notes on play - this critique contradicts the plot critique. If the plot section is already disproportionate to the rest of the article, how does making it longer by incorporating more text help? Fimal hand section - the most unusual jargon like button or all in is all wikilinked for definitional purposes. The remaining jargon like "bet," "call" or "raise," I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that even the most un-knowledgable person about poker doesn't know what a bet is or has never heard an expression like "call your bluff" to know what these things mean. Colored card symbols - it is quite standard in articles about cards and card players, see for example Poker probability, Joe Hachem, Contract bridge and so on. The lengths of sentences and issues with the prose are new criticisms. The in-line citations are all formatted using citation templates. Otto4711 20:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see what you're saying about the citations. First time I'd used them and the dates were wrong. They're now corrected. Otto4711 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist There are only a few issues that keeps my from saying "Keep". First is that the lead seems to be out of line with the standard depth required for a lead, per WP:LEAD. Specifically, the lead is not a summary of the article. If the lead could be expanded some to more fully summarize the article, this would probably be GA quality easily. Also, it would be nice to see the article expanded to include more critical reception as well as some hard data (box office receipts, etc.) on the public reception of the film; for example IMDB clearly lists some award nominations for the film (Golden Globes, Laurels). This link: [3] also from IMDB, lists several reliable reviews of the film. If these fixes could be made, the rest of the article seems GA quality to me. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a summary paragraph to the intro. How much time do I have to make the other fixes under this process? Otto4711 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A while. And should it not be fixed before the GA/R closes, it can always be renominated at GAC. LaraLove 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse delist per Jayron. It otherwise looks good. LaraLove♥ 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead still needs a bit more. The summary seems kind of random and trivial in places; for example it mentions an actor considered but not given the a lead part, but makes no mention of the actors who actually appeared in the movie? I would think that at LEAST Steve McQueen (as the title character) and Edward G. Robinson (as his nemesis) would bear some mention in the lead. The lead is also poorly organized. Paragraph 1 contains production and plot summary info, paragraph 2 contains two unrelated facts, and paragraph 3 has some critical reception. Perhaps organize the lead to mirror the organization of teh article... Maybe Paragraph 1 can be about the cast and production, paragraph 2 would be a plot summary, and paragraph 3 can be about reaction and reception? The critical reception section DOES look better now. It is longer than 2 sentances, which it suffered from before. But this is getting REAL close, IMHO. Fix the lead, and you may have a GA here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized something else that would probably be really easy: a cast section. Most GA film articles have it. Drewcifer 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I have re-written the lead. It's now paragraph 1 plot summary, paragraph 2 cast and production and paragraph 3 reception. I realize that this is not the same order as the article but I tried it both ways and IMHO it flows better in that order. I have also added a cast list. If this isn't good enough then I guess the article is just doomed to live on as a less-than-GA. Otto4711 00:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Struck thru prior vote. Rock on and get down wit your bad self. This is how GA/R should work. I think that all relevent fixes have been made, and I see nothing that anymore that should cause this to be removed from GA. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should it be assumed that because Lara's rationale was based on Jayron's, that Lara now would want to keep the article? Homestarmy 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of Soviet occupation

Result: Delist

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The promotion of this article has been brought into question. When reviewing, please take notice to the creation date (September 22) and the fact that the article is now fully protected. LaraLove 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "question" in question is non-factual accusation by Irpen. Whoever is interested, ask me for details.
The creation date is deceptive, as the article's material had "fermented" in an userspace sandbox for about three months; September 22 was the day of copying the content to mainspace. And finally, there was no sign of edit war between nomination and review of this article.
Sadly, there's been an edit war now, so a review is pointless at this time. It's terribly regrettable how simple trolling can invalidate a good article ... ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right. Please see my evidence in the RFAR/Digwuren case. Terribly regrettable, isn't it. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If there's too much controversy to give this article a review, should we assume this case is closed? Homestarmy 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say "yes". LaraLove 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as the article is a re-creation of a deleted POV-fork (see discussion). The article is now considered to be deleted.--Dojarca 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - an article in violation of policy and almost definite deletion candidate should *not* be regarded to be amongst Wikipedia's best. Orderinchaos 07:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Obviously a violation of the stability and neutrality clauses of the GA criteria. VanTucky Talk 07:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist With an AfD in progress, and a controversial looking one at that, I think the chances of this article being stable for long are very low, even if it isn't deleted. And actually, looking at the edit history more closely, it does indeed appear to be very unstable. If this article isn't deleted, it should probably be re-nominated for GA status since it seems to be so different. [4] Homestarmy 01:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Article is not neutral and stable in its present state, and should not remain a GA. Rai-me 02:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per everything above. Drewcifer 15:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey State Constitution

Result: No Consensus default keep.

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was doing the review of this article as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force sweep and found that:

1) The article lack sources for some of its statements. See, for instance, 'Previous versions' section;

2) Some references are strange. What does ref 41 "See notes (2)" mean ?

The bold (2) in the same section as the footnotes. {{ref}}/{{cite}} might improve this, but it should be clear to any reader with initiative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) The article is not well written. Its language is so formalistic, which sometimes results in confusion. See 'Taxation and Finance' subsection;

4) Some parts of the article look like a number of sentences unconnected to each other. See the third paragraph in 'Schedule' subsection.

This list is not complete. So I think the article should be delisted. Ruslik 09:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could just delist it immedietly, it seems like that would be quicker, and if you're reasons are accurate, (and if there's more of them) they seem like fair grounds for immediete delisting. Homestarmy 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not worked on this article, but it seems better than most of those GA lists. If GA wants to become a mark of bad articles, that's fine. too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep There are a few minor issues. The two bolded notes (1) and (2) should probably be incorporated as standard footnotes with the rest for consistancy. Also, there are a few direct quotes here or there without citations, this will need to be fixed. Thirdly, the random trivia on the constitution's length in the lead seems to violate criteria 3 (b) on unecessary details. The lead maybe could be expanded some, but though its short, I couldn't find it much for want. On the balance, with a few quick fixes, this article seems to be GA quality. The fixes should probably be made soon, but they are easy and if made, I see no reason for this not to stay a GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford

Result: It seems we dropped the ball on this one, restarting review so the article can be more accuratly assessed. (And hopefully more quickly)
St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Although only reviewed a few months ago, the article seems somewhat weak based on its lack of references, poor reference formatting, lack of breadth (only historical and architectual), and small lead section. Chief editors, previous reviewers, and appropriate Wikiprojects have been notified. Drewcifer3000 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford|Good article review]] as the section heading.
  • Comment 1. Please see comments in the 'Presido' article below - please state what material in the article you think needs citing - ie. good faith challenges. 2. poor reference formating is a MOS issue and as such, a guideline - by what logic do you insist on it as a requirement for GA? 3. To aid 'breadth' can you suggest some areas you feel aren't sufficiently covered so we can improve them? 4. Lead section summarises a pretty short article - seems fine by WP:LEAD. --Joopercoopers 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to extrapolate:
  • Lack of references:
    • When I'm wrong I'm wrong. The article seems to have sufficient references given it's size, so my mistake. I've stricken the comment from above.
  • Reference style:
    • GA criteria 1a: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation."
      • But you objection is the formating of the citations - not included in the GA list - and even at FA (despite Tony1 efforts the contraty) not complying with every ever-changing wishlist of the ever-growing MOS is not a reason not to promote, so it certainly shouldn't be a delist reason here.--Joopercoopers 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The layout section mentions references. I'm not aware of any discussion with Tony1, I'm just going by the criteria as they read. But, as far as reference formatting goes, what I usually say is that a particular approach isn't required, but consistency is. The references are currently not formaatted consistently with one another.Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lead:
    • From MoS guidelines for lead sections: "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The lead does not mention it's architecture.
  • Breadth:
    • Although I don't actually know if such information exists or is all that relevant, what about the church in modern times? It's obviously still standing, so is it still used? As for the architecture was it built in a certain style? What little knowledge of church architecture I know leads me to believe that alot of churches were built in particular contemporary fashions, each church a bit more extreme than the last. Though like I said, I could be wrong, or this information might not even exist. Overall it just seems like a very small article, especially looking at how big the sources are.
Hopefully these are easy fixes, the second and third in particular. Drewcifer3000 10:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does briefly mention that some of the original architecture is retained. Judging by the photos it seems like a fairly typical English parish church with the usual hodge-podge of architectural styles that's the result of standing for centuries. Except in wealthy town centre parishes (or very occasionally if there was a particualrly wealthy local landowner) and arguably Abbeys and Cathedrals, English churches have tended to grow by accretion, rather than being demolished and re-built all of a piece. As for current activities it's an active parish church of the established Church of England with all that implies. Possibly the significance being under the care of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet rather than the Diocesan could be added, with all that implies for opposition to the ordination of women, from a quick look a tthe parish website tht seems to be the most significant difference from the "norm".
All of that sounds like interesting stuff that should be in the article. To the layman that fills in some gaps. Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note 2 of the criteria highly recommends that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. In addition to looking pretty, it's appropriate that credit is given where credit is due, and it's important that all the information be consistent so that it's easy for the user to read. I'll format it if I have time, however, if I or someone else here is not able to do this, it really does need to be done. Lara♥Love 13:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - To expand on my above comment, I went through the article and corrected some minor issues (use of dashes, ref formatting) and I have to agree that the lead could be expanded a bit. Nothing vast, just a couple extra sentences. It's very basic right now. I'd also like to see some expansion in the body, as noted in the above comments. Otherwise, it's a good article. I particularly like the first image and think it should be nominated at WP:FI. Regards, Lara♥Love 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to move this discussion along: have your reservations been addressed? Would you say the conditions have been met to keep, or would you delist? Drewcifer 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that even a cursory glance at this building shows it to be cast mostly in the Gothic or Gothic Revival style. IvoShandor 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be Gothic, based upon its age, somewhere a source must say this, the crenellation on the parapet is a dead give away and the pointed arches on the windows. Looking at the full image through the external link, it looks like most of the additions tried to match up with the original style, though I am sure there are elements from other styles as well, the Gothic Revival movement was quite popular around the time some of the additions and changes took place. IvoShandor 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, that's interesting stuff, and as a layman I had no idea about any of that. That stuff should be in the article, no? Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely it should. I wouldn't write an article about a historic building, church or otherwise, without doing as much research as I could about the architecture. IvoShandor 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delist - Lead could use some expansion; it is a little inadequate right now. Also, per Drewcifer, I think the scope of the article should be widened. However, these are minor concerns. Otherwise, the article is well-written and well-referenced. I'll change this to a Keep if the lead and body are expanded. Raime 14:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep. Article has been substantially improved; lead is now adequate, and the article covers the topic very well. Rai-me 23:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Everything really looks quite good except breadth. Needs more research and expansion. Wrad 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delist The points that strike me are that the lead includes material not in the body of the article - the material re visiting bishop and no women priests. This should be added to the section on the history of the congregation. Also, given how many parishes share a vicar, it might be useful to state whether this has happened here. WP:Cite recommends page citations, could the pages for the book citation be indicated, please? (I've already changed one of the web citations to point to the more exact page.) Given there seems to be someone responding to the comments here, I expect these points to be addressed relatively soon. When this has happened, I'll change to keep.--Peter cohen 13:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC) One of the points seems to have been addressed since my original post but not the others. I've crossed out the one that has been covered.--Peter cohen 09:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work continues. -- SECisek 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has improved quite a bit since the GAR began. I am at the limits of what I can add. I hope we have addressed most/all your concerns. -- SECisek 21:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This GA/R seems to of gotten woefully dissasociated with the current state of the article. Perhaps it should be restarted? Homestarmy 14:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be a good idea, but I would say Keep with all the work done and expansion that has gone into this, there is now a decent architecture section. IvoShandor 10:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know, but it looks much better to my eye. -- SECisek 18:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Admirals in the United States Navy

Result: I am boldly delisting the article since it is a list and GA does not handle lists. The rest of the discussion is as lame as any I have seen at GAR. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I had originally reviewed this article and found that it met all the criteria except I thought that the subject matter may be original research. I left a note on the talk page and also asked for a second reviewer. User:Cocoaguy reviewed the article but didn't address the concern of original research, just simply saying that it had images and was well written (which it is). The problem is that none of the sources directly deal with "Hispanics in the US Navy" so it is original research as defined here. T Rex | talk 19:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Agüeybaná's mention that most of the article is list like, this would better be suited for being a featured list. T Rex | talk 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Source #32 "Hispanos en el Navy: Almirantes (Hispanics in the Navy: Admirals)" a United States Navy source, makes a direct mention. This article is an educational informative article which expands the one mentioned above with verifiable reliable sources as required by policy, which I fully understand and is "not" original research. I believe that I have enough experience in Wikipedia to know the difference between what is and what is not original research. I would really appreciate if a fourth or fifth (since the point of view of three editors have been questioned) to look into this and if this article is not within the standards established by the GA criteria, then have it demoted. Thank you. Tony the Marine 04:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is not a made up concept. That would be like saying Academic boycotts of Israel is made up or original because you do not find those exact terms anywhere together in the literature. There are admirals. There is a United States Navy. The article is about the subset of Hispanic admirals, within the class of admirals in the United States Navy. I do not understand the problem. Does this mean I could not write an article called 2002 Tampa plane crash because there are no academic articles or newspaper articles with that title so it is a made up or original concept? I believe the Original research idea holds up for the recently deleted Abundance theory because there is no such theory, and all the editors who edited that article were contributing their personal ideas of what Abundance theory is. (That article lasted a couple of years on Wikipedia, by the way, before its very recent demise.) --Mattisse 00:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never did I say that this was a made up concept. The two examples that you mentioned are poor analogies. The boycotts has sources that directly deal with the subject matter and the plane crash does as well. This article's sources either deal with the individual generals, the navy itself, Hispanics in general or the term admiral. The "Hispanos en el Navy" link only talks about Rodrigo C. Meléndez and even if you were to use all the people it mentioned than thats only 3. The other people being in the article is the deduction that the person is Hispanic and they were/are an admiral which is synthesis, a type of original research. T Rex | talk 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the 2002 Tampa plane crash escaped AFD only by an iffy "no consensus" decision a while ago. So articles look different ways to different people. --Mattisse 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For crying out loud, They are Hispanics, as stated by the reliable sources and they are or were Admirals in the United States Navy. It is all sourced. It is "not" original research. Tony the Marine 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not against the article itself, but can I point out that the definition of 'Hispanic American' is logically a bit problematic? "Hispanic American is an ethnic term employed to categorize any citizen or resident of the United States, of any racial background, of any country, and of any religion, who has at least one ancestor from the people of Spain." Spain as a nation goes back, what, 500-1000 years? (Although that's another problem, how far back does your concept of the 'people of Spain' go?). If you go back up your family tree 500-1000 years you will find you have a quite staggering number of ancestors, and very probably at least one of them is from Spain, regardless of where on the planet you live. Taking a generation to be 25 years, I've got a million ancestors 500 years ago, and one billion 1000 years ago. Tongue partly in cheek, as the latter is rather more than the population of the planet at that time, presumably there's a good chance that I'm descended from pretty much everyone alive in 1000 AD, one way or another. I bet at least one of my ancestors would be Spanish. Is it really a case of one ancestor, or of one immediate ancestor? 4u1e 13:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Hispanic" is not my concept. It is a term made up by the United States government as defined in the Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Ethnic & Hispanic Statistics Branch. I agree with you that if we were to become technical, we would all be inter-related and citizens of the world and that therefore people should not even be referred to by "race", but that is not the case here. The issue here is that the article is not "original research" and meets established GA criteria. If proven without a doubt to be original research and that it odes not meeting criteria, then it should be delisted, otherwise let's put an end to this senseless debate already. Tony the Marine 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My specific question is not to do with the proposed delisting, so (if one accepts that the delist proposal is senseless) I' m not sure it should be labelled as senseless. I should, probably, have asked it elsewhere.
My genuine question is: Is the official definition really someone with one 'Spanish' (scare quotes) ancestor? Because, without trying to be clever as I was above (sorry!), that sounds an unlikely definition. I'm happy to have the debate elsewhere though. Cheers. 4u1e 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the reference used in the article, the definition of Hispanic given there is "Hispanic Origin. Persons of Hispanic origin were identified by a question that asked for self-identification of the person's origin or descent. Respondents were asked to select their origin (and the origin of other household members) from a "flash card" listing ethnic origins. Persons of Hispanic origin, in particular, were those who indicated that their origin was Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin. It should be noted that persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race." Which is not what the article says. 4u1e 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't see anything in ref 10 (available here) to support any of the statements made in the para it references (first of US Naval Academy) - other than the existence of Capt Robert Lopez in 1911. 4u1e 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article says he as an Admiral, while the source says he was delisted in 1911 at the rank of Captain. 4u1e 16:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(editor conflict)

Yes. The "official" definition in the United States as provided by the US Census is a self-identified category.[5] But all the racial/ethnic categories in the U.S. Census 2000 are self-identified. Individual states may have different definitions, but in general, race/ethnicity in the United States is a self-identified category. The only exception I can think of is that someone of American Indian ancestry is eligible for certain privileges/monies from the government if that person can provide by documentation that he or she is at least 1/16th of American Indian ancestry. The problem is even more difficult with Asian/Pacific Islanders/ etc. which in the last census had about 15 to 20 or so different categories to choose from because particular groups put pressure on the Census Department that Aleusian (sp?) Islanders were not the same as having ancestors from the Philippines, or from Vietnam, or Cambodia, or Sri Lanka etc . It is similar to Afro-Americans. There is no way to define who is Afro-American once you give up the "one drop of blood" criteria (which no one could distinguish anyway). Afro-American can be a self-identified category, or an other-identified category. There are some who say that a well-known presidential candidate is not an Afro-American because neither he or his ancestors were born in Africa and/or that none of his ancestors were slaves in American. Some say on Afro-American has to have a slave ancestor, even though by far the great majority of people who call themselves Afro-American do not have such an ancestor, nor were they or there ancestors born in Africa. I think it is also similar to Jewish, for example. In that case, there is the "official" definition (your mother was Jewish) but we know there are many other definitions, including self-identification, or identification by Hitler, cultural definition (my ancestors identified as Jewish although my mother is not Jewish), or other identification (I changed my name to disguise my ethnic-sounding name e.g. Danny Thomas) etc. These complications are why the Census Department decided that race/ethnicity was a self-identified category. This includes "white" or "Caucasian". --Mattisse 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind that it's a self identified category. What worries me is that the article says that the definition is one thing, and supports that assertion by reference to a report which says something different! Where does the definition in the article come from? 4u1e 16:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-list Seems to have quite serious referencing problems. Examples:

  • Definition of 'Hispanic American' used in the article does not match that given in the source (ref 7)
  • Reference 10 is given for the second para of 'US Naval Academy', but supports none of the material in that paragraph.
  • Ref 12, which is given in support of the section on 'Commodore Robert F. Lopez', is given as 'United States Naval Academy records on Robert F. Lopez.' This is insufficient to find the data used.
  • Ref 13 does not support the majority of the section on 'Rear Admiral Frederick Lois Riefkohl'.
  • Ref 1415. The article entries for Riefkohl, Cabanillas and Garcia seem to have been copied, rather than sourced, from this page. (And those were just the first three I looked at). That would be a copyright violation. Alternatively, given the nature of the source and its heavy linking to wikipedia, the material in the 'source' may have been taken from Wikipedia, which would make it worthless as a reference for this article.

That's about as far as I looked - I haven't been through the whole article, but what I have looked at virtually all has referencing problems. Sorry. 4u1e 16:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked further - there are referencing and copyvio problems further on as well. Looks like it needs to be re-ref'd and re-written from scratch. :( 4u1e 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist:
  • Farragut section is largely unreferenced.
  • This article feels more like a list than an article. I think it may be better served by getting reviewed by WP:FLC than as a GA, since GA's really don't deal with lists. This article is basically 3 parts: a) the lead and terminology section b) information on Farragut and c) a long list of Admirals of Hispanic decent. Aside from some short introductory information, this article is a list, and should be reviewed by FLC and not GA.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the aforementioned referencing problems. Obviously the OR debate isn't finished either, which constitutes instability imo. VanTucky Talk 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist on the one hand, I don't think the article is really unstable despite this dispute, the recent edit history seems to mostly be the addition of references. However, 4u1e brings up some good points, and especially if the article content doesn't reflect several of the references, it really doesn't seem to me like the current content can be trusted in terms of accuracy. Homestarmy 03:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something else that came to me... I'm not sure if this is what Homestarmy was getting at, but there is also the problem of broadness here, and maybe OR issues: Let me explain. While we may have references to provide that each admiral listed is of Hispanic background (and while I will not say that is true, only to presuppose, for the sake of arguement, that we assume it), we still have the issue that the article has NO reliable way to be complete, despite the fact that the list is sure to be finite and not that unweildy. General officers do not make up a large portion of the military at any one time; and I have my doubts that this article lists EVERY hispanic admiral; frankly barring any explicit list existing OUTSIDE of wikipedia, the synthesis of this information in a wikipedia article constitutes Original Research in its most basic form. To say A and B are true (Juan Smith is an admiral and Juan Smith is Hispanic) may not be original research, but the compiling of a list in this way, together with the supporting introductory information, seems to smack of a novel synthesis (A and B are true, therefore C is also true), which is by DEFINITION original research... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, actually, I was more referring to the content of the article not reflecting the references, but if the topic itself is OR, AfD seems like a better place for this discussion. Homestarmy 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jayron, thank you for explaining what I was trying to say but couldn't find the words to say it. T Rex | talk 01:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-documented article. Arguments above indicate that there is room for improvement (which is the case for all Wikipedia articles, even the FAs). — ERcheck (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is an interesting case of an article on a subject that doesn't actually exist. I mean, while there are many references, no source is cited asserting the existence of the "problem" of Hispanic Admirals in the United States Navy outside of Wikipedia and this article. It seems a totally artificially constructed subject, even if well-referenced. I really don't know what to make of it, I guess some more general Wikipedia rules should apply. My personal gut feeling is that it is wrong - I could make a very well-referenced article on "Polish politicans who wear bowties", but I somehow believe it wouldn't be very encyclopedic... PrinceGloria 07:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, now I see there are policies for such cases -> delist and nominate for deletion. PrinceGloria 07:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re the discussion on whether the topic exists, I would suggest that it does, provided that you have a solid definition of what 'Hispanic' means (from another source, not self-generated), and that you can support the assertion that each individual on the list meets that definition.
I think the current definition of Hispanic given in the article is problematic, because it appears to be original to this article (or at least does not match the source given) and because it involves the 'one ancestor' thing (discussed way above), which is so broad as to be meaningless. I do not, however, believe that it is impossible that there is a useful and non-original definition which could be used. The actual census definition from ref 7 is one (self identifying as Hispanic) although potentially difficult to reference for individuals further back than say the 1960s. A definition of, say, one Spanish/Latin American grandparent would also be usable, and provable in each case, but you would have to find that definition being widely used elsewhere before applying it in Wikipedia. Not an impossible task, by any means.
Regarding the 'Polish politicians who wear bowties' question, I suggest that the notability of the concept may be demonstrated by reference 38, a Department of Defense publication entitled Hispanics in America's Defense, which includes a section starting on page 103 called 'Hispanic American Flag and General Officers in the Navy' detailing listing individuals going back to Farragut. That's at least one respectable source which is employing the same general concept as this article. Other refs, 30 (A US Navy press release) and 39 (from the US Dept of Naval Affairs) suggest that the 'Hispanic' categorisation is in use in the US Navy to identify and publicise individuals such as these Admirals.
Personally, I'm not sure about the advisability of focussing too much on ethnicity. But it does seem that there are reliable sources out there that employ this concept - if the article was more solidly built on those foundations, I see no reason that it couldn't go back to GA. Cheers. 4u1e 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source 38 only goes to show the concept of "Hispanics in the US Navy" is, to stretch it a bit, a subject of original research outside of Wikipedia (and thus can be included without making it OR). But nuffink and nuffink about "Hispanic Admirals". It's almost the same, but not the same. I mean, there are for sure texts about Polish politicans, and I believe some wacky research on people who wear bowties (even possibly Polish people who wear bowties) could be found, but combining them two is still OR.
Secondly, the article is a collection of loosely bound information, put together under the pretence of an encyclopedic subject. They are all factually verifiable, encyclopedic and undeniably pertaining to one of the Admirals of the US Navy of Hispanic descent (for what I can tell), but it doesn't make the collection an encyclopedic subject. If we find all the honorable Admirals here notable in wikipedic sense, they could all "get" their own articles. So can the matter of "Hispanics in the US Navy". But not a concept that does not exist in research, even if it is a perfectly identifiable concept in real-life terms (just like politicans in bowties). PrinceGloria 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 38 is a DoD publication, so I'm puzzled by the statement that it's 'original research' from outside Wikipedia - would you mind specifying what the problem with this source, in terms of WP:RS? Thanks. It includes, as mentioned before, a list with brief details, of seven Hispanic Flag Officers (i.e. of Admiral rank). It also includes much detail on the history of those considered 'Hispanic' in the US Armed Forces, with a detailed account of Farragut on pages 17 and 18. So I'm puzzled by the assertion that there is 'nuffink and nuffink about Hispanic Admirals' in the source. Would a (much shorter) version of the article that included only those Hispanic Admirals referred to in ref 38 be OR? If so, why?
Much, but not all, of the current version of the article does create one concept from two separate bits of proof: of Hispanic-ness (Hispanicity?) and of Admiral-ness (Admiralicity?). And that is OR, as you say. The article would be strengthened considerably if more material on the specific topic of Hispanic Senior Officers in the US Navy were added - Google Scholar may have some useful material for example.
Your second point is really about the quality of the current article. As I have said, I feel the current article needs to tighten up considerably on how it defines a 'Hispanic Admiral' and how the concept is referenced. But I see no reason to argue that the concept does not exist. 4u1e 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 4u1e,
While being "original research" is a boo-boo in Wikipedia, it's perfectly alright in the vast world of science and stuff. Actually, to include something in Wikipedia, you first need original research performed outside of Wikipedia (so-called "primary source") to be able to include a bit of information appropriately. Therefore, the pamphlet referenced as number 38 is not only a very good reference, but the only one that can partially claim to be the essential reference to make this article encyclopedic. I am not that concerned if it is original or secondary research (though it does look original at a brief glance), it is important it is a piece of external research, so at least one person has ever researched the topic as defined.
Or actually, not as defined, because it was not "Hispanic Admirals", but "Hispanics" in general, and I see no distinguishable part of the work dedicated to the subject of "Hispanic Admirals". Let me give you an example - an article on "Hispanic Admirals" would look as follows:
"Hispanic Admirals are people of Hispanic descent serving in the US Navy in the rank of Admirals. The existence of Hispanic Admirals brings about the following circumstances: (...). The common characteristics of Hispanic Admirals are (...) etc. etc."
At present, the article looks like that:
"Hispanic Admirals are people of Hispanic descent serving in the US Navy in the rank of Admirals. There they go: (list)"
I do hope I don't need to explain any further. If I do need to, please indicate and I will try, hopefully with the help of others. PrinceGloria 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<Sighs and rolls eyes> No, Gloria, you don't need to explain further. Your last contribution added nothing to your first. I will note again that the source defines a list of Hispanic Admirals (Flag Officers, same thing afaik), but suggest we don't discuss this further. Jayron suggests EMPHATICALLY below that it's a list anyway, and is probably correct. On a personal note, I could live with you being a smidgen less patronising, but each to their own. Cheers. 4u1e 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to come accross as patronizing. I apologize if you felt that way. PrinceGloria 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. And to be fair, what I should have said was that it seemed patronising to me, not that it was patronising. The written language being a poor transmitter of intent. :) Cheers. 4u1e 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, There is no no reason to de-list, the article is fine and references could be worked. While an article about "Polich politicians who wear bowties" would be uneducational and unencyclopedic, "Hispanic Admrials in the U.S. Navy" is educational and encyclopedic. Is it our job to discourage and drive away one of best editors and contributors? I think not. Hispanic contributions are important enough to have been recognized by the different branches of the military services in various websites. Antonio Martin 15:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then, the reasons given by people saying "Delist" don't actually exist? It's one thing if you think we're just wrong, but to say our opinions are so irrelevant as to not even exist doesn't prove our reasoning wrong at all. Homestarmy 16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the source listed by 4u1e above, the DoD publication that explicitly lists Hispanic Admirals in it, answers my earlier question about this article. It does NOT appear that this is an original synthesis of ideas, as the list appears to exist outside of Wikipedia, so it easily passes any notability requirements and there is no good reason to delete. HOWEVER, and I cannot stress enough so please pardon the all caps, because this point keeps getting missed, GA DOES NOT HANDLE LIST ARTICLES, SO THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO WP:FLC FOR REVIEW, NOT GA. That reason does not change, and it has no bearing on the quality of the article. This could be the best written, best referenced, most perfect list ever created by anyone in history, and it will still never qualify for a GA because it is a list. Take it to FLC... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to delist; not original research. In fact, here are a couple of opinion article from just the last month talking about Hispanic Admirals in the US Navy: [6] and [7].--Alabamaboy 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and what do those men have in common apart from being Navy Admirals and Hispanic? Currently, the article merely states that there are people like that, and that alone does not a phenomenon make. PrinceGloria 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alabama, if you insist that the views of myself and other editors who don't think this article is a GA even exist, how can we take your opinion seriously? Homestarmy 19:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you making personal attacks? I've stated my view that the article is not original research--basically, I agree with the points others have raised on this issue. As a result, I believe the article should not be delisted.--Alabamaboy 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who reads the article with an open mind will clearly see that the article is not merely only about men who have in common being Navy Admirals and Hispanic. It is also about the contributions that Hispanic Americans have made to the United States and in this particular case the U.S. Navy as Admirals. What bothers me is not the arguements of weather or not the article meets GA criteria, that is fine and that is the purpose of this discussion page, what bothers me is the Anti-Hispanic sentiment which I percieve in a case or two. Then again that is my humble opinion and is not directed at anyone in particular. Tony the Marine 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article may have some problems it seems to comply with the GA criteria, the alleged referencing problems should have been discussed with the original nominator instead of taking directly to GAR to give him a chance to work with them before, I can't find the supposed 'original research' or any direct copyvio in it (though if there is some the quantity is so minimal that some rewritting can fix it ASAP), besides those three issues most of the arguments remaining seem like I don't like it to me. I'm not sure if this is more of a list than a article as said here but FLC could be a option. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment The article was listed here because of OR claims. I saw it for the first time on this page, and found referencing and suspected copyvio problems. Those are the basis of my de-list vote. I've provided Tony the Marine with a full list of the problems I see at talk:Hispanic Admirals in the United States Navy, which I believe he is working through. 4u1e 17:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It provides educational and encyclopedic material in a form that allows rapid access to information. If Wikipedia is to be user-friendly, this should be kept. What's the purpose of collecting a lot of data if we'll constantly be deleting ways to retrieve it easily? Pr4ever 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT A DELETION DISCUSSION. We are not discussing this article's existance on wikipedia, only whether or not it gets that little plus on the talk page. THIS IS A LIST ARTICE, AND GA DOES NOT COVER LIST ARTICLES. Thus, it should be removed from the GA list. This is a VERY GOOD, VERY WELL WRITTEN, VERY WELL REFERENCED list, and this should be nominated at featured list candidates if you think it deserves commendation. GA does not handle this. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, tough case here. I'm inclined to agree with 4u1e and Jayron32 in a sense that this article is a list, and a possibly good one at that. It has a detailed introduction, a few paragraphs, and then lists various Navy admirals, with references. WP:GA doesn't handle lists, so their assertions that it is technically disqualified as a Good Article are, I believe, well-founded and well-intentioned. That said, when this discussion is over, the list should be improved with the suggestions provided above, and then nominated for WP:FLC given adjustments per concerns provided by 4u1e and Jayron32 (I have a few suggestions myself, just in case anyone asks).
I would like to point out that I don't think this is original research, the references provide the basic facts for a person's inclusion in the list as part of the topic, which by itself is covered in certain sources as stated by users above. This isn't a list of unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. Please also take note that this isn't an article to establish a fact, it is a list of a pre-existing fact. In other words, the list isn't used to promote the idea that Hispanics, because they have admirals in the Navy, are better than other ethnicities, or that given their diversity, Hispanics are the best admirals in the Navy, it just lists Hispanic admirals in the Navy (nothing more and nothing less). Original research is inherently based on neutral point of view, and the list does not stray to much from that. I just think that it should be reviewed for WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL words, which should clear up most OR concerns. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 05:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal - OK, so I guess a solution we could agree upon would be to rename the article as a "List of Hispanic Admirals in the United States Navy" and duly remove from the GA list while at the same time submitting for assessment as a candidate for a Featured List. Anybody against? PrinceGloria 10:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so much on the present article in question, but I see those (which are effectively possibly huge lists for WP) simply being a list for list's sake, and as noted on the first example's talk page, a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. A category would suit the job much better, if needed to id all wikilinked-in persons of that ethinicity. The titles of both suggest an impossibly large collection (on the order of millions); that is the reason it is impractical to keep these lists.
  • In comparison, the above list is very limited in scope (order of 20-ish), and thus is much more manageable and will likely not contain elements that are wikilinked already. From that aspect alone, the article should not be considered "bad" (whether it means a new GA or going to a featured list).
  • The one thing, I guess, is that what article does this list stem from? I would think that if this article was tied a bit better to Hispanic Americans, it would justify this a bit better. Heck, are there similar articles for the other armed branches and can they be combined into a single article to describe Hispanic Americans' contributions to the US Armed Forces? Well, maybe, not sure, this is ID'ing only the admirals. But still, it doesn't feel like a Featured List to me, and as a GA alone, it doesn't feel full enough to meet a typical GA requirement. --MASEM 13:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Another problem is that there are no final definitions for race or ethnic groups in the U.S. See: Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. There is no way to scientifically define race and obviously there can be various definitions of specific ethnicities. Both race and ethnicity are self-identified (or some times other-identified) categories. For example, there are those who state that Barack Obama is not African American because his ancestors are not African born and were not slaves - one of the many definitions of African American. --Mattisse 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Train Wreck. The focus of the objection seems to be ducking and bobbing and weaving. So let's see. The original claim is that the intersection of Hispanic and US Admiral isn't notable, which is not so; there are plenty of works about Hispanics in the US military [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and clearly those who achieved the highest rank in the Navy is a notable part of that, and this article is clearly too long to be merged into a longer one per Wikipedia:Summary style. Then someone claimed there is no such thing as a Hispanic which is ridiculous; it's not perfectly defined, but nothing outside Mathematics is. Then it seems the issue was with sourcing, which could be reasonable, but now it seems to be about being a list. I think the whole reassessment should be restarted or shelved until the objectors become clear on what their complaints actually are. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree also. --Mattisse 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reguest, as creator, main contributor and GA nominator of the article in the first place, I kindly request that it be De-listed. I can deal with the "list" thing in the future. Thank you all for your comments, both oppose and keep. Tony the Marine 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article's importance highlights the Armed Forces drive to diversify their ranks after previous segregated policies came to an end. The article is not original research and I know firsthand that Tony knows his facts and is never an opinionated writer. --XLR8TION 01:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not explain why this article meets the GA criteria at all, in fact, it looks like it has alot more to do with defending it from deletion that keeping it as a GA. An archivist can safely ignore this vote as it stands for being irrelevant to GA status. Homestarmy 02:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shelve - per AnonEMouse's ducking and weaving comment above. This (whatever it is) has lost all context and meaning. Please leave off, and resubmit if so desired in some sort of logical format with understandable reasons that can be addressed. --Mattisse 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringin' on the Heartbreak

Result No real consensus here, but based on the comments it seems to me that the best thing to do is delist and recommend renomination at GAN. So that is what I will do. Geometry guy 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally reviewed and given GA status a year and a half ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

  • Citation needed tags in the Def Leoppard section.
  • Short lead paragraph.

WikiProject Songs has been notified.
edit: I've since adjusted the above nomination based on improvements to the article since the original nomination. Drewcifer3000 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - per nom. Lead defintely needs expansion, and what few inline citations are listed need formatting work. Raime 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep; article now seems to meet criteria. However, could the lead be exapnded at all? It is adequate and it currently meets GA standards, but is still fairly short. Rai-me 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Could do with some proof-reading too. I suspect that a non-native speaker of English was involved given reference to the video being "shooted".--Peter cohen 19:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
on re-examination, nothing's happened to change my view. Citation tags, links to disambiguation pages. (Which Doug Smith directed the video? Not obviously any on that page. Perhaps the same as the Douglas Smith mentioned in the Hawkwind page but that is another disambiguation link with none of those candidates looking likely either.)--Peter cohen 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still inclined to delist. There are quotations and judgments about the song early in the Def Leppard section without in-line references. Also "shooted" is still there. Is this a valid conjugate of which I'm unaware, or is it indiation that a copy-edit is still needed.--Peter cohen 11:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Inadequate lead, more cites needed and also the cites currently present need formatting. LuciferMorgan 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be perfectly acceptable for there to be no inline citations in the first half of the article - please provide details of the statements you think require them. --Joopercoopers 12:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've placed a grand total of 4 {{fact}} tags in the Def Leoppard section, so nothing too major. I also addressed a few of the typos mentioned above, as well as reformatted the in-line citations. The Lead still needs work, as do the uncited facts. Also, the disputed image I mentioned above seems to have been fixed. I've adjusted my nomination above to reflect the changes made. Drewcifer 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I agree with the above. Weak lead, inadequate citation. Why is this two articles in one? Is that common for covers to be merged into originals? LaraLove♥ 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it's pretty common. It's because it's the same song, just different version of it. See Hurt (song) for another example. I know there's more examples (sometimes three or four versions are represented) but I can't think of any right now. Drewcifer 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have actioned the four fact tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved to what I believe to be GA standards. Unless there's any complaints, I'd like to close and archive this review as Keep. Drewcifer 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You can't just close without consensus. It may be better to keep these sweeps reviews on the talk pages and avoid GA/R unless there are no responses or improvements on articles of questionable quality. Otherwise, do on holds. LaraLove 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't close it without consensus. That's why I went to the trouble to contact every reviewer above and asked them to re-review (yourself included). And I think bringing up the article here was justified since a) it was nominated really before sweeps even began, and b) noone has really come to the rescue of the article except $yd! and myself. Old reviews have a tendency to be forgot about even when changes have been made, hence my contacting everyone to have it reevalutated. It would've just sat here and eventually been delisted otherwise. I'll see about fixing up the article a little bit more based on your and Peter Cohen's suggestions. Drewcifer 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - HOWEVER, I think the credits and charts section should be switched and the lead needs to include something about chart positions, in my opinion. LaraLove 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Fixes still needed:
    • Direct quotes are unreferenced... First paragraph of the Def Leppard Version section, first paragraph of the Mariah Carey Version section, second paragraph of the Mariah Carey section.
    • Lead should be expanded some. It does not fully summarize the article.
    • Organization is a bit weak. Most Good and Featured song articles have "Development" "Reception" "Video" etc. subsections. I would expect to see these subsections under each of the versions. This is not a major issue, but still, while we are working on making this the best possible article...
  • These fixes seem easy to do. I would also like to see more inline citations; there are some challengable statements in the article which express opinions (like "The popularity of the video and the exposure the band received caused a resurgence..." Really? Did someone make this connection outside of wikipedia? This sounds like an opinion to me), but I understand that I am in the minority in disliking unsourced opinions here...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Jayron's concerns. This is not a peer review opportunity. If the article doesn't meet the criteria at the moment of its listing and a consensus has been reached, it should be delisted. VanTucky Talk 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_30&oldid=163646363"