Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 32

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 33)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 31) →

Ohio Stadium

Result: Delist. Multiple issues where the article does not meet the criteria. Geometry guy 20:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

this article is not GA material. The reviewer left 6 things to improve and I found another. This being GA lowers the standards for GA. The reasons are: The flow of the article is a little awkward in places, The article isn't proportional in its coverage, Very little is included about the physical characteristics of the facility , Are there any major traditions held in the stadium, The article has wikilinked names like Beano Cook and Mel Kiper without spelling out why they're important to the article, An inflation-adjusted construction cost would be useful, and the ref formatting is highly inconsistent--the ref situation alone warrants delisting. Sumoeagle179 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. There are too many things wrong with this article for it to be listed as a GA in its present condition. Flowery language, like "... astronomical in size", missing too much information (as above), and unexplained logic such as "The rotunda also features maize flowers on a blue background which is due to the outcome of the dedication game against the University of Michigan in 1922." What's a reader supposed to make of that? Those are just a few examples chosen almost at random. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist for the moment. The prose aren't up to par. Remove parenthetical comments, avoid boosterism, and re-balance the article so it doesn't focus on stadium construction and the Crew. With some work this article can be solid GA-class. Majoreditor 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - I agree with the above, and I also notice that the references need to be formatted. Lara❤Love 04:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Agree with above, and also, the lead is much too U.S. centric. Nationally televised where, Bolivia? Readers in non-United States locales may be forced to just guess. Homestarmy 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delisr for all of the above reasons, and while we're piling on, what is with the rotunda picture? Its use in the article is entirely unclear. Also, the lead has the problem in that it does not summarize the article. There is info in the lead which is not revisited in the article; also there is info in the article that is not in the lead. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

James Strang

Result: Keep. Although there are a couple of minor issues were raised, these are not enough to delist the article, and in any case, it is clear that contributing editors have been fixing them. Geometry guy 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article quick passed GA and yet it does not meet GA standards. For example, the lead is brief - Wikipedia:Lead section- and the article footnotes use 'ibid' - Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once - extensively. Thus it fails on the basis of GA guidelines 1(b) and 2(a) Wassupwestcoast 12:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I was the initial GA reviewer. I actually thought the lead was nice, but I agree it could use some expansion. The ibid format in the footnotes did not make for a difficult read at all. I must say just a note: this was most certainly not a "quick pass" - I went through and read the entire article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

I know you read the article. I don't doubt that at all. But there are enough problems that the article should have been put on GA Hold while the contributing editors fixed the problems. The lead should be expanded. And ibid is a real problem. Note the style guideline says:Please do not use "ibid" or other footnote shorthands. The reason is simple: the use of ibid quickly results in broken citations that are really hard to repair. For example, an editor inserting a sentence between two ibids completely changes the references all the way down. Which source an ibid is actually referencing to can become impossible to decipher. Wikipedia has a number of acceptable citation methods that are robust: for example, Harvard referecing. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability as these represent Wikipedia policy and guidelines (which it does change). Without these changes, I think this article should fail GA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You do make some very good points about the "ibid" issue, and I have to agree with you on that one. Personally, I felt the article was good enough to be a GA at this point, but if you feel it should be delisted to work on those kinks, that's okay. Thanks for the advice and friendly attitude. Cheers to you too! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Comment. The main contributing editor has been revising the article quite a bit and has both expanded the lead and removed the 'ibid's. My objections have been removed. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep in its current state, I see nothing at ALL to object to. This looks fine. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A fine article which meets some standards and exceeds others. Some in-line citations could be better; for example, the cite "Weeks article" isn't as complete as it should be. Majoreditor 04:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The citations could use some work. They're not consistently formatted, some not at all. Lara❤Love 04:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe I was a bit hasty in my keep. There are a few minor formatting fixes needed in the article WRT references. The only 2 issues I can see are the expansion of the bibliographic info in some of the HTTP links, and the "Weeks article", but that is pretty unambiguous, and I am not sure how to fix that one. Otherwise, tho, it looks pretty good. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I fixed the references. Lara❤Love 04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Looks good to me, though I do recommend trimming down the External links section a bit. Drewcifer 07:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Theobromine

Result: Delist. Convincing arguments, especially by Gosgood, that this does not meet the criteria at present. Geometry guy 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Article has problems as noted in its peer review last week. The article is not well organized, consisting more of a list of facts rather than a smooth flow of prose, and many sections seem too short. Some pieces of information are repeated several times in different places, contributing to reader confusion. The article should follow wikipedia's medical manual of style for drug-related articles, and topics such as the drug's metabolism and biosynthesis are not covered. Terminology such as "lesser homologue" are not explained, and more than one reviewer has asked for clarification. No significant changes to the article have been made since it was listed for peer review. Formatting of the article needs improvement as well. Jeff Dahl 05:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I was the person who passed this article at GA (my first review). I notice that at the peer review you object to the use of explanations in parentheses for terms such as vasodilator. I insisted on these being inserted during the GAC. The medical manual of style suggests this very step.--Peter cohen 15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If this was your first review, you might want to have reviewed an article you didn't contribute to. I know you didn't do any heavy work on it and were only fixing things by being bold (Thanks!), but it is probably better to have a fresh set of eyes for the review. Jeff Dahl 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My contributions took place after I had reviewed it and placed it on hold as part of the process of making it reach my requirements for passing it.--Peter cohen 14:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that jargon should be explained, but I don't agree that technical terms should be "dumbed down." The problem is that "blood vessel widener" is really not quite accurate, precise, or professional. It would be like describing Viagra as "making your penis larger" which is sort of true, but is not precise. A vasodilator is a drug that makes the blood vessels relax, lowering blood pressure. I agree that 'vasodilator' needs explanation, but shouldn't mis-represent the facts. Another problem is that there is a wikilink to diuretic, but with the vague, piped phrase "aid in urinating". This wrongly implies that a diuretic is somehow used for incontinence, or to help people go to the bathroom, like finasteride. A diuretic simply increases the body's production of urine. Let's stick to the facts and write something like: "Theobromine acts on such and such a receptor to increase the body's production of urine, making it a useful diuretic." This would be much more accurate and precise. Good articles shouldn't misrepresent or "dumb-down" the facts, and this article has problems with this in more than a few places, where some things are dumbed down and other terms, like "lesser homologe," are left unexplained. I still don't understand what this term us supposed to mean. Jeff Dahl 22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to do something about Vasodilator whose first sentence explains the term as something that widens the blood vessels. No doubt the main author if the article had found the term "lesser homologue" in one of his/her sources.--Peter cohen 14:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this, added a ref, and nominated for pharmacology collaboration of the week. I was surprised to see such an important topic have so little material and no refs! Jeff Dahl 22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a GA. I don't see any obvious variance from the GA standards as spelled out in WP:WIAGA. While the writing is not as "briliant" as may be required as an FA, there are no obvious grammar or spelling or organization issues, so it seems well written. It is well referenced, which is the most common objection to GAs, and again while not of the "comprehensive" as commonly required of FAs, it does seem to meet GA requirements of being "broad"; that is touching on all of the major topics a casual reader may expect to see. While detailed biosynthesis and metabolic information are not covered in exhastive detail, there IS information on metabolism (pharmacology section and effects section) and om biological sources. I would never support this article for an FA, but it seems to be easily GA standard.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is mainly organization. What difference is there between Effects and Theraputic uses, at least in this article? Under Theraputic uses, we get the sentence: "Theobromine has also been used in birth defect experiments involving mice and rabbits. A decreased fetal weight was noted in rabbits following forced feeding, but not after other administration of theobromine. Birth defects were not seen in rats." This is not a theraputic use, which implies it is being used as a treatment for patients. Under Effects, there is a lot of material that should belong under Theraputic uses. Under Sources we get poorly integrated metabolism information of caffeine: "In the human liver, caffeine is metabolised by enzymes into 10% theobromine, 4% theophylline, and 80% paraxanthine." The reason I suggest delisting is because there are quite a few places that are confusing, poorly written, and no one has responded to peer review comments which would have corrected the problems. Jeff Dahl 22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I don't think its unusual to need to reorganise GA articles before going for FA. Mother Teresa is an example of an article that has been agreed to be GA by people including myself, but where I think extensive reorganisation of material is needed for the highest grades of assessment. Theobromine is similar in needing some thought on how it is best structured before going goign for A or FA. The more specific issues can be corrected by the reviewers.--Peter cohen 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This article certainly needs a lot of work, but the only deviation from the GA criteria that I can see is that the lead does not summarize the article. Concerning technical vs imprecise terms, one possibility is to use an informal term, but wikilink a more precise one. Geometry guy 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. More comments are needed here. I was tempted to archive as no consensus, but the article now has a clean-up tag. Do others agree that the lead does not summarise the article? Geometry guy 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist struck thru prior vote. The article is OJ, but I concur with Geometry Guy on this; the lead does NOT summarize the article. There are several sections (uses and effects sections) that are not even covered by the lead. If this were fixed, I would change my vote back, but given the length of time this has been here, it looks easily delistable now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist. That the lead paragraph does not furnish a summary of the article as a whole is endemic of the overall bullet-point style of writing; the lead consists of the first few of many bullet points, rather than a summary of the lines of discussion which the body of the article contains. Compare the prose of this article with the discourse style of Vitamin C or Metformin, which is similar in size and scope to this article. I think the editors have done a credible job of pulling together a list of facts about theobromine, carefully referenced, some highly technical, others of popular interest, and are now faced with the task(s) of actually organizing the lines of discussion; this seems to me to be the draft of the good article, but not the good article yet. Gosgood 21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep. The lead could certainly be better but isn't terrible. The article certainly isn't stellar compared to most of its GA-class kindred. However, it marginally meet all criteria. Majoreditor 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist. The language is imprecise and the prose needs quite a bit of work. A few examples: "... theobromine is helpful in treating asthma since it relaxes the smooth muscles ...", "The loosening of the muscles in the bronchus ...", "While serotonin has a pleasurable effect ...", "... pleasure induced by the hypothalamus as an effect of chocolate's sweet and fatty nature". I also agree with the comment made by Gosgood; this is the draft of a GA artricle, not the real McCoy. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Koenigsegg CCX

Result: Delist. While there was some interesting discussion over how best to characterize and address the weaknesses in this article, the overwhelming viewpoint was that work is needed before this meets the criteria. Such work has not been forthcoming since it was listed nearly 2 months ago. Geometry guy 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Content issues primiarily PrinceGloria 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am bringing this up for review mainly to gather others' opinions. I am really happy to see every automotive article getting promoted to GA, but at the same time, having been involved with the GA process rather intensely earlier in my Wikipedia career, I am also concerned about standards. The major issue I have with this article is one that is slipping throught the cracks of the WIAGA, but nonetheless very important IMHO - I believe the article's content is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article on the subject. If you look at the article, for the most part it consists of a description of technical details of the car, which, even being interested in automobiles above all else, I find hard to digest and relate to. I believe a casual reader might find it very hard to digest through it and get any meaningful message. The other part is a collection of statements made by reviewers, chosen on a purely arbitrary basis (not that I have issues with the choice - you just cannot choose them in an objective manner). This might be hearwarming to enthusiasts, but IMHO isn't really encyclopedic due to its subjective nature.

A secondary issue I have with the article is the quality of prose, which I find questionable at times. For example:

The CCX is also available as the CCXR, which is the same car except that the engine is tuned to run on biofuel.

For me, it is a rather clumsy way of putting it. There are also spelling problems, like "existance" at the beginning of the second paragraph.

I've sad bad things, now for the good things - the article is very rife with references, which is still a rarity among Wikipedia article, and at first sight it appears that those were done correctly. For me, this would be a perfect article for a car enthusiasts' Wiki (I don't know if there is a reliable one), but unfortunately it fails on being encyclopedic. I see a lot of effort put into the article, and I guess I'd have to agree that a truly encyclopedic article on the subject would be much more boring and less satisfactory for the car's enthusiasts than this one is. But, I still believe that Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature should take precedence... PrinceGloria 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. Two formal issues - in the infobox, the standard is not to include information on whether a transmission is "optional" or not. Secondly, the CCXR is listed as "successor", while it is at the same time described in the article as a version of the same car.

Weak Keep - Yes the writing is poor at times, and yes it is a little overly technical, but what else would you expect in a car article? Unless the car is culturally significant or had a recall or something disastrous, what else is there? I don't think it's a crime to go into too much detail. Drewcifer 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I won't voice an opinion here because I am the one who re-wrote the article, but the point that Drewcifer brought up is why the article is almost all statistics; there's not much more too the car. Also the reviewer comments are from every magazine/website etc. that I could find that actually drove the car. There are many copies of the Koenigsegg press-release and some websites add extra words like a Wikipedia article, but the quotations are from people who have driven the CCX. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I can think of at least half a dozen articles on the CCX that are not included (and given that I only read in a few languages, there are bound to be more), so how do you determine which are to be included and which are not? IMHO, reviews are unencyclopedic. I also believe you can write an article on a car not limiting yourself to listing specs - please see such automotive GAs as Mitsubishi i, Simca Vedette or Autobianchi Primula. PrinceGloria 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If the article content might not be encyclopedic, shouldn't this be at AfD instead of GA/R? Homestarmy 03:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really - the whole article is legitimate in that the subject IS encyclopedic, there's no doubt about it. Besides, the least encyclopedic part got promptly removed. I just believe this shouldn't be a GA, because it is not quite a good example of an article in this area. PrinceGloria 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - just so that you know - unencyclopedic content is creeping back. Is anybody really interested? I'd hate if the article would just "fall through" just because nobody cared to read it and comment... PrinceGloria 20:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. There is something inbetween a general encyclopedia and a car enthusiasts wiki, and that is a specialist automotive encyclopedia. According to Pillar one Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopedia, but (in my favourite phrasing of the idea) a nested family of overlapping specialist encyclopedias. So the question before the house is whether:

1. The topic of this article is suitable for such a specialized encyclopedia; and
2. The current content of this article would be suitable for such a specialized encyclopedia.

I have the impression from PrinceGloria's comments that it is 2 that is in doubt, not 1, but I hope this perspective brings the question into sharper focus. Geometry guy 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist (but not delete) - The car specs are great and all, but as Geom Guy notesclarifies above, being all just about car specs and not how the topic relates to the world at large begs the questions is if this is just indiscriminate information. There must be reviews on the car - safety or whatnot - that can be added to help make it less techie. Unfortunately the other GA car articles are not useful for guidance. There's a couple that cover a series of cars so that the specs change between them and the articles are more focused on the series, and I believe that Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina falls exactly into the same case as this one - minimal non-specification details that help to establish why the rest of the article is notable. Obviously I don't think either should be deleted, but both have the same problem with being too detailed (and worth noting both were passed by the same reviewer). --MASEM 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  Lest any confusion arise, I have not yet noted anything about this particular article, but have only made general comments. (I've added the word "specialized" to my two points for additional clarity.) Geometry guy 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  Yea, sorry, I was pointing to your breakdown of what the question is that we should be looking at. --MASEM 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  No worries... now, my view on the article itself is... Geometry guy 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. I'm not qualified to comment on what is encyclopedic content for a specialist automotive encyclopedia, but my impression is that most of the article's content is actually encyclopedic, since it is sourced, notable, and neutral. However, I do feel confident to apply the good article criteria, in particular criteria 1b and 3. The lead does not summarize the article: it does not say anything about the specification, or mention the (apparently notable) Top Gear appearance. Further, in criterion 3, the article is neither broad (3a), nor focussed (3b). Examples of lack of breadth: no market data, no critical reception (I believe the latter was removed from an earlier version); and what about the Nardo trial, is that not as notable as the Top Gear test? Lack of focus has already been discussed: unnecessary detail on the specifications. Further, there is a US bias here: the cited references do not support the claim that the car was developed for the US market, only that changes were made to the CCR to comply with US regulations. The goal was to target a global market, but no mention is made of other countries in which the car was marketted. What about the production figures? How many cars have been made in the last year, and where have they been sold? I know this car was only revealed officially in 2006, but stability is also an issue for GAs. Geometry guy 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - subject's notability was never in question, just to make sure. The notability of "media appearances" and "reactions" was - I love TopGear I do, but I really don't think we have to comment on every car's (mis)adventures during their appearance on TopGear. About the only cars I can think of where mentioning TopGear might be encyclopedic are the Liana and Lacetti, as they have become long-running parts of the popular show. Otherwise, we could go on and on about each and every media outlet's experiences.
  What is more important, however, is that IMHO any Wikipedia article, while it might be broader in its coverage than one in a general encyclopedia, should be accessible to the "casual reader", i.e. non-specialist. I think there are many better forms of storing and preseting technical specs than encyclopedic prose, and many sites that do a better job of that than Wikipedia. What Wikipedia can do, however, is to give a good overview and explanation of the subejct to a person that knows nothing about it - and to do so, it has to be accessible and digestible. There used to be an explicit criteria stating that in the WIAGA a long time ago, if memory serves me well, I cannot find it now, but I believe it is still valid. PrinceGloria 07:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree to some extent with PrinceGloria, particularly concerning overuse of media appearances. I do believe some critical reaction is important, just as it is for films, and if this car is the fastest at something, that fact is probably notable: I leave it to the content experts to decide whether the Top Gear trial or the Narda circuit performance is more notable. I also agree that an article like this should have content accessible to the general reader. However, I disagree that the entire article needs to be of casual reader interest. I also disagree that content should be removed because "other sites do a better job": we are after all, aiming to present the sum of all human knowledge here, and have our own guidelines (WP:NOT and WP:N) for what this includes. For me, the indigestibility of the details is partly a broadness (3b) issue and partly a readability (1a) issue. There should be fewer details, and it should be easier to read parts of general interest and skip over parts of more specialist interest. Anyway, I continue to favour delistment, per 1a, 1b, 3a and 3b. Geometry guy 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment in response to Geometry Guy. I have looked for sales figures, (see here) and there are only vague figures relating to the total number of cars Koenigsegg has produced (ie, including the CC8S and the CCR), rather than a solid number. Forbes says there are 12 this year and less than 20 cars available each year in the US, but nothing specific nor worldwide [1]. The Nardo speed record was not performed in the CCX, it was in the CCR, an earlier car, and while closely related to the CCX, it is a different car so it shouldn't really be in this article. There was originally a critical reception section but I removed it per the nomination of the article for re-assessment (see the last version before it was removed [2]). Oh and Ferrari P4/5 was also written by me so it will probably have similar issues. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest restoring a short version of the critical reception section, which does not revolve around Top Gear, but gives equal weight to several independent reviews. The "12 cars sold this year" is interesting and reliably sourced information, so I would include it. Sorry for the mistake with Nardo: I struck out those remarks. Geometry guy 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you decide which reviews are "worth" inclusion and which not? As I said, such "reception" sections are extremely unencyclopedic in their inherent POVness and, I believe, totally redundant in case of cars. PrinceGloria 11:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reception sections have to be strongly sourced so that editors report on what others' non-neutral POVs are, but in a neutral POV way. Many articles on a consumer product do include this (movies and video games require such sections). I don't see why not for cars: specs from the car maker are one thing, but post-market evaluation is almost always a good secondary source to build on the car. However, it can be difficult to know what to source, since anyone can make a blog and thus publish a review this way or that. To me, you need to choose sources that someone with reasonable knowledge of that field would be considered an authority. Even though I'm not an expert, I would say that magazines like Car & Driver or Consumer Reports would be respected critical sources to pull reviews from -- though in this specific case of the CCX, I very much doubt these will have them. Hopefully that gives you an idea of where to look for such. --MASEM 12:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is your POV. I say all is rubbish but "Auto Motor und Sport" and "Quattroruote". And? PrinceGloria 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to distinguish between cars and films in this respect. NPOV has very little to do with the selection of the sources per se: in this respect, the point of view which matters is the reader's point of view, and as long as all sources are attributed, the reader can decide which source to trust. It is only POV to select particular reviews if the selection does not reflect the diversity of opinion, i.e., NPOV is about balance of content, not choice of sources. Geometry guy 13:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Selecting reviews is inherently POV - it is YOUR POV that you reflect the "diversity of opinion". I have nothing against anybody, we just have to face it - sometimes we just are POV, no matter how we try not to, because we are all different. This is why we avoid situations when we are POV. I don't think discussing reviews is necessary in an article about a car - it could be argued that a movie represents some artistic value it is hard to appraise just by box office numbers, but I believe it would be a stretch in case of cars. There are articles about many other items that are reviewed and appraised, perhaps in a less prominent way, but they somehow do without that. We have to accept that encyclopedic articles on cars are far less involving and interesting for enthusiasts than magazine articles and such. PrinceGloria 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Articles are developed by consensus, not by one editor. If you disagree with the choice of sources for critical commentary on the car, add and/or remove reviews until consensus is reached. That is how Wikipedia achieves NPOV when individual editors have opinions, not by throwing up its hands. Geometry guy 16:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia achieves NPOV by avoiding POV content. Consensus can be used to determine what is and what is not POV (one user's opinion is likely to be fallible), but not to create OR or legitimize POV. Adding POVs does not create NPOV. I mean - we can establish whether a car was a sedan or liftback by consensus on appropriate sources to base the notion in the article on. But we cannot possibly determine the inclusion of which reviews constitutes a valid and "balanced" representation of POVs. Regardless, I find this kind of "information" unnecessary and slightly irrelevant anyway. People can read the mags themselves if they want reviews, you come to an encyclopedia for factual information. PrinceGloria 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though this is a complete digression, I'm enjoying this exchange! All articles are allowed to contain point of view, as long as points of view are attributed to a source, and different views are fairly represented. The issue you are raising is "who decides what is fair representation?" The answer: consensus. It is an imperfect system, but that is all we have got. Imagine writing an article like Evolution or Homeopathy without including points of view. Also, we don't exclude material here because it is unnecessary. After all, if I want to know about this car, all you need to provide me with is the list of sources: delete the rest of the article, I say, and just leave the references section. Geometry guy 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to hear (read?) that you are enjoying it. To cut my reply short - this car is not remotely as prominently controversial as homeopathy, so I do not see the reason to report on somebody else's POV in a POV way. To give it a broader perspective, the press surely has some nice and less nice things to say about certain soap opera actors etc. but we do not report on that, do we? Encyclopedia is also about content filtration - not to exclude information, but to include only such that would represent certain qualities (pardon my poor grammar, SVP) PrinceGloria 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think including comments based on the merits/shortcomings of the car are appropriate to include. For example if a car has been criticised for being underpowered or having poor brakes shouldn't that appear in the article? So long as the statements about the car are specific to a feature of the car (ie pointing something out) and sourced I think they are valid for inclusion. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree: if a car has poor brakes, then that is encyclopedic information, but it must be sourced. I like PGs point about soap opera actors (even though WP:BLP covers this) and content filtration, though: I think this takes the discussion in the right direction. In other words, in my view, this is not primarily a WP:NPOV issue, but a WP:NOT issue. There needs to be an encyclopedic reason to include information from reviews, but I think there often is, and James' examples are good ones. See also WP:Criticism. Geometry guy 12:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist, based on substandard prose. The article isn't well composed. With some work this article could be brought up to par. Majoreditor 14:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin

Result: Archived as an inappopriate forum for this discussion. The article is NOT currently a GA, and was last reviewed for GA status over a year ago. GAR has nothing to add to this discussion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have seen A-class articles which are weaker than this one. An A-class article, according to the guidelines, is supposed to [be], "Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points." As a non-expert in the subject, I find this article fully meets that criterion, and more. Thanks for your time. Setanta 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

...Do you disagree with the GA reviewer's review, or some A-class wikiproject review? This page isn't for determining A-class status, that'd be up to the relevant Wikiproject or Wikiprojects. Homestarmy 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist I make no comment on this article's A-class status, but it fails WP:WIAGA per lack of citations in many sections. The referencing is quite sketchy. Several sections lack any referencing at all, while others look good. Scratch that. Not on the GA list at all. This should be archived soon. I may get to it. This is NOT A-class review, it is GA review, and since the nominator is asking for a delist, and it isn't even on the list, well... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Stone

Result: Article renominated, with a link provided to these comments. Geometry guy 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This article failed a GAR on the sole ground that it had a "weasel words" tag on it. The tag had been placed by SriMesh on the basis of a semi-automated peer review. I highlighted to him that a previous semi-automated peer review had already been carried out, and that the article had been revised to take into consideration the suggestions made there. As a result, SriMesh removed the "weasel words" tag. Jacklee 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Rschen7754 merely failed the article due to it having a "weasel words tag", and did not give a thorough review. I suggest Rschen7754 (or somebody else) give the article a thorough review. If that review is endorsed by at least two other users, then its outcome stands (as the primary contributor to the article, Jacklee should not endorse that review). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Back to Good Article Nominees, the given review is entirely unhelpful and provides zero examples of any actual failure of the GA criteria. I'm not surprised that someone could get confused by the GA reviewer instructions somewhere, since last I checked, they reccomended that someone fail an article instantly if there were any warning tags on it. If that's still in place, it needs to be removed. Warning tags are no substitute for helpful criticism of part of an article. Homestarmy 02:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment – I'm the primary editor of this article. I note an increasing use of semi-automated peer reviews in the GA assessment process. I don't think this is a good idea, as most of them time the comments generated are very non-specific and often completely irrelevant to the article. (For instance, in the case of this article one of the comments was that an infobox might be appropriate for the article, which was clearly not the case.) Editors deserve better than to have their GA nominations turned down on the basis of a cursory scan by a bot. Cheers, Jacklee 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Return to GAN per Homestarmy, and I would like to note that I agree with Jacklee 100%. The use of bots to review articles is unhelpful, and if a full review cannot be done, it should not be failed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Return to GAN with original date of nomination (use the edit summary to detail the backdating). Automated reviews should be banned. They're useless. Lara❤Love 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article was originally nominated under "Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Archaeology" — Cheers, JackLee ^{–talk • contribs • count–} 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Question – should I renominate the article myself, or is one of the editors who carries out GA reviews on this page going to do it? — Cheers, JackLee ^{–talk • contribs • count–} 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If there's no real controversy here about what the best course of action should be, i'd say you could renominate it with the old nomination date yourself. Homestarmy 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Article returned to GAN – OK, I've renominated the article at "Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Archaeology" with the original nomination date of 18 October 2007. There's a link from there to this discussion, so if this discussion is archived would the editor who does so please update the link on the GAN page as well? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^{–talk • contribs • count–} 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Please note that one of the quick-fail criteria is if it has a cleanup template on it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. As mentioned above, SriMesh has already withdrawn the "weasel words" template. — Cheers, JackLee ^{–talk • contribs • count–} 02:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Then one of the quick-fail criteria, (Which are not explicitly mentioned in the GA criteria) need to change, templates do not always reflect reality, and are no substitute for real examination of content. Homestarmy 02:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree absolutely. Perhaps one of the regular reviewers can initiate a discussion on this matter at "Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles": see guideline 2.3 at the section "How to review an article" (I note that the guideline says that the presence of cleanup banners "may", not "must", lead to a quick-fail). — Cheers, JackLee ^{–talk • contribs • count–} 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

One Night Stand (2006)

Result. There was no consensus here to overturn the fail. Instead there was some endorsement (albeit with the suggestion that a full review may have been more appropriate than a quick fail). Discussion here has provided a fuller review. Hence the article remains delisted. Geometry guy 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein gave an inappropriate reason for why the article was speedy failed. Several users have stated both on the article talkpage and here was unfair. Given the problems that we at WP:PW have with sourcing, and what is considered reliable and not reliable, I am asking for a re-review of this article to get a wider opinion on whether Sandstein's decision is justified, or whether the article should be listed as GA. Thanks, Davnel03 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't know what the phrasing would be for Weak Not Endorsing Failure but that would be my vote (for now). I commented on both the talk page for WP:GAN and the article's talk page, so my comments can be read there but, to grossly oversummarize, I think that quickfailing was a little excessive and a misreading of the WP:RS policy, but I am open to being proven wrong. If it's true, at least one or two more current nominees will have to be failed, and one or two previously passed ones will have to be delisted. Having said all that, I haven't gone over the article properly, and I'm not sure if there are other aspects about it that would fail or put it on hold. I do think, however, that it deserves a proper and full review. Cheers, CP 15:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please see types of sources. The WWE site qualifies as a primary source as it is "people very close to the situation being written about." This is not say that primary sources can't be used, but the article should be supported more by secondary sources. Understandable, WWE wrestling is not something that is reported in your average newspaper and secondary sources are going to be a problem. This brings up the issue of notability: is this event sufficiently notable (as defined by Wikipedia, not by fans) to really be its own article? (I'm not trying to call for its deletion, I'm trying to help explain what needs to be done to help it). If you can find information about ticket sales, or number of viewers, or anything else "meta" about the event, and consider not focusing so much on the wrestling aspect, but that it was a pay-per-view event and thus has possible notability through ratings. An extreme measure is that these WWE event articles may not be appropriate for WP and should be moved to a different Wikia, but a summary page of WWE events would still be quite valid -- however, I don't think you need to go that direction just yet. --MASEM 15:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and find extra sources to do with the "meta" as you put it about the event. Deletion isn't a viable option, see here. We have had this discussion about possible deletion over at WP:PW see here. Davnel03 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not trying to call for deletion, but one issue it looks like is that most of the people that responded to that deletion call were editors involved in the WWE project. It's preaching to the choir. Remember that notability on WP is not the same as the more common definition of notability (typically defined by "fame" or "importance"); what is important to WWE fans may not be important to the whole world, which is why there's the secondary sources requirement. --MASEM 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by reviewer: I stand by my decision. The sources are all by the producer of the event; they are self-published sources and as such not reliable. For comparison, would you accept an article about George W. Bush that is exclusively sourced by links to White House web pages and press releases? If articles of this sort cannot be reliably sourced - with third-party sources - we should not have them at all. Sandstein 15:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We can have third-party sources, but they are considered "dirtsheets" in professional wrestling. I've left a note on the WP:PW talkpage, so hopefully some will come over him and give their opinion. Davnel03 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think something critical is being missed here. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, citations are important for several reasons. This article complies with the intent of every one of those reasons. The analogy of the White House doesn't fit. No, I wouldn't necessarily trust the White House to give a completely transparent report on internal matters. But that's not the case here. A better analogy is trusting MLB.com for the scores of the latest baseball games. They give a recap and the score--what reason would I not have to trust them?

Pay per view results are the same as baseball scores. It is not controversial material. It is not likely to be challenged. It is not original research. It is not in conflict with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. WWE.com is, in many cases, the best place to get accurate results and recaps of weekly shows and major pay per view events. Nothing in the One Night Stand article makes use of editorial opinions or questionable statements from WWE.com. I've gone through the article and I see nothing controversial backed up with a citation to WWE.com.

To address one final point, I think that pay per view results are definitely notable enough to warrant individual articles. They may not be considered particularly noteworthy to people with no interest in wrestling, but most of the articles on Wikipedia would fit the same criteria. I'll never read the articles on Standesamt Samotschin, Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect or, perhaps slightly closer to the topic at hand, Super Bowl XIV. I do, however, understand that they deserve a place in the encyclopedia because they will be of use to someone. GaryColemanFan 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

2 Opinions on different things

• Well, I see that the problem is the reviewer of the article. I checked Sandstein's contributions (Special:Contributions/Sandstein) and basically, he has [***apparently] absoulutely no interest in professional wrestling. I have no idea why he wanted to review the article. Well, I believe that someone who is going to review a WP:PW article, should be a member of WP:PW, because then he'd know what and how things go here.

• I believe that it is completely unreasonable for any user (member of WP:PW or not) to fail an article for GA, just because it is headed to the main source. Obviously, any other source could be just lying or making a mistake, and will also be filled with internal commentary. WWE.COM will obviously have the exact RESULTS, exact EVENTS, exact STATISTICS, etc. Its just pointless.

Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 02:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Will this article get a re-reviewing or not? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 14:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A reviewer does not need to have any interest in the topic they are reviewing. In fact, it is better that they don't, because then they can take a more impartial view on whether the article meets the criteria. In particular, I don't think GA reviews of professional wrestling articles by members of WP:PW are a good way to proceed. As for this article, my view is that it should not have been quick-failed, because it does have some references to sources other than a primary source, and because the sourcing of professional wrestling articles is a contentious issue. However, I agree with the overall decision that the article does not currently meet the criteria. The use of primary sources is fine for facts and exact statistics, but secondary sources are needed for breadth, and to demonstrate notability, as well as for any contentious or non-factual material. The article has now received the review comments at this GAR which were lacking due to the quick-fail. Hence I endorse the failure and suggest that the regular editors of the article find a couple more secondary sources and renominate at GAN. Geometry guy 18:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse fail - I, as always, feel for ya. I've been through this enough as a reviewer to know the hardship of getting WWE articles listed because of few available secondary sources. However, it is possible, as is seen in the GA December to Dismember (2006). Compare the listed GAs at WP:PW to this one. There is still a referencing standard upheld. It's just a matter of finding them. The example given here has a book and some newspaper articles. That's what we're looking for. Lara❤Love 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but D2D's article is tricky in sourcing. It says 2 things in 1 sentence, and then has a source which only states 1. 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex94 (talk • contribs)

Blind Ambition (Family Guy)

Result Article was fixed and relisted as suggested. It is now on the list. Discussion deleted by User:Qst so I archived it here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This review appears very poor, it is going against several other individual episode articles for Family Guy, American Dad etc, the reasoning is only minor things, which are common practice among episode articles. Qst 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. The review seemed to be superficial and was certainly unhelpful to the editors. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

• The lead does not mention anything about the reception or cultural references
• remove the link from 2001
• the link to the wiki does not add anything to the article
• talking about how there plan failed, their
• ".[11]. Remove the full-stop after the reference
• Does linking May 2005 add anything to the article? Family Guy isn't mentioned anywhere in the article
• Retrieved on 3/11/2007 -> Retrieved on November 3, 2007 for readability.
• Chuck Klein links to an article on a baseball player who died 49 years ago. M3tal H3ad 05:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, most of these problems were fixed yesterday. The user who failed it had no objections to my renomination of it. I'll make the last couple of changes from that list later today. Cheers, Qst 09:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Through the Wire

Result: Closing review, as article was renominated and passed GAC. Drewcifer 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I think this meets the GA criteria or is at least close to it. I'm listing this here because the editor who reviewed this has made very questionable reviews judging by his talk page. If there are any objections, it can probably be addressed quickly as it's a short article. Spellcast 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Back to GAC Is that a new review template? It looks pretty unhelpful, you can't break down adherance to the GA criteria on a scale of 1-10, it either passes, doesn't, or its really close to either, and the criteria are far too subjective for a 1-10 scale to have any meaning whatsoever. Also, the review in this case was indeed amazingly unhelpful, giving editors no indication at all of why the article fails various parts of the criteria. Homestarmy 15:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Renominate at GAC. A terribly unhelpful review. Drewcifer 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield 2142

Result: Delist. (Closed by Blnguyen.) Geometry guy 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Awkwardly written, with sections that are too precise and irrelevant to general knowledge of the topic; large swaths of the article are unsourced. Posting notices on the talk page and with main contributors met with no response. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist. There are too many unsourced claims, like "More recently in Britain (August 07), the bank Lloyds TSB placed adverts ingame showing various accounts and products available from them." And I agree, it's awkwardly written and fails the good prose criterion. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist Large sections are unreferenced, and the prose is a problem. Also, the balance of out-of-universe to in-universe coverage seems out of whack per WP:FICT guidelines, also the level of detail on the actual gameplay borders on violating WP:NOT#Guide guidelines; Wikipedia is Not a Game Guide... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist The article has some referencing and prose issues wich could probably be easily resolved with some tweaks and referencing but its structure also appears somewhat random and there is a lot of trivial material that needs to be cleaned up before this is close to GA standards. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist Far too in-depth with the individual elements of the game, this should be an encyclopedia article, not a comprehensive instruction manual. Homestarmy 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist In addition to the above, the story section is a probable copyright violation. I will remove it. This article should be delisted asap. Geometry guy 12:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Facing the Giants

Result: Delist. (Closed by Blnguyen.) Geometry guy 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Restarting old GA/R. Although many of the previous GA/R's issues have been addressed a few remain. Namely, a short lead and poor plot section. Drewcifer 03:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist I agree with the nom, the lead is pretty weak and the plot section is confusing. A little cleanup will help immensely. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delist - I originally stated Week Keep on the past GAR, but I am changing my position. There has been no work done to lengthen the lead, and the plot section needs some adjusting. If these are addressed, then this article will easily meet GA criteria, but until then, I believe it should be delisted. Rai-me 19:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delist - I agree with the above. The lead should summarize the article. It should include some information from each section, including production. Expand the lead and cleanup the plot section and I'll change my recommendation. Lara❤Love 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. I agree (WP:LEAD!) and there is no sign of any movement here, so I suggest this discussion can be archived. Geometry guy 12:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Mostly some minor cleanup for the lead and plot sections. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 23:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bills

Result Snowball delist. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Lacks inline references; also too short to provide an adequate view of the subject. Biruitorul 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Too many problems to name. Picture w/o a fair-use rationale, weak lead, no in-line citations at all, poor formatting, no external links, short/choppy sections, awkward prose, probably lacking in breadth, etc, etc. Drewcifer 23:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I will concur with the above. Without ANY inline citations, it is impossible to tell what is actual reported information and what is original reasearch. Prose is inadequately poor, and the organization is a mess. The lead is not an adequate summary, and while the article length is never an issue, this one does not seem to go into adequate depth and bredth as expected of a good article. Also, the picture would never qualify for fair use under this usage; even if a rationale were provided, I would contest its use in this article under any circumstances. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist as per all above. Plus the article doesn't seem to have gone through the GA review process. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Good Golly, DELIST! In no way does this meet GA criteria, per Drewcifer. Lack of in-line citations is enough to sink it. It's start-quality, not even a B. Majoreditor 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per obvious lack of enough inline cites. VanTucky ^Talk 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist plus Comment If you can establish that it didn't go through WP:GAC or WP:GAN or whatever it's called, then it doesn't need to go through here; just delist it. Anyhow, even if it did go thru the process correctly, it's pretty weak on the referencing etc. Fascinating article, though. --Ling.Nut 00:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist An entire subculture comphrehensively covered in an article this small with only two references? I think that's really unlikely. Homestarmy 00:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. How did this even get to be a GA? bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per above comments. Lacks referencing, is poorly written and is too short to provide an adequate coverage of the topic. Per Drewcifer, lead is also way too short, and the image needs a fair use rationale. Rai-me 01:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian Ringneck

Result Keep (5-1) Though there were several "weak keep" votes, along with the nomination to delist, it would appear that all noted objections have been fixed, and it is unlikely that enough delist votes will arrive to push the consensus in another direction. Consensus seems clear enough to keep it on the list. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Does not seem to be of good article quality WikiTownsvillian 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

please explain/expand so it can be addressed. Gnangarra 13:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Besides one citation needed tag, I don't see anything wrong with this article. It seems like ref two covers that section that only has ref two in it. Homestarmy 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep Looks fine to me. My only concern is with it's length, though the article may very well be as long as it needs to be considering the topic. Drewcifer 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep I see NO trouble with it at all. Length is not an issue, broadness is, and this article does not leave me wanting. Also, the referencing seems well within the standards of the scientific citation guideline as spelled out in WP:WIAGA as the relevent citation guideline. Looks fine to me. I see no other variance. If the nominator could explain specifically where he thinks if violates the WP:WIAGA standards, it may help this discussion along... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep Seems mostly fine, one {{fact}} tag though, and it's pretty slim. VanTucky ^Talk 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Houston, we have a problem... that is, unless someone can show that the copyrighted web page at [3] copied from Wikipedia and not vice-versa. --Ling.Nut 12:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok looking at that page yep its word for word from our article, two reasons one is the images are ones I took and they give the source as wikipedia(not quite complying with attribution requirements, but as photographer I'll contact them) and the second most compelling at the end of the article following the Ecology section it says ..., and are sometimes seen as a pest by farmers. (Source: Wikipedia.org) ..Gnangarra 13:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent). Ok then. :-) Fixed a couple links. Your fifth link is broken, please fix. I tried to track down the precise location of the new link.. seems like there's some cool stuff here --Ling.Nut 13:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

done after edit conflict I change the format {{citeweb}} Gnangarra 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Groovy. Can you fix that "ref needed" spot? Anyhow Keep. Congrats on an interesting article. :-) --Ling.Nut —Preceding comment was added at 13:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The fact tag should be addressed, but other than that, the article meets all criteria. Rai-me 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fact done now sourced Gnangarra 06:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

Delist by a consensus of 8-2. Problems noted by the nominater have not been fixed. Also, this GAR discussion is becoming a proxy for a content dispute it appears, and such discussion should be held on the article talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Concerns on 1a, 3b, 4 and most importantly 2b and 2c. Article uses lot of non-RS. Needs copyediting for 1a and 1b. Has got lot of unnecessary details (3b). Article doesnt appear to be neutral, and reads like a fan site, with lot of praises and quotes from the actress herself, or by selected critics. KNM ^Talk 03:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - the article is bad and the assumption of bad faith by its lead editors is worse. Sarvagnya 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - article is very POV, it gives the impresion that PZ is the biggest actress in Bollywood and so forth, (even though she only does all these "pretty stupid girl" roles) and in some cases misrepresents sources by taking an opoinion piece as concrete proof. Also the article gives massive talk space to PZ's own talk and that allows it to descened into a soapbox for Miss Zinta herself so she can promote and glorify herself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Article reads like a Preity-Zinta fan blog site. Quotes from non-notable critics (which are quoted verbatim) in the article can be definitely a POV of that non-notable critic and not a fact required by the encyclopedia. Personal interviews of the actress have been used in which opinions can definitely be biased. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Currently this article depends too much on fan sites and other non notable Bollywood sites by stooping this article into their level too. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - concerns on critics' reviews, sources, and too much zinta quoting. xC | ☎ 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the article was approved for 'A'-class status. I can't really understand why some users do and act just because of they didn't want it to become an FA. What do you mean by POV? Who said that she is the biggest star? And please stop attacking its lead editors. I see no problems with reviews, and if you see Jolie, you'll see much more quotes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Why not actually give it a quick copy edit yourselves if you think it is too POV and quickly find some "reliable" sources" and try to actually help it stay as a good article? If you think it is too praising to Zinta then for crying out loud why not contribute so it isn't quickly to save everybody a lot of time and effort in it going not only through GA and then A again. It took weeks to do. I am disgusted with you all particularly from the Indians here who rather than try to help an article from their own country are just finding fault. It really does make me loose all faith in this "wiki system" of hierarchy if the article can pass GA and A with flying colours approved by many who regularly review articles there and now have this happen. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply. This response is to User:Blofeld of SPECTRE's previous comment in this section where he called a section of people as **** jockeys.

Your response is in a very poor taste and as an established editor you should know about WP:NPA. Somebody's hard work and success should lead to a good quality article, and only then it will be recognised. I can create an article with 1 million **** jockeys written in it, which is definitely hard work but that wont make a good article, would it? Wikipedia editors are well within their rights to question the assessment of an article. If you think that the article is GA, may be you should provide suitable explanations on why the article deserves to be at GA, rather than fuming. And dont blame that Indian editors did not try to contribute to the article. My addition of tags to indicate issues in the article and the responses for the same from the lead editor(s), would hardly motivate me to improve the article further. Moreover, if the lead editor(s) scream and shout and dont assume good faith with other editors, do you think they would come and help to improve the article. High hopes... -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

comment Well in the circumstances of it passing GA and A with flying colours and receiving 25 supports - yes for FA, then get it knocked back to a B after along nomination process and with people now trying to remove aout image license you must see how it came as a shock that weeks of work and effort are being thrown down the pan and appear to have been completely wasted.

Look I can see how you might feel it is written in Zinta's best interest and you have a right to try to demote it but I would rather you out the effort at trying to demote into correcting whatever is wrong with the article. I do think perhaps there are too many positive quotes when I am sure there are negative quotes which could balance the situation. No we shouldn't try to hide her success but I think there are ways of re writing some of the quotes into text so it doesn't sound gushing and appears more neutralized ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Blofeld - Well, do you think other editors here only for creating trouble? I request you to assume good faith on other editors, Blofeld, and also please do not again make a personal attack on other editors. We all are here for improvement of the article and the encyclopedia. You are asking, "Why not actually give it a quick copy edit yourselves.. ". Have you seen the history of the page, in last 1 day. Every effort of other editors (like Amarrg and myself) are being reverted by the user User:Shshshsh. Just as an example, I spent about 30 minutes on the article for "Early life" section alone, trying it to improve, by addressing all the concerns such as flow, copyedit, self-claims, direct quotes from critics, and few other comments from FAC. But what is the result? Within few minutes, it was reverted to his version. Such a bad faith reverts does not help anyone here, neither the article. And what is with all the cry on it passed with flying colours, 25 supports on FAC and all? Those supports does not by anyway mean, this article cannot be improved nor it has to stay with GA status irrespective of its quality. There are certain criteria an article must possess in order to have GA status, and this article is just not meeting all those criteria. See the nomination above again, and the comments of several editors who have asked for delisting. Unless User:Shshshsh assume good faith on other editors, and stop reverting other users, I'm afraid things may not improve. My two cents. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 15:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I've tried to begin rewriting it and any remove some of the quotes to try to address neutrality but it has been reverted. I've had enough ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realise that this is an example of what I have said above :) -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Amargg but you can see how it might appear in that one day it is up for a FA and then suddenly people want it back to a B after a gruelling GA and A process in which we took a lot of time in doing. I can see what you mean about some of the quotes which may appear POV -this can be easily addressed. SOme of the quotes can be written into text providing the same information and not appear POV. What I was annoyed about is that nobody tried to put it right first before taking it for a reassessment. We have had good experiences in the past Amargg ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can be easily addressed, but only if the lead editor(s) are more forthcoming to address the issues. I can start to make changes to improve the article but I do not want to enter into an edit-war, which is what is happening now. And the most important, the lead editor(s) must assume good faith with others, otherwise there is no point. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. What is the problem of reviews. Have you seen Jolie's page? She is successful, and the fact that some users openly show their dislike towards her. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I have just looked at it and I have t admit there is too much reliance on rediff.com as a source. Some paragraphs are argued often completely by this source and often on sections which appear praising. I'd like to use some other examples of where this has been cited. We can't form a strong argument based on this source. I stress we must be very careful in writing an encyclopedia article using selective sources in this way. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My concern is too much reliance on rediff.com and boxofficeIndia.com particularly as the latter doesn't have a home link on it for verification. Encyclopedia articles need to be complied from a variety of sources with references that can be fully verified but scanning the text and the references these are cited too often as are often used to justify whole paragraphs. Now Im not even debating the reliability of these sites -I believe they are but I feel we need to introduce some negative comments on her films and introduce a number of different and reliable sources' and try to address it neutrally for each film rather than conceding it was critically acclaimed. If rediff.com is a fan site then this is flawed, but quoting professional film critics isn't. I would like to see some of the reactions to the film neutrally, Surely there must be other sites which adequately give different reviews of her films. But is does seem that the internet is dominated by fan sites. PLease respond if you agree thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you may consider the article selective in its use of quotes and text to glorify her but I believed this was fact and indeed vast majority of her performances have been praised cosiderably. Now if you have information that some of her performances have actually not been as acclaimed as appears I would most certainly like to know and I think it is vital to give a neutral view of her career and provide fact. I am not Indian and am not aware of the kind of response she's had but I was sure there shuold be some negative quotes in there also to give a more balanced view- I was judging by Internet sources -which you are now questioning. I apologise if I appeared rude earlier but for its to pass GA and A with flying colours and receive 25 supports for FA then get it knocked back to a B after along nomination process you must see how it came as a shock ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is though, we need to write a full encyclopedia article neutrally but if there are no sources which can be used to write it adequately and in a balanced way how can it be possible? It would be a very good idea to give a list of websites that are considered to be reliable and neutral and not a fan site and attmept to build it around this. However it appears that removing any of those references which aren't seen as reliable leaves us with a strictly limited and basic reference system and that much of the article would have to be removed as a result. No we can't based on article on fan sites with clear POV but there unfortunately doens't appear to be many if any sites which can be used here which meet the criteria, especially on a Bollywood related article when much online details are generated by the fan base anyway. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - A pivotal problem being cited is lack of RS. IMO, some time should be allowed so that better sources can be cited. Regarding the usage of quotations (of Prety Zinta and critics), is there any rule/guideline about their usage? Of course, just by common sense, over-usage of quotes seem bad. Still, I am just asking if there is any guidelines on usage of quotes (if there is any guideline, that may be helpful for improving the article)

One problem with on examining the reliability of Indian media/film websites is their lack of international/wide recognition. For example, Indiafm, which is one of the prominent Bollywood related website and consistently ranks in top 100 websites in India (by Alexa ranking), does not even have an article in Wikipedia.

I think, the point that are being discussed here (and noted in the recently closed FAC) form a base on which further improvement of the articles can be directed. Indeed, I started mild copyediting of the article yesterday. So, I would rather plead for allowing some time. And two recommendations I cannot but put forward. For the main two editors - please be more forthcoming. For the main people involved in this GA re-assesment, please let's be somewhat more patient and help the article improve. the role of assuming good faith cannot be overemphasized in this situation.

One practical recommendation: Shaheed, you create a sub-user page and save a copy of the article (in its present state), then let the article take whatever shape it gets for next few days. People are in general very helping in wikipedia. The article is bound to improve. Afterwards, you can compare your saved version with the changed article. I am sure you will see most of the concerns being addressed. And then again, we can go forward for an FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist on stability grounds. An article cannot be part of healthy growth and development when it is WP:OWNed by a single editor or group of editors. The fact that nearly every edit by an uninvolved editor is reverted instantly prevents healthy collaboration, and thus no article which is not allowed to be edited can be judged stable, IMHO. The difs provided above and the article history indicate as clear a case of WP:OWN as I have seen. I almost never vote for a delist on these grounds, but given those issues, I cannot in good faith keep this as a good article. For the record, the edits that have been reverted have all been improvements, IMHO. If the article "owners" don't want it improved, that's fine, but they shouldn't at the same time be upset if this is removed from the GA list. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per above and my comments at the FAC. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:55, 07 November 2007 (GMT)
• Delist on stability grounds. If one user is constantly reverting because he wants to keep his own POV in, it has to be bumped.--andreasegde 05:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry? This POV you're talking about took the article to an 'A' class, and the fact that all these guys who opposed to its FAC promotion are here, doesn't necessarily mean that the article is bad, when all these 25 guys who supported its promotion are not here. These same users come always to each one's defence, when it's needed, to try and force their opinion on others.

My work follows the work of several editors on other FAs, and if other FACs can be supported, this article can also be supported especially when it's inspired by them. I don't appreciate my work being removed just because someone dislikes the stuff personally, and thinks it's bad, without any policies or factual guidelines. I just don't want to even think about keeping it here, as GA; you can declare it as delisted ASAP; I won't regret. Several editors here just expressed their dislike towards the actress, some of them expressed their dislike towards me. I didn't revert edits, I reverted baseless removals which are based on their very POV, without any, again, basic reason.

My reason to add some quotes is because it appears like this on several FAs. Their reason to remove some quotes is just because they don't like it. My point was, another FA can have it, and this article cannot? And then some of them nominated this here, and I find it very strange that all of these users who opposed on the FAC, were instantly here to vote for its delisting. I guess it was something e-mail related, but I'm not sure so I won't speculate.

As per WP:OWN, see Dwaipayanc's recent edits. I didn't revert even one single edit of his, because he is clearly here to help, not to enforce his POV on others. He helps improving the level, the reliability issues, while other editors didn't even care, and only blanked content, claiming it to be copyedits (huh). Some people do need to take lessons and get the matter about what a copyedit is.

I'm not a die-hard fan of this actress, nor am I here to glorify her. Here are all the guys who have opposed the FAC. Just imagine what would happen, if the 25 who supported came here to vote. All these users here presented me in a bad light. That's a shame. I guess these are some of my worst days on here. Good luck to all in their mission. But nevertheless, I'm proud of my work very much, regardless of what others have to say. And that's something that no one can take from me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Universe

Result Delist, 10-1. Also, article appears to have not gone through the normal nomination and promotion process. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article fails to meet criterion 4 of the GA criteria (neutrality). As I pointed out at the article's talk page, this article provides no information about the Creationist version of the creation of the Universe. According to our Neutrality Policy, "neutrality" means "representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views." Creationism is a view held by almost every major religion in the world; I think it merits inclusion in the article. I suggested here that something be added, but all I got was an offer to add Creationism to the "see also" section and an accusation of being a vandal. This article does not deserve recognition as being of Good Article quality. --Agüeybaná 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article is clearly about the physical universe as an observable scientific phenomenon. The topic of a creationist worldview is handled by other articles (obviously), and the article does make mention of alternative worldviews with the passage:

  Other ways of exploring and describing the origin and evolution of the universe include religious cosmology and philosophical cosmology.

  Pointing readers to these comprehensive discussions of the debate over the varied views of the cosmological universe is plenty. VanTucky ^Talk 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Change to Delist per an incomplete nomination process. VanTucky ^Talk 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Scientific article, scientific consensus and scientific disagreements. Philosophical and religious views belong in the appropriate articles. Avruch^Talk 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Delist and send back to GAN for failure to follow GAN process. Avruch^Talk 19:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the GA list. This article meets all criteria; this nomination seems not entirly appropriate. It looks like "forum shopping" per WP:FORUMSHOP. This is a discussion that can and should happen on the article talk page; also the GA status is not an endorsement of a perfect article. I have no prejudice towards adding OR towards refusing to add the information that the nominator requests, but such a discussion is content related, and should not be forked over here. Keep said discussion on the talk page, and I reiterate that the article as it stands now meets GA standards as-is. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, although you raise a good point. If anything it borders on violating criteria 3a (appropriate broadness), not so much 4. Perhaps additional mention of other views of the universe would be helpful, but I don't think it violates the GA criteria because of it. If the article were ever considered for FA status, however, it may be an issue worth further discussion. I would encourage a bit of expansion along those lines (I'd say it deserves more coverage than a measly sentence, at least), but I think it's status as a GA article is secure. Drewcifer 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist Changed from keep since it appears the article wasn't nominated properly, though I still think for the most part it abides by the criteria. Drewcifer 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per VanTucky. There are many other alternate views on the creation of the universe. They don't need to be discussed in depth in this article since they're covered elsewhere. I'm neutral as to whether alternate views deserve a one-sentence mention or no mention in the article. Majoreditor 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Since it didn't really pass, Delist. Majoreditor 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist (well, unlist actually). This article was never passed in the first place. It was nominated on 17 January 2007, and Jorfer failed it on 10 February 2007, giving the lack of coverage of philosophical and religious views on the universe as one issue with the article. A month later, during which there was very little change to the article, Fbs. 13 replaced the two FailedGA templates by three GA templates! The article was not a nominee at the time, and Fbs. 13 made no edits to WP:GAN or WP:GA. This bizarre event was gradually absorbed into the article history as a GA pass: in particular, the listing at GA was semiautomatic.

I'm surprised that everyone else here thinks it meets the criteria. Maybe how this was raised has something to do with it. Wikipedia is fortunate that it has many well-educated and intelligent editors who know that creationism is a load of nonsense, and gets far too much coverage in the media. Consequently, "This isn't a GA because it doesn't give enough weight to the creationist viewpoint" is quite likely to get the response "Oh yes it is".

I actually agree with Jorfer's review. The lead is inadequate as a summary of the article, and this is now worse, as the sentence quoted by VanTucky has been added to the lead, but is not developed elsewhere: when the article was first listed here, the only references to other viewpoints were the dablink at the top, and a link in the "See also" section. I really think that other viewpoints on the universe deserve a paragraph, maybe as part of an extended final section on "Other terminology and viewpoints". Wikipedia is in danger of shooting itself in the foot if it fails to provide good linkage from scientific articles to other viewpoints: the last thing we want to be saying to a religiously inclined reader is "You are not welcome here: go to Conservapedia!"

Jorfer also criticised the verifiability: there are still {{fact}} tags, but also some of the section tags have been removed without being replaced by adequate citation, in my view. Finally, I think some of the science is weak and/or poorly explained. For example: the universe and observable universe are confused (e.g., the observable universe is not infinite, but the universe may be); the discussion of matter vs. antimatter essentially contradicts itself. I believe these issues can be easily addressed. I suggest that this be done, then the article should be renominated. Geometry guy 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per Geometry primarily, as an invalid pass. However, it should be noted that the title of this article is not Universe (scientific perspective), and the idea that only the scientific point of view matters on this topic would certainly cause the article to be lacking in broadness. Forget creationism for a minute, the perspectives of various indigenous cultures throughout history on the nature of the universe are often highly notable topics in historical fields. The invalid pass alone is cause enough for concern though, the GA system has matured enough to the point where integrity is sort of important. Homestarmy 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a treatment of the history of how various cultures viewed the universe would more appropriately be found in an article titled 'History of Astronomy.' Luckily, we have History of Astronomy. Avruch^Talk 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but unluckily, this article does not link to History of Astronomy, nor does it provide an appropriate place (other than "See also") for making such a link. Geometry guy 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A full treatment of the subject would, certainly, belong in another article. But as a top-level article, this one should be using summary style for more nuanced aspects of the topic, and it's certainly not so long that there isn't room for more material. Homestarmy 23:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Without taking any broadness problem under consideration I think this article must be delisted, the article is clearly not a Good Article since it never passed the nomination process, this was a invalid pass and its addition to the GA list was a mistake, leaving it there will send a negative message to the community. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist as not properly passed with option for proper nomination process to take place immediately if editors so desire.--Peter cohen 11:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist: on the grounds that the article is not comprehensive enough for a top level Universe page, and because it ought not to have been listed in the first place, not having been nominated. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean "...not broad enough for a top level Universe page" ;-) Geometry guy 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why guess? Why not check a dictionary? From the OCD: "comprehensive - complete; including all or nearly all aspects, etc." Which is precisely what I meant. Perhaps you've confused "comprehensive" with "comprehensible"? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke: the good article criteria require an article to be broad, the featured article criteria require it to be comprehensive. (I agree with you, though, that this article is not broad/comprehensive enough for GA.) Geometry guy 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had thought that your comment might be in some way related to the flak I received this morning about my criticism of another editor for describing some topics as being more vital than others. To which I drew the analalgy of some people being more dead than others. I suppose I was just a bit over-sensitive following that incident. Sorry. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article meets all the requirements for GA status. It is a scientific article, not a part of a religious article, so creationist views are not necessary for a balanced POV. In fact, arguing for the inclusion of a creationist/religious POV, which - on being rejected - is followed by an attempt to delist as GA is in IMHO non-NPOV. docboat 15:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you stand by that view even thought the article never was properly listed as a GA (see my comment above, in case you missed it)? Geometry guy 18:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a response. While we should not reward people who obviously and blatantly refuse to follow established process, we should also not refuse to recognize this article as "Good" if it cleary now meets the criteria, regardless of how it was originally passed. I would see no problem with renominating this one, but this article has already recieved NUMEROUS reviews above. I don't see many delist votes based on the content of the article, only on the process that got it promoted. Per WP:WIKILAWYER, I would be interested to see if anyone who voted delist based solely on the method of promotion would suspend that reason for a second, and comment on the content of the article. I can respect if there are genuine and serious variances with the WP:WIAGA guidelines, but this isn't a popularity contest or a reward system. This article has been worked on by dozens of editors, and we aren't really "punishing" someone (besides the list itself) by removing from the list an article that meets all the criteria on a technicality. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you thinks it meets the criteria feel free to re-nominate after it has been delisted, logic tells that if something hasn't passed the proper process to reach a status it isn't worthy of it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that our task is to determine whether or not this article meets the criteria. However, please remember that this is not a vote, and it is equally important to base arguments on the criteria, and not on agreement or disagreement with the nominator, or the approach of the nominator.

The initial "keep" votes were primarily responding to the nominators approach, not providing arguments why this article meets the criteria: at that time the article was believed to be a bona-fide GA. In fact it was a failed GAN that was vandalized. I have argued, in general agreement with the solid fail review by Jorfer, that the article does not meet 1a, 1b (lead), 2b, and 3a, in addition to the question mark over 4. There is probably some OR too. No one has countered these arguments. In fact most substantive comments support the idea that this article doesn't quite meet the criteria at present. Far from being punished, this article will benefit from the improvements it needs to be sure of a successful GAN. Geometry guy 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Disappointed Delist Nothing we say changes the fact that the failure to follow process is an automatic delist. I'm a bit disappointed in the beacon-like glare of POV of the comments here, by well-established and respected editors no less. Please direct all flames here. --Ling.Nut 00:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Doesn't meet the referencing requirement, in my opinion. I see several citation needed tags. Also, it wasn't properly nominated. Wrad 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Fact tags need to be addressed, and I am also slightly concerned with prose. There are a few one sentence paragraphs that need to be expanded or merged. The lead also needs work; if theories of creation are mentioned in the lead, then they need to be appropriately mentioned in the article. In addition, per above comments, the article was improperly passed as a GA to begin with. Rai-me 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - Struck through prior vote. Per the discussion with GeometryGuy above, his arguements have convinced me and they seem valid. This should not be a GA at this time, and it is for primarily standards based reasons. This still felt like forum-shopping on BOTH sides of this dispute, but per my OWN arguement above, I am left with no choice but to compare it to the WIAGA standards as they are, and the article does not seem to meet them, per all of GeometryGuy's comments above. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cooperative

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

There are almost no citations in the article. There is also possible bias and multiple grammar and spelling errors. Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist as lacking the necessary citations to reliable sources. VanTucky ^Talk 05:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Article was passed back in 2005 before current standards. Article has lack of citations and the lead could be expanded some. --Nehrams2020 07:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah go ahead and Delist. Parts of it are looking plagiarism-ish, esp. "Social cooperatives are legally defined as follows..." --Ling.Nut —Preceding comment was added at 12:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per inadequate referencing. The lead is also rather short for such a long article, and there are too many one sentence paragraphs that need to be expanded or merged. Rai-me 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist as the article lack sufficient in-line citations. There are some sentences in the article which look suspiciously like original research. Majoreditor 14:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Norman_Finkelstein

• Result: Renominated at GAC Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The reviewer did not provide a basis on which to bring the article up to the standards. Apparently failed based on a POV tag in the reference section, but the discussion on the ref section has been over for weeks. Avruch^Talk 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you have removed the tag, now. I would have thought a re-nomination would be in order. --Peter cohen 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Re-nominate the article. Majoreditor 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Renominate at GAN with original nomination date - Use the edit summary to detail why you're backdating. Also, format the references. See WP:CITE. Lara❤Love 04:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Renominate at GAN Drewcifer 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Renominate at GAN, motion to close. Wizardman 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • go ahead and do both. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Computer program

Result: The article is still lacking in broadness, with unclear prose, a weak lead, and very choppy short sections. The article has been suffering from instability and does not appear to have recovered from a recent edit war. Those who initially supported the article have abandoned their support. I hope they will return at some point to restore it to GA standard, but at the moment the best thing to do is delist. Geometry guy 20:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see how this got promoted to GA status. It seems to me it is pretty far off by many standards. For such a big topic the article is way too small (criteria 3a), the lead section takes up half the article (1b), the prose is faulty in a few places and not always easy to understand even for someone who knows the topic well (1a). I've looked at an older version of the article, good job to everyone who has improved on that, but I'm sorry I don't see how this meets the GA criteria.--Sir Anon 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rebuttal I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.

1. Regarding "For such a big topic the article is way too small": Whereas the topic of computers in general is a big topic, the topic of computer programs is quite specific, namely it's only the instructions for computers. criteria 3a requires that the article address the major aspects of the topic. And the footnote says, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles ... to be listed." What major aspects of the instructions for computers are missing?
2. Regarding "the lead section takes up half the article": Wikipedia:Lead section says, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable ..." The computer program article's lead section is capable of standing alone as a concise overview of computer programs. It covers computer programs that are software and computer programs that are hardware. The fact that it takes up half the article is because the other major aspects of computer programs covered outside the lead are just summaries of wikilinked articles. The reader can visit the main article for information on that aspect of computer programs. Maybe paragraphs two through four should contain their own headings.
3. Regarding "the prose is faulty in a few places": please be specific.
4. Regarding "not always easy to understand even for someone who knows the topic well": please be specific.

Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by Timhowardriley 01:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist The lead seems to be a haphazard list of mentioning what sorts of things happen when a computer program is executed, it mentions RAM and the CPU, but its hard to tell why they are mentioned to the exclusion of every other part of a computer that a program ultimately has to run through, such as cables, various buses, etc. etc.. "Without a computer program, a computer would not run" or whatever it says in the lead is not very specific, because "run" is not defined; does that mean provide a useful function, or that power won't come on, or what? Plus, it is too small. It's certainly not an easy topic to write about since the subject covers so many things, but that doesn't mean we can let things like this slide through :/. Homestarmy 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rebuttal I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.

1. Regarding "a haphazard list of mentioning what sorts of things happen when a computer program is executed, it mentions RAM and the CPU, but its hard to tell why they are mentioned to the exclusion of every other part of a computer that a program ultimately has to run through, such as cables, various buses, etc. etc..": It seems you're referring to the computer programs that are embedded into hardware. It is not a haphazard list; instead, computer programs embedded in hardware are 1) in ROM to boot and 2) in devices to function independently. The article says, "The boot process is to identify and initialize all aspects of the system..." followed by examples. These examples were chosen because Silberschatz chose them in his book. I don't think computer programs initialize cables, but if you have a source on how computer programs initializing busses, then that would be a nice addition.
2. Regarding '"Without a computer program, a computer would not run" or whatever it says in the lead is not very specific, because "run" is not defined': Webopedia says, "Without programs, computers are useless." Whereas this is probably most true, I chose "would not run" to be not as negative. The purpose of the sentence is to explain why the subject is interesting or notable. I would consider the fact that computers "run" to be an axiom.
3. Regarding "Too short": please see my previous post.

Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by Timhowardriley 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. This article is way short of the mark, both in terms of its content and its writing. It doesn't even make sense in several places: "... system software includes utility programs to help maintain the computer." Eh? How does a sort program, for instance, help to "maintain the computer"? It's stretching credibility to include COBOL as an example of self-modifying programs (presumably on the basis of its ALTER verb), and there's no mention at all of topics like generative programming. In short, the article is poorly written, missing lots of important information, and what information is there is sometimes dubious. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My guess on that sentence would be that the editor was referring to things like Scan Disk and whatnot, though that would qualify as OS software, not something hard wired into the system. Homestarmy 01:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rebuttal I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.

1. Regarding '"How does a sort program, for instance, help to "maintain the computer"?' According to the Utility software article, "[utility programs] ... help manage and tune the computer hardware, operating system or application software, and perform a single task or a small range of tasks; as opposed to application software which tend to be software suites." I chose to shorten this information to the minimum words with no loss of meaning. I can now see the ambiguity of the word "utility". The sort program is a utility at the application level. But the context of utility in the sentence in the article is system software.
2. Regarding "It's stretching credibility to include COBOL as an example of self-modifying programs (presumably on the basis of its ALTER verb)": it's exactly the ALTER verb that enables COBOL programs to modify themselves.
3. Regarding "generative programming": this looks interesting. Thanks for introducing it to me. Maybe Wikipedia readers would like a paragraph of this in the computer program article.
4. Regarding "the article is poorly written": Do you mean there are punctuation problems? Grammar problems? Subject/verb agreement problems? Parallel structure problems? Transition problems? Spelling problems?
5. Regarding "missing lots of important information": You only mentioned one topic missing: generative programming. Yes. Now that you mention it, with the advent of application servers, generative programming would be a nice addition. However, this is not "lots of important information".
6. Regarding "what information is there is sometimes dubious.": The information in the article is well researched and sourced.
7. Regarding "My guess on that sentence would be that the editor was referring to things like Scan Disk and whatnot, though that would qualify as OS software, not something hard wired into the system." Yes. Scan Disk is a utility program. The article does not claim that utility programs are operating system software. (I'm a believer that the operating system doesn't extend that far from the kernel itself.) However, the article does categorize utility programs as system software, of which the operating system also belongs.

Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by Timhowardriley 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply:

1. "Poorly written" in that some of the sentences don't make sense. For instance: "Computer programs may be categorized along programming language paradigms: imperative, declarative, or visual." That sentence confuses language categorisation with program categorisation. I have never seen or heard anyone describe a computer program - as opposed to a programming language - as being declarative, for instance.
2. I was just giving one example of the kind of information that's missing in generative programming, and it has absolutely nothing to do with application servers. Another example is the history of computer programs. Who wrote the first one? When did it run? How do computer programs run? What does a binary instruction look like?
3. Here's one example of dubious information: "Application software includes middleware, which couples the system software with the user interface." Whose definition of middleware is that? It's certainly not a definition that I would recognise or agree with. "Editing source code involves testing ...". Does it? Editing the source code? "The sometimes lengthy process of computer programming is usually referred to as software development." Software development involves a good deal more than writing computer programs, and may not even involve writing "programs" at all in these days of component based development.
4. I remain convinced that this article ought not to have been promoted to GA and ought to be delisted. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you: as a result of your specific constructive criticisms, numerous edits have been made to the article. Yes, the history of computer programs could be added. Yes, application servers that generate computer programs as html, css, java, and javascript would qualify as generative programming applications. Wikipedia is a good example of an application that generates computer programs as it generates these pages to your browser. Regarding your questioning of middleware and editing: as a result of Morgan's Moore's law, the technology as evolved faster than the vocabulary can keep up. The nuances expressed in the article are just those nuances from one standpoint. The more quality editors joining the article, the more nuances can be further explored. However, the fact that nuances can be ambiguious, does not mean that the expressed usage of the vocabulary is not of high quality. Timhowardriley 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Having been myself a professional computer programmer for over 20 years I would be more than happy to help in working on the article; it's a widely misunderstod field. But the fact remains that as it stands this article ought not to have been listed as a GA. So I have to stick with my Delist. It's a very broad subject, and I can see that the article is developing along the right lines. Nevertheless it isn't there yet, and it shouldn't have been listed. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist The article is unnecessarily jargon-laden, and not well written for the uninitiated reader. While I would except that certain deep-level topics within any discipline would need to be jargony in their language, a topic as broad as this one should be much more accessable to the uninitiated reader. Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead is not really a summary of the article. There is information in the lead which does not appear later in the article, and there is information in the article which is unsummarized by the lead. The article is NOT well-organized, either within each section, or as a whole. There is no reasonable or logical flow to the article; its simply a random jumble of statements about computer programs. This easily seems to fail the "well written" criteria of WP:WIAGA, and also seems to fail the broadness requirements, but to be honest the article is so disorganized, I have a hard time even deciding that. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rebuttal I would like to respectfully rebut these arguments for delisting.

• Regarding "The article is unnecessarily jargon-laden and not well written for the uninitiated reader.": The article starts out with simple concepts, then branches out to the nuances. Fortunately, Wikipedia is rich enough to have wikilinks for most of the vocabulary used.
• Regarding "Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead is not really a summary of the article." I now agree and have made the proper edit.
• Regarding "The article is NOT well-organized, either within each section, or as a whole.": Here is the organization of the article:

• Essential characteristics of computer programs

1. Computer programs that are software
2. Computer programs that are hardware
3. Computer programs, both software and hardware, manually inputted

Note: manually inputted computer programs are significant because it gives the reader an idea of the mechanics of what now is automated and therefore hidden.

• Categories of computer program

• Categorized by function

• system

• operating system programs
• maintenance utility programs

• application

• Categorized by language paradigm

• imperative
• declarative
• visual

• Peripherial information regarding computer programs

• Execution

• How programs are loaded
• Many programs can simultaneously run

• Simultaneous programs through software techniques
• Simultaneous programs through hardware techniques

• Programming
• Self-modifying computer programs
• To be added: generative programming

Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by Timhowardriley 08:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Recent edits:

1. Regarding "the lead section takes up half the article": I read too much into Wikipedia:Lead section says, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article..." I added headings for paragraphs two through four, and it now looks consistent with Wikipedia.
2. Regarding "How does a sort program..." belong to system software: I addressed the ambiguity of utility programs by saying that utility programs also solve application problems.
3. Regarding '"Without a computer program, a computer would not run" or whatever it says in the lead is not very specific, because "run" is not defined; does that mean provide a useful function, or that power won't come on, or what?': I replaced "computers would not run" with "computers are useless".

Please post any replies below. This response was submitted by Timhowardriley 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm glad to see someone is taking an active role in the GAR - alot of good editing has come of it, and hopefully there is more to come. From my own perspective, I too don't think the article is GA-worthy, but mostly for some pretty simple (and hopefully simple to rectify) reasons:

1. The lead is still somewhat weak. Particularly the second and thrid sentences. The second sentnece is poorly written and somewhat vauge, and the third reads more like an argument then an encyclopedic entry ("Morever" especially). Also, I still don't think it really summarizes the rest of the article. Ideally, I'd recommend at least a sentence dedicated to each section, though you may be able to squeeze a few together.
2. The citations should be immediately after punctation and without a space. This. Not this.
3. Many of the sections seems somewhat small, especially the subjects containing a Main Article link. For many of these sections, it may just be a simple matter of lifting a few sentences or a paragraph or two from other articles to fill things out a bit.
4. Along the same lines as the previous point, and after lookin at the organizational bullet points posted above, I definately would say things could be expanded considerably. Some of those bullet points mentioned above are only represented by a single sentence or two, when I'm sure they could be expanded to a fairly robust section/subsection.
5. Lastly, organization-wise, I would say the article would benefit from some subsections, rather than a whole bunch of full-blown sections. The good thing about turning some sections into subsections would be that a) they wouldn't need to be as long as a full section ideally should be, b) the content is organized more logically and readably, and c) you could introduce some ideas behind various subsections in the introduction to the full section. I'm not sure if the way I said that made any sense, but hopefully that was clear.

Hope all of this seems doable. Drewcifer 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Take a fresh perspective: The article has benefitted from the abondance of constructive criticism. If you still see logical edits to be made, then please be bold. Timhowardriley 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article, especially the lead, has massively changed for the better, even if improving the lead was not intented. Although I think the article could be more comprehensive, such as including information on history of computer programs, the main stuff about what a computer program is is there, and I see no further GA related problems. You'll want to have more than three or four inline references if you want FA status, and the last two subsections in the first main section as well. Homestarmy 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• The lead seems to have disappeared to almost nothing. I wonder if we're both looking at the same article? In any event, it's patently clear that the article is not stable, an automatic GA fail. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article is rather on the short side, has many sections, and some of them are sort of small to bother summarizing in the lead. At least, that's what I think of it. However, the article instability is a direct result of this GA/R I presume, (Unless there's some edit war i'm not seeing?) and instability created as a result of the GA process is exempt for stability rules. I don't know if that's formally in a guideline somewhere or not, but it has been the informal consensus around here anyway. Homestarmy 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't see the problem here. The article when it was listed clearly did not meet the GA criteria. Some work has been done on it since this objection to its listing was raised, but not nearly enough. Your argument about some sections being too small to summarise in the lead seems to be disingenuous, as the lead is supposed to be a short summary of the article. Two rather desperate looking sentences hardly constitutes a summary. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, it seems you're right, but when I looked at it earlier today, it was at least several sentences long. Now, it is too short. I'll avoid making another decision until the editing stops mostly, but if the current lead is what the main author is shooting for, this article should never be a GA. Homestarmy 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Follow up comment: The article has yet again been majorly reworked, but I don't think it is enough to be a GA yet (see comments by others above). To add to what others have already said about the lead and the sizes of the sections, I don't agree that we can declare that it meets the stability criteria, while there is no edit war there is one editor who is obviously not happy about the article and about its scope ([4] and more recently [5]). I see no point to rush it to a GA status.--Sir Anon 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I truly appreciate the work that Timhowardriley has done on this article. His dedication to it is quite impressive and should be commended. However, this is a good time to bring up the value of collaboration. I recommend bringing some more people on board to work on this article. I have this problem when I edit articles as well, and I have found thata few extra people working on an article, tend to smooth out the "rough edges". This link here is to an excellent essay by Tony1, an excellent editor here at Wikipedia, that explains what I am talking about here. Part of the problem is that Timhowardriley is VERY knowledgeable in his subject matter. I know two things about computer programs: Jack and Shit. When I read this article, I have a hard time parsing the language of it. It is an issue of overall flow, and of the jargony language that is used. What is patently obvious to the expert is NOT always so to the uninitiated, and being a general knoweledge encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to be understood BY the uninitiated to a subject matter. Also read How to write in summary style. An article like this should be more an overview article, which should lead to more detailed and more expert-appropriate articles. See, the problem is not with any one sentance, or with any one word, its the overall tone and flow of the article that gets in its way. I highly recommend bringing more people on board to help with this, such as other editors with a specialty in Computer Programming, AS WELL as some unitiated copyeditors, perhaps someone from The League of Copyeditors who are GREAT at helping with cleaning up the prose. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, I know a great deal about computer programs and programming, and I know that that this article does not even get close to doing justice to that subject. It's not a copyedit that's needed but a complete re-think. As to to the wider issue of helping to improve the article, fine. But that's not the issue being discussed here. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Be careful I am also a professional software engineer with many years experience. There is a lot of stuff about programming and programs that professional developers know that does not belong in what should be a high level introductory article that should be easy to read even for some one with little or no computer science background. As it is there is probably too much technical terminology in the article right now.Rusty Cashman 20:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I will no longer try to find ways to improve an article. I am sorry if I thought that was the purpose of Wikipedia. It is apparently not. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to have lost your way. We are not discussing the "improvement of articles", or the "purpose of wikipeda"; we're discussing whether this article ought to have been listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuarum 05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• You are still right, and I am still wrong. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist for the moment. It was my mistake to pass it in the first place. While the article is actually improving as a result of this discussion there is currently an edit war going on over the lead. While I think a compromise will be reached (I am trying to come up with some compromise wording right now), it is not good to have so unstable an article labled GA.Rusty Cashman 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist The edit warrior responsible for this version of Computer program still has the article on his watch list. Timhowardriley 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)