Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 44

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 45)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 43) →

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

Result: GAN review reopened (on a new review page) Geometry guy 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was failed for not meeting the stability criterion. I contacted the reviewer in disagreement, and he said that he did see my point and wouldn't be offended if I sought a reassessment, but that nevertheless, he felt it was not stable. I disagree with this assertion as I feel the overall content of the article has been relatively stable for the past month and a half. What should be noted that Doctor Who articles are more popular, and thus more prone to unhelpful original research and unsourced content than most fictional series, and the corresponding WikiProject's members are equally more swift in reverting these. It's been a small, but manageable thorn in the WP's side, and we try to educate newbies as best we can. I feel that an article's relative popularity to readers and new editors should not result in GA failure, and I thusly seek a reassessment. Thank you. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the history does not suggest instability, nor is the topic expected to be unstable (has a US air date even been set?) Removing OR and unsourced contributions from IP or newer editors is necessary in general and not an indication that there's content instability. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 26. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original reviewer and I thought I would explain my reasoning for failing the article for stability. This is was I wrote at the original review:

To clarify my reasoning for the failure, I believe that while repeated reversion due to vandalism should not disqualify an article from GA status, reversions caused by disagreements over whether good faith content conforms with our content policies is another matter. These matters should be discussed on the talk page to encourage consensus building over the article's content. In sum: When it is clear there is ongoing disagreement over good faith article content, I believe the article cannot be listed as a GA until the disagreement is resolved through means other than multiple reversions. Thank you.

Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've looked into the article history over the last two months. I see no instability here, only the removal of unsourced speculation and original research, something which should be encouraged. It is not necessary to open a new discussion every time an editor adds unverifiable material (or indeed any material—see WP:BRD): reversion with a clear edit summary is a first step. With inexperienced editors, it is perfectly reasonable to take the discussion to user talk rather than article talk. More experienced editors will likely comment on article talk anyway if they believe the reversion needs to be discussed (again per WP:BRD). Vicenarian might have a point about consensus building if the issue of "continuity" material were new to the article. However, it had already been discussed extensively in April when there was a continuity section, but it became a magnet for the addition of unsourced speculation. See e.g., this thread.

GAR generally doesn't provide reviews in the absense of a full review of a nomination. Vicenarian could be asked to consider reopening the review, and I would encourage that, but if he is unwilling to do so (as he is entitled), the simplest resolution is to renominate the article. In my view it would be reasonable to reinsert the article into the list of nominations, but that view may not be universally held. Geometry guy 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment would probably be faster; it took five weeks for this to be reviewed. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Community GAR can't provide reviews to list from nothing: such a review would require at least one contributor to the GAR to look at the article in depth, checking sources and evaluating the article against the criteria, raising improvements that need to made, checking they have been made, and then signing off that he/she believes the article meets the criteria. That is exactly the service provided by GAN and the GA process doesn't have the resources to duplicate it at GAR. Geometry guy 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I took a look at the article's history, and I must say I agree here with Sceptre (talk · contribs) and Masem (talk · contribs). Stability is not an issue with this article, especially when the only instances seen in the history are of blatantly inappropriate additions of WP:OR, unsourced content, etc. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would be very much willing to do a more detailed review. This has been excellent feedback for me as to how the "stability" criterion should be applied in the future, and as to what the consensus is with regards to its application in this case. I will go ahead and do the review here in the GAR, if there aren't any objections. It might be a day or so, as I have some pressing business IRL, and I want to do a thorough review. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Vicenarian, this is the best possible outcome for all concerned. I think it would be better if you conducted your detailed review on a review subpage (either the original one or the next one). I suggest you take you time with a detailed review. Start when you are ready, and place the article on hold if necessary. Meanwhile, if you agree, I will close this reassessment. Thanks again. Geometry guy 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a problem, a new review subpage will be fine. Go ahead and close this out. Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, I'd like to pause for confirmation from Sceptre that this is okay before closing. Geometry guy 21:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine by me. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here goes. This was promoted to GA way back in 2006 and it's slipped majorly since then. The numbers refer to sections of WP:WIAGA:

• 2c. Some issues with original research/weasel words, such as "seen as[citation needed] somewhat similar to that of contemporary TV hit Twin Peaks (in which David Duchovny guest starred as a DEA agent)." and "as many wondered how the show could maintain the dark tone and atmosphere that characterized many of the episodes in the first five seasons.[citation needed]." These have been tagged with {{Fact}} for over a year.
• Also, "Whilst a relatively in-the-background type character in the 1st season, the character's role and importance in the storyline would evolve over the next eight seasons, until Skinner became an integral part of the X-Files plot." Dangling modifier alert!
• Another {{Fact}} in paragraph 3 of "Early production issues." Lots of unsourced info from there on out.
• 3a. There's virtually no information on critical reception from reviewers. Isn't that kind of essential to a TV show article?
• Way, way, way, way too many unsourced sentences in general. Many of them seem to be additions by fanboys/fangirls who seem to have mistaken this for a fansite.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article needs some work, of course. Many references lack required information (authors, publishers etc). Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I see many valid {{fact}} tags in the article, and many places for more that could/should be added. I see subsections for Legacy and Awards, but not much really on overall Reception. There are some nice boxes for Cast of characters, but I am not seeing much really on the actual initial casting and production process itself. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Something like that is definitely necessary for a GA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The need for cites is indisputable, and i don't see much work to fix this yet.YobMod 10:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with the above consensus to delist and was intending to do so. However, on looking more closely at the article and rereading the above comments, I believe it would be helpful to future editors to provide more suggestions on improving the article: weasel words, poor prose, missing citations and bibliographic information, and the absence of reception and production sections are certainly issues, but they partially miss the point, in my view.

I would note first (for information) that the original GAN version was no better in terms of citation, reception, trivia, etc. The current version of the article is not substantially changed since the last peer review: as this long diff shows, the main changes have been the removal of images and citations (without removing the cited material) and expansion of the latter part of the article (seasons 7-9, episode types, legacy).

In contrast, the peer review had a different focus: "Wow, this article is huge...It might be best to merge the production details into a separate Production section and move the plot details into a Plot section...Ten Thirteen Productions Consider losing this." and in response "When ready, we can move them [each season] to their own articles, and cut down each season in the main article to a brief summary."

Well the peer review had it right, in my view, but it never happened. The article is poorly organized and has major 3b failings: the material on each season goes into unnecessary detail, which could be moved to spinout articles per WP:Summary style. The Ten Thirteen Productions material is mostly tangential, while the 2008 film gets just four short sentences.

There is plenty of production information and critical reaction in the article, but it is spread all over the place, blended together and mixed in with plot information. Consequently it is virtually impossible to extract any particular information about the series without reading the entire article from start to finish, which takes not far off an hour (I am sympathetic with any reviewer who gave up part way through!). Substantial trimming and restructuring are required to deal with this, not just adding some cites and removing some fanboy material. Geometry guy 19:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist. Per GA issues (see e.g. WP:LEAD and WP:WAF) noted below. Geometry guy 19:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notices have been left on the article's, the main contributors', and the WikiProjects' talk pages about this reassessment. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing this article for Sweeps and would like to get a community consensus on the article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have already made minor corrections to the article, but have included several points below that I believe need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA.

1. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. It currently does not touch on all of the sections in the article, including the Cultural impact section.
2. The majority of the article is spent detailing the fictional history of the Institute, but is limited on its creation and cultural impact. This may raise issues of the article being in-universe.
3. The article briefly touches on the conception, can this be expanded on? For example, take a look at Jason Voorhees, for ideas on expansion. I recognize that there may be limited sources on this topic, but it would be beneficial to look for any other ways of expanding the article.
4. File:Torchwood cardiff agents.jpg and File:Torchwoodint.jpg are both used in this article. For WP:FILM, non-free images need to cite why they need to be included in the article (to illustrate the text which can be best conveyed through an image, for example) instead of being used for decoration for example. The first image could probably still be used in the article if there was further explanation of the clothing developed by the crew, or the importance of women agents, etc. The second image could probably be argued for inclusion about the effects (the spaceship in the background), how the Institute was designed by the crew, etc.
5. The cultural impact section has been tagged for expansion since June 2008. Is there any other recent news articles, DVD commentaries, documentaries, etc. that focus on this? Are there toys, other tourist spots, souvenirs, etc.?

For these reasons listed above (mainly point two) I would like to see what others think about the status of the article. I believe that the lead and images can be fixed quickly, but am wondering about the possible in-universe content. This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it over the next few days. I just woke up now, so I'm understandably a little bit tired and can't work on it now :p. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly work on these issues straight away but I am in Mods revision mode at the moment.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history 1879–2006 tends slightly toward proseline when it lists some of the events. This is nothing that can't be cleaned up fairly swiftly by a determined editor though. The article has a lot of strengths. I agree the "Cultural impact" section is a little sparse. I think that if the issues above can be improved upon the article then the article can remain a GA. –Whitehorse1 03:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Cultural impact subsection is way too short. I agree that most of the article is way too in-universe with a heavy emphasis on summarizing the plot/fictional elements, with not enough discussion from secondary sources on Critical reception, cultural references, production, themes, etc. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: List as GA per improvements made and consensus below. Geometry guy 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reassessment Request

I have decided to enter the page for a Reassessment. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Reasons to reassess:[reply]

• It is a good article with additional new material, since last review.
• Editors were not given much time to respond to the spot review when it was delisted (as I said at the time it caught me at a busy time of year)....
• The reviewer made what they admitted were minor change requests that should not have disqualified it. I consider them minor matters when you see the length of the article.
• The reviewer wanted a longer intro. I do not think a longer introduction is in the interest of the article, its a long enough article as it stands.
• The reviewer wanted two sentences to be cited.... Requesting citations can be better handled by adding a fact flag. I believe he did not see some of the cites. Everything was cited to cut down on footnotes everywhere, we put most footnotes at the end of each paragraph about the entire paragraphs.

I respectfully request new consideration. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things done to help article

I just fixed the two citations the reviewer requested when he delisted it. Goldenrowley (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The concern raised by Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) about the WP:LEAD of the article in the review at Talk:Ohlone#GA_Sweeps_Review:_On_Hold appears to still be a valid issue. The subsection Language should probably be moved up closer to and/or integrated with the subsection on Culture. Notable Ohlone people - could this subsection be expanded upon, and split off into its own List of Ohlone people instead? See cite id style of Notes/References formatting (for a good example of this in action, see The Simpsons (season 3)) - this is certainly not necessary but it would be most helpful in checking cited sources instead of scrolling back and forth. Just a suggestion for further improvement. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a purpose in moving notable people to a new page? Other items about what order to put things in are worth thinking about. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohlone#Notable_Ohlone_people subsection looks awkward as is, especially the "Notable" in the subsection header. I really think it would be better placed in its own list page. Perhaps keep a link to it with a subsection and prose/paragraph format discussion of a few of the most famous/noteworthy, perhaps three or max five or so, instead of a list, in this article. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List Comment. I think this article pretty much meets the GA criteria as it stands (I agree that the lead should be expanded a little though) and it should probably be listed. I do have a minor unease about the ordering of some sections—I'd prefer to see the History section first, for example, but nothing that I think is serious enough to make me fail the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A new editor has graciously risen to the challenge of improving the intro over night, I hope you like his/her additions. Goldenrowley (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it now, looks good. If this was at FAC I'd still be critical of a couple of things, like the shamanism apparently being lobbed in like a hand grenade, but it's not, so you're in the clear so far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I first reviewed the article, I left the article on hold for a week as well as left messages on the talk pages of the main contributor(s)/WikiProjects. I will always be willing to leave a review open for a longer duration if progress is being made or if someone requests for additional time. Compared to the initial revision, it looks like the lead has been expanded significantly. The statements that needed sources now have them. It would probably be beneficial to merge or expand on the single sentences in the article, but I won't hold those against the article. However, the dead links should be fixed. As a side note, I tagged the free images in the article earlier to be moved to Commons, if someone has an account it would be beneficial to move them overs so that other language Wikipedias could use them. Good work on the improvements so far. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I hope I did not sound critical of you in making my initial case here, but I now have the time to address the page again and thought it's "good". I can work on the dead links. Thanks ! Goldenrowley (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was devastated. No just kidding, there's no worries, and I'm glad someone is returning to improving the article back to its prior state. If you need help fixing any of the links, let me know and I'll try to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed almost all the dead links but 2. The orange one (Mutsun revitalization - language [mutsunlanguage.com] is not "dead" so I don't know why it's "suspicious"? The other "California Federal Recognition: A Request for Your Support [native-net.org]" used to be there it's white paper or letter if I recall, our citation says Data retrieved November 21, 2006. I think should remain in as such. Goldenrowley (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was considered suspicious because it was redirecting to the other page. I changed the link to bypass this. Sometimes old articles will redirect to the main newspaper's page so it's beneficial to use the Wayback Machine to find an old revision. That wasn't the case here, so it looks to be fine. Looking over the article, I believe the article can be relisted since the issues I initially raised have been addressed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a heads up to let you all know that I will be offering significant changes to the Before Europeans (or whatever that header said) subsection of the History section in coming weeks. That section reflects 1960s thought on San Francisco Bay Area prehistory. Significant new works were published in 1984, 1992, and a major new time scale was offered in a 2007 publication. I have not done the changes yet because I am waiting for a copy of the 1968 piece by Stanger (a historian, not an archaeologist) from my local library. The article was the source of current text, and I feel that I need to have read it and make sure he was a "second-hand" source even in 1968, before I try to convince user Goldenrowley that the text needs to be completely replaced. I do not know if this is relevant to the GA process, but do not want you to think everyone is completely happy with this article.Middle Fork (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite normal for work on improving an article to continue after its GA listing. GA isn't the end of the road, it's just a step on the way. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like what Middle Fork adds, so I don't think we'd have any edit war brewing. Except for a few places, I believe Milliken (a modern author/historian) influenced the writing the most (not Stanger). I just think we've addressed everything on the (first) GA list. I just reviewed and deleted the last badlink. Everything else were recommendations not required by above people. . Goldenrowley (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wuuuhooo!!! I'm glad for all the work of the long-time editors, and glad I could add. May the gods shine on the Ohlone article.Middle Fork (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I had a look at the article with a view to closing the reassessment in the light of the improvements made and the encouraging commentary above. At first it seemed that the article might be undercited, but then I looked at one of the footnotes and was very impressed. I really like the citation method employed. Not only is the article less cluttered, but the single cite per paragraph encourages commentary on the source material that would be an unhelpful digression for most readers, but is extremely useful for a few. Nice work!

Can I check though what are the sources for the following assertions?:

• "The ethnographic Ohlone did not have a writing system." (Asserts a negative, which is hard to prove!)
• "The Costanoan language family is considered extinct, although today Mutsun, Chochenyo and Rumsen are being "revitalized" (relearned from saved records)." (Considered extinct by whom?)
• The population graph File:OhlonePopulation5.png looks like original research: it would benefit from a caption and a source.

Many thanks. Geometry guy 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are good comments we can work on them. So should I be bold and mark it as a good article again? I am not sure how and when to close the discussion. Goldenrowley (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't. It's important for the integrity of the process that reviews are closed by a dispassionate third-party without any stake in the outcome. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. I worked on Geometry Guy's requests today.Goldenrowley (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last of the three criticisms from Geometry Guy, prior to European colonization, no culture or language group north of Mexico had a writing system. They did not have space ships either. I do not know why you even have to mention it one way or the other.Middle Fork (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the fact that they "did not have a writing system" as you pointed out, since they did not have spaceships either. I also deleted a word that inferred they might have spelling without writing. This takes care of what I perceive are the stopping points on the discussion. I'll go get Geometry Guy to reassess it now.Goldenrowley (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comparison is fair. Most readers would not expect them to have spaceships, but many might imagine that they had a writing system, since many civilizations did at the time. "No culture or language group north of Mexico had a writing system [prior to colonization]" is a strong statement, in which I would either replace "had" by "is known to have had" or preface by "Scholars believe that". However, dropping the sentence is a perfectly acceptable solution at the GA level. Geometry guy 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this discussion can be closed as list as GA (as the delisting reviewer is among those making this recommendation), and will do so in a couple of days, unless there are objections, or another reviewer does so sooner. Geometry guy 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GGuy, lacking a direct citation I thought best to just leave the comment about written language out. It was not an elemental point. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist. Criterion 1,2 and 3 failings have been identified below, and remain unaddressed. Geometry guy 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, some background. A month or so ago the article was added as a GA nomination; in my view it was a premature nomination. I IAR-removed it, believing that was the most appropriate action. Just 6 days later it was placed back in the nominations queue; a reviewer passed the article. The article falls substantially short of meeting GA standards in my view.

• Fails criterion 1:
  • Has embedded lists in the form of lists or very listy prose. Sections like 'Engineering and innovation', 'Literature', 'Science and philosophy', 'Nomenclature', generally have had asterisks removed so they are no longer bulleted lists, and a few linking words (like "and") added, rather than been rewritten to prose. Mere listing of names with a mention of the field in which they worked is not sufficient.
  • It frequently includes standalone, orphaned sentences such as "The Church of England remains the official established church of England."

• Fails criterion 2:
  • It contains unusual - unreferenced - statements, like "Heart of Oak" is "often considered [an] unofficial English national anthem", which is uncited, nor is it reflected in the linked wikiarticle.
  • Many web references are not properly formatted lacking publishers and access dates.
  • It uses multiple citation methods outputting in different formats. The references section is disorganized.
  • It uses unreliable or poor quality sources:
    • There is excessive reliance on tertiary sources, which is unnecessary for a topic of this nature; this is done almost to the point of caricature, seemingly seeking to use as many online encyclopedia or dictionary resources as possible. (Encarta, Hutchinson, Britannica; OED, American Heritage Dictionary, Dictionary of Political Thought, Columbia Free Dictionary.)
    • It uses wikis anybody can edit, such as H2G2, and dubious resources like ecauldron.com forum, factmonster.com.

• Fails criterion 3 (broadness while staying focused):
  • It delves into minutiae, e.g. religion sections list multiple towns with some religions receiving more attention than others - apparently randomly.
  • Worse, it shows signs of having not been read through.
    • For example, it has a top-level section named "Nomenclature" that begins "The country is named after the Angles, one of several Germanic tribes who settled..." This might be okay, were it not for an earlier top-level section "Etymology and usage" that begins "England is named after the Angles, the largest of the Germanic tribes who settled..." When reading through an entire article, these things are picked up on ("didn't it mention that earlier?").
    • Another example is the "Geography, Major rivers" subsection, which is nothing more than sentence stating the country (about 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by water), has several rivers. It names a few scattered examples, and links to a list that is mainly redlinked river names. This provides little if any useful information to a reader.

There are many other problems within the article. –Whitehorse1 01:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The GAR nominator raises some valid concerns above. I particularly agree that the article Fails criterion 2, as there are referencing issues throughout, and unsourced information which could use in-line cites. The reader/editor should not be made to assume that the info is sourced in the sub-articles being summarized. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was the original nominator, and I just thought I would pop along and explain why the article was passed. WP:WIAGA calls for 'clear' prose, and that is what I found. Yes, there are some areas, like the 'Rivers' section, that could be lists, but trying to turn the 'Cuisine' and 'Literature' sections into prose would result in a lot of writing to say very little, and the links within the lists are all that's required to demonstrate what the lists detail. Looking back on the article, there don't seem to be enough references, and I'm surprised that I passed the article in this state. The lack of references was noted in my original review, but there does not seem to have been much improvement. The repetition of the bit about Angles in the 'Etymology' and 'Nomenclature' sections is there on purpose, I believe; the majority of the names in 'Nomenclature' are based upon the word Angle, and so by highlighting the origin, the reader can appreciate the links between the various names. On re-reading the article, I would put it on hold, requesting the references be improved, and go from there - weebiloobil (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have been through & standardised many of the citation to use citation templates & moved the "notes" into a seperate section. I removed some broken links. I hope this is useful but I think it now shows even more clearly that several secions are uncited.— Rod ^talk 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yours is a change done with the best of intentions, and in unequivocal good faith, but problematic. The referencing issues lie not with consistent use of any particular template. The problem, is outputting in different formats; article builders can use by-hand or template tools in combination, to provide referencing data as richly as possible. What matters is how they are used and customized; all too often, changing en masse helps not. I recognize your desire and effort to help. Nonetheless, the solution is not those adjustments. Please, revert the changes you made. –Whitehorse1 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can revert to the version of the article before I tackled some of the template issues - however this would mean putting back broken links - which surely isn't good practice, and remixing references and notes. I recognise that many of the issues elated to do with citations in the article are not just about the format but the actual references used and the lack of citations in many sections. I was hoping that this would address some of the concerns expressed above "It uses multiple citation methods outputting in different formats. The references section is disorganized." which seemed to have general agreement. Do others feel the changes I made need to be reverted?— Rod ^talk 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using a consitant citation format is always good, imo. But it is not a GA critrion (even though many reviewers always mention it), so it should not effect the review at all.YobMod 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the notes and the references separate (ie: as they are now). The format of the references (ie: using {{citation}} or {{cite book}}/{{cite web}} needs to be consistent. Nev1 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment At the moment i agree that article suffers all the problems identified by reviewers above. The listy prose is a minor problem compared to the lack of citations - having lived in England for 25 years, i am suprised to see assertions of facts i have never heard of no sources to back them up. Many of the lists seem pointless: The list of national anthems is mostly repeated in prose, so prosifying the last 2 entries (and adding citations) would remove it entirely; the list of traditional English food seem far too much detail for a broad article on the country as a whole; Why is there a list of names of England in an arbitary number of languages? Why not all languages? Why not a wictionary link, that could then give the name in all languages?YobMod 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted in 2006.

• Lead is too short.
• Meteorological history is not comprehensive, and relies solely on one source.
• Several dubious facts, such as "Had the hurricane continued on its path, it would have made landfall on the night of August 16."
• MoS breaches throughout.
• References are not formatted properly.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Agree with above comments by Juliancolton (talk · contribs), the lede indeed does not satisfy WP:LEAD, and though the article appears to have adequate citation coverage, the cites are not formatted properly, and there does appear to be heavy dependence on a small number of sources, especially in subsection ''Meteorological history. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The lead definitely doesn't summarize the article adequately as it omits the Dare County evacuation of 200,000+ people.

• The second sentence of the lead doesn't make sense as written. And there are other instances of unclear prose.

• The paragraph on rebuilding in the Aftermath section doesn't really say the debate was about rebuilding beaches, and any beach, not just barrier islands. A main aspect of the article is factually inaccurate, poorly written, or both.

That said, the hypothetical land fall time seems to be extrapolated using simple arithmetic, and so is indisputable, and I don't think it's original research. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per points above. Wizardman 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, as author of the article, I'm a bit too lazy to fix it up, so I don't mind it losing its GA status. Most of the content was written over three years ago, meaning unless an article was written perfect back then, simple band-aids will not work to keep its GA status. I do appreciate the new comments, and eventually I'll try to get around to them, but there's a bit much to do in its current form. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Keep per article improvements and consensus below. Geometry guy 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Much improvement has been made since this article was nominated for reassessment a few more comments:

1. still lacks images
2. section on prevention is vague and needs to be expanded
3. I presume that all the info in the epidemiology section is American. This should be stated and a world overview should be created if possible

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree with the above that the article could certainly use some free-use images. Also, I note that subsections including Hepatorenal_syndrome#Pathophysiology and Hepatorenal_syndrome#Intravenous_albumin are tagged with expansion needed. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. I read Doc James' short comment on the talk page stating that the article fails WP:LEAD. Can you help us understand what's wrong with the lead? Thanks. Majoreditor (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, most of the epidemiological data on HRS is European (mainly due to the multi-centre European terlipressin studies). The articles I used were the terlipressin study, an article from the Barcelona group, and prognostics were from a review from Toronto. Hard to find an image relevant to HRS unless someone (maybe User:Nephron can get a picture of MARS)? It has been a while since I was involved in GA but is an image a criterion now? -- Samir 03:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I'll hit up prevention and pathophysiology later tonight -- Samir 03:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment was from when the page looked like this [1] Samir has done some great work on this page and has improved it greatly over the last couple of weeks. I now have no concerns with it continuing on as a GA. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, looks much better. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over guys. Appreciated -- Samir 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. I would be happy for the reassessment to be closed on the basis of the agreement above. However, can I just ask editors to check/confirm that the Scientific citation guidelines are being followed. For example:
  • In Hepatorenal_syndrome#Signs_and_symptoms, are the last two sentences also supported by reference [1]?
  • In Hepatorenal_syndrome#Diagnosis, second bullet, "While this can be difficult to confidently diagnose..." According to whom? Is this scientific consensus, and if so what is the source?
  • In Hepatorenal_syndrome#Pathophysiology, is the last paragraph entirely sourced to reference [5]?
  • In Hepatorenal_syndrome#Liver_transplantation, it isn't clear what is the source for the last paragraph ("have been found beneficial" according to whom?)

Thanks in advance for responding to these (possibly naive) concerns. Geometry guy 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy, thanks very much for coming here! My intent is to get this to FA level and meeting WP:SCG is critical. To answer your questions:

1: yes -- they are defined by the IAC article. I will add ref to the end of the paragraph

2: we should get rid of the "While this can be difficult to confidently diagnose" as it doesn't add anything but speculation -- wil ldo

3: aldosterone mechanism is within realm of common knowledge but the activation with aldosterone is best referenced by Schrier's article positing the underfill theory for cirrhosis (ref 9). Blendis and Wong's work (ref 5) reviews the spectrum to HRS and should be referenced also. Will change

4: the paragraph should be sourced to Gines' review article (ref 8). I should change the wording to "have been found to preserve renal function" which is the endpoint of the relevant studies

I am going to seek out some of the general FA folks (YellowMonkey and SandyGeorgia) to help tone down the medical jargon and Felix-felix and Nephron for the renal side of things. Thanks again everyone -- Samir 15:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that clears up my concerns. I'm willing to close in 3 days if no one beats me to it and no objections are raised. Geometry guy 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Procedural close. Nominator blocked. Any other editor is welcome to nominate the article for reassessment if they believe it does not meet the criteria. Geometry guy 22:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for being a Featured Article, but a lot of people opposed it. I now oppose it being a Good Article as well, for the same reasons-mainly because every sentence/statement is criticised and no defense is being allowed.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FA discussion can be seen here. Brunton (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• NootherIDAvailable, can you explain with reference to the good article criteria why this article should be delisted? Geometry guy 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with Geometry guy (talk · contribs). More specific comments from the GAR nominator regarding WP:WIAGA would be helpful here. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous community GAR February 2008

Result: Weak keep/no action per comments below; no compelling case has been made that this article does not meet the criteria, but article editors are encouraged to continue to look for opportunities to trim detail to spinout articles. Geometry guy 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following projects and editors are being notified of this new discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arkansas, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia:WikiProject New York, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands, Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama, Wasted Time R (talk · contribs), Tvoz (talk · contribs), and Mr.grantevans2 (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of GA Sweeps, I have asked that this article be pruned back to 60KB of readable prose. The involved editors have argued against the necessity of such pruning and stated their preparedness for debate at GAR. Arguments have been presented that nearly 1% of FAs are longer than this article. Instead of delisting this article for failure to address suggested points of interest, I have decided to send it to the community for resolution on the necessity of pruning the article to less than 60KB. Hopefully, we can achieve consensus. At Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/GA1, there was no consensus reached during individual reassessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of this article retaining its GA status:

First, WP:GACR does not explicitly address article size. Item #3b does advocate use of WP:Summary style, which this article does use in many places. For example, Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors, and List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton are all direct BLP subarticles, while Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, United States Senate election in New York, 2000, and United States Senate election in New York, 2006 are all related campaign articles, and Hillary Rodham senior thesis, Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, and White House travel office controversy are all specialty articles on particular matters. There are more; see Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton for the full constellation of Hillary articles.

Second, WP:SIZE does not place hard-and-fast requirement on article size. It says that readers "may tire" of reading articles more than 10,000 words and that in terms of readable prose size, "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". This article is currently 63 Kb readable prose size and 10,150 words.

As evidence that WP:SIZE is not a hard requirement, User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics shows that 43 current FA articles are over the 60 Kb readable prose mark, including 8 that are the same size as this one and 24 that are larger than this one, in some cases considerably larger. I quote these stats because the goal of this article has always been to stay at FAC quality, not just GA quality (I call it "FA without the star", analogous to academia's ABD).

So why does this article need to be on the long side? It is describing a very controversial figure in American politics, who has had a number of very distinct stages to her life and career. In order to thoroughly cover all of her life and accomplishments and setbacks and controversies, the article has to be detailed, present all views, and be heavily cited. I believe this article has successfully done this. It has had relatively few edit wars given its controversial nature and never been locked down (compare to the Obama and Palin articles, for example). Size is not the most important criteria in a BLP; conformance to WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV are, and I believe this article does all that well. I do not believe a more aggressive approach with breaking up this article into even more subarticles is warranted; BLP subarticles have an extremely low readership rate – see some of the statistics I gave in Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/GA1 – and the delicate and successful balance that this article has maintained for some time would not be successfully maintained once important material was farmed off to articles that no one ever reads.

Third, note that I did not ignore this GAR when Tony filed it. I made some 25 to 30 edits to fix up things in the article, including tightening the lead somewhat and doing some MoS tweaks like non-breaking spaces. Most importantly, I fixed 20 citation problems that the Checklinks run discovered, and a couple more things that a dablinks run found. There is however this one issue regarding size that we could not agree upon, and so here we are.

In sum, I do not believe that stripping this article's GA based on this one guideline – a guideline that is couched in terms of "may" and "probably" and that is not explicitly mentioned in GACR – is warranted or wise. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Article length is not, nor has it ever been a GA requirement, and any form of bean counting (number of bytes, inline citations etc.) is strongly discouraged at GA. The relevant questions are not "is it too short?" and "is it too long?", but "does it fail to cover the topic adequately?" and "does it go into unnecessary detail or make insufficient use of summary style?". Geometry guy 09:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that is why it is up for review based on whether it is too long? I have opened the floor for debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Aside from being 60k+ in size are there any issues? If that is the case, then length is not clearly identified as a criteria in WP:GACR as it is in WP:FACR. While 3b does mention summary style it does not require that summary style be used, only that the subject is not covered in unnecessary detail and I don't think this article does that. Could the article be shortened, sure, but the editors' lack of using SS on every section does not mean its length means there is unnecessary details within the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fineries of MOS are not my bag. I am just bringing it to the community. If 60 KB is not really an important guideline, then it isn't. I had been led to believe it was, which is why I brought it here for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an issue for FACs/FARCs, not GACs/GARs. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am reluctant to set a file size limit. That said, the article is a tad lengthy and should be broken into additional sub-articles, per criterion 3b and Summary style. There are several sections, such as "College", which are begging for summarization; can't they be spun off into new articles? For example: how necessary is it for the main article's "College" section to include phrases such as: She also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.  ? Majoreditor (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the major issues of Hillary biography is how much her career has benefitted from being married to Bill. Everything she did in college came before Bill, including the national exposure due to her commencement speech, and is thus significant in answering this question. The college period is also quite significant in this is where her political leanings became fully formed, as it's when she switched from being a Republican to a Democrat. So yes, all this belongs in this biography, not buried in a sub-article that no one ever reads. Proof that no one ever reads? April 2009 viewing stats: Sarah Palin 200,122, and Early political career of Sarah Palin 413. That's a 500-to-1 ratio. More than 1 out of every 500 readers deserves to know how college affected Hillary's life and political formation. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur wholeheartedly with all of Wasted Time R's comments here - as I said in the GA sweeps discussion, this subject has had a multi-layered life, with several notable careers and stages, and the main biography needs to give a comprehensive view to aid our readers in understanding. Even by FA standards, I would argue that the extra 3K of readable prose is not wildly out of line. For GA, there is no stated size requirement, and shouldn't take precedence over the quality of the article, its comprehensiveness, readability, verifiability, neutral presentation, stability and overall value. Tvoz/talk 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since we are only talking about removing 5% of the content, could you briefly run through each of the top-level sections that do not currently have summary style and explain why they should not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for example, the "First Lady of the United States" section already is a summary. Meaning there is much, much more that can be said about the topic. Much of what happened to her as First Lady is covered in more depth by articles such as Clinton health care plan of 1993, State Children's Health Insurance Program, Whitewater controversy, White House travel office controversy, White House FBI files controversy, Lewinsky scandal, and so forth. The descriptions in the First Lady section barely touch on some of these matters, and other parts of her First Ladyship are gone over quickly as well. By comparison, this First Lady section is shorter than those in two high-quality FA articles, Pat Nixon and Nancy Reagan. And some editors have complained about this; for example, see Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#First Lady, where another editor claims that much of HRC's First Lady period is ignored, and where I responded by including a few new things but saying space constraints prevent us from including everything.
  • Similarly, the Arkansas years section is a summary as well. Major, controversial events such as cattle futures and the beginning of Whitewater are dealt with briefly. Behind this one sentence: "In one of the Clinton governorship's most important initiatives, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association, to establish mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size.[90][82]" lies a prolonged political narrative that was a key development in Hillary and Bill's political M.O., and one that her biographers spend a good deal of time on; we could easily write a whole paragraph on it. The whole name change thing is dealt with tersely, when this was also a key development in her realizing that politics requires accommodation. And so forth.
  • The length of the early years sections is necessary to give a well-rounded picture of her upbringing and childhood and educational influences, and to indicate the potential others saw in her. Given how much she gets characterized as a crazed socialist children-suing-their-parents ultrafeminist-but-Bill-marrying blah blah, it's very important to present her life story accurately and fully. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hillary is certainly a person for whom NYTimes best sellers have and could be written for many segments of her life. It will likely be the case that a best seller can be wrtitten for the 2009-2012 period if she stays in office that whole time. That does not mean a limitless WP bio is appropriate. However, if GA consensus is toward placing no strict bounds on the size then so be it. If the article ever wants to be an FA, it is going to have to be cut. I personally would prefer to see the article trimmed now. However, if everyone says let it slide that is how it will go as long as the article has no aspirations of being featured.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony, you're not reading what I'm writing. I've already pointed you to a discussion where I argued against a "limitless bio". And I'm not as convinced as you are that FAC has a hard-and-fast size limit, otherwise how did the 43 articles over your limit get approved? But in any case, this article has been rejected there multiple times on FACR #1e "future stability" grounds, and since that won't be cured anytime soon, it's a moot point for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • They got approved at less than 60 KB and have ballooned. I am willing to bet that at least 40 of the 43 offenders were approved at less than 60KB. Any takers? Keep in mind that the WP:FAR process is quite limited. It can only handle a handfull of articles at a time. There are more problematic articles than well-written articles that have gotten a little long. FAR can not chase down every group of editors for the sake of pruning articles for size reasons alone. The process is used for more substantive issues and there is really no other way to police size problems. When I put Theodore Roosevelt up at FAR it was 62 KB. That was only one of the many problems that made it worth bringing it to FAR however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not easy to check, as many of these articles were approved two or more years ago and you would have to go back through a lot of history to find the version that was approved. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country was approved at its current 63 Kb length earlier this year, however. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the article's length is fine. There is no rule about article length for GAs. Ricardiana (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of FAs over 60 kb, including FA Ronald Reagan (at 62). It is very hard to balance different aspects of a subject's career, especially in the case of Hillary Clinton, whose career is so vast, but I think WTR and the other editors have done a truly fabulous job of at least attempting to put everything in perspective and write with due weight within each section. That said, I think the political positions section is an area that could use improvement. I'm not a fan of bulleted lists, and I think the bullets could be eliminated rather easily. But size is not an issue to me and there isn't any reason for me to oppose this article remaining at GA status. Happyme22 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the positive feedback – the rarest thing WP editors ever get ;-) The whole "Political positions" area is the weakest of our politician BLPs, I think. The subarticles tend to accumulate material while the person is running for office and be ignored the rest of the time. In this case, both Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the summary in the main article tend to focus on her time as senator, and ignore her times as FL Arkansas, FL U.S., and Sec State. However it's formatted, I'm tempted to chop the current summary after the ADA and ACU ratings. Does the main article really need to say what the Drum Major Institute or Americans for Better Immigration thought of her a few years ago? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps the initial GAR reviewer could point out additional areas from WP:WIAGA to address for improvement, in addition to the size issue raised above? I note that the WP:LEAD only has one sentence about her current position as Secretary of State, and this subsection within the article seems sort of skimpy as well. The Political positions subsection seems awkward, it'd be better framed in paragraph format instead of its current layout. Cultural and political image subsection lacks any commentary on her image as Secretary of State, and the public/media/scholarly perception of her in this role. Cirt (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to this and the previous comments and discussion, I've prosified the spectrum part of the Political positions section, and have moved everything after the ADA/ACU ratings into the subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the skimpy coverage of her time as Secretary of State, that's intentional. She's only been in that office for four months, and it's difficult to say what if anything has happened so far that's very significant from a biographical perspective. She is mentioned many, many times in the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article, which is where most of her trips, position speeches, etc. are being put. That's appropriate because that article has the space and granularity for that kind of detail, and because as Sec State she's acting on behalf of a whole administration and government, not just herself. I'm sure at some point things will happen that merit inclusion here – and they may have already happened but we don't know it yet – at which point of course we will include it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that consensus is that 60KB is not a relevant limiation, but Why has this article gotten longer since I brought it to GAR for size concerns? It was 63KB when I brought it here and it is 64KB now. Is this an indication that the large article will continue significant growth and expansion if we disregard any size bounds?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It may indicate, perhaps, that your concerns are not shared: for instance the comment immediately above yours asks for more information, not less. Geometry guy 20:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a very bad precedent for WP to authorized and endorse wanton expansion of long articles. Why does WP:SIZE exist?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "authorized and endorse wanton expansion"? Where is this wanton expansion and who endorse(d) it? I see no precedent being set here. Geometry guy 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec)These last two edits that I did reduced the overall article size by 2400 bytes, but increased the readable prose size enough to bump the total from 63 to 64 Kb. How could that happen? It's because the prose size tool doesn't count bulleted lists as readable prose, and even though I eliminated a lot of the bullets, I changed the rest to regular prose, which does now count. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Update – after the Senate section trims I did described below, the readable prose size is back down to 63 Kb. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that size is not itself a delist criterion, but "too much detail" could apply here. Both the senate career and the presidential race sections are summaries of other articles, but remain very large - making the summaries of these and other subarticles smaller would be a step in the right direction. While just at the limit of realistically readable size, more growth is surely expected - something is going to have to be moved to subarticles soon, so why not now?YobMod 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of these sections have already been trimmed down from what they used to be. The Senate section has been reduced several times, with content moved to the daughter article. I would do some further moves, such as the Iraq War amendments complexities and the video games positions, but other editors have strongly objected in the past to moving either of them. With the readership of the Senate daughter article so low, everyone realizes that moves to there are tantamount to deletion. The presidential campaign section was substantially rewritten and trimmed after the end of the campaign; see this discussion: Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_13#Presidential_campaign_section_revised. The fact remains that the primary campaign is very biographically significant, because it describes both how she squandered a huge initial advantage but also how she didn't give up and staged several comebacks during the way, albeit falling short in the end. As it stands, I think the description in this section is the most succinct but most analytical description of the Obama vs Hillary battle anywhere in WP. Also, the Hillary president campaign articles are a mess right now, so I'm not eager to rely on them for summary view story. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. It's borderline on meeting criterion 3-b, but not in such a state as to merit de-listing. I trust the article's editors will be able to keep it from growing out of control.

There are two false assumptions offered up in this GAR. False option #1 is that the article absolutely must meet some predetermined length. Luckily, it appears that concept has been slapped down.

False option #2 is the notion that subarticles are bad because they have lower readership. So what? That's an indication that readers make choices about what they read. They are offered the option to click into the subarticles; the links are fairly obvious and well-merchandised. We should not be so presumptious as to think that all users of the encyclopedia are going to need or desire to read the article from beginning to end.

Wiser editors than I have observed that the subarticle structure is one of the features that makes Wikipedia a success. Readers aren't overwhelmed with too much detail, and it's easy to find and click onto sub-articles to get more details. Let's not engage in bean-counting either for article length nor for page traffic comparison. Summarizing articles via subarticles is hardly "tantamount to deletion"; rather, it represents one of the core miracles of how Wikipedia works better than paper encyclopediae. Please, let's not act like prima dona chefs who insist that diners must eat each and every course in the exact manner it is served up to them. Let's delight in offering up an a la carte buffet. Summarize material where appropriate to keep the article from feeling like War and Peace and provide readers with easy-to-navigate choices for getting extra details as needed. Majoreditor (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readership of the biographical subarticles isn't "low". Low would be perhaps a 5:1 or 10:1 ratio compared to the main article, which I would accept as reasonable. Readership of the the bio subarticles is extremely low, meaning the 100:1, 200:1, or 500:1 ratios I pointed out above. A partial reason is that I don't think the links to the subarticles are as visible as you do; I think the italic xref gets lost under the bold section headers. But that's not the main reason. There was a WP usage study recently (don't have the link at the moment) that found that most users find WP articles from search engines, not from following the links within WP (the opposite of what us editors do). And Google just doesn't rate BLP subarticles highly. Take this search looking for Hillary as senator: the Hillary main article turns up first, but the Hillary Senate subarticle -- which ideally is what readers should be directed too -- doesn't show up within the first 20 google pages of results. Or take this search for Sarah Palin in Wasilla: the Sarah Palin main article turns up first, the Wasilla article second, but the Early political career of Palin in Wasilla article, the one that's got all the juicy controversial stuff that the reader should be interested in, doesn't show up in the first 10 pages of results (I gave up looking). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the summary style structure works great in other contexts. World War II is the top Google hit when searching for that, but D-Day and Battle of Midway are also the top Google hit when searching for those events, and have great readership stats as a result. I think it has to do with whether the secondary articles have clearly defined independent titles from the base article. Or maybe it's because there are jillions of WP articles that link to D-Day, but very few that link to Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. But whatever the reason, the proven fact remains that biographical subarticles are not part of the "core miracles of Wikipedia". Instead, they are a sinkhole of effort that is virtually never compensated by readership. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-articles low readership may be unfortunate, but it is not a fair comparison, as we have no numbers for how many readers are clicking on this main article but giving up after the first 50% because it is simply too long for a generally interested reader. If only one in 1000 readers manage to reach the last section, then sub-articles are still preferable. I didn't !vote delist this time - but i also found trudging though some of the senate vote details to be boring, and i certainly would have skimmed it if not for the review. While there is no hard limit on size, if this article gets to more 65kb readable prose, then i think i would say delist on 3b grounds.YobMod 10:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be great to have some kind of usage study that shows how readers navigate within individual WP articles. Maybe half of them read the lead section and nothing else? Maybe a third of them jump around the article based on the table of contents and links and don't read sequentially? Maybe many of them try to read sequentially and never get to the end of long articles, like you say? Alas, we don't know. But what we do know for sure is that biographical subarticles get extremely low readership. So I'd rather base our article structure decisions on what we do know than what we don't. As for the Senate section being boring, I hear you; I've worked on several of these (e.g. McCain, Ted Kennedy, Biden) and legislative process is often just as dull to write about as it is to watch happening on C-SPAN (try reading Adam Clymer's biography of Kennedy if you really want legislative slog ...). I'll take another look at it and see if anything can be improved or cut. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made several trims from the Senate section, including the Iraq War Resolution amendment complexities mentioned above and several other resolutions and non-binding process aspects. However I left the video games/sex scenes material in, as I figure this part of the article needs every jolt it can get. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This reassessment has generated some useful discussion together with improvements to and some shortening of the article. However, I believe that beneficial returns on further discussion are rapidly diminishing, and do not really concern the GA criteria anyway. Hence I recommend that further discussion be taken to article talk. My preliminary assessment of the discussion is that a weak keep/no action conclusion would be preferable. No well supported case has been made for delisting the article, but some editors feel that article editors should stay on their toes and look for further trims at every opportunity. This is very much the nature of an article on current political figure, and I hope that article editors will continue to rise to that challenge as they have done here. I will close in 3 days unless new issues are brought to light or someone else closes the discussion before me. Geometry guy 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator, I feel this is the correct course of action and do not really see the need to wait three days. However, there is no rush.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Geometry guy and Tony. Majoreditor (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No action. Improvements appear to have addressed most concerns, but have stalled, as has this reassessment. I don't see a clear case to delist, nor a strong endorsement of the article. If further concerns are raised a new reassessment can be opened. Geometry guy 17:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the article contains many important elements of a GA, there are a few problems with its current state. I've completed a minor clean up but I feel it needs more work in order to maintain its GA status. The plot is exceptionally long and the overall prose of the article needs to be sharpened. Some of the organization and structure of individual sections feel in need of rewrites and revision. Since Lagaan is an important film, I think that its position as a GA article is worth review.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First thing I noticed: the plot is about 8 zillion words long. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned most of it. Hometech (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Great job Hometech! This is a vast improvement. However, the prose and mechanics of the article still needs an overhaul. The awards section is a step in the right direction as well but it still contains too many small paragraphs composed of one or two sentences- I think it needs to be further compressed. We still need to attend to these areas. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever created a subarticle for the plot, becuase I wrote it and it's been sawn off :( YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldnt be any such subarticle per WP:PLOT. Any way it contained details of no use to an encyclo reader. Hometech (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rewrite made the prose worse, eg "He invites an untouchable Kachra who can bowl a leg spin. However, the villager refusing to play with an untouchable" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We need to follow the guidelines for MOS:FILM in order to maintain the GA status for this article. The guidelines for writing plot summaries are here: WP:FILMPLOT. In terms of plot length there is a limit:

"Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot."

Before the long edit to the plot summary the word count was 1941 which is over the limit. The current count is 678 which is within the limit. Since we can technically go up to 900 words, you can restore some of the previous summary as long as it doesn't go over the limit. However, better articles try and maintain a 700 word limit (MS Word has a word count option in its "TOOLS" menu) . I do agree with the point, however, that in order to maintain GA status, the overall prose and mechanics of the article must be attended to. WP:MOS offers useful tips for this area. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another useful set of writing guidelines: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the plot a bit though it could still use some more fine tuning. Other sections in the article need attention and clean up as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We need to follow the guidelines for MOS:FILM in order to maintain the GA status for this article." Actually, no you don't. The only criteria for good articles are the Good article criteria. You are welcome to use WikiProject guidelines to help you meet them, but they are not themselves part of the good article criteria. Anyway, it is always good to see article improvement taking place. Geometry guy 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two usually go hand in hand for GA and FA articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, GA criteria specifies that a good article is "well-written" and that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct" which is the primary issue I have with the article. It also states that it must comply with style guides: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation."

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:WIAGA

-Classicfilms (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the MoS and PLOT guidelines intersect with both the criterion 1 (well-written and follows MoS, eg "length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections") and criterion 3b (stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail). A plot for a single film being longer than 900 words almost certainly is either badly written or is in too much detail, imo. The newly-trimmed plot section seems not unduly long.YobMod 08:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd say actually at this point in time, the article is not that bad at all. I would suggest moving Awards before the reviews in the Reception subsection, and making it a general Reception subsection, with two sub-subsections: Awards, then Reviews. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. The article has improved since I first asked for the reassessment. However, I do feel that the writing could be improved throughout the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Does any editor wish to press a case for delisting this article, or can it be kept? Geometry guy 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I asked for the reassessment, I should respond here. I'd like to see Lagaan remain a GA and the article has improved since I posted my request. Some of the writing needs to be cleaned up, however. For example, this passage:

"After pre-planning for a year, including ten months for production issues and two months for his character, Aamir was tired. A first-time producer, he managed a crew of about 300 people for six months. With a good hotel lacking in Bhuj, they hired a newly constructed apartment and furnished it completely for the crew."

needs to be polished a bit for grammar and style. There are other sections as well that would benefit from a clean up. There is also the matter of the two tags at the beginning, one referring to general clean up, one referring to a merge. I think they both need to be resolved as well. If these issues are taken care of, I would vote to keep it as GA. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 19:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a reassessment:

1. one of the big concerns is the lack of references in many sections
2. it is also a little long, many of the sections should be split off with a summary in the main article

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove GA status and back to the drawing board. Numerous sections are drawn on no references whatsoever, others are intensively over-cited to dubious papers. I think one or two editors should spend a while simply removing untenable claims and trying to find sources for the most "barn door logical, uncontested and verifiable" claims. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lack of referencing throughout seems like something that would be difficult to address in a short time period. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's not required that each section have in-line citations. That said, there are numerous problems with lack of proper citations to reliable sources. For example:

• The vaccine protects against four HPV types, which together cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts
• Hepatitis viruses, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, can induce a chronic viral infection that leads to liver cancer in 0.47% of hepatitis B patients per year (especially in Asia, less so in North America), and in 1.4% of hepatitis C carriers per year.

The best course of action may be to delist until the article is brought up to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. There's a large amount of material that needs to be cited per the criteria, but isn't. One or two sections even appear to be OR (e.g. Cancer#Comparison_to_non-biological_organisms). Summary style is employed unevenly. Several sections are unnecessarily list-like. The lead does not summarize the article. There's unnecessary use of jargon. So in my view, this fails at least 1b,2b, and 3b and may well also fail 1a, 2a and 2c. Geometry guy 20:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns about the "Comparison to non-biological organisms" section. I decided to act boldly and remove it. Majoreditor (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It can of course be readded if reliable secondary sources are provided which support this analysis. Geometry guy 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist per consensus below and deteriorating weather conditions. Geometry guy 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discovered that this article was generated as paid PR. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Ha!. The Wikipedia article creation job was advertised on Elance.[2]. It's a very laudatory article about a company. Most of the references were generated, directly or indirectly, by the company itself. A Google News search does not produce much information from reliable unaffiliated sources. --John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zithan (talk · contribs), who created the article in its present form, has been desysopped and blocked by ArbCom for this. See [3]. --John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the article to GAR attention, despite the dispiriting circumstances. Fortunately, we don't need to dwell on them here, as the focus of GAR is the article content not the editing process. So, the question is: does the article currently meet the GA criteria or not? Geometry guy 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references are rather weak. They're either Dalberg corporate output, or brief mentions of Dalberg in some other large document. The "Key people" section is something that doesn't usually appear in Wikipedia corporate articles. There's no criticism. It's all very corporate. Not good. --John Nagle (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. This reads more like the company's own advertising literature than it does an encyclopedia article. After reading I'm none the wiser as to what Dalberg actually does—"Dalberg lists expertise in the domains of: access to finance, education, global health, corporate engagement, energy and environment, economic policies, agriculture, conflict and humanitarian aid, and strategy and performance"—how big it is, who owns it, what its turnover is, or even how many employees it has (<150 apparently, which obviously includes none); I also have access to the environment, but I call it a front door, not an expertise. I'm not even convinced that the article clearly presents a case for this organisation's notability. A definite puff piece in my book. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Spam POV by sockpuppeting admin. There is another GA by him lying around YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, agree with the GAR nominator about the weak referencing. Cirt (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist for having 6 citations to primary sources. Thus, it is somewhat self-promotional. Alexius08 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nomination, and on the ground that the person who reviewed the article didn't have all the information needed to make a proper assessment. In particular, he/she wasn't aware of the COI and so probably assumed that the article was neutral. However, paid-for articles need to be looked at in much more depth than in a normal GA process. In particular, not only do we need to check the sources, but we also need to go look for alternative sources to make sure that some important details were not purposely omitted by the editor. Laurent (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist As per Cirt,Laurent1979 and YellowMonkey.Clearly paid advertsing Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist is the nicest thing I can say. Smallbones (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. There are multiple problems. The article is under-developed and has several MoS problems such as a list-like section, stubby lead, and poor composition. It is also short on citations to reliable sources. Majoreditor (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Procedural close. The article has now received a GAN review and was not listed. Geometry guy 19:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new version, tuned per first concerns, was not reviewed in the second nomination, when the tag was removed by anon. The article has an earlier peer review. Brandt 12:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was removed from the GA nominations list in January 2009 by the same anon, who may have mistaken the January 2008 GAN review by Canadian Paul for a January 2009 GAN review of the renomination. I will reinsert the nomination at the top of the list. Geometry guy 21:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article lacks any external secondary source reception of the character, and is contained pretty much only to in-universe type material and plot summary. Cirt (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Keep. GA issues have been addressed. The classification issue may require further debate, but for the moment it stays under health and medicine. Geometry guy 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is trivia / patient history and not natural science. Therefore it should not be listed as a natural science good article.
2. Also issues with language "He must also have hydroxychloroquin injected directly into his scalp regularly." He choices to have this done if this is the case. It is like he has too.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article itself appears to be well-cited throughout. Is there a question about WP:RS of any individual among the sources used? Cirt (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the issues you mention have anything to do with whether or not this meets the GA criteria. You seem upset about project/category tagging, something that could be dealt with on the article talk page. You also seem to be screaming WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — R² 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I need to take a closer look at the article, but my initial impression is that it meets GA criteria. Can someone please provide specific examples of how the article fails GA standards? Thanks. Majoreditor (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone could provide me with specific examples I will happily work through them. The article passed it's GA review with flying colors and the article hasn't changed much since then, with the exception of a slight expansion. This seems to have been started because Jmh649 did not agree with this being within the scope of a certain wikiproject. — R² 02:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that this has nothing to do with natural science this is biographical information. I have some concerns with the prose as mentioned above. From the perspective of science this page is nothing more than trivia. I guess we can close this and move the discussion to the talk page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose issues could be dealt with on the talk page. You are trying to crack a nut with a nail gun. Let's turn this down a few notches shall we? — R² 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article does meet the GA criteria. It seems Jmh649's main problem is the categorization of the article at WP:GA. The article shouldn't have been brough over here for that. You should have used the talk page and waited for a response, or asked at WT:GA. Pyrrhus16 09:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on categorization. At present the article isn't actually listed at WP:GA, but should be, per the most recent review. The question being asked is, where? The possibilities I see are "Performers, groups, composers and other music people", "Actors, models, performers and celebrities", "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures", and "Health and medicine". The last of these is the implicit choice made on the article talk page, and may be the most encyclopedic choice. Note that not everything listed at WP:GA#Health and medicine is scientific; some are sociological. No classification scheme is perfect, especially not one as rough as this. Geometry guy 21:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on sources. Concerning the article itself, given the controversial nature of the topic, I'm somewhat concerned that the article relies heavily on a single source (an unauthorized biography) and cites material from this source unqualified, as if they were uncontested facts. This could be a WP:GA issue. Even if it isn't, it may well be a WP:BLP issue. The use of multiple reliable sources would seem essential to ensure WP:NPOV on a controversial topic about a living person. Geometry guy 21:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, a few points about the J. Randy Taraborrelli biography. Jackson has not released an "authorized" biography since 1988, so as a source, it's of limited use. Taraborrelli is one of, possibly the only, mainstream journalist that Jackson trusted enough to allow interviews in the 70's, 80's and 90's. No other notable journalist has been allowed into the fold of the Jackson family to such a degree. Taraborrelli released his first edition of the book in 1991, Jackson never sued the journalist and continued to allow interviews with him afterward. I can't see any BLP concerns, all of the issues discussed (be it vitiligo, drug addiction, rehab, his childhood), these are all things Jackson has spoken openly about. The book is used in the main biography, which is a featured article. Further, due to the demands of "summary style" this is an essential sub article on Jackson. — R² 12:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks for your thorough and careful explanation. That the biographer is apparently trusted by Jackson certainly eases BLP concerns. There may still be a danger that the article presents the facts according to Jackson and Taraborrelli, without qualification, when some of these facts may be disputed. Can you respond to this concern as well? Geometry guy 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The only thing usually disputed is the vitiligo, but Taraborrelli uses court documents as his source for that. We also have the picture which rebukes any conspiracy that he doesn't have the illness, the article does mention that tabloids speculate whether he bleaches his skin, but that's what tabloids do, speculate. — R² 15:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks again. One more question: Joseph Jackson is also a living person I believe; this article alleges that he physically and emotionally abused his children and provides details in the case of Michael. Is there independent third party evidence here? Geometry guy 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Well at least one of the brothers backs up Jackson's claims (as seen in this article). The brother gives a detailed account of what he allegedly witnessed, Joseph beating/physically abusing Michael. Some of the other children claim they were abused too, some say there was sexual abuse...When it comes to domestic abuse it's always going to be one persons word against another I guess. Only the people inside the family know what happened. Nothing ever went to court. It would probably be best to throw in the words "allegedly" here and there. Thoughts? — R² 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      "Allegedly" works well for tabloids and political satire, but is unencyclopedic ("allegedly" according to whom?). The best encyclopedic defense, in my view, is attribution/qualification. The sentence on Marlon's quote could be reworded so that it is attributed to him without being endorsed as fact by the article. The article does a good job of quoting Michael's interview. It could similarly attribute the analysis of the situation to Taraborrelli using wording of the form "According to biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli...". Geometry guy 21:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      I can certainly do that throughout. — R² 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      I've attributed some of the potentially controversial claims, if you feel anything else needs attributing specifically please let me know. I didn't want to go over board because it would damage the flow of the prose quite significantly. Furthermore, after reading so much about Jackson, nothing about him really "shocks" me anymore, so my concept of "controversial" when dealing with this specific individual might be a little warped. I just don't find any of it surprising anymore. — R² 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      That's a sensible choice and I hope you will keep the flow of the prose in mind. I don't have any further issues to raise. Geometry guy 20:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the original reviewer back in August (see review here), I too originally questioned the notability of the topic, and admittedly, laughed a little. But the article is well-sourced, well-written, and informative. I think a lot of fans (and non-fans?) of Michael Jackson are quite interested in the subject, so I think the article is warranted. Presently, it also seems to meet the GA criteria, though if some of the spelling/grammar has degraded a tad over the past couple of months, feel free to fix it up as appropriate. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As reviewer, do you have a view on the categorization of the article at WP:GA? Geometry guy 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I lean toward classifying this as Health and Medicine since the article's primary topic is Michael Jackson's health and medical treatments. Majoreditor (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Withdrawn. Noisalt (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. It appears that the article is listed as GA and is also rated as "A" class. Under current guidelines, should it be GA de-listed? (And if I de-list Jesus, will I be excommunicated?) Majoreditor (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No action. Issues have been raised , the article has been improved, and concrete concerns appear to have been addressed. No one seems to be pressing the case that this article does not meet the criteria. If any editor wishes to make such a case, a new reassessment can be opened. Geometry guy 16:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for review again. See last review. This article needs a LOT more work to make GA level.

Yay! Finally some feedback we can sink our teeth into. Please ignore any defensive attitude I might display. I will try to keep it in check. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the article is more on par with B class articles such as Bird_flight and of significantly lower quality than Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), another B class article.

Hmmm. Have you read Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) lately? There are major arguments about whether the article should even exist. Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics has been relatively stable for years. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CF is a better article, which is still B class, has a hell of a lot of traffic, and a hell of a lot of quacks. Secondly, I cannot find any discussion of requeuts that the page be removed, or that its content be removed, though there are authors suggesting moves or mergers. The article was relatively stable until major work in the past few weeks. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is completely ridiculous to have three separate articles about the same subject, and it really constitutes a three-way wp:content fork. One article says there isn't really a force, one says it is a fictitious force, and the third says it is really a centripetal force. Make up your mind and pick one name for the article, please, not three articles. Hint: Don't call it centrifugal force - there is no such thing, and please lose the hatnote "For the general subject of centrifugal force, see Centrifugal force (disambiguation)", and especially don't try to make a disambiguation page into an article about the confusion about which of the three content forks to go to. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for what seems like a long rant, these are in no particular order, and are somewhat of a stream of conciousness. I also realise I simply say something is wrong, and not neccesarily how to fix it, however I think some of the problems are beyond a simple fix which can be succinctly given:

Overall comments: The article seems to have something of an identity crisis, particularly with regards to the scope of the article. Facts appear to be placed in a disorganised fashion indicative of a large number of small contributors, with limited organisation.

The article has undergone significant reorganization in the two weeks since this comment was posted. Paragraphs have been added that introduce, compare, and contrast lateral and longitudinal dynamics. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections appear to discuss important topics in varying detail,

Topics continue to be discussed in the detail commensurate with the available literature. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but fail to give the reader any clear idea of the important features in bicycle dynamics or provide the reader with a clear model of the problems and theories of bicycle dynamics, and provide a dedicated reader with a good concept of the physical phenomena that allow a bicycle to maintain its upright position when being ridden, or indeed when being released for short sections.

While a clear ranking of feature importance may appear in the popular press, I have not seen it in the scientific or academic literature: most likely because it is not possible. The relative importance of any feature varies from bike design to bike design and even with relative rider weight and forward speed for a particular bike design. The article has for a long time explained how balance is possible and tries to give a balanced review of the competing factors that make self-stability possible. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bike remains upright when it is steered so that the ground reaction forces exactly balance all the other internal and external forces it experiences, such as gravitational if leaning, inertial or centrifugal if in a turn, gyroscopic if being steered, and aerodynamic if in a crosswind.[9] Steering may be supplied by a rider or, under certain circumstances, by the bike itself. This self-stability is generated by a combination of several effects that depend on the geometry, mass distribution, and forward speed of the bike. Tires, suspension, steering damping, and frame flex can also influence it, especially in motorcycles.

I'm sure there is more, but I have said enough I believe to make the case for reassessment. User A1 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there are a few concrete improvements that can be made, as enumerated at the bottom of the discussion about this article, many of the points made below turn out to fall into one of these categories:

• are perhaps overstated or refer to only a single instance:

Many sections include single sentence paragraphs (e.g. "External forces")

Not counting single sentences that precede lists, there are 5 single-sentence paragraphs out of about 100 paragraphs. There is not even one single-sentence paragraph in the "External forces" section, nor has there been since the last GA review. All 5 existing single-sentence paragraphs have since been combined with existing paragraphs.

Article does not consistently use en/UK versus en/US (behavior/behaviour) etc

Exactly one instance of non en/US spelling (behaviour) has been found. It has now been corrected.

Multiple wikilinks are made on a regular basis or are not linked in their first instance. (gyroscope, touring, precess(ion), handlebar, gravity)

• Gyroscopic effects is mentioned twice in the same sentence in the lede. The second instance is linked. The first instance was linked in the version dated May 9.
• Touring is linked in its first instance, in the section on center of mass location. This has not changed since May 9.
• Precession is linked and italicized in its first instance, in the sentence introducing the term. This has not changed since May 9.
• Handlebar is not linked until it is included in a list of key components made of carbon fiber to reduce vibration. This has not changed since May 9.
• Gravity is linked in its first instance, in the lede, under the name of gravitational forces. This has not changed since May 9.

• are contradictory:

This would be more useful if, for example, an equation was given that relates the braking force to the results of braking

Mathematical models could be condensed into "theory" section. Currently mathematics is scattered across different aspects of theory and in theory section.

• seem to be refuted by the text of the current article:

Article fails to make clear the distinction between the action of a controller (rider) versus the inherent stability of the bicycle (system stability) in the stabilisation of the system.

The article already says however, even without self-stability a bike may be ridden by steering it to keep it over its wheels. That seems to separate them.

Article mixes up stability of the bicycle and stability of failure modes (see capsize section). This is a nomenclature issue.

The article already says because the capsize instability is so slow, on the order of seconds, it is easy for the rider to control, and is actually used by the rider to initiate the lean necessary for a turn. That seems to separate them.

• are vague or only potentially problems

Several external links may violate WP:EL#Rich_media

What is the policy on internal cross referencing in articles? This article does it on a few occasions.

Unusual formatting is present in the section on Eigenvalues.

• are looking for simple answers when they do not exist

Article makes initially is unclear as to the effect of gyroscopic action in stability, ascribing it as a possible effect then states that it is possible to ride the bicycle without gyroscopic effects.

Yes, gyroscopic effects influence handling and self-stability and gyroscopic effects are not necessary in order for a bike to be ridable.

Article at times makes no sense A rider can have the opposite impression of a bike when it is stationary. (before and after have non-contradictory statements about the stability of inverted pendulums)

Yes, a bike with a high center of mass will be easier to ride, and a bike with a high center of mass may require more effort to balance when stationary.

Is the trail what provides the decreased turning radius instability, or is it the tire's contact patch?

Both trail and the front tire contact patch can contribute to decreasing turn radius.

Obviously, the article is not perfect, there is always room for improvement, but I do not see any clear violations of the good article criteria. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. Although opened as a community GAR, so far this has really been an individual reassessment by the nominator, and some additional input from other reviewers would be helpful below, as there do seem to be some GA issues. On a cursory reading, the article appears to be rather undercited. I've added some tags to the History section. For the rest, see the Scientific citation guidelines: in particular, citation at the beginning of each section to authoritative secondary sources is useful even for uncontroversial scientific knowledge. Also, the article uses a fair amount of primary source material (original articles): care is needed here to distinguish between attributing an idea and citing it. If a theory was developed by Prof Clever, then it is preferable to cite a secondary source by Dr. A.N. Other (e.g. a textbook) which describes the theory and attributes it to Prof Clever, than only to cite Prof Clever's original article.

I agree with the concerns raised about the stubby paragraphs. Another GA style issue which I spotted is that the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article. Geometry guy 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. That's something I can work on. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede has expanded from 226 to 372 words: a 65% increase. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Several sections seem to simply define bicycling stunt manoeuvres, rather than the dynamical aspects of such manoeuvres. Particular examples include the braking sections "stoppies" "wheelies" "endo"s

The paragraph immediately before the stoppie picture says "the front wheel often can generate enough stopping force to flip the rider and bike over the front wheel. This is called a stoppie..." -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But fails to mention anything but the simple fact. This would be more useful if, for example, an equation was given that relates the braking force to the results of braking, such as this effect that at high dv/dt owing to the front of the vehicle causes a rotation about the axis of the front wheel, in some form of hinge-like m phenomena to the reader. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean like this, from the following paragraph?

Therefore, if

${\displaystyle \mu {\frac {h}{L}}\geq {\frac {1}{2}}}$

then the normal force of the rear wheel will be zero (at which point the equation no longer applies) and the bike will begin to flip forward over the front wheel. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the article should mention wheelies. Now it does, briefly. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathematical models could be condensed into "theory" section. Currently mathematics is scattered across different aspects of theory and in theory section

Does this mean take the equations out of the braking section? -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article makes initially is unclear as to the effect of gyroscopic action in stability, ascribing it as a possible effect then states that it is possible to ride the bicycle without gyroscopic effects. I have read the linked PDF "Stability of a Bicycle", Physics today, which seems to indicate that the gyroscopic effect is negligible. Do other literature sources agree? Article seems to say it is non-negligible in motorcycles in "Gyroscopic effect", yet the lede states that this concept has been discredited, furthermore the gyroscope section says "Hence gyroscopic forces do not provide any resistance to tipping". What is the relation between these seemingly counter statements?

A very good point if the article does not make it perfectly clear. What the reader should come away with are these points (in bullets, not prose, for clarity): -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Gyroscopic forces do not provide any resistance to tipping.
• It is possible to ride the bicycle without gyroscopic effects.
• The theory that bikes stay upright because the wheels act like gyroscopes is discredited.
• Gyroscopic effects vary with wheel inertia and rotation rate.
• Gyroscopic effects of the front wheel can assist in the leaning of motorcycles at high speed.
• Gyroscopic effects contribute to, along with trail and other effects, the possibility of self-stability of a bike and how it feels to a rider.

• Article at times makes no sense A rider can have the opposite impression of a bike when it is stationary. (before and after have non-contradictory statements about the stability of inverted pendulums)

This is a sentence out of context. The complete thought is:

Just as a broomstick is easier to balance than a pencil, a tall bike (with a high center of mass) can be easier to balance when ridden than a short one because its lean rate will be slower. A rider can have the opposite impression of a bike when it is stationary. A top-heavy bike can require more effort to keep upright, when stopped in traffic for example, than a bike which is just as tall but with a lower center of mass.

Perhaps a bullet list will make it clearer:

• A high center of mass is easier to balance while riding.
• A high center of mass can require more effort to keep upright while stopped and so give the impression that it is harder to balance.

• Article seems to switch between types of cycles, making single comments about the effects of each which seem out of place (touring bikes, motor bikes, racing bikes, track bikes particular brands of bikes).

The article is about bikes in general and uses particular types of bikes as example to illustrate points. Which comments are out of place? -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article seems to switch continually between highly formal physics descriptions and cycling slang ("choppers" "tourers" "eigenvalues"), complex mathematical descriptions and pseudo-mathematics

If there is another, non-slang name for choppers, let's use that. Otherwise, the article will have to refer to them as bikes with very slack head angles or very high rake angles. Also, chopper is the name of the article. I can no longer find and instance of "tourers". -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "pseudo-mathematics"? -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is incomplete in some respects

Drag is mentioned as an external force, but does not seem to be covered in theory or discussion.

Yes, drag should get more attention. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Now its influence on trim is also mentioned. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trail section and tires section overlap or conflict (tires section probably does a better job). Is the trail what provides the decreased turning radius instability, or is it the tire's contact patch?

Tires: generating a torque that tends to turn the front wheel in the direction of the turn, and therefore tends to decrease the turn radius.

Trail:trail causes the front wheel to steer into the direction of a lean, independent of forward speed

Both are true and the relative size of these effects will depend on the parameters of a particular bike. If the article does not already make that clear, then it should. It already says self-stability is generated by a combination of several effects that depend on the geometry, mass distribution, and forward speed of the bike. Tires, suspension, steering damping, and frame flex can also influence it, especially in motorcycles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes that is what trail is, sure, but what is its role in stability?

It's role in stability might be this, from the second paragraph: The more trail a bike has, the more stable it feels. Bikes with negative trail (where the contact patch is actually in front of where the steering axis intersects the ground), while still ridable, feel very unstable. Bikes with too much trail feel difficult to steer. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article fails to make clear the distinction between the action of a controller (rider) versus the inherent stability of the bicycle (system stability) in the stabilisation of the system.

The article already says however, even without self-stability a bike may be ridden by steering it to keep it over its wheels. That seems to separate them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article mixes up stability of the bicycle and stability of failure modes (see capsize section). This is a nomenclature issue.

The article already says because the capsize instability is so slow, on the order of seconds, it is easy for the rider to control, and is actually used by the rider to initiate the lean necessary for a turn. That seems to separate them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe that the images are relevant to the topic discussed. Why are there multiple pictures of riders leaning in to turns, doing bicycling stunts etc., when the prose doesn't even discuss this. How does having these pictures enrich the article? We all know what a turn looks like. A schematic of a wheel fork and rotation/lean would be better, if appropriate to the section. Why is Bicycles linked in image at rear wobble section, indeed why is that image even there?

There is one small picture of bicycles in a turn and one small picture of motorcycles in a turn. Is that too many? They enrich the article by showing the activity described. They are as close to the turning section as they fit. I have not seen a good picture to illustrate rear wobble. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rear wobble could be illustrated via one of those animations (which are quite neat!) . Dynamical effects are best illustrated, well, dynamically User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is also the much more useful animations at the beginning that actualyl illustrate the dynamics of a turn, as opposed to the images shown, which don't really convey information to the reader.

The pictures of a wheelie and a stoppie are about as close to the text that describes the dynamic phenomena as possible. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We all know what a bicycle looks like, yet the bicycle article has a picture of a bicycle. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It has also has good pictures of bicycles, with markings as to the dynamical aspects thereupon, eg the penny-farthing cycle (although this is an unusual configuration). This image conveys little information that is not conveyed in words. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections have been reorganized and now the picture of bicycles leaning in a turn is no where near the section on rear wobble. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is overly broken up leading to a very long table of contents. Many sections have one or two sentences.

Seriously, exactly how many sections have one sentence? -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Many sections include single sentence paragraphs (e.g. "External forces")

There is not one single-sentence paragraph in the "External forces" section. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but there are in other sections. Counts: In "External forces" 3 lots of 2 sentences and 2 lots of 3. Hardly "well written prose". User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were exactly 5 instances of single-sentence paragraphs. Now there are none. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Experimentation section is simply a list.

So are the "See also", "Research centers", and "External reading" sections. Sometimes a list is best. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also, and external reading are recommended per WP:MOS#Section management. Other list sections are not. MOS suggests avoiding lists where prose suits. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Paragraphs. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe prose would not suit this section. It is simply a list of key experiments performed. There is nothing to gain and clarity to lose by converting it to prose. As Wikipedia:Embedded_list explains "In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence." -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• History section seems to indicate that a two year old paper is somehow canonical? Unless this is term is referring to the form of the equations, which is not relevant as a reader capable of correctly interpreting the equations could be presumed to transform the equation set to whatever form is needed, this is unnecessary.

It is how the paper describes what it presents. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there are a lot of papers out there with a lot of information. Including irrelevant information is not what should be done User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading the paper before passing judgment. A url is provided in the reference. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• History section could use more references, indeed the beginning is entirely unreferenced. If you discount the above reference, the section has only a single reference.

By all means, find more, or request citations for particular statements. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC) There are now nine different references to 5 separate sources. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why in goodness sakes is "royal society..." wikilinked. Please use in-line citations if the paper is suitable.

To illustrate the veracity of its contents. It is a prestigious journal. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about the prestige of any given journal, citations should be given inline using cite tags per WP:CITE. Linking, and mentioning the publication is superfluous and detracts from article quality. Indeed this slides in the direction of WP:VANITY for the paper. User A1 (talk)

The article is about a relatively obscure field with a long but spotty history. To be published in a prestigious journal is the current culmination of that history and is as big a fact as any other in the history section. Physics Today is wikilinked for similar reasons. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article includes many useless facts and comments: There is also a gravitational attraction between each component, but this is minuscule compared to all the other forces involved and can be ignored.also Where there is no external influence, such as an opportune side wind to create the force necessary to lean the bike

This is also sometimes called "completeness". -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I claim that including such information for "completeness" is a mistake in writing articles, and stems from one of two situations. Firstly not including information in a position where it connects to other information in appropriate context (disorganised information), and in the second situation a failure of the article to define its scope and cover this scope in an in depth manner (detracting information) as required for a GA. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the first offending sentence was probably inserted in a misguided attempt to make sure there were no single-sentence paragraphs and is now long gone. The second sentence arose from talk page discussion with other editors who insisted that they could lean a bike simply by leaning their body. It attempts emphasize the impossibility of leaning the combined center of mass without external forces. One example of an external force is as good and arbitrary as another. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Random comments are dispersed without context throughout he article "Finally, tire inflation pressures are important variables in the behavior of a motorcycle at high speeds."

Single instance corrected. Sentence about tire pressure moved to section on tires and combined with an existing paragraph.

• Article does not consistently use en/UK versus en/US (behavior/behaviour) etc

The article definitely should use one spelling. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly one instance of non en/US spelling (behaviour) has been found and corrected. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Several external links may violate WP:EL#Rich_media

• Section "Other hypotheses" has links to external sources, and it is unclear if the article is criticising these source or directing the reader to them.

The article currently states While it is an observable fact that bikes can be ridden even when the gyroscopic effects of their wheels are canceled out, the hypothesis that the gyroscopic effects of the wheels are what keep a bike upright is common in print and online. Examples in print: ... And online: ... How can we make it more clear that these are examples of the discredited hypothesis? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, other reviewers have objected to nonNPOV of alternate wordings. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree that simply deleting the list is helpful. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. According to Wikipedia:Embedded list, "embedded lists should be used only when appropriate", which I believe is the case here, and "in some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence."
2. According to WP:EL, links to be considered include "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." All the sites listed do, or at least did at the time they were added, contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. If one does not or no longer does, that is a separate matter solved simply by correcting or removing the individual link.

• Article seems to include vague advertising for bike styles, without indicating why that information is in the section. (Trail section)

The article now explains However, these ranges are not hard and fast. For example, LeMond Racing Cycles offers,[19] both with forks that have 45 mm of offset or rake and the same size wheels: -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiple wikilinks are made on a regular basis or are not linked in their first instance. (gyroscope, touring, precess(ion), handlebar, gravity)

• Gyroscopic effects is mentioned twice in the same sentence in the lede. The second instance is linked. The first instance was linked in the version dated May 9.
• Touring is linked in its first instance, in the section on center of mass location. The first instance was linked in the version dated May 9.
• Precession is linked in its first instance, in the sentence introducing the term. The first instance was linked in the version dated May 9.
• Handlebar is not linked until it is included in a list of key components made of carbon fiber to reduce vibration. This has not changed since May 9.
• Gravity is linked in its first instance, in the lede, under the name of gravitational forces. This has not changed since May 9.

• The article's wikilinks require revamping, as sometimes complex concepts such as control are unlinked, yet straightforward terms such as "motorcycle racing" and "racks" are linked.

Control is now mentioned in lede with wikilink. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the policy on internal cross referencing in articles? This article does it on a few occasions.

What does "internal cross referencing" mean? -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Internal cross references are where you say as mentioned above#Where_it_was_mentioned and link to the current article at the same time. I am not familiar with the policy on this, but nor have I seen this in general use. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no mention of any policy either. The article is big and the content is interconnected by nature. I find internal cross referencing helpful. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has some display problems. Equations occasionally appear on top of images (1280*1024, firefox 3.0.6), text behind images etc.

I see no display problems with Windows Internet Explorer version 7.0.5730.11 at 1600*1200. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not refute my statement. Article should be accessible to as many users as possible. Firefox is a browser with a not inconsiderable user base, and 1280*1024 is a fairly standard resolution. I have no idea *why* this is happening, but I assure you it is. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to refute your statement. I have no doubt that it is true. I am merely adding another detail that might be helpful to whomever tries to fix the problem. Clearly, finding and fixing it might be harder for a Windows Internet Explorer user with 1600*1200 resolution. Probably someone with firefox 3.0.6 will have to look into it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved images from the left to the right in the areas that showed formating problems with Google Chrome and Firefox 1.5. Has that fixed the problem on (1280*1024, firefox 3.0.6)? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unusual formatting is present in the section on Eigenvalues.

Can you be more specific? What is unusual about it? -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve overall organization.

Significant changes made. Dynamics now grouped into lateral and longitudinal, somewhat parallel to external and internal forces, and the difference between them is explained. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Develop dynamics of stoppies, endos, and wheelies further.

Done. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Link complex topics such as Control theory in their first instance.

Control theory is now introduced and linked in the lede. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Discuss influence of drag

Although still brief, the influence of drag on trim is now introduced. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Discuss wheelies

They are at least now introduced. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fill out lede to summarize article more fully.

Several details added along with references. The lede has expanded from 226 to 372 words: a 65% increase. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix display problem with firefox browser

Potentially fixed. Moved images from left to right and everything looks correct in firefox 1.5.0.11, chrome 1.0.154.65, and ie 7.0.5730.11, though some image stacking occurs at high resolution. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Spell check

Done. One instance of 'behaviour' corrected to 'behavior'. One instance of 'influcence' corrected to 'influence'. One instance of 'a upright' corrected to 'an upright'. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Eliminate single-sentence paragraphs

Done. Five instances found. All combined into existing paragraphs. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In order to comply with "Broad in its coverage", add summary sections on suspension and high side dynamics.

Done. Both new section have links to appropriate main articles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In order to comply with "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", resolve issue with roll moment generate by gyroscopic effect when steering front wheel.

Done. Original source double checked. Numbers and conclussion seem reasonable. Details provided on talk page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I intend to close this reassessment as No action unless further issues are raised in the next 3 days. A new reassessment can be opened at any time. Geometry guy 20:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No action. The article's review and failure were not handled properly, however, the matter should have been taken up directly with the nominator before bringing it to GAR. Regardless, the article is thought to need some work and no action was taken by the nominator throughout the GAR period. Suggested course of action is to implement the suggestions raised below and open a peer review before the article renominated. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This was nominated some time ago, and given a review that had less than helpful comments. Even after requesting additional feedback, and making the few adjustments that were specifically requested, the initial reviewer failed to respond and the article was summarily failed. Upon second nomination, the reviewer did not even bother to go through the steps of creating a review page, but instead failed the article based on its length (which is specifically listed in the notes as not a criteria for a good article), it not having an infobox (again, not listed as a criteria for a good article), and being of "poor quality". I am simply calling for a fair and helpful review of the article. What needs to be done to bring it up to good article status? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Referencing looks pretty good, aside from the Filmography section which could be improved by having an in-line cite next to each entry, not absolutely necessary though if there is one genera WP:RS reference for this. Just not exactly sure what this article is trying to be, and what other articles could be used for comparison. It seems a little bit skimpy for the scope of topic it is supposed to cover. There is no Reception subsection. The lede seems a bit short, and as opposed to WP:LEAD, the lede seems to introduce new information with its own sources, rather than summarize the article itself. Cirt (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It looks like you've done a good job figuring out the exact members. However, it lacks broad coverage. I might suggest modeling it after Algonquin Round Table, replacing the Activies and No Siree! sections with one about their films. There are plenty of books covering the subject, so there's no shortage of information out there. For example, the article mentions their partying but doesn't say anything about it. The table is a little confusing, first character names and then the last column with actor names, I prefer how it's done at Frat Pack with "lead", "supporting role", etc., or a simple list like the one at Rat Pack. Also, the article's title, the "(film)" disambiguation is reserved for actual movies. I'd recommend proving it's the primary use and put in a move request, or change it to (actors) or something else instead. Doctor Sunshine talk 14:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this article still listed at WP:GAC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review being reassessed is clearly invalid-- not an adequate review, and the nominator doesn't think it's GA as is. According to our procedures, isn't this a case of a non-review and the article should be renominated at GAN (GAC)? It seems to me this isn't the appropriate venue. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats hard to say but I would think sending it back to GAN would be the best option. I do think that the articles second GAN may not have been handled in a proper way, this article needs more work before reaching GA status but I would have reviewed this in a different manner then the 2nd reviewer did. As for the proper outlet to go to from here, I don't know how policy handles a situation like this but if this is not renominated at GAN, perhaps a peer review would not hurt in getting this article to GA status. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the reviewer got in over his head and expressed a desire to back out gracefully. And this community reassessment shouldn't have been opened without the nominator and reviewer discussing the matter first. Unless there's any objection, I think this can be closed. In the meantime, I'll undo the partially undone fail and link the partially done review here. Doctor Sunshine talk 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to close this but I'm going to revise my statement slightly. The review in question may not have been handled very well but we've had two people review it here and no work has been done. I've removed it from GAN as it shouldn't have been listed both here and there. Since the standard outcome of this GAR should be to "list" or "not list" it, and again we've had two people review it here, relisting it ourselves at GAN would be redundant. The article does not meet the GA criteria at this time but, because my previous post confused the matter, I'm going to give this another day or two and then close this, unless some work is done. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Keep. After a long GAR with much input from reviewers, and improvements and expansion by multiple editors, there seems to be consensus that the original case to delist is now moot. Articles can be reassessed at any time. Geometry guy 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I peer reviewed this article and found numerous problems with the use of sources, specifically, a number of citations did not contain the information being cited. I started an individual re-assessment, but the editor involved believes that I am out of line and has requested a community re-assessment. I'm therefore doing so; I hope that's not against the rules about requesting re-assessments. Ricardiana (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for reassessment is perfectly fine. Note that community reassessment will address whether or not the article meets the criteria, not whether your review or review decision was appropriate. However, I've left a couple of comments on the associated talk page. Geometry guy 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The WP:LEAD of the article appears to be a bit short. Other than that, there appear to be many valid points that were raised previously at Talk:Exploration of Jupiter/GA2 that should be addressed - specifically: the point about Notes 6, 30, and 31. Further, the sources used appear to be primarily websites of NASA, some formerly active websites now inactive, and sites of other space agencies. The article appears to lack truly secondary sources, and could stand to benefit from researching discussion in sources such as published books, scholarly works, journal articles on the subject, and news coverage. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the citing issues listed there should be solved now. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not added any secondary sources beyond a website or two, or changed the lead. Ricardiana (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on quality of sources or how well they support the text, as that has already been done at Wikipedia:Peer review/Exploration of Jupiter/archive1.

• Nothing about the mission profiles, not even launch dates - e.g. these would give some idea of the distances involved. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why a mission profile would be necessary. Most of them were flybys, and asides from saying when were the probes near the planet and what did they do, I am not sure how would anything else contribute to the topic. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing about the technologies used, especially any new ones - propulsion (makes missions faster and more flexible), instruments (what info the probes can gather), power supply (see e.g.the subsystem shut-down schedule for Voyager 1). PS I'm no technical expert, just a long-time SF fan, and such gaps jump off the page at me.-Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very clear to me why would these have to be included here and not in the History of space exploration article instead. To me the topic of the article is the exploration part, not really how was it done. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some poor prose, e.g.: "are accomplished at a high cost in energy" in section "Technical requirements" (try plain English); in "increasing its inclination of the ecliptic to 80.2 degrees" (section "Ulysses (1992)"), "in" is the wrong preposition, as the probes did not change the ecliptic's inclination; "Discovery of volcanic activity on the moon Io was the greatest unexpected discovery regarding Jupiter, since it was the first time an active volcano has been observed on another celestial body" could be much more concise (section "Voyager program (1979)"). Please check the prose thoughout the article.

fixed a couple

• Some terms not explained or wikilinked, e.g.: "low Earth orbit" (section "Technical requirements"); "crustal rifting or tectonic processes" and "tidal heating" (section "Voyager program (1979)"). Please check right through for terms that need to be explained and / or wikilinked. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

went through a bunch

•  Not done Inconsistencies about italicisation of probe names, e.g, in the first 2 sentences of section "Ulysses (1992)". Please check throughout and ensure consistency. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

improved a few instances. n

Not all done. Hint: text search. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tried that. all should be fixed now. Nergaal (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done "the harsh charged-particle environment around Jupiter" is a straight copy from the source, and is easy to rephrase, i.e. it's a WP:COPYVIO. Please check for other copyvios and remedy any that are found. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the sentence now? Nergaal (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"due to the harsh charged-particle environment that is found around Jupiter (for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)"

• Still copies the phrase "harsh charged-particle environment". --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with keeping an accurate scientific terminology? Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• should have a brief explanation of why it's so harsh, instead of "(for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)". If the source from which "harsh charged-particle environment" is copied does not explain it, please provide additional refs. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 full paragraphs in the magnetosphere article that explain that fairly well. I am not quite sure how to dumb down those 3 paragraphs into a sentence and still have a clear explanation. Nergaal (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At present it's hard to see the point of this section. However it could help to fill part of the gap about technologies, if it included an overview of the propulsion techs used (both "main" drive and steering thrusters). You'll almost certainly find that these were all chemical rockets, which have poor specific impulse, the space equivalent of "miles per gallon"; the obvious contrast is with ion drives, e.g. Deep Space One chased a comet for fun. For background info, see Spacecraft propulsion. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am understanding you wrong but: if one is discussing the expeditions to Mount Everest they it should be noted somewhere that for example there is a low oxygen level. But why would be necessary to discuss what or how many sherpa's are used? n.

• Assuming chemical rockets, should mention Hohmann transfer orbits, and how slow these are. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this covered under The energy needed to reach Jupiter from an Earth orbit requires a delta-V of about 9 km/s, compared to the 9.7 km/s delta-V needed to reach a low Earth orbit from the ground.

No. The fundamental problem with space flight (outside of science fiction) is quantity of reaction mass required. An ion drive produces vastly more delta-V than a chemical rocket becuase it gets far better "miles per gallon", but produces insufficient raw power for lift-off from Earth. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to break down energy requirements into 3 parts: Earth to LEO; LEO to Jupiter's orbit, against the Sun's gravity; speed matching - for the last item, Interplanetary travel has a source that gives a table of planets' orbital velocities. Of course the actual numbers for LEO to Jupiter's orbit and for speed matching vary depending on whether it's a fly-by or an extended visit, and in the case of a fly-by whether it's "fast" or "slow". --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure speed matching is an actual requirement? This is not like two moving ships getting close to each other, but instead shooting a bullet to get trapped by the immense gravity of the "substar". This requirement would be valid for something small like an asteroid, but not a huge planet with an atmosphere serving as a cushion if needed. Nergaal (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already said the energy required for speed-matching depends on whether the mission is a fast fly-by, slow fly-by or extended visit. The article raises this issue as it says Voyager 1 did a fast fly-by, Cassini–Huygens did a months-long fly-by and Galileo orbited for 8 years. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing got "trapped" by Jupiter's gravity - if it did, we'd be looking at some sort of "landing". --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re "gravity assists through planetary flybys can sometimes be used to reduce the energy required at launch":
  • This assumes a flight with just 1 main burn, as opposed to the more continuous operation of e.g. ion drive. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It reduces the energy requirement regardless of the propulsion system. Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're missing the point - regardless of the energy requirment, chemical rockets have poor specific impulse (space equivalent of "miles per gallon"). The constraint is reaction mass, not the simple energy requirement. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, but regardless of the efficiency of the engine used, if you get a push from 100 to 200 xph you still reduce the overall fuel required, regardless if you drive a hummer or an electric car. Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "at launch" focusses attention on lift-off from Earth's surface, but gravity assists don't reduce the cost of the Earth-to-LEO phase. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it so sound it more clear. Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re "... at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration to reach Jupiter", or to anywhere else, it's not specific to Jupiter. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is wrong. On short distances, slingshots usually do take longer times(=routes). But for very long distances, such as the outer Solar System, the spacecraft usually travels much faster with slingshots, and the change in path is relatively small compared to the entire distance, and therefore the overall trip takes less time. Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you're comparing it with. A WP article has to address non-specialists. Hence its baseline should be the "naive" approach, where the craft accelerates flat out and then decelerates flat out. This is theoretically the fastest, but its high reaction mass requirements run into a vicious circle (you need to lug to the mid-point the reaction mass you'll need after the midpoint, etc.). Once that's ruled out, a "boost and drift" flight to the outer solar system (w/o slingshots)may not be feasible because it's against the sun's gravity, or will be very slow for the same reason. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just realised that "the planet appears to have no solid surface for landing" and "it only has a small rocky core" contradict each other. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Re "smooth transition between the atmosphere of Jupiter and the planet's fluid interior", fluid includes gases, so you need another term. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read Critical point (thermodynamics); there is NO difference between a gas and a liquid at the point one would normally call "the surface" of Jupiter. So fluid is actually the correct term. Nergaal (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but the article needs to provide some sort of explanation as this phenomenon is way outside normal human experience. At a minimum I'd be much more explicit about the lack of a clear boundary between gas and liquid, and wikilink to Critical point (thermodynamics). --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re "crushed by the immense pressures within Jupiter before reaching any solid point, thus making a landing mission impossible":
  • This makes the invalid assumption that the only useful visit is a landing on a solid surface. Ballooning through the atmosphere and floating on a liquid surface would also in principle make extended observation of the local environment possible. This needs to be thought through properly,. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, although I see absolutely no likelihood of anybody doing this outside of Hollywood or of video games. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is plain WP:OR, and questionable - the Russians eventually landed a probe on Venus (92 atmospheres' pressure; corrosive because of high SO2 content; surface temperatures of over 460 °C). Why did no-one attempt a "landing" on Jupiter or some sort of extended stay in its atmosphere? --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why not equalise pressure by letting the atmosphere in? Equalising pressure is an obvious solution, used in deep-sea exploration of Earth; and there's no indication that Jupiter's atmosphere is corrosive (unlike Venus') --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo's probe died at 23 atmospheres and 153oC. Not many space probes will be designed to withstand that anytime soon. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides being a WP:COPYVIO, "the harsh charged-particle environment around Jupiter" needs an explanation of why the area around Jupiter is much "hotter" than that around Earth. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an explanatory note. n

Re "due to the harsh charged-particle environment that is found around Jupiter (for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)":

• It still contains "the harsh charged-particle environment", copied from the source. --Philcha (talk)
• Need to explain why Jupiter has this problem. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Re "the Galileo spacecraft, over the years it has orbited the planet", for how long? --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled out 8. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why was Voyager "far more technologically advanced" than Pioneer? I'd drop the phrase, as the section about the Voyager series should handle this. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The ref to Galileo FAQ - Navigation should link to the appropriate section of the FAQ. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The same ref does not support "albeit at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration". --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think Rockets and Space Transportation is WP:RS. The "root" page now redirects to a personal website of someone who do not look like a faculty memeber at Caltech, so Rockets and Space Transportation is probalby a copy of a student or personal page. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I can see, most of para "A major problem in sending space probes to Jupiter ... extended observation of the local environment" is not supported by "A comparison of the interiors of Jupiter and Saturn" (url provided]; best to omit url and provide DOI, which is 10.1016/S0032-0633(99)00043-4). The ref only establishes (by a long, complicated chain of assumptions and calculations) upper bounds for the rocky cores of Jupiter and Saturn and explictly admits that one or both may lack a rocky core. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Passage "Another major issue is the amount of radiation to which a space probe is subjected ... redesigned to cope with the massive radiation levels" has only one ref: Wolverton, Mark (2004). The Depths of Space. Joseph Henry Press. pp. 100–157. ISBN 9780309090506. The cited page range, 100-157, spans 3 chapters, see TOC at Google books. While I often cite page ranges up to whole chapters, e.g. if there's a risk of taking source material out of context, 1 ref spanning 3 chapters is going too far. Please provide specific page numbers / ranges for each point which this book supports. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pioneer I ... the spacecraft studied the planet's atmosphere, detected its magnetic field, observed its radiation belts and determined that Jupiter is mainly liquid" is uselessy vague. What did it discover, and how? I know it has to be brief, but that just means you have to think about how to convey max info in min words. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems Pioneer 11 took some pretty but humungously expensive pics, and some other vaguely-described stuff. What did it achieve in scientific terms? --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the information that NASA gives in its reports on the two missions. There were actual pioneers in the sense that people didn't really know what to expect so they only equipped them with cameras and antennas for sending information back. Nergaal (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Due to the greater resolution allowed by this close approach, most observations ... were made in the 48-hour period bracketing this approach" is a non sequitur. I think the logic is more like "in order to get greater resolution, most of the data was collected in the 48 hours ..." --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changed

• Re "It finished photographing the planet in April", if this is not explained, it appears to contradict "most observations ... were made in the 48-hour period", which was around March 5, 1979. What value was added by the lonmer-range pics.? --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changed

• Re "An array of other smaller storms and eddies were found throughout the banded clouds", does "banded" refer to the "bands" and "zones" described in section "Cassini (2000)"? If so, explanation is required here (in "Voyager program (1979)"). --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added note

• Europa's 30km ice crust is "thin"? --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in astronomical terms yes; unlike say Haumea, it is not a ball of ice, and it is "thin" enough that one could envision drilling though it; or maybe getting cracks all the way through the bottom. Nergaal (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll pause the section-by section walkthrough here. Please check for similar deficiencies in later sections. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please recheck that all sources cited throughout the article are WP:RS and fully support the statements that preceded the refs. I've already found 2 issues in section "Technical requirements", which is relatively short. --Philcha (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image:
  • has no caption, and hence no refs, so fails WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

switched to a better one. Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • does not explain the division into segments (by white lines) nor why some segments are red and others blue. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is this still applicable? n

• • its "image description" at {{Exploration of Jupiter}} contains no references. These days this is required for any image that presents facts, unless the source given in the image description gives the necessary info (e.g. "the brownish blob" just below the Equator id the Grreat Red Spot"). --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? n

• The captions of the various Jupiter images make unverified assertions, including which probe took which pic. They need refs. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done now? Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The caption for File:Map of Jupiter.jpg should state that this is a view from a pole (which?), as most Jupiter pics are taken from approx over the equator. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. n

• Repeated pics of Jupiter become boring. Exploration of Jupiter requires other components, e.g. spacecraft, mission profiles, moons where relevant (e.g. Europa's "intersecting linear features"). To make room for these I'd consider dropping others, but would keep File:Map of Jupiter.jpg (it's from a pole!), [[:File:PIA04866 modest.jpg}} (superb quality), File:Jupiter showing SL9 impact sites.jpg (natural "exploration"; dramatic; can you give estimates of the size of the "pockmarks", w ref of course?) and possibly File:P10A28.jpg (pic from first probe is notable for that reason - provided it's verified). --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

replaced with more representative ones. Nergaal (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link checker shows some problems:

• accessdates required for several. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done

• One dead link, try Internet Archive (instructions at User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died). --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link died only a few weeks ago; fixed. Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the items with "redirect" / "moved to" comments in the report, to make sure they still provide the expected content. If not, try Internet Archive. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checked. n

(leave until very last, when all other content stable)

• At present the article is far short of GA standard: sourcing issues identified at Wikipedia:Peer review/Exploration of Jupiter/archive1 have apparently not been resolved; other verification issues in the images; gaps in coverage and logic that a moderately enthusiastic teenager would spot; sub-optimal choice of images; missing / poor explanation of technical terms; prose issues; at least one WP:COPYVIO. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing issues there have been solved, but the reviewer declined to rereview those issues. Nergaal (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Also, Philcha and Cirt, as well as Geometryguy, are looking at the current version of the page - and they still see problems. Ricardiana (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←the sourcing points should be solved, see here: Talk:Exploration of Jupiter/GA2. Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but doesn't address Cirt's and Philcha's comments. Ricardiana (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article's history page shows that you have made only 2 edits since this community GAR was begun - unsubstantive edits. Ricardiana (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what exactly is your problem. I have not tried to insinuate that I have solved those comments; I said only that I have tried to address the sourcing issues which in my opinion are the most pressing ones. Nergaal (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and one more thing: the article went from 25.4 to 32.3k [4]. Instead of bickering you have made during this weeks, you could have added yourself another 5k of information to the article. Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved largely through my prodding, first at peer review, second at the individual GAR I began, and now at this community GAR that I began because you felt that "This is clearly out of your reach" [5] (evidently you now think otherwise; or is it out of my reach to review the article, but not to add to it?) I am sorry if I've allowed my annoyance at your numerous personal attacks to affect the level of my zeal here. Nonetheless, I am not impressed with someone who attributes information to sources that don't contain that information; attacks the person who points that out; replaces some sources with other sources that still don't contain the cited information (including one from the 19th century! that's still my favorite); attacks the reviewer further; requests a community GAR which has the effect, intentional or not, of buying more time to work on the article's numerous problems; and then, at that community GAR, only responds to the concerns that I raised, rather than to other reviewers' concerns. What I have tried to point out (and again, my annoyance at your attitude towards me may have affected my zeal here) is that, rather than following me around, you should engage with the other reviewers here. Ricardiana (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please concentrate here on whether the article currently meets the GA criteria. Discussion about the reassessment belongs at WT:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1. For interpersonal matters, please use User talk. Thanks. Geometry guy 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments are welcome below, but if none are forthcoming, there does appear to be enough consensus to close in the next few days. Geometry guy 18:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all the citing issues in text should be solved now. I have solved part of the technicalities raised, and I have left the intro for later. Nergaal (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If i were first seeing the article as it is now, i would still say delist. The lead remains too short and does not summarise the article, and many of the points Philcha brought up still need more work on them. Hence delist now and renominate later.YobMod 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE it appears that the last major concern was the intro, so I went ahead and bulked that up from 1 para to 3 paragraphs. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was sterted a month ago; can this process be sped up? Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing problems

• Article primarily cites NASA webpages. Ideally, sources for a GA should be from third-party publications. Many books discuss the topic and sub-topics at hand; many of those are available at least in part through Google Books; few are cited.
• Several statements are cited to sources that do not give the cited information. I only checked the first 30 or so, and found these problems:

• "Nevertheless, in principle it would be still possible to send probes to float at levels of lower pressure, thus allowing for limited, but extended observation of the local environment" is cited to an article in Planetary and Space Sciences." I've read the article through my university database; it mentions probes only once and does not say this about them.
• "Voyager spacecraft had to be redesigned to cope with the massive radiation levels" is cited to a chunk of Mark Wolverton's book. As Philcha points out, citing to a page range of 50+ pages is not acceptable. Further, a search of those 50 pages on Google Books does not seem to contain at any point the cited information.
• "determined that Jupiter is mainly fluid" Commonplace info, but not contained in cited source.
• "576,000 km away from the planet's cloud tops" Figure given in source is 57.6 million km.
• Note 11 only gives a DOI. It should give author, title, date, and journal information.
• Notes 12 and 13 purport to cite information about satellites Adrastea and Metis; the website in note 12 does not mention either satellite. The JStor article mentions and pictures the small dark spots that were noticed, but does not name them. (Note 14 actually does discuss these two satellites, with the given names, and should be cited here as well as later on.)
• What makes this webpage a reliable source?
• Quotation "might have been painted on with a felt marker" needs citation directly after it.
• Statement "Europa is internally active" is cited to a source that says only that this may be so. That is not acceptable.
• The section on Ulysses contains only two references, both given at the end. It would be better to cite the section throughout, distinguishing what information comes from what source.
• Notes 20 and 22 are the same, and are both cited to a page range of 1 through 8. Specific page numbers should be cited.
• "The spacecraft ... made its closest approach on February 28, 2007" is cited to a web page from 2006, which says that February 28 of the following year was planned on. This does not confirm that it actually happened on that day.
• Note 25 cites information about Himalia and Elara; neither Himalia nor Elara are even mentioned in the source.

• A number of Philcha's points, above, have not been addressed, specifically:

• Use of [6], evidently a student website.
• The statement "at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration to reach a target such as Jupiter" is not supported by the cited source.

• Issues with the writing quality. I only read the end and the first half or so; these are the problems I noticed:

• "All of these were by NASA" - needs a further verb.
• "Asides from taking" --> "Aside from"
• Repetitive word choice and sentence structure in para. 2 of lead. "X approached ... and [verb].... Y approached ... and [verb]."
• "arriving at Jupiter in 1995 and analyzing the planet until 2003. and the only one to have entered its atmosphere" Sentence fragment; even re-punctuated, the sentence will be poorly structured with too many "and"s in succession.
• "During this period it gathered a large amount of information about the Jovian system, making close approaches to all of the four giant Galilean moons and finding evidence for a thin atmosphere and also the possible presence of seawater on three of them, a magnetic field around Ganymede" Last clause does not fit with the grammar of the rest of the sentence; overly-long sentence in general.
• "It also witnessed the impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 as it approached Jupiter" Does the second "it" refer to the comet, or to the Galileo spacecraft?
• "In order for a spacecraft to reach the orbit of Jupiter from the Earth's orbit, it requires almost the same amount of energy as it does to lift it from the surface of Earth and put it into a low Earth orbit" - Wordy. Could be "For a spacecraft to ... requires ...".
• "as the radiation had caused its imaging photo polarimeter to receive a number of spurious commands" As you're writing for a general reader, it should be clearer what's going on here. What are "spurious commands", and what are they doing - erasing pictures, taking pictures over pictures, what?
• "over the eight years it has orbited the planet" Should be in past tense.
• "and obtained dramatic images of the Great Red Spot, made the first observation of Jupiter's immense polar regions, and determined the mass of Jupiter's moon Callisto" Again, too many "and"s. Also, incorrect punctuation in the sentence following.
• "even though the photographing the planet continued until April" Should be "the photographing of the planet".
• "The revealed previously unknown characteristics and phenomena associated with the planet's atmosphere and the surfaces of its satellites" Words missing.
• "Some have also advocated" - weasel wording. Needs at least a citation.
• "NASA has projected a possible attempt in the 2040s timeframe" - wordy, awkward.

Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this article a general copyedit, but I can't help with the line about the imaging photo polarimeter, as the source itself does not go into any detail. Serendi^podous 08:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the continuing problems have been resolved. Let me know what else needs to be done. Serendi^podous 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your hard work, Serendipodous. The article looks vastly improved, and looks to me like it is now a Good Article - your Good Article, however, not the original editor's. Ricardiana (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we can close the GAR? This article has been included as part of a Feature Topic Candidate and the FT is awaiting the resolution of this GAR. ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to close it tonight, but given the complex and extensive nature of this reassessment, I wanted to read through the article carefully myself first. In the process I found, by chance, one instance of plagiarism (I was not systematically checking sources). As the source (NASA) is not copyrighted and the instance was not long, this may not be a GA issue. However, I'm not able to close this reassessment until the article has been carefully checked. I don't have time to do this tonight, and I would encourage article editors to help here in the hope that myself or another uninvolved editor will be able to close this overdue reassessment soon. Geometry guy 19:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a few more examples of plagiarism. A cursory examination of the sources reveals no more, though I lack access to full scientific papers so I can't verify whether they were plagiarised or not. Serendi^podous 09:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't spot any further problems, only a couple of places where a citation or two would be helpful. This GAR looks closeable to me now. Geometry guy 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist. GA issues, including uncited statistics and opinion, unencyclopedic prose and neutrality issues remain unaddressed after several weeks. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a reassessment, Because some paragraphs are without references and parts of the Controversy section do not present a neutral point of view. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 01:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: When referring to 50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) in the Feud with Lil Wayne sub-section, sometimes it refers to him a just "50" and others as "50 Cent". Surely he should be referred to as "50 Cent or his given name "Curtis Jackson" not "50" as the reader may get confused. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with the GAR nominator, that this GA (from July 2007) could stand for some improvements. There are some referencing issues and unsourced bits throughout, as well as use of poor sources such as IMDB. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article needs some work, but it should be doable. Another problem is malformed references, with bare URLs, particularly towards the end. Lampman (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Although there are enough refs to work with and some FA are at a worse state. Problem is many refs aren't working [7], Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus/interest. Article remains GA by default. Geometry guy 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following a brief GAN review, and a unsuccessful FAC, comments would be appreciated as to whether this article currently meets the GA criteria, and if not, what improvements are needed. Geometry guy 20:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over next week. I scanned it briefly and think that it is close to meeting GA criteria. The article contains a few assertions which may need in-line citations; for example: "The cult of Saint Jovan Vladimir has been cherished in Macedonia for centuries". There are also some minor MoS concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Can someone help explain where this reference by Elsie comes from? I can't tell if it's self-published, form a journal or something altogether. From what I can tell he seems to be a credible expert in Albanian affairs, but I'd appreciate any details which can confirm that it is indeed a reliable source. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Elbasan Gospel Manuscript (Anonimi i Elbasanit), 1761, and the struggle for an original Albanian alphabet. in: Südost-Forschungen, Munich, 54, 1995, p. 105-159.

http://www.suedost-institut.de/fileadmin/dokumente/SOF1995.pdf

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

Result: Delist. There are no signs that improvement is imminent. Once such improvement occurs, the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the "renewable energy industry" does not follow from the definition of "renewable energy" or "renewable resources" in wikipedia and so lacks balance/neutrality/objectivity. E.g. it excludes hydro, geothermal, focusses heavily on wind, etc.

cocosmooth (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. This article is under-sourced, relying too much on RGSR. Given the amount of publicity this subject has receive we should expect more and better references. For example, I suspect that certain other reliable sources would define Renewable Energy differently than what's shown in the article: The present-day renewable-energy industry is an energy industry focusing on "new" and "appropriate" renewable energy technologies, which excludes large-scale hydro-electricity.

There are also MoS problems. Some sections are stubby while others are poorly written (for example: The wind power and solar photovoltaics (PV) industries provide good examples of this)

This article needs substantial work. It will best best to delist for now. Majoreditor (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per Majoreditor. In particular, i think exluding some technologies (hydroelectric, tidal) either makes it NPOV (surely not everyone agrees that hydro-power isnot part of this topic), and/or failing broadness criteria.YobMod 13:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No action. No sense in continuing discussion here at this time. Geometry guy 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did not follow Wikipedia:Good article nominations process. -- œ^™ 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to not be a GA, and is still listed at GAN? So no reassess needed, a (proper) GAN would be better.YobMod 09:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was a self-assigned GA, see WT:GAN#Re: Rand Kannenberg and possible impropriety, process not followed for explanation. This could probably be closed now. -- œ^™ 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree with Yobmod (talk · contribs), a proper GAN process would be best here. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With a case like this generally I would agree with User:Yobmod & User:Cirt. A few further relevant developments have arisen since those comments were made. A quick timeline of events:

1. "Promoted" as Good Article by those working on it. The wikiproject banners were just changed to GA status, no review page was made.
2. An uninvolved user added a request for reassessment
3. A GA reviewer did an individual reassessment (GA1)- 23:46, 7 July '09; quickfailed: multiple problems
4. GA nominee tag added again by article editor 18:09, 8 July 2009 (removing {{ArticleHistory}} in next edit). So, as it stands the article has a concurrent community GAR and GA nomination.

Clicking on the nominator's contribs shows the article is now also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Kannenberg (not to mention the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard thread brought by the nominator, and an AN/I thread about sockpuppeting). Given the above I agree this GAR should be closed. It is not practical to do an assessment while the article's deletion is being debated, so removing the article's 2nd (3rd?) GAN nomination is also appropriate. –Whitehorse1 19:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist per uncontested consensus below that the article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Geometry guy 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess and leaves a lot to be desired. I don't think there's any way it would pass a GA review today. Many of the sections have been split into sub-articles. What's left isn't in summary style but in choppy prose that doesn't seem to have any overall cohesion or purpose. Huge sections consist of dozens of two-sentence paragraphs. There's a whole lot of unsourced statements and original research. The article uses the abhorrent "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" notation. There's a lot of unlinked religious jargon ("Scholars commonly surmise that Jesus' eschatology was apocalyptic, like John's."). The images are all listed as public domain but no sources are provided for any of them, and many have nothing to do with the sections they appear in ("Other early views" describes the Ebionites and Gnostics but is illustrated by El Greco, a sixteenth century Catholic).

I'm listing this for community reassessment as it may be conscientious. —Noisalt (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The article is listed as "A" class. Under current guidelines can it be double-rated as both A and GA, or should it be automatically GA de-listed if it is an A? Majoreditor (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be both. A-class is a rating given by individual WikiProjects, while GA is an encyclopedia-wide designation. As the two processes are separate, neither has an effect on the other. —Noisalt (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely correct. Geometry guy 22:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was never actually reviewed, someone just slapped a tag on there after it failed FAC. —Noisalt (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the information pointed out by Noisalt (talk · contribs), I'd say this should be a delist. Cirt (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is slightly inaccurate, as a look at article history will show: the article was originally designated as a GA here in December 2005. At that time it was not common for reviewers to leave a written review. However, the reviewer was tagging multiple articles as GAs at the time, so it is doubtful that he reviewed the article in detail. In any case, standards have changed, and the main issue is whether the article currently meets the criteria or not, not what happened nearly 4 years ago. Geometry guy 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I lost count of the number of stubby sections. Reading this article is like riding shotgun with a novice driver who hasn't yet figured out how to correctly apply the brakes; every few seconds it's full stop, change topic, and accelerate again. I lean toward de-listing the article unless it can be re-written to make it readable. Majoreditor (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Too much sectioning giving poor stubby sections. Summary style is used extensively, but needs improvement: Some sections are one paragraph but summarise 3 or 4 sub articles (eg Ministry section), while single sub-articles are summarised in 4 big paragraphs (eg early life). As an overwiew of such a large topic, i feel this gets into undue weight territory. Also some (reasonable) citation needed tags and wholly uncited sections. This goes to show why no-one respects project A classes - this is not even GA qualityYobMod 12:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, this article was never even given a good article review in the first place. Is there anything else to talk about? If an editor wants to renominate for a proper assessment, that is a different discussion. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comment above. Geometry guy 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept per sweeps reassessment. Geometry guy 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As part of Sweeps, I had started Talk:Inari (mythology)/GA1 (individual reassessment) and could find some minor issues with the article like the length of lead and a ^{[citation needed]} tag and asked the major contributor to deal with them. There was no response. I am unable to make up my mind to fail or pass the article. So let it be a community decision. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lede and commented out the unsupported statement leaving notes in the reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I will pass it. Please close this review. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Keep. Article has been improved following comments below. There may still be room for improvement, but articles can be reassessed at any time. Geometry guy 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was made a GA some time ago when the GA requirements were much more lenient. There are quite a few unsourced statements and even some unsourced paragraphs. Spiderone (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree with the nom. A lot of referencing work is needed in this article. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article was only reassessed in November of last year (so about eight months ago). The few unrefernced elements should be easy enough to find, so I'll look for them. However some of the ones tagged by the requestor of this review don't even look like they need a reference. Paul  Bradbury 16:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is nowhere near as good as typical GAs such as Fernando Torres or Leo Fortune-West in this department. Spiderone (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Requested references now added. As for if its good enough, that's your opinion and not why you listed it. However it has passed GA assesment, and reassesment and appears to meet all of the criteria. I am sure like all articles it could be improved, maybe you would like to have a go instead of trying to get it reassessed. Paul  Bradbury 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about any offence caused but I honestly thought it wasn't as good as the likes of Xabi Alonso, Andy Hessenthaler and the ones I've mentioned before. It looks better now. Spiderone (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it just bothers me when people try to delete or demote etc. instead of trying to fix or create. It took me an hour to find the relevant references and had you brought that up at the talk page rather than just refer to a review I could have done the same (or so could you). These reviews take peoples time, time in this case that would be better spent reviewing other articles or ehancing or creating others. I don't agree that the articles that you mention are all better than this, in fact I think some are worse. But thats my opinion. If this had only been reviewed a few years ago I would have less of an issue. But it was reviewed recently and has not changed substancially since then, so you are effectiveley contesting that review. Guidlines etc. havn't changed substancially from Nov 2008 either. Paul  Bradbury 19:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All in all, the article is well referenced. I have added one additional citation request tag to the article for sports statistic. Ideally, the Personal Life section will be expanded, although I'd like someone who is more familiar with the subject to make specific suggestions on what else needs to be included in the section in order to meet GA criteria. At the moment I suspect that this article will be a keeper once we iron out these few remaining issues. Majoreditor (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are nominators / major contributors not notified when articles are nominated for this process? I've only happened to notice this through seeing on my watchlist that Pbradbury has been making a series of edits. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is my first time and I only thought I had to notify the last reviewer. Spiderone (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have put it in the "Articles needing review and possible reassessment" section instead Spiderone (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nomination for reassessment was fine. Editors are always welcome to nominate for reassessment in a collegiate spirit. The ideal outcome is that the article will be improved and retained as a GA. In this case, improvement has already occurred and I wanted to close as keep. However, I found that the article has some unsourced speculation and/or analysis/opinion e.g., "It is likely that Bristol City valued Goater more highly, but as his contract was due to run out at the end of the season they decided to accept a lower offer rather than risk losing him on a Bosman transfer." and "As a striker, Goater was well placed to benefit from Keegan's adventurous brand of football". There is also some unencyclopedic language (unless sources are given for such phrases): "creative midfielder", "top flight football", "a healthy return of seven goals", "he was given the honour".

I'm sure these issues can easily be addressed and the article kept. Geometry guy 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist per unanimous consensus below. Geometry guy 20:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting Period in a general sense does not mean the meaning expressed in the article. The term has been defined with reference to United Kingdom Income Tax but the term has a global meaning apart from it. Accounting Period actually denotes a period for which Accounts are balanced and a balance sheet is prepared at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SivaneshR (talk • contribs)

• comment I think disambiguating this page would solve the problem, which has been noted by others at the talk page. I have done so, and removed the NPOV template. However, i do not think this article is at GA quality. The only citations are from the official rules themselves, giving a section by section interpretation. But no secondary sources are used, and no discussion of its role in society/business. There are too many small sections, some completely uncited, and short sentences or embedded lists. Generally, i find the writing to be sub-optimal, with far to much "If xxx happens, then yyyy" - we are WP:NOT an accounting guide. Hence, Delist. (note: The orginal editor who got this to GA seems to have stopped editing shorly afterwards in 2007) YobMod 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, not for the nominator's reasons but because the article uses only primary sources. Articles "should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The GA criteria require broad coverage and a neutral point of view; using only one primary source accomplishes neither. —Noisalt (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The exclusive use of primary sources is very troubling. Certainly there are good secondary sources which may be used (for example, for U.S. accounting issues one would turn to the Journal of Accountancy or similar publications as reliable secondary sources.) Unless this is corrected quickly the article should be delisted. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The article hasn't improved. There is still a significant lack of secondary sources. Majoreditor (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]