Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 52

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 53)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 51) →

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

Result: Delisted. The issues brought up haven't been addressed. Szzuk (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is way off being of good article quality. It had several misspellings, and has poorly written text and missing decades of his life in places,. It is completely uneven and unstructured. Most paragraphs lack any strength whatsoever. Should never have been passed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Not the best of GA reviews. Article bearly scrapes any of the criteria that it requires. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: kept Issues raised have been addressed. Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Several unsourced sections in the Drew Carey Show, Improv Television and Price Is Right headers.
• Other roles and appearances section begins almost every sentence with "In/on [date], Carey x". This should be copy-edited to remove the proseline and one-sentence paragraphs.
• Unsourced BLP info under Personal Life regarding his weight.
• More "In [date], Carey x" sentences in Sports Involvement, plus an unsourced final sentence that's also a one-sentence paragraph.
• Is it really relevant to Drew's article to say that The Price Is Right changed several things after he took over?
• Multiple Bare Urls.
• At least two citations to YouTube videos. These should be removed.
• Citation #55 (Gerweck.net) is 404.
• Is XBOX Solution reliable?
• I doubt the reliability of Xbox365.com since the article is attributed to a screen name ("Coola").
• Same thing with Everything2.com.

There was a previous GAN in 2009, but it was a two line reassessment that basically said "well, this has flaws but I still think it's a GA". To call that a GAN is ludicrous, so I'm giving it proper reassessment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who reassessed it a couple years back, it does look like it's in much worse shape than I remember, so a delist is appropriate unless the issues are fixed above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of my earliest and most unwatched GAs (I really haven't given it a major cleanup in awhile). A lot of things have snuck in since he took over as host of PiR, but there are some older grammar and sourcing issues that should be replaced/revised. I'll address these issues this weekend. I definitely have learned that celebrity articles are the hardest to maintain of any GA/FA I've worked on, followed closely by films. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the above issues, replacing several of the sources and adding new ones. Several sections have also been re-written and excessive detail removed. If any other issues are still prevalent, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. There have been no comments it is therefore a no consensus outcome which defaults to keep. Szzuk (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake for this article to have passed the Good Article Review, over a year ago, when there were terrible errors of fact, violations of WP policy, and stylistic problems. I request that its GA status be withdrawn, given the problems of the previous review.

This article falls short of meeting the following criteria for good article—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The second paragraph of the lede illustrates the article's need for copy-editing:

The party is officially committed to left-wing democratic socialist ideas. The Socialist Party USA, along with its predecessors, has been met with varying support. Some attribute this to the party having to compete with the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively^[1][2] and judicially^[3] entrenched two-party system.

This quote reveals other problems, particularly POV regarding "the" 2-"party" system. There is a huge literature on the question "Why no socialism in America?", which is just ignored in favor of the party members' fantasies.

The most egregious problems concern reliable sources and NPOV:

Verifiable with no original research:

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

In 1958, the Trotskyist Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman dissolved to join the Socialist Party of America. Shachtman, whose politics had changed since his days as a Trotskyist leader,^[4] argued both for militant opposition to Soviet-style communism^[5] and that the Socialist Party should work within the Democratic Party. By 1972 Shachtman's Unity Caucus had taken control of the Socialist Party and blocked a resolution opposing the Vietnam War. In the 1972 presidential election, Shachtman's caucus initially backed hawkish Cold Warrior Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, then adopted AFL-CIO President George Meany's position of neutrality between the two candidates nominated by the major parties.^[6]

In response, two groups broke off: the Coalition Caucus led by Michael Harrington supported antiwar Democrat George McGovern and went on to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (later becoming the Democratic Socialists of America),^[7] while the left-wing Debs Caucus backed People's Party anti-war candidate Benjamin Spock. The Debs Caucus formed the Union for Democratic Socialism, which officially reconstituted the Socialist Party USA in 1973,^[8] when the Shachtmanites who remained in the Socialist Party re-named their organization Social Democrats USA.^[9] Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA.^[7]

Even here, I had removed some of the most egregious errors and POV biases in this account, but it was still written from the perspective of an enthusiast of McReynold's faction, which was the smallest of the three— so small that it is often ignored in accounts of the name change to SDUSA. (For example, Harrington's memoirs ignore it. The phrase "numerous local and state branches" participated in the reconstitution is wishful thinking. The crucial fact that is not mentioned is that the convention voted on proposals, and the heroes of this tale, McReynolds and Harrington, lost every time. It, like much of the conspiracy websites of the far right and far left, attributes everything to Shachtman, who was roughly 70

AND DEAD!!!!! ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

at the time, and fails to mention any of the other leadership: For example, the notorious ex-Trotskyists and followers of Shachtman (sarcasm), A. Philip Randolph and the chairman Bayard Rustin. This is just not serious, as any honest and knowledgeable editor should readily admit.

User:Orange_Mike previously assured us that this material was indeed in Heilbrunn's article, which would thus seem to differ from the book. Mike, given my difficulties verifying the reference to the WP excerpt, would you please post some relevant quotations with page references here?

IMHO, this paragraph seems to derive from p. 164 of SPUSA officer Busky's book, which is not a reliable source, at least not on U.S. politics (see the sarcasm "because labor was the motor of all social change" on p.164, for example).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This material was added without any references, and certainly no reference to Heilbrunn.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The misleading reference to Heilbrunn was added by User:TIAYN (User:TrustIsAllYouNeed), who also added several paraphrases (sometimes unsourced) of SPUSA positions and introduced the COI/Primary book by SPUSA officer Busky. This edit does raise the question of whether TIAYN is too close to the party, given such edits, and so editing this page appears to be a COI.

I have spent the last weeks cleaning up this and related articles. A comparison of this article, as it now stands, and its state a month ago, demonstrates that this article was very far from GA status. I have discussed criticisms on the article's talk page (and on the talk page of Socialist Party of America). However, I don't have the will to finish cleaning up this article, whose second half seems to be cherry-picked items shedding a a positive light on the SPUSA. To go forward, I believe there should be some admission that there were serious problems with the article, in particular with its extensive paraphrasing of unreliable sources, often from the SPUSA websites or written by its activists (Busky). I believe that editors with conflicts of interest need to declare them (perhaps to a neutral administrator by an e-mail) and be doubly scrupulous about NPOV issues.

I should clarify that pro-SPUSA material (with reliability NPOV problems) was added perhaps 4-5 years ago by editors with no apparent connection to SPUSA, probably somewhat naively in good faith, and without a substantial understanding of history, which would have alerted them to problematic phrases. (Of course, there is positive information on the SPUSA that is free of COI/reliability problems, also.)

I would encourage editors, even with SPUSA ties, to please help with improving the article. Just be mindful of the COI policy. Again, I think that regular editors have avoided COI problems in these articles. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a thorough checking of the second half of the article, especially for WP:Reliable and WP:Secondary issues, even before copy-editing can begin. After these issues are addressed, then the article can be considered for GA status.

Thank you!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist Szzuk (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC) GA nominee and others have mentioned some of the sources aren't reliable.[reply]

• Formatting problems in Cast and Soundtrack sections
• Unconventional Soundtrack section with POV comments for each song
• Almost all references are from websites considered unreliable in other Indian cinema GA reviews, with nearly a third of the sources coming from www.Idlebrain.com
• Generally not up to par with other Indian cinema GAs

BollyJeff || talk 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, the GA criteria do not require the article to be "up to par" compared to other articles, because we're not grading on a curve. They also do not require any particular system of formatting, or require that the contents be "conventional"—and your belief that a description of the song's subject is "POV comments" strikes me as very strange. Where exactly is the "POV" in "This song is about the rain bringing in joy and happiness"? So your three or your four complaints are irrelevant: Articles are not delisted for these reasons.
  The sourcing complaint could be significant. I suggest that you use {{Verify credibility}} to identify the specific sources that you believe are unacceptable so that others can consider whether these sources are being used appropriately. (No source is always unreliable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and fixed some of the formatting issues that were considered unimportant by some. Now we just need to deal with sourcing issue. BollyJeff || talk 13:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't look that bad, hardly the best GA we have on Indian cinema though. The main issue for me is sourcing. Musicmazaa.com and heavy reliance on Idlebrain. All dodgy sources should be replaced. If I reviewed this for GA I'd have failed it because of the shoddy sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, does the Indian WikiProject appear to be struggling? Only 26 of the 10,984 Indian cinema articles are currently marked as GA quality. Of those, 1 article came from 2006, 5 from 2007, 9 from 2008, 3 from 2009, 4 from 2010 and 4 from 2011. Other than those, only 5 of the 10,984 articles are at FA quality (at a rate of about 1 a year). That means less than 0.3% of the Indian cinema articles (or indeed, Indian articles in general) are up to a "good" quality. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't get too excited about that. There are plenty of western film articles way better than this one that are not GA either. In fact the percentage of GAs for all of WP is 0.34% BollyJeff || talk 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been off the 'pedia since quite a bit due to personal reasons. I logged in only to see a couple of articles that I brought to GA status listed under reassessment. Wanted to check how these were faring and here I am. I agree that the sourcing is a huge problem with articles of non-Bollywood films including this one. This problem is even more for older films. Unfortunately sources like idlebrain.com among other such non-RS were among the only sources that I could find for this article at the time of its GA nom. Invariably that's the way it has been for films of that time whether we like it or not. However I do recognize the importance of GA-criteria and the reasons for reassessment. I want to have my thoughts listed down as the main editor and GA-nominator for this article. By the way, hello Ncmvocalist. How have you been doing? Mspraveen (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted Consensus is that some of the sources aren't reliable. Szzuk (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Formatting problems in Cast and Soundtrack sections
• Generally not up to par with other Indian cinema GAs, with some very brief sections and not many sources
• Many sources are from websites considered unreliable in other Indian cinema GA reviews, including blogs and gossip sites

BollyJeff || talk 15:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The GA criteria do not require the article to be "up to par" compared to other articles, because we're not grading on a curve. They also do not require any particular system of formatting. So your first two complaints are irrelevant: Articles are not delisted for these reasons.
  Your last complaint could be significant. I suggest that you use {{Verify credibility}} to identify the specific sources that you believe are unacceptable so that others can consider whether these sources are being used appropriate. (No source is always unreliable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and fixed some of the formatting issues that were considered unimportant by some. Now we just need to deal with sourcing issue. BollyJeff || talk 13:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't look that bad now you've edited it. Again the main issue for me is sourcing. All dodgy sources should be replaced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: delisted Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Article was apparently nominated and passed by its creator, in violation of the GAN process. The article is not very good quality. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article shows no establishment of notability at all, so I went ahead and deleted it. The GA tag probably could have just been reverted in this case rather than a GAR started. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome fix! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: delisted Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I'm regrettably nominating this article for reassessment because many of the required criteria for GA are decidedly lacking from it. I've bulleted the points that I feel don't meet GA status.

• Firstly, the plot runs at a whopping 1150+ words! That's over double the amount that is acceptable for a plot summary.
• There are several statements in the article that are lacking in references.
• The references are not correctly formatted and everything is in italics for some reason... (there is also some sort of reffing error with this: "^London Academy of Media Film & TV,Russel Crowe" at the bottom of the list.)
• There are 2 bare URLs in the reflist.
• The Home Media section reads like an advertisement as noted by the template. (This section is also mostly unreferenced).
• The article is unfocussed in its prose.
• Ref 13 is unreliable (from about.com). Ref 25 doesn't work.
• The article has an inappropriate external link at the very bottom of the list.

Thank you. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It needs a copyedit for the issues raised, if someone was interested that wouldn't take long to fix. A quick read made me wonder if there was any challengable material that needed a cite, that would be a bigger problem? Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re plot length: I don't think there are any concrete limits on plot length; the plot for a 2+ hour long drama needs to be longer than the plot of an 80 min. kid's film. The length does seem a bit excessive though so I'll take a look to see if there is material that should be removed.--RDBury (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOSFILM#Plot. Between 400 and 700 words. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a guideline and, like I said, I'm working on it. Turns out it's harder to shorten prose than to lengthen it.--RDBury (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know exactly what you mean. Am currently trying to shorten the plot to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (to prep for GAN), but it's tougher than it seems. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The GA criteria only includes WP:LAYOUT from the MOS. Szzuk (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some major work on the section and, with a bit of help, it's now at 716 words. (I rewatched the movie while I was at it.) It's possible that it might be shortened more but I'm probably too close to it now to do it well.--RDBury (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need, you've done fabulously, the plot is now averagely sized. Good job. There are still the issues mentioned above however. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome, I enjoyed doing it.--RDBury (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re advert: I believe I have addressed this.--RDBury (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re bare URLs: I removed one, a cite that Nash won the Nobel Prize which is unlikely to be questioned. I couldn't find the other one so perhaps it's already been fixed.--RDBury (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re refs formatting: I replaced some of the italics with double quotes, and removed some other ones. Not sure how detailed the GA criteria get on this kind of thing but it's a start at least. I also cleaned up the London Academy line at the bottom, probably more trouble than it's worth to figure out what that was intended to be.--RDBury (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re external link: I assume you mean the Film Insight link. The External links criteria are pretty broad, as long as it's on topic and not blatant spam it should be OK. So I claim it's a non-issue.--RDBury (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re unreferenced statements, unfocused prose and everything else: Could you be more specific? It might help to add "citation needed" tag to point out specific statements that should be supported. I'm not sure what to do about unfocused prose, perhaps that's would be a concern for an FA review but I don't think GA requirements are that high. Now that the Plot section has been trimmed the Production section stands out as being too long and overly detailed. Much of the material comes from the DVD commentary and featurettes which I regard as somewhat dubious as sources, they often have patently non-noteworthy information. I removed a small amount of such material but didn't want to hog wild on it.--RDBury (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - It's very light on sources at only 32. The budget is not sourced. A check on Boxofficemojo shows the budget is 58 million, not 60 million as stated here. A lot of unsourced statements in the 'Production' section. Looks like plenty of original research in the 'Divergence from actual events' section. I think this article needs more than a quick fix to check everything out and source it properly. BollyJeff || talk 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have an opinion about the article overall, but I do have an opinion about some of the "criteria" that the nom suggests are required. GAs are not required to have properly formatted citations. Bare URLs may be evil, but they are a kind of evil that the GA criteria do not prohibit. Similarly, the GA criteria do not prohibit dead URLs—which is a good thing, because WP:DEADREF basically prohibits you from deleting a citation merely because the URL isn't working today. Similarly, compliance with the External links guideline is simply not required. I find no recommended maximum number of words for plot summaries in any of the five actually required MoS pages.
  So what you're left with is complaints about:
  • unspecified unsourced sentences (which may or may not fall into the five categories that GA requires citations for—noting that if they don't, then the absence of a citation is not grounds for de-listing, since the GACR do not require one citation per sentence),
  • a ==Home media== section that needs a copyedit, and
  • "unfocussed" prose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The home media section is gone, having just read I think the prose while not the good could scrape a pass, in that I can understand what is meant but I wouldn't write it that way myself and there are no spelling errors etc. So we're left with some inline cite requests. RDBury has done quite a fair bit of copyediting, credit for that. Szzuk (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the cite requests.Szzuk (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article has been improved and appears to pass. Szzuk (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: Still some concerns, I have added {{citation needed}} templates to unsourced statements, also a {{clarify}} tag to a puzzling reference to (apparently) an unspecified book. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• An overdetailed section, such as an overlong Plot section, would fall under criteria 3(b) ("unnecessary detail"). I have personal views regarding Plot sections - I find they are frequently overlong, and tend to include interpretation and opinion. Personally I would rather all Plot sections were built from reliable secondary sources rather than the commentary of various Wikipedia editors, but that's outside the scope of this GAR, and indeed of GA as a whole. The judgement of reviewers would be - "Is this Plot summary appropriately informative?" That it, does it give the readers enough, but not too much information? It's always a difficult judgement, as there are no reliable sources to measure against. A reviewer would need to have seen the film fairly recently to be able to make such an informed judgement. I have seen the film, but it was long enough ago for me not to remember the plot enough to be able to make an informed comment on the appropriate length of the Plot section. However, going by the plot summaries at IMDb, at Rotten Tomatoes, at moviefone, and Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook, it appears this article's plot summary is longer than necessary. Even though not actually required, I think it would be helpful to use and cite sources when building plot summaries. Sources are not much used in the article. The cast list is poorly done - it tends to repeat plot information, rather than give casting information, and is in list format, which is discouraged. Formatting of cites is not required for GA. I note that the Home Media section has been removed. I agree that the prose lacks focus - the Production section is fuzzy and unclear. It appears to be a series of cut and paste notes that haven't yet been written up into an informative overview. External links aren't covered by GA. It's worth looking at WP:EL to see if the links are needed. They do look excessive to me, and some are already used as references. Adding to the original points, would be that the lead is inadequate. It doesn't meet WP:Lead in that it doesn't appropriately summarise the contents - the Divergence from actual events and Production sections in particular are poorly represented in the lead. I feel that the article is significantly far enough from GA criteria to require rather more work than can be achieved in a reasonable time. Given that this GAR has been open for over a month with a range of significant issues unaddressed, then this is a clear delist for me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept Consensus is keep and take to dispute resolution. Szzuk (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this page for reassessment based on Good article criteria #4 and #5 (mainly #5). The same issues that No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith has, Fawn M. Brodie also has, as it's author.

• 5. Is it stable?

Ongoing edit wars since prior to May 2011 (instead of October 2010):

• 4. Fair representation without bias:

This is directly in regards to #5. The "Fair representation without bias" cannot be determined. If one side of the edit war is correct then the article is bias in favor of the "apologetic Mormon" viewpoint. If the other is correct the article is bias in favor of Fawn McKay Brodie hypothesis, at the exclusion of DNA research. Therefor the Good article criteria #4 can't be agreed upon.

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

I think it would make more sense for you to take this article through the normal WP:Dispute resolution processes. An edit war between partisans is not going to be solved here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the disputed content of the edit war nor I edit the page since 11 March 2011. This is only about the above items and the fact that there has been an edit war ongoing since october. A GA cannot be involved in an edit war and this one has been since May 2011. This article has undergone almost 100 changes since the GA Review on July 1, 2009, most of which are not "Vandalism" changes. Can you honestly say that it has been stable'? Additionally, how can it be a "Fair representation without bias", when no one can agree if the article is Bias or not? If these do not apply to the Article, then it is not GA anymore.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article is not required to stay the same after it's listed as GA. Almost 100 non-vandalism changes in the past two years is a good thing. Most articles that meet the GA requirements—or even the FA requirements—can be and are improved after their listing. The fact that changes happen is not grounds for de-listing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then please explain to me at what point dose a page, involved in an edit war for months, deserve to be delisted. The changes are not the issue, its the "stability". I honestly don't understand.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We do delist articles which are unstable, though we first seek out a means to stop the disruption. I agree with WhatamIdoing that GAR is not the best place to resolve edit wars or content disputes. It is better to come here after attempts at dispute resolution have failed. There is nothing significant on the talkpage or on ARTEST4ECHO or John Foxe's talkpages. I note that there is some personal friction between the two, though I don't see how that directly relates to this article. Unless someone disagrees in the next few days, I will close this GAR as a keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have only made one edit to this page and it is was a minor edit (adding a wikilink) unrelated to any edit conflict on this page. I have nothing to do with the edit war or content dispute on this page, and this GAR has nothing to do with the contents of that dispute. This has to do with the fact that this page has had an ongoing edit war since May 2011 and is therefore "unstable".

Second, To ignore delisting an unstable articles based on past "some personal friction" between myself and John Foxe on a different page is not WP:Assuming good faith. I listed this page for the reasons above and for no other reason. To ignore a legitimated request based on a different page and different issue is unfair.

I still haven't gotten a good explanation as to when a "unstable" page should be desisted. One month, six months, a year? The only reason either of you have given is that "we first seek out a means to stop the disruption". This page has gone to those "means" and are still not stable. So that doesn't explain how a Good article can be involved in an edit war and still be a GA. The Good article criteria #5 clearly say "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." This page clearly doesn't meet that criteria anymore, therefore I don't see why this page should be a GA.

However, Since it seems that there is no consensus on this and it appears to be leaning towards "keep", I am more then happy to have you close this GAR, but I would still like to have a good explanation on how long it take for a "unstable" page with and ongoing edit war to be delisted. Your welcome to close this page and explain it better to me on my own talk page if you wish,so that the GAR can be closed.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't ask that someone attempts to resolve a dispute themselves if they have history of conflict with someone involved in the dispute; but we would ask that they raise the matter of the dispute at a dispute resolution forum rather than at GAR. If an article is still unstable AFTER appropriate steps have been taken to resolve a dispute, that is the time to bring the article to GAR.

My point above is that I looked on the talkpage of the article, and on the talkpage of the GAR nominator - ARTEST4ECHO, as well as the main contributor to the article - John Foxe, and found no attempts at dispute resolution. I did, while I was looking, note there was some friction between these two people, but that the friction appeared to be unrelated to this article. That is, the communication I noted between the two people was not related to this article, and so couldn't be seen as being part of the dispute on the article nor any resolution process. So it looked as though the nominator had gone straight to GAR rather than first attempt dispute resolution.

I hope that's a bit clearer. I do dispute resolution myself, but I'm already involved, so I wouldn't want to take this one on. Try Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. And good luck! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept Consensus is keep and take to dispute resolution. Szzuk (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this page for reassessment based on Good article criteria #4 and #5 (mainly #5)

• 5. Is it stable?

Ongoing edit wars since prior to October 2010:

• 4. Fair representation without bias:

This is directly in regards to #5. The "Fair representation without bias" cannot be determined. If one side of the edit war is correct then the article is bias in favor of the "apologetic Mormon" viewpoint. If the other is correct the article is bias in favor of Fawn McKay Brodie hypothesis, at the exclusion of any DNA research. Therefor the Good article criteria #4 can't be agreed upon.

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

I think it would make more sense for you to take this article through the normal WP:Dispute resolution processes. An edit war between partisans is not going to be solved here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the disputed content of the edit war nor have I edited the page since 29 July 2011. This is only about the above items and the fact that there has been an edit war ongoing since October. A GA cannot be involved in an edit war and this one has been since October 2010. This article has undergone almost 150 changes since the GA Review on June 23, 2009 most of which are not "Vandalism" changes. Can you honestly say that it has been stable'? Additionally, how can it be a Fair representation without bias, when no one can agree if the article is Bias or not? If these do not apply to the Article, then it is not GA anymore. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of fairness, I have now edited that page "After" my last post here (ie 19:49, 15 August 2011) where I said that I hadn't posted since July 29th.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not you personally engaging in an edit war; the problem is somebody is engaging in an edit war. The edit war needs to be resolved. GAR is not a useful place to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that doesn't explain how a GA which, per #5 cannot be part of an edit war, is part of an edit war, ongoing since October 2010. You realize this is almost a year. At what point dose a GA deserve delisting when it no longer meets the GA criteria. I could buy your argument if this was a one time issue lasting a few days, but not a year.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: kept. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. This article is extremely lacking in NPOV. I found that various forms of the word "critic" are used more than 35 times, that's twice per section. I also found information that was incoherent and very poorly sourced in the Marriage and Family section which I deleted. I'm sure it is not the only poorly sourced information. It seemed to me that this article should have been called: George W. Bush Slander.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It will help if you provide specific examples of incoherent phrasing and poor sourcing in this GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The article is so big it would be a considerable effort just to read the article nevermind look for problems. Szzuk (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I didn't read the article completely, but it seems to me that there are plenty of good things said about Bush, as well as criticisms. This reflects his place in reliable sources. There is at least a decent NPOV there. Jujutacular ^talk 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not seeing the POV problems, either. There are things I wish had been done differently (e.g., relying more on a handful of biographies and less on news stories from 20 years ago), but none of them seem to be problems that violate the GA criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I reviewed the article and found not a single POV violator. The George W. Bush Slander thing is unnessary. Mike 289 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For such a sometimes controversial topic the article tries it's best to stay neutral. I don't see glaring POV issues either. GermanJoe (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles on major contemporary political figures are tricky to bring into balance. On the whole, this article doesn't tilt toward a particular POV. However, it would benefit from certain improvements:
  • The "Marriage and family" section is largely devoted to his alcoholism, almost to the exclusion of other important details.
  • The Richards lesbian rumor takes up too much space in the "Governor of Texas" section; this section whould be evaluated and key topics appropriately weighted.
  • There may be opportunity to improve the bloated "Economic policy" section by trimming some of the excess. This section should be a succinct summary of the daughter article. I suggest trimming some (not all, mind you ) of the economic performance statistics and focus on describing the economic policies.

As a final note, I've spot-checked a few of the refs and photos. All of the ones I examined were in order. Majoreditor (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to close this as a keep when I read the vague nom, and saw that everyone was calling for keep; however, when I looked at the article I felt there were a number of issues - many of which are directly GA related. This is a high profile article so it is appropriate that we ensure it meets basic standards, even more so when we are declaring that we have vetted and approved the quality of the article. Fails criteria 6 (b) - some of the captions are overlong, giving a cluttered and messy look to the article; and not all the images are needed - many appear to be there just for decoration, and again give a cluttered, messy look which is diverting from the text. Still on images - some are squeezing the text, which is against WP:LAYOUT on criteria 1 (b). The article has a number of short sections, which is also against WP:LAYOUT on criteria 1 (b). There are six paragraphs in the lead, which is unhelpful and gives a disordered and off-putting appearance. Such poor organisation is apparent through much of the article, with a number of short paragraphs. Sometimes a short paragraph is appropriate - but this article has more than needed, and a period of attentive copyediting would benefit the article and so aid the reader. Linking is not part of GA criteria, but worth mentioning that the article is overlinked, adding to the messy look. It would be worth looking more closely at 3 (b), as some sections appear to contain "unnecessary detail" - the Approval section, Post-presidency section and Iraq section. I haven't examined other aspects of the GA criteria yet, but already I have serious concerns, and before we endorse this article as being one of our best, I feel a tidy up would be in order. If the article is not cleaned up, or if there is no ongoing work to clean it up within a reasonable time - say seven days (the GAR has been open over a month), then I would support a delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question While this is at issue with a lot of eyes. At Talk:Bill Clinton/GA2, we are debating the inclusion of "Slick Willie", "MTV President", "Comeback Kid" and "Boy Governor" and it has come to my attention that "Dubya" or at least "W." as recognizee in the film W.is not mentioned in this article. Isn't wikipedia suppose to present to the reader alternate names and nicknames.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to add that information (please), but I doubt that anyone would accept a claim that a nickname is a "main aspect of the topic" and therefore a matter for GAR to worry about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I just read the article and found no major issues. It is neutral and has plenty of citations. meshach (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• is this GA review over? Pls post on my talk page if any reply. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept Consensus is keep. The only remaining issue isn't explicitly part of the GA criteria. Szzuk (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Aside from there being many unsourced areas, many parts of the article were copyright violations, which I am in progress of removing, and upon all of them being removed it won't have the prose necessary to remain a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios and the like removed, and while there weren't a huge amount, there are nonetheless clear spots that need improvement in this article for retention. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Overall, it's a promising article. However, it suffers from stubby sub-sections and embedded lists; see the demographics section for examples. There may be other issues as well; I've not read the whole article with care, nor have I checked references.

Despite its shortcomings, this article can be brought up to GA standards if editors are willing to pitch in and help. Majoreditor (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Sure there are a few issues with the article, but I am not sure that it qualifies being delisted for that fact. Stubby sub-sections and embedded lists are only a minor issue, and it should not be delisted for that reason. See the Cleveland, Ohio article. It is full of embedded lists and the like similar to the Dayton article and it is a featured article. Also, the Dayton article is mostly neutral, well written, factual, well sourced and recently underwent some cleanup. I feel that is deserves the stay a GA, but is not near ready to go further than GA status at this point. 99.23.126.7 (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the most recent review (Talk:Dayton, Ohio/GA1) of the article, this was performed only a year ago and the article has not changed much since then.99.23.126.7 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I took a closer look at the article and there were several issues that needed to be addressed. I removed some unsourced content, removed some unessessary sub-sections as mentioned above, removed some red-links, and cited places that required citations. After the cleanup, I can now agree with the IP above, the article should remain GA status. There are still a couple of minor issues with the article, but not enough to delist.Texas141 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - history of Dayton is very sparse section. Content for 19th century and between wars largely non-existent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delist – The "History" section is an integral part of a city article and this one is severely lacking. Unlike the Cleveland article that has been mentioned here, Dayton's "History" section reads like a list of factoids and does not tell the story of what shaped the city that exists today. (Only the sentences about the canal and flood acknowledge lasting impact on the area.) There is also about a hundred-year gap in cited history in the section, starting in the 1890s. So the article does "not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study", which is characteristic of a C-class article according to WP:ASSESS. Plenty of books on the topic are available to anyone interested in improving the section. No doubt they contain sufficient information for a FA-level History of Dayton, Ohio, article. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my "delist" based on Texas141's expansion of the "History" section. It's serviceable now. The article is still a little too list-y on the whole, but I believe it meets the GA criteria. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - took advice from Two Hearted above and added significantly more information to the history section. Texas141 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could publishers be provided for refs? Right now they're pretty much all url, title, and accessdate, and some don't even have that. If all the refs can get those four points added I'd be willing to consider this a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept There has been a considerable cleanup and there are no outstanding delist arguments. Szzuk (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have placed this article up for GAR due to multiple problems that weren't addressed in the article's GAN review. Problems include:

• Number of non-free images.
• There are paragraphs that are only 1–2 sentences long (EX:Super Mario RPG Original Sound Version, Legacy).
• The "Virtual Console" section looks like it has undue weight and should be combined with legacy.
• Some sources don't look like they meet with WP:RS (I don't think saying Adam Sessler saying that the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi series are spiritual sequals make it a reference.)
• The Reception section should be expanded and referenced a little more.

There;s maybe more problems I didn't address so if anyone find more please add it to the review. GamerPro64 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mucked with the audio section, which cleared up the Super Mario RPG Original Sound Version problem. --PresN 18:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my review:

Prose issues

MoS issues

Verifiability issues

Conclusions

delist per significant prose and verifiability issues. If this was a regular GAN, I would fail this nomination, as putting it on hold would not do much good. My suggestions, as noted above, are to improve the prose quality, make sure the basic MoS guidelines are being followed, and use reliable sources with more complete citations. –MuZemike 21:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delist it; I'll address these issues through the next couple of days-SCB '92 (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: With the removal of the soundtrack cover, the number of non-free images looks fine now. And I expanded the FUR of the gameplay image, so I think the images are of no concern now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Conditional Delist If after the customary one-week time frame to fix the issues it doesn't meet standards. The Good Article Nom review was a joke to be honest. I would suggest someone of more experience than I coach the reviewer as this is the second time I've seen this problem with them. I take issue that someone with less than 150 edits is reviewing GANs. --Teancum (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the reassessment nominator's issues have been addressed, all the prose and MoS issues have been addressed, and some of the verifiability issues have been addressed; should I renominate the article for GA for a more detailed review?-SCB '92 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the editors here believe there are no longer any issues, then the article retains its GA rating. So another review would be unnecessary in that case. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

First off, I don't see any of the possibly unreliable sources addressed. Moreover, this was added just now, which is not even accompanied by any source, and it's a quote on top of that. I can take a look at the prose later, but the verifiability issues remain. –MuZemike 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was also just added, which is not sourced anywhere and smacks of original research. –MuZemike 19:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got rid of all unreliable sources, but I think GameSpy is reliable as it is part of IGN Entertainment; if IGN is reliable, then GameSpy is reliable; so I guess everything has been addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once the remaining content is sourced with reliable sources, we'll take another look at the article, which by the way, is making good progress.

In regard to the GameSpy link, yes GameSpy is part of IGN's network, and we consider both to be reliable. However, the sub-sub domains of Classic Gaming were essentially fan pages hosted by GameSpy. Those we can not accept as reliable because there is typically no editorial oversight and community-wide acceptance as an authoritative source. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, got rid of it; replaced most of them with reliable sources, got rid of a sentence altogether (for being an easter egg), while other sentences already had enough relable sources, that didn't need to have replacements; everything's addressed, it's up to the reassessment nominator to decide whether to (hopefully) keep or (hopefully not) delist the article-SCB '92 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I don't decide if the article will keep its GA status or be demoted. Since this is a community reassessment, it will stay up for weeks at the WP:GAR until someone eles decides on the article's status. GamerPro64 20:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still owe a response, anyways, with regards to the improvements, so I would ask that it would not be closed until I have had a chance to go through it again. –MuZemike 20:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have crossed out issues that I saw were resolved in my review above; some issues still remain before I can consider it comfortable for endorsing for GA. Now, there are two sources in the "verifiability issues" which I did not cross out, Square Enix Music Online and the-magicbox.net, which have come up in a recent FAC and that are still being sorted out. I'd be willing to let those two go for now, until it becomes more explicit that they are not reliable to use (i.e. it's not fair to penalize on an sourcing issue in which said sources have been disputed). –MuZemike 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

took care of the prose issues: the names of the seasons were already capitalized after you re-reviewed it, so I don't know why you didn't cross it out, unless seeing the sentence "a giant knife/spring-like creature", where "spring" is nothing to do with the seasons; I went to Google cache and saw that there are only one use of each "Spring" and "Winter" (in the development section); you changed "opinions" to "reviews yourself"; I rewrote the "settings" part; I already changed "claimed" to "commented" before you rereviewed it; I'm pretty sure the quotation marks comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside in the Reception section; and i deleted "in Japan"

for the verifiability issues, you said how the citations are inconsistent (I didn't put these citations in the plot section, in the first place); could I just get rid of the citations completely in the plot section? quoting User:David_Fuchs: "It's generally accepted that since a work's plot sections are referencing the work itself, you don't necessarily need plot citations; I generally only do it if there's something potentially contentious." so I guess it's optional, and I don't have the game itself, so it'd be quite hard to find quotes from the game; also, the Issue numbers have been taken care of-SCB '92 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find that citing everything is a good practice, regardless if it is contentious. A handful of citations in that section would probably be a good idea. I'm sure some of the reviews can be used for simple parts of the story. I remember for Kingdom Hearts, I checked the game scripts at GameFAQs for quotes to include. This game has a script there as well. I have the strategy guide at home. I can check to see if it can provide additional citations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I used quotes from the game, by using that link, and put as many citations as possible in the story subsection; after all this work, it feels like it could be a candidate for a Featured Article, let alone a Good Article; please tell me that this is it to just meet the good article criteria, because I don't think I can improve it anymore; right now, I'm working on getting Fallout 3 to GA status, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to FA status-SCB '92 (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in the review as I have been rather busy as of late, and I have been trying to work on other projects. All prose and MoS issues look like they have been addressed, but I have listed two more verifiability issues above, which should be addressed. –MuZemike 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will it be okay to just delete the paragraphs of Armchair Empire and Console Obsession review? so I don't need to replace it with reliable source? also, is AllRPG, Netjak and Gamervision reliable? if not, then can't really expand the Reception section for criticisms of the game-SCB '92 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The VG project has a list of sources we've vetted as reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Those three don't look like they have been checked yet. I'd err on the side of caution and remove them, especially since they are not used in the prose section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I removed the unrelible sources and replaced the paragraphs with RPGamer, Allgame and 1UP.com's criticisms of the game (though their quotes were used for the praise of the game in the same section)-SCB '92 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to tentatively support GA status per the improvements made to the article. I would still prefer to see the plot information cited, but I can leave that to the others' opinions if that is necessary. –MuZemike 22:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I did cite most of the story subsection in the plot section with quotes from the game, but thanks for the support of the GA status-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After going through most of the article, there are some issues (namely in the "Development" section) that I think need to be addressed to keep its GA status. I'll try to post a list as soon as I can. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 08:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I think it was the changing tense that were the issues in that section, so I edited it and made sure it was all in past tense-SCB '92 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the remaining issues I noticed.

• Development
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph seems out of place. Such analysis of the gameplay seems more suited for reception rather than development.
  • The third sentence of the second paragraph doesn't seem clear to me: "In December, further development delayed the game for the translation as well as improvements to the gameplay." Does it mean that further development and improvements to the gameplay delayed the translation of the game?
  • SA-1 Demonstration Program at SNES Central looks like a fan site. What makes it reliable?
  • The content in the last paragraph of the section is not it the source cited. Such level of detail needs a source.
  • The same content needs to be reworded for the layman. For example, we understand what "faster RAM" means, but other probably won't unless we say "faster access to the Random Access Memory". Also, the order of the sentence is confusing,. I assume that "greater" applies to "memory mapping capabilities, data storage and compression", but the current structure does not portray that.
  • In regard to your recent edit, some development content should be past tense while other should be present. Anything that the developers did, occurred in the past and should be in past tense. But anything that the game does, occurs when it happens, which can be the present and should be in present tense. It can get a little fuzzy sometimes. Let me know if you'd like further clarification.
• Reception
  • If an author is listed in the source, you should attribute it to them in the prose. For example, "Allgame stated that..." → Skyler Miller from Allgame stated that..."

Once these are addressed, I believe that the GAR can be closed as "keep".(Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I've addressed everything you said-SCB '92 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things are much better now. Here are the remaining issues:

• The last sentence of the first paragraph still seems out of place. After re-reading, I think it's describing what the gameplay was like at 70% completion. However, this is not completely clear. I suggest some copy edits to the first paragraph to better convey this.
• The new source for the technical info doesn't completely match up with what's in this article.
  • Article says "one of seven games" while the source says "one of three".
  • The source makes no mention of the sound processor and reverb effect.

Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Done, apart from finding a reliable source for the sound processor and reverb effect; all I see are unreliable sources about it; is MobyGames a reliable source?-SCB '92 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something that specific should have a source. We've been shying away from MobyGames more and more over the years. They use to be fine for some basic info, but I don't know if that's true anymore. If there isn't a reliable one available, then the content should be removed. Have you tried a search at Google Books? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I searched Google books, but it's just a strategy guide, that's unlikely to have anything about the soun processor and reverb effect, and I don't have the guide; okay, I guess I had to delete it, let's finally close the article as a keep then-SCB '92 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My main concerns have been addressed. I believe that the article meets the GA criteria and should retain its rating.

SCB 92- I suggest you apply some of the changes made here to Super Mario Galaxy 2. I noticed similar issues there and it would be best to update the article to preempt a GAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Specifically what are the similar issues?-SCB '92 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using reliable sources (unreliable ones: LittleBoBeep, The Tanooki, GoNintendo, and the Wikipedia link to Nintendo Power#Nintendo Power Awards), strengthen the FUR of the gameplay image, probably should remove the album image, and some light copy editing. The issues aren't prevalent as they were in this article, but the sourcing is something that could warrant a GAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep - Compared to what it looked liked before the review, I can agree on this article keeping it GA status. GamerPro64 22:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Not Listed The user initiating this review has mentioned on the nominators talk page that they are willing to put it back through the review process [16]. It is attracting no responses here and that is probably the best and fastest venue to get it re-reviewed AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking a re-assessment of Endgame (Megadeth album), because I do believe that the original reviewer made broad judgments without scrutinizing the article closely enough where he made criticisims, offered little in terms of advice/assistance and refused to address my concerns about the quality of his assessment. It was my belief that a reviewer was supposed to be more helpful than auto-failing, and saying to fix it without clearly explaining what needs improved, and more importantly how it can be improved. I would appreciate any opinion from editors other than the original reviewer (he knows who he is) (actually, to be fair, the original editor should have the right to voice his opinion, although I would prefer it if he respected my request for a re-assessment by not participating in this). Thank you all for your time, --L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Condition of the article at the time of the fail -> here. I am the reviewer, and I completely stand by the quick-fail. The article wasn't and still isn't GA-worthy. And no, it is not a reviewers job to take a C-class article and baby-feed you the answers. Read up on the GA-criteria and nominate a proper article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment having looked at the original reviewer's edit history, and his past conduct, I suspect that part of the rapid failed is because the original reviewer had no interest in the subject matter, since it had nothing to do with Mariah Carey, Lady Gaga, or Katy Perry. For example, one thing the original reviewer noted is that the sources were "in shambles" (if I remember the quote right). However, I compared with some of the more recent Mariah Carey GA-rated articles, and I really don't see a difference in the quality of the citations. Not to say that the article doesn't have other issues, but the citation FORMAT wasn't much different originally.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and also the article was originally B class; the original reviewer subsequently de-rated it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are upset you nominated a sub-par article and it was failed. It has nothing to do with the subject. Whatever I sign on to review, I review to the best of my ability, so cut the crap and focus on earning an honest GA.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I am going to say is that I really have had enough of the original editor he wasn't particularly helpful before and never addressed my the concerns I expressed to him initially about his original review; I found that to be arrogant, condescending conduct. I really would have greatly appreciated if the original editor had at least addressed concerns I had. I would really welcome a THIRD PARTY to the discussion.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you would have given me damn time to respond, I would have. No, I'm not going to address any more concerns after you have opened this page. Let the other editors tell you. And understand, give others time to weigh in their opinions. That's your issue, learn to be patient.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I waited 2 weeks until my page was looked at. I was understanding of a backlog in the system, but I would expect that a reviewer would not just leave a discussion for an extended period when concerns were pending. The reviewer acknowledged the fact that I had concerns, but he made no attempt to relieve me of said concerns. He dismissed them.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, I would like to say in response to the original editor that I am not trying to earn an easy GA. I presumed that any GA nom would not pass immediately. I was looking for a reviewer who would provide helpful feedback and allow me time to implement such improvements so that the article might reach GA status.
      • TO THE ORIGINAL EDITOR: I don't really care about your opinion anymore. He made no effort to address my concerns then, so I have no reason to believe he intended to address them at all. The original editor only talked around them without ever addressing them--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JUST TO CLEAR THINGS UP REGARDING THE ABOVE EXCHANGE: Nathan and I have settled our dispute via talk pages, but additional feedback regarding Endgame is still requested.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I still am requesting a new, independent and objective review from an editor other than the original editor. To the re-assessment committee again, thank you for your time and consideration. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your best course of action is to renominate at WP:GAN. GAR is not a place to to provide a substitute review. The review was not very thorough; the article was ill-prepared. I suggest that the nominator focusses on providing more reliable sources and that the reviewer takes more care in reviewing in future and refrains from unhelpful comments such as "This is resulting in a quick-fail. Far too many issues to outline now; the article is simply under-prepared"; "You need real improvement here buddy." Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, I removed Songfacts as it's user submitted, and a personal blog on Blogspot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist Sourcing concerns and no editors working on fixing the issues AIRcorn (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of unsourced material in the article, which makes it fail criteria 2a, 2b, and 2c-SCB '92 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In its current state with all the material uncited, I'm for delisting it. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: on sourcing as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted Szzuk (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How in God's name did this ever get to GA? The sources are terrible. It completely fails on almost every level:

1a. 2008-2009 is broken up into individual sentences, many of which begin with In or On. I also see at least one sentence fragment. Elsewhere, the prose is completely disjointed (jumping from how Dia's work has sold to her children's novels).

1b. The discography is completely out of style. Take a look at nearly any discography on Featured list to see how the albums should be formatted.

2a.Entire swaths are unsourced. "Something Real" and the discography included.

2b: I see citations to YouTube, iTunes Store, MySpace. Those have to go. And that's a good 2/3 of the sources. Also, I removed a listing of iTunes Charts, which are on WP:BADCHARTS.

3a. No sections on critical reception of their works. Also, I know Dia Frampton charted a duet with Blake Shelton, but no mention of it is made. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The referencing and prose is particularly bad. This needs a lot of work and the major contributors are either retired or have not been active for over a year. Unless someone is willing to put in a lot of work soon it will have to be delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed most of the bad sources and did some maintenance tagging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Worst references removed, but still a few suspect ones and now even more is unsourced. AIRcorn (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article suffers from stubby sections and underdeveloped single sentence paragraphs. Annoying parenthetical phrases litter the article; for example:

Nick was Meg's car mechanic after she was involved in a minor car accident (Which also is the result of the name for the EP What Is It? A Fender Bender).

There are also citation issues. Some references aren't formatted correctly, such as Teen Vogue interview; in at least one other case a citation doesn't support the claim. Majoreditor (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist clearly fails #1, #2 and #3 of WIAGA. The section "The Meg & Dia Band" consists of quotes; this is the first time I have seen something like this.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept There have been no delist comments. Szzuk (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

NPOV - seems pro mormon rather than neutral. Few non-LDS sources.andycjp (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAc4 is that an article "represent viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each." What evidence is there that the article does not accomplish this? What specific information is either excluded from the article or presented in a POV way? Also, seems inconsiderate for the nominator to have rushed to GAR without discussing specific grievances on the article's talk page first. —Eustress ^talk 13:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the nominators opinion based on a diff on the article's talk page is that the article is "Marketing rather than encyclopedic" and that it is not NPOV because "No criticism or controversies at all? Hard to believe." However we've already been thru this several times, both before & after the initial GA Review, as the nominator of this reassessment would have seen if they had looked thru Talk:Thomas S. Monson/Archive 1. I think this nomination for reassessment is premature and not well framed, almost to the point of being an wp:IDONTLIKEIT discussion. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eustress and 208.81.184.4. It would appear that Andycjp's nomination is a wp:IDONTLIKEIT situation where he fails to address any specific issues. This Nomination should be rejected and the article should remain a GA.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would help if the nominator can detail any instances of language he feels is not neutral or source any criticism that is missing. The overuse of biased sources is a bit concerning, but not strictly disallowed in a GA as long as it is non-controversial, attributed and the information is presented in an unbiased way. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You admit overuse of biased sources, yet you still insist it's a good article? Makes perfect sense. It was a mistake to ever nominate this as a good article. 208, are you LDS ?- I can't tell from your user page. As for critics not included, how about this- there clearly is a side to Mr Monson the LDS do not want the world to see. [17] There clearly is negative stuff out there if you are willing to look. Shame on Wikipedia for taking LDS hype at face value and not giving Ex-Mormon sources a fair hearing. This may be of interest. [18] One more, not specific to Monson but this is the type of group he runs:[19] Good article status was premature. andycjp (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement suggestions are appreciated on Wikipedia, but the way the GAR nominator is going about it is uncivil and a manifestation of POV (per comment above, This is the type of organization [Monson] runs.). The "ex-mormon" information presented by the nominator comes from unreliable sources and is unencyclopedic, and no concrete evidence has yet been presented that proves GAc4 is in violation. I admit the article is not perfect—not even Featured Articles are perfect—but it still appears to meet the Good article criteria.

As an act of good faith, I put forth the effort and incorporated 11 new sources in the article that are from reliable sources that are also unaffiliated with LDS. If the GAR nominator has concrete suggestions how the article can be improved, I hope he will consider discussing them on the article's talk page in the future. Regarding this case, considering the nominator's editorial POV and failure to engaged discussion on the talk page first, in addition to the lack of concrete grievances and my good-faith additions of 11 new non-LDS sources, I recommend this GAR be closed. —Eustress ^talk 03:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation needed tag still present and if possible it would be good to either incorporate some of the one and two sentence sections or expand them. While complimentary, there was nothing overly promotional about the tone from my read through. I agree that the given sources above are unreliable, I did a Gnews search and found nothing criticising Monson. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've addressed the citation tag with a non-LDS source. —Eustress ^talk 19:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not perfect, but I feel it passes the criteria; so keep once the nuetrality tag is removed. AIRcorn (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed, cheers —Eustress ^talk 14:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's usually no smoke without fire- are you really going to whitewash this guy? All of the sources you have added about him opening temples are merely PR- not serious analysis. This is exactly the reason why I nominated the article for not good in the first place. Eustress, please be honest- are you an LDS member? LDS sources are unreliable. Remove all LDS sources as unreliable and it will be a neutral article. Bradford points out here some good non Mormon academic sources on the LDS. I would like to see serious academic sources refered to before the article is 'good'. andycjp (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this meets the good article definition of neutrality. Please stop commenting on other editors, it doesn't matter if they are LDS or not. You are not helping your case. AIRcorn (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a good article wikipedia sets the bar too low.andycjp (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may well do. But that is a discusion for another forum. AIRcorn (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between criticism of the theology and criticism of the man himself. 76.27.41.184 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No specific reasons given why it should be reassessed. The article clearly passes the Good Article criteria.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]