Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 26

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 27) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 25) →

New York Yankees

Result: Delist article, renominate at WP:GAC. Lara♥Love 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WP:MLB, WP:NYC, WP:NYY and all editors with a dozen edits who have made at least one edit in 2007 (Sportskido8, Win777, Silent Wind of Doom, Michael Greiner, Yankees76, Brad E. Williams, 24.193.99.118, Simon12, Wknight94, Rollosmokes, Antandrus, Soxrock, Jsh726, Baseball Bugs, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Howieanson, PassionoftheDamon, Dfmock, & Bole2).

Delist nomination After the article failed at WP:FAC twice and WP:GAC three times, it seems the article was promoted to GA without review.

07:04, 4 June 2007 GAC
16:43, 4 June 2007 FGAN
18:41, 4 June 2007 GAC
20:12, 4 June 2007 GA?

That aside the article is very substandard with respect to WP:WIAGA criteria 2b. There are very large sections that are uncited. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent GA nomination is seen at Talk:New_York_Yankees#Another_GA-nom. The reviewer User:Kim Williams admitted that this was her GA review and confused the criteria with for FA articles. More info on the review can be found at User talk:Kim Williams#New_York_Yankees_GA and User talk:Sportskido8#New_York_Yankees_GA. The article was passed although procedure may have been messed up a bit. Michael Greiner 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems substandard with respect to 2b.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've not read the article yet, but just in quickly looking over it I noticed that
    • the references are not consistently formatted (some not at all) which is a 2a issue. Also, placement of some of the inline citations is off. They should come directly after the punctuation with no space before and no punctuation after.
    • emboldened terms need to be removed from the article. Embolding should be reserved for the title sentence. This is a 1b issue.
    • there is one stand-alone year randomly wikified in the lead. I don't like wikification of stand-alone years, but it's consistent through-out the article, so I'll only note the need for correction in the lead. This is also a 1b issue.
    • I look over it more later, but these issues need to be corrected. LaraLove 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and renominate at GAC - Upon looking over the above posted talk page discussion and the history of the article's talk page, the promotion of this article comes into question, as noted in the nomination. The discussion with the reviewer resulted in an agreement to have the article renominated at GAC for someone with more experience to hopefully review the article. Instead, the creator of WP:YANKEE, the Yankee's Wikiproject, promoted the article without review. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll delist the article myself. Explanations, anyone? LaraLove 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary says Pupster21 passed the article. Looking away from the obvious conflict of interest and assuming good faith that he may have actually reviewed the article, I'm not sure exactly what happened. Of course, Pupster's edits lately have been sporadic at best (last edit June 16th) so contacting him won't be the easiest. --Michael Greiner 04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why a review should be posted whether the article passes or fails. So that it is made known that the article was actually reviewed. The lack of a review coupled with the conflict of interest warrants delistment. Add in that the last review discussion ended in consensus between the reviewer and the custodian(s) to renominate, and it seems further justified to do so. Are there any sound objections? LaraLove 22:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess he kind of passed it without any review, although I was ready at the time to fix any comments. Worst case scenario I'll just take care of whatever needs to be done if this is relisted. Sportskido8 08:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is going to be relisted, it will need a sponsor. It sounds like it has one. Good luck. This is an important article and we hope to have the facts correctly cited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Princess Peach

Result: Delist. Lara♥Love 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article and helped it get promoted to GA status. Now, however, I have severe doubts that this features the broad coverage necessary (3a). Lead is probably too short, don't know how it could be expanded (1b). 2/3 of the article describes the game in great detail (hopefully not too much), 1/3 of it is reception, based only on three web reviews and one TV review. It lacks a development section, a reasoning for why Nintendo decided to make a girl game, etc. A quick web search couldn't find any dev information. I'm sure readers are asking, "Why, Nintendo?" just like they were asking, "Why, Stellar Stone?" when reading how bad Big Rigs was. And the reviewer for that article said no because I couldn't source any reliable dev info on that article, either. I think the same should be applied to SPP. hbdragon88 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this game is the only game in which Princess Peach is a protagonist as opposed to a plot device? Anyway, I've tagged the images in the article as lacking detailed fair use rationales as laid out in the non-free content criteria policy. -Malkinann 12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The article is beyond rescue for now, but the images are not. Fair use rationales should be straightforward here, since this article is about the product illustrated in the images and contains critical commentary. Geometry guy 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added rationale templates. It was completely trivial to do: please, everyone, help to deal with the current "fair use" circus by adding rationales instead of speedy deletion tags. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel uncomfortable specifically declaring something to be legal under another country's laws. If you wish to discuss this further with me, you can ask me on my talk page. -Malkinann 13:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended as a personal remark; sorry if it came across that way. Adding a fair use rationale is not about declaring something to be legal: if it were, I wouldn't do it either. It is about providing information, required by Wikipedia policy, that makes it easier to determine whether use of an image is legal or not. The rationale involves essentially no subjective information, and no declaration. Geometry guy 10:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire

Result: Delist. Lara♥Love 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article no longer meets the GA criteria. I have not delisted the article because I wanted to get some outside opinions on the article. Similar POVs have been expressed on the article's talk page. The article needs review for a lack of citations, WP:NPOV, and overall clarity of the prose. I hope this helps to improve the article as a whole Timhud 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Woefully underreferenced, I see very few inline cites to verify ANYTHING in several sections. Some sections have them, and some don't. It needs consistant referencing to be a GA. The writing seems GA quality, IMHO, but I don't see the lack of citations as a minor issue. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist 107 KB, but only 47 inline citations---many of which are duplicated and in need of clean up. From what I've read it reads ok, but is woefully under-referenced. And looking at the debates on the talk page, it looks as if referencing is called for. Balloonman 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to lack of sufficient referencing. Minor issues include inconsistently formatted references, improperly emboldened terms throughout article, and I would like the images moved around a bit. Sandwiched text does not look good. Lara♥Love 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to extreme undereferencing. An article of this size needs a little more than 47 poor citations. Raime 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist How sad. There should be a project specially made for sourcing such great articles.--SidiLemine 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II

Result: Delist Lara♥Love 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is blatantly copied from copyrighted material in places, contains an unnecessary trivia section and a endless list further reading entries. Also the "Honors" section and "External links" section require a cleanup. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Has numerous copyright violations. Tarret 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist - copyright violations, inclusion of trivia section, honors section should be in paragraph form rather than single line items. LurkingInChicago 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Apparant copyvio (proof?), and a LOT of unsourced statements ({{fact}}). Giggy UCP 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please provide information about copyright violations. There is only one tagged in the article: this does show a copyright violation, but it is not immediately clear whether it is of Wikipedia or by Wikipedia. Where are the other numerous copyright violations in the article, and which sources have been plagiarized? Thanks. Geometry guy 11:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is clear with this edit that somebody cut and pasted TO wikipedis with this edit.Balloonman 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, but I have my doubts. The editor who inserted the material (Richard) has a good reputation and hasn't been guilty of any copyvios that I know of -- and I've reviewed several of his edits. Majoreditor 03:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Until I see something to the contrary (and based upon his time/experience here, I would accept Richard's word if he says he wrote it) I have to assume that this is a copy vio of the other page.Balloonman 04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I just invited Richard to join this discussion, but looking at his talk page, there are several other comments concerning possible copy-vio's. That said, however, it is still possible that he wrote it and the other page copied Wikipedia.Balloonman 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, Balloonman and Majoreditor, for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, in this case, I don't deserve it. The text in question is a copyvio from http://www.religion-cults.com/pope/communism.htm as the copypaste tag indicates. I remember the page. My practice is to copy/paste relevant information and then rewrite and look for sources but apparently I didn't get around to the rewrite part of the process in this case. In all likelihood, I started the copy/paste part of the process and got distracted before I did the rewrite part. I'm sorry to have betrayed your trust, Majoreditor. I will say that I don't remember contributing to any other parts of this article so any other copyvios are unlikely to be mine. --Richard 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the confirmation one way or another Richard... as an aside, the source you obtained, IMO, is not a reliable source. It clearly has an agenda and pushes a POV.Balloonman 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Geometry guy, please list the "numerous" copyvios along with a short description of the nature of the violation. Thanks. Majoreditor 03:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist a quick look at the references will demonstrate that it needs to be cleaned up. To many of the references are duplicated (need to consolodate), lack access dates, lack any detail whatsoever (eg just a link). Within the article there are large sections without any references.Balloonman 21:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Needs more citation, fact tags need to be addressed. References need to be consistently formatted. Trivia needs to be incorporated into article. Lara♥Love 17:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 40

Result: Delist. Lara♥Love 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references, other than those to route40.net, are to roadgeek "fansites", such as "Colorado Highways", "Illinois Highway Page", and "Maryland @ AAroads.com". The description is far from adequate; it should be greatly expanded and split into sub-articles like has been done for several states. There are some errors; for instance US 40 no longer passes through downtown Indianapolis, instead going around on I-465. The history is somewhat disjoint, placing some 1920 auto trails under "early roads" and then jumping back to the 19th century National Road. --NE2 08:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist sources aren't reliable, has a little original research. (→O - RLY?) 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, indeed, route40.net appears to be just a well-put together personal website from what I can tell. I see no evidence at all that it is a reliable source. Homestarmy 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Route40.net may be reliable, given that the media has used the author as a reference: [1] I'm not sure if it's enough; we'd be on better ground by finding newspaper articles and similar references. --NE2 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Frank Brusca's resume may help here. In particular, his work has been discussed several times in the media, and he has published in at least one refereed journal (Journal of the Milestone Society). Geometry guy 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am inclined to look favorably on Route40.net, because it has a decent bibliography. Using this, I was able to find a major printed source (well, two sources really) and add it to the article within a matter of minutes. If regular editors have the time to find this source (or any other sources listed in the bibliography) in a library or bookshop and read it, I'm sure the article could be saved from delisting. Geometry guy 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The article is a bit unstable. Also, it lacks reliable references per the good article criteria. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist - weak references, history section needs improvement, needs another copy edit. addition of references from newspapers, state highway administrations, and referenced information on nearby sites of interest (nrhp, landmarks, parks) would help immensely. LurkingInChicago 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the primary writer of the article, I would like to second that Route40.net has all the hallmarks of reliability, mainly that it has a fairly extensive bibliography; and is quite well researched itself. The article does have some citations, mostly secondary, to some sources of questionable reliability, but none of these are on key points. The two major sources are a reliable road atlas software (at least as reliable as any print atlas) and the aforementioned Route40.net, which as Geometryguy has noted, is itself bibliographized. Also, as Lurking has noted, many of the landmarks ARE cited to state park websites or the like. For ANYONE who believes that the any facts in the article are not to be believed, please list the said statements from the article that need more reliable citing, and I will find it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why is the copyright at the bottom of the page listed in only one person's name? Why doesn't the article cite the things that the website cites directly? Homestarmy 03:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I read a book, you know words and thingys on paper, and said book has a bibliography, then I don't site the works in that book's bibliography... I cite the book I used, as that is the proper way to cite references. Also, when I look at the copyright notice in a book, it is copyright to one person's name. Why should the fact that the words and thingys appear on your computer screen make it any different than a book? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because the person making the words and thingys appear on my screen appears to just be a hobbyist, with no real credentials in this area, who might not be reliably interpreting the information he cites correctly. As I understand it, that's one of many reasons why the Reliable Sources policy advises against personal websites by people who have no apparent credentials or notability. Homestarmy 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you should give up so easily, Jayron: Brusca has both credentials and notability, as his resume (linked above) shows. Not enough for a controversial topic, but for an article on a road, what more can you ask? A PhD in Road Science from the University of the Peripheral? Geometry guy 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that he's right on one thing: As a personal website, it does not appear to have undergone the rigorous review one would expect of a source. Yes, the site has a bibliography. Yes, the site has won awards and itself been used as a reference by reliable publications. However, he has made up his mind that this article should be delisted prima fascia and shows no sign that he can be convinced otherwise. I disagree for personal reasons (I wrote most of the article) but I cannot in good heart disagree with his premise. As well researched as the site is, and as well creditialed as the author is, and as well commended as the site has been in as many publications as it has been, it lacks the one fundemental hallmark of reliablity that would be needed to convince Homestarmy that it is reliable: Editorial oversight. Any source with zero editorial oversight cannot be reliable... I can't debate that... I want this to be a good article. I believe it to be one. But though I believe it to meet all the requirements of WIAGA (I find the site reliable; in the sense that I can see no places where the claims Brusca makes are controversial or debated) my opinion on the matter is unimportant. The source has no editorial oversight, it is self-published, and so is unreliable. Homestarmy is right, and only personal pride would cause me to reach any other conclusion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, for books, "editorial oversight", which seems to be held in high esteem, often amounts to little more than copyediting, or worse, "how can we make this more marketable". Critical opinion and commentary is much more important. As you point out, this source has been subject to scrutiny, and its claims have not been challenged. This makes it reliable. Geometry guy 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not able to read the article right now, but in scanning over it and the references, I don't see any major issues. It seems sufficiently referenced to me. I mean, it's a highway. I can't imagine there being too much controversy or material to be challenged. It seemed that possibly "US 40" was used a bit too much. Almost every sentence, but, again, I haven't actually read it yet. It's been along day. I'll look at it again tomorrow and make my recommendation then. LaraLove 05:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to answer to Homestarmy, I believe that the most important point against personal sites at WP:RS is that there needs to be some kind of peer review of the source. Without it, there's just no telling what's going on in anyone's mind while they write, independantly of their ability (not even talking about lying on one's competences). That's why I was in favor of the Chrysler Sunbeam site, while I'm not so sure about this one.--SidiLemine 18:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakurajima

Result: Keep. Only problem with article originally was lack of referencing, but the article is now thoroughly referenced. There is no need to continue review, as the sole problem was met. Raime 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted as a GA in 2005 before candidacy was required. Promotion occured here, on October 23. The article is fairly well-written, but it has only one reference and no inline citations. The article is not at all up to par for GA criteria in terms of referencing. Raime 15:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist as is, but if references are added, then my support automatically becomes a keeper.Balloonman 18:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per lack of adequate referencing. Lara♥Love 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold I've started to source it. Should take a few days after the week end. --SidiLemine 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep All the article is now sourced. Please review and advise.--SidiLemine 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Much better with sources, and probably will now remain a GA, but is it possible to get a few more references? There are still only 8, and 8 inline citations are from the same source. Raime 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I guess I could fill up the "further reading" and "external links" some more... How much more do you want? This is, after all, a pretty straightforward thing, unlike the ottoman empire.--SidiLemine 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No more further reading and external links necessary, just broaden the scope of the references. 8 inline citations from 1 source is a lot for a very short article. Maybe find information from sources besides that one site, and cite it in the article. For example, in the "1914 eruption" section, 5 out of 6 citations come from one site. It would be better if more than just "The 1914 Sakurajima explosion at Volcanoworld" was referenced. Still, more references are not necessary for GA Status, and changes are a huge improvement, so Keep. Raime 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of the recent changes, this is actually the MODEL Good Article, the kind of article that the system was created for... Short but relatively complete articles that are well referenced and well written. This is a GA in spades... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic theory

Result: No consensus due to lack of participation. Lara♥Love 14:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would be political correct (hypocritical) statements on race diverge attention from the real issue of racism, what Nordicism/Nordic theory really is. I noticed some serious POV pushing that does not belong to a good article, besides it does not comply to three out of six (50%) fundamental requirements listed at WP:WIAGA. The issue has been raised here: Talk:Nordic theory#This is NOT a good article:
- It is NOT broad in its coverage. It does not address the major aspects of the topic, in particular the nature of racism, racism in relation to suprematism, the political impact of suprematism on fascism and the political influence of nordicism on fascistic fringe politics. Moreover, the article does not stay focussed on nordicism and diverges on racial issues - even in WP:LEAD.
- It is NOT neutral: the article represents viewpoints of its own and without regard to other viewpoints as represented in 21st century WP:RS. Those viewpoints concern physical concepts of race, denial of racism (according to modern definition being culturally defined) to be relevant to Nordicism, and denial of Nordicism to be influential on fascism.
- It is NOT stable: contributions are reverted continuously, discussions are ignored, arguments defiled ad hominem.
Rokus01 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these points have been responded to on the talk page, though frankly it's difficult to respond to peculiar statements like "would be political correct (hypocritical) statements on race diverge attention from the real issue of racism". I really don't know what that means. I am not the only editor who has difficulty making sense of what Rokus is trying to say, or who, when they can, sees a clear POV in his edits [2]. I do not believe this is a good faith nomination, since it arises from Rokus' preoccupation with protecting his pet article Nordic race from being merged. However, constructive comments would be very welcome. On Rokus's specific points:
  1. The article is very broad in its coverage, since it discusses the history and influence of Nordicism. However, it is, of course, necessary to remain on topic.
  2. Nordicism was not influential on Fascism, which was a political philosophy invented by an Italian! This was discussed thoroughly when Rokus raised the issue on the Fascism talk page. It was influential on Nazism - a fact which is well covered in the article.
  3. The article is entirely stable and has been for a long time. It has recently suffered from vandalism from a banned neo-Nazi editor, but the only other "instability" has been created by Rokus himself. Paul B 11:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - To call this article stable is laughable. More than two dozen reverts all in a row in one day is far from stable. And that was just one day in a list of MANY days of reverts. It appears that anything added or changed in the article is reverted, whether it be referenced or not. Discussions that should take place on the talk page instead take place in the edit summaries of revert wars. Edit summaries that are also extremely disrespectful and rude. Overall inappropriate whether directed at anons, registered users, or bots (all three of which have occurred). The article was protected for a time but nothing changed. Considering all the edits by those disputing the content, there are obviously issues with the POV of the article. Issues that are being ignored... or, rather, anyone with a different perspective, interpretation, or belief is slapped in the face for making changes to the article that reflect their views. Coupled with the fact that the article is tagged for additional references, and the current references are not correctly formatted, I feel this article fails to meet GA standards. LaraLove 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This brings up an issue. If I understand well, it means that in order to delist an article, one would only need to get into a revert war, get everyone heated, troll a bit under a few IPs, and then declare the article unstable. Is that it? I think the "stable" part of WIAGA is intended at the time when it runs for GA. Would you delist an article trying to change from GA to FA because it's not stable anymore? --SidiLemine 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • SidiLemine's point is crucial. The reverts have all been discussed. If you look at the history of the article before Rokus' appearence you can see how stable it has been. I hardly think that vandalism by a banned neo-Nazi editor, editing under an IP counts as "instability". The tag is very recent. Formatting can easily be addressed.Paul B 15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't really speaking specifically about this article, as the formatting issues are still here and should be adressed. Furthermore, your intention to merge this article with another one clearly compromises the article stability, and if the merge goes through, the resulting article will have to be resubmitted to GAC anyway. But the question is still very important to me: what is the limit of unstability that warrants delisting?--SidiLemine 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The merger was proposed by another editor. I'm not opposed to it. There does not, however, seem to be consensus in favour of it. No formatting issues were raised when the article was submitted to GA, nor have any formatting issues part of the debate on Talk. We can only respond to what people raise. Even the editor who added the tag requesting more references has not added any citation-needed tags, so it's difficult to know what s/he thinks needs to be referenced. There's no point scattering references about for the sake of it in order to appear more scholarly. Paul B 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (←) SidiLemine, I suggest to extract the answer to your issue from the very comprehensive stance of LaraLove: "different perspective, interpretation, or belief is slapped in the face for making changes to the article that reflect their views." Vandalism is not at issue here, just the mere observation that stability will never be achieved as long as different sourced viewpoints are vehemently rejected. An encyclopedic approach should give due attention to competing scholarly views in order to achieve neutrality, balance and stability. The counter argument above, calling Nazism essentially distinct from Fascism, is a clear example of a selective perspective at the cost of reliable sources contradicting this point of view, and as such is subject to never ending disagreements and opposition - thus to perpetual instability. Rokus01 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been no instability until you came along. I repeat that your view about fascism was rejected by every single editor on the Fascism Talk page, and yet you continue to insist that you alone are right. The above comment is a false syllogism (Nazis are Fascists, Nazis are obsessed by race; therefore all Fascists are obsessed by race) In logic this is known as fallacy of the Illicit minor (All A are B. All A are C. Therefore, all C are B). Paul B 10:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rather than extract the portion noted by Rokus, take into account all of my recommendation. I did not say "Delist per instability". The revert wars and inappropriate edit summaries are not limited to Rokus and his or whoever's alleged sockpuppets. Other registered user and even a bot were subject to this behavior. The article is also tagged (I can go through and add fact tags where, if at all, necessary) for additional references, and all references need to be consistently and correctly formatted. Since the POV and ref template are disputed, I'll thoroughly look over all of it (after some sleep -- it's 4am) and make my own determination on the matter. In the mean time, possibly start formatting the references. Regards, LaraLove 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess I see the point. I just wanted to make sure that the main reason for delisting was POV, formatting, and possibly references, or to better understand the mechanisms associated with delisting for instability. Thanks for taking the time to explain. --SidiLemine 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformatics

Result: Delist. Lara♥Love 14:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks references and is very jargonish. Anyone else agree? Tarret 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - the article DOES have 16 references listed in the reference section, but could be substantially improved through the use of footnotes. as for jargon, the article could use a serious "dumbing down" of the content in order to increase readability for nontechnical users. for example, in the sentence promoter analysis involves the elucidation and study of sequence motifs in the genomic region surrounding the coding region of a gene, the terms elucidation, sequence motifs, and genomic region should be explained or wikilinked. on a different topic, the presence of multiple redlinks is rare in GAs. LurkingInChicago 19:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, definently does not satisfy WP:SCG, a mandatory requirement of the GA criteria. If it was just one or two minor sections without citation I might let it slide, but of course, there isn't a single internal citation at all. Homestarmy 02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This article is weak for many reasons, including jargon, a poor lead, and inadequate sourcing of the material. However, I would note that it is an article on a major field written in summary style: this means that some of the material is actually sourced via subarticles. I would also suggest that redlinks can be expected (and are useful) in such an article because Wikipedia is still far from complete in its coverage of major scientific fields such as this. Geometry guy 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This article assumes too much on the part of the readers, does not use a proper reference format, includes huge internal and external link farms (which although useful, should be incorporated into the text as references or wikilinks) and has a huge number of redlinks. How this is a GA is a mystery to me. I would strongly suggest an introductory fork as evolution, general relativity, quantum mechanics and other technical science articles have done called Introduction to bioinformatics.--Filll 13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per all of above. This article clearly does not meet the criteria. Lara♥Love 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Endorse all of the reasons above, PLUS, there are other issues. First of all, there is a section titled "Introduction"... Shouldn't this just be the lead? Secondly, each section starts abruptly without context or anything, it just jumps into some very technical language. This may be good for people already acquainted with the topic, but for a general knowledge encyclopedia, it seems inadequate...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 00:40, August 7, 2007

Mother Teresa

Result: Keep. Lara♥Love 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far from stable, and it reads like hagiography in places, possibly due to a campaign outside Wikipedia. Criticism of Teresa, previously well documented, has been trimmed to a minimum (and frequently disappears completely) and mention of it has been frequently removed from the introduction. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. It seems that most of the editors of this article either have absolutely no understanding of WP:NPOV or are willfully ignoring and/or abusing it. When I looked, there were only two paragraphs of criticism, both of which are muted, ambivalent and poorly sourced. Ironically, one of these paragraphs states that the Vatican "pored over a great deal of documentation of published and unpublished criticisms against her life and work." So, where is this criticism, and what does it say? In addition, the lead is poor, and there is a copyright violation of Time Magazine (the article in the given issue is not discussed in the text, so this is not fair use). Geometry guy 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should not be delisted. There has been an ongoing attempt by a small but vocal group of editors to insert a criticism section, which has been nothing but a list of personal attacks against the subject with little if any references. A review of the history of the article and talk page makes that quite clear. Appropriately, these edits have been removed, with appropriate criticisms integrated into the body of the article. This is consistent with WP: criticism. Unfortunately, this is an all-too-common phenomenon with most articles on religious topics. However, the article has been well-maintained, remains properly balanced, and regularly monitored. If there is a source or two that needs to be corrected or added, editors are free to do so, as with any article of GA-status or otherwise. --Anietor 13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that recently some editors have been adding unsourced and biassed critical material. However, the solution to this is not to remove it or dilute it into other places, but to write yourself robust well-sourced critical commentary: go on the offensive rather than be defensive. One person's bias is another's point of view, and WP:NPOV does not mean that "point of view" should be eliminated; it means that all significant points of view should be represented and attributed.
    I would also note that, contrary to some comments on the talk page, WP:Criticism is an essay, not a policy or guideline (it merely reflects some opinions of its authors). A criticism section need not be a "magnet for trolls"; it can be a way to contain and/or discourage them, because badly sourced personal attacks stand no chance against well sourced critical commentary. I am not saying a criticism section is necessary, only a possibility. It may be better, for example to have a couple of subsections of other sections devoted to specific criticisms, rather than lump them together.
    Religious articles are notoriously problematic, I agree. I think it is partly because of the tension between truth (subject to interpretation and point of view) and knowledge (subject to verifiability from reliable secondary sources). My suggestion for this article would be to imagine it is not a religious article at all: first and foremost, it is a biography. Geometry guy 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just a note, looking at the past 14 days, the article does not appear very unstable.[3]. Homestarmy 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Anietor. Unfortunately, some editors have attempted to add improper material, such as Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier than Thou. There was also a controversy a couple of months ago over a critical article which misrepresented the findings from a Lancet article. while the article could benefit from additional critical material, it's not in such poor state as to merit delisting. I also agree with Homestarmy's comment -- this is a stable article. Protection has been to ward off vandals, not due to edit wars.Majoreditor 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a look at the Lancet article. I think it is worth referring to it, mentioning both its supportive comments and its more critical ones (perhaps an example of each?). Geometry guy 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great idea. Majoreditor 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're making my point. Whatever the merits of the present article, it's not ready for GA status. There are too many issues to resolve first, and the role of criticism is perhaps the biggest. ProhibitOnions (T) 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A respectful interaction between 2 editors about one citation hardly seems like too many issues. Articles in Wikipedia are never "finished", and are always evolving. When an article reaches GA status, it doesn't mean there can't be any further disagreements or discussion about its content. The cordial exchange between Geometry guy and Majoreditor presents a fine example of respectful and open discussion among editors who may disagree, but are willing to reach consensus on an article's content. Let's stop creating paper tigers here.--Anietor 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References need to be cleaned up. The references need to be worked on---Several duplicate entries and several entries like "See the homepage of this organization." But overall, they are pretty clean. As for POV, I don't see it being too biased. In response to GG's comment above, the section on Miracles is highly skeptical of process. But there is other criticism of MT--that could be added. However, equal weight is not required. The section for quotes should be removed---consider using boxes or something to use as spacers. Overall, however, I do think this article is of GA quality.Balloonman 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep - The article has issues, that is certain. Whether or not they warrant delistment, I'm not sure yet. There is a quote stated to be one of hers, however, when searching for a reference, it came up as someone else's quote that she was touched by and hung in her orphanage. I've hidden that quote pending discussion. I also referenced the fourth quote under the section of that name. I'm in the process of cleaning up the reference formatting. I'll make a determination on whether or not I feel the article should be delisted soon. Lara♥Love 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of where I was... it definately has issues... but overall, IMHO, I thought it was still a good article.Balloonman 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wal-Mart

The result was: snowball keep - probably a bad faith nomination, as suggested by Lara. No point in keeping this alive. Giggy Talk | Review

Added by 71.168.231.91 (talk · contribs) [4] - Giggy Talk | Review

  • Keep - Personally, I don't see any major problems. Well referenced, decent prose (at a glance). Giggy Talk | Review 23:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has been on my watchlist for a long time. I don't find any issues with it. Lara♥Love 05:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What exactly was the problem with this article? I see no issues with it. It is well-referenced, has relatively good prose, a proper lead, etc. Raime 05:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination was made by an IP whose only edits are one to the talk page of the article calling it a joke written by hackers, and one edit to nominate it here. My guess, having worked for that Satan company for four years, is probably someone sitting on a higher rung of the WM corporate ladder, or a devoted shopper. Either way, I don't forsee a delisting and will snowball this into archive if participation levels remain low. Lara♥Love 05:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hastings

Result: Delist Lara♥Love 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails on practically every count. There are only three footnotes, so many arguable contentions stand unsupported. The list of references contain only three items, excluding both authoritative secondary works like Douglas' biography on William I, and essential primary sources, like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (which is available on Gutenberg). The actual political background for the battle is compressed into one short paragraph, with no mention of such central events as Harold's visit to Normandy. The section 'The battle' is not wikified at all. It also contains statements that suggest original research, like: "Most likely is the simplest explanation:" Lampman 14:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delist - no wikification in major sections. needs inline citations to support claims. i have marked some of the more obvious claims that need support with fact tags. LurkingInChicago 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Article certainly is not up to GA-standards. As a history article, particularly, it needs to be very well-referenced, yet this article only lits 3 inline citations and three references that may be unreliable. The entire article could likely be an example of original research. Needs major wikification and referencing to meet GA criteria. Raime 14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Woefully underreferenced, not broad enough (The Bayeaux Tapestry gets a single sentance???)... This seems like an easy delist candidate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Fact tags are an instant disqualifier for me. Whole sections are without citation. There are only two references. There needs to be an addition of many more references and they need to be formatted correctly because the two that are in place now are not. Lara♥Love 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Lots of referencing tags and mysterious sentences such as "Early historians state that the Normans repeated a number of feints to draw out small groups of Saxons and then cut them down. However, later historians have commented on the difficulty of such a complicated manoeuvre." How late are later historians? The 15th century? Names would help. --Peter cohen 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth, Minnesota

Result: Delist Lara♥Love 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA tag added without review and comment (oldid=35365539), article lacks significant references compared other GA cities article. --Masem 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Article is definitely underreferenced for a GA Geography article, and is composed of too many lists. Raime 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Article is lacking in inline citations, but does do a good job on meeting the broad requirement. Once inline citations are added for all information that may be questioned for verifiability by a reader, and has been checked with the other GA criteria then the article should be renominated again. --Nehrams2020 21:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Terribly under-referenced, references not consistently formatted, listy. Random wikification of stand-alone years... hate that. Once referencing is taken care of, the article isn't far from GA. Cleanup and renominate. Lara♥Love 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist (and I take some responsibility for its form, as I have edited this article). Also needs expanded section on economy, which right now is limited to tourism and utilities. No mention at all of manufacturing or retail. Kablammo 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Eight references for a largish article. 'Nuff said. --Peter cohen 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apache

Result: Delist Lara♥Love 02:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently passed as a GA, however, the article does NOT appear to meet the requirements of WP:WIAGA, especially criteria 2, on referencing. WIAGA specifically states: "(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles". This article contains a LONG list of references, but it is unclear how these references back up much of the information in the article. There are about a dozen or so "Harvard" style references, which is a good start, but there are large chunks of the article that lack ANY sort of direct citations, making the facts the article reports unverifiable. Therefore, I propose that the article be Delisted --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Lead needs to be condensed. Removing the quote would be a start. That should be worked into the body. The article is stubby, lacks sufficient inline citation, contains fact tag and expansion templates, could use additional wikification, and quotes should not be italicized. Some major, some minor, all need to be fixed before renominating at GAC. Lara♥Love 06:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I regret passing this article now, and take full responsibility for wrongly passing it. I personally think that inline cites are necessary, and was convinced otherwise in passing this article - see the article's talk page if you'd like to see how that happened. I regret that now, and have returned to my original standpoint about requiring inline cites. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 23:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Great article, once the reader can tell which citations go with which claims it will easily be GA, and on its was to FA. Until then I don't think it meets the criteria. Until(1 == 2) 01:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to overly long lead, lack of inline citations, and need for wikification in some sections. Raime 14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It's a pain sorting the citations in what looks a well-researched article, but it has to be done, I'm afraid. --Peter cohen 16:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Pakistan

Result: Delist Lara♥Love 02:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article never had a formal review, a user tried to go through the GA nomination process and an editor changed it back. Article seems a bit broad, but moreso, references are a mess, a mix of inline links and appropriate wiki-links. --Masem 05:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Weak lead, random wikification of stand-alone years, stubby, listy, expansion template, lack of sufficient inline citation, references are not consistently formatted. That's from scanning the article. Far from GA. Lara♥Love 06:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist This examplifies the difference between a great article and a Good Article... I think it needs just a few efforts to be FA material thought.--SidiLemine 12:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to lack of reference in some areas, need of major reference cleanup, a very inadequate lead, and need of wikification in some sections. Raime 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist This isn't even a great article per Sid. The article has many many many issues.
    • Almost no lead
    • Self-referential "This is a chart of trend of gross domestic product of Pakistan at market prices"
    • Poorly organized and poorly written: It jumps from topic to topic without context or reason. It doesn't flow. (WP:LAYOUT is an explicit GA requirement). Its a jumble of charts and interspersed text, and the prose is choppy and hard to follow.
    • Per WP:EL, external links should NOT appear as links in the main text.
    • Woefully underreferenced. Statistics most certainly need specific sources, this article provides none. Entire sections lack any references at all.
    • Where references occur, there is a mix of blind external links and footnotes. These should ALL be converted to one format, preferably the footnote format, as it allows one to check at a glance the source of the data...
    • The references section itself is a mess, many references lack even basic bibliographic information, most are just URLs and nothing else.
For all of these reasons, the article should not be a GA... it needs a lot of work to be a quality article, regardless of whatever label you want to put on it, or indeed if you prefer to leave articles unlabeled. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What I meant by "great" is that on most other websites, I would have thought this is a large, extensive, detailed, informative article. And one has to admit that apart from stylish issues and (very) poor referencing, there is a great deal of work and information in this article. It is, however, an excellent example of everything an article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and a terrible negative example when it comes to WIAGA.--SidiLemine 12:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Economy of Pakistan#Growing demand, just taking one example, reads like original research. --Peter cohen 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandur

Result: WP:SNOWBALL delist - This article in no way meets the criteria. It should not have even been brought to GA/R. Instead, it should have been boldly delisted, which I shall take care of. Lara♥Love 03:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed way back in 2005, no inline references, begging for a picture or two. --Masem 22:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shigin

Result: WP:SNOWBALL delist - This article in no way meets the criteria. It should not have even been brought to GA/R. Instead, it should have been boldly delisted, which I shall take care of. Lara♥Love 03:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed was back in 2005, no references save for some links. Article structure doesn't meet typical GA standards (eg WP:LEAD). --Masem 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dada

Result: Delist Lara♥Love 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA tag added by anon IP [5], quick pass through article shows a lack of sufficient references to have been a GA in the first place, if beyond other problems.--Masem 19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waitoreke

Result: Delist - Article was inappropriately passed just hours after a second fail in one week. The pass was made by the original nominator who is also a primary editor of the article, which is unacceptable as stated in the instructions at WP:GAC. The article is far from meeting the standards listed at WP:WIAGA; the reviews on the talk page by the first two reviewers list, in detail, the corrections that are needed in order for this article to attain GA status. Though the passing editor marked the issues as completed, said issues have not been addressed. Lara♥Love 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was reviewed (and failed) at 04:17, 4 August 2007 by myself, and again at 02:39, 10 August 2007 by Blnguyen, with significant comments made for revision both times. Within a day, after only three edits, the article was passed by Zalgt at 20:11, 10 August 2007. This user was the original nominator for GA status, as well as one of the primary editors listed in the edit history. Looking at the article itself, I can see some significant issues that still remain, and I don't believe that the comments were adequately addressed, despite the little checkmarks on the user page by Zalgt. A quick-delist is probably in order here, but I thought I'd get consensus first. Dr. Cash 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delist - article is listy in places, with too many bulleted lists for an article of this length. for notable early sightings, expand the details for each. the infobox should be updated to reflect kingdom, phylum, Class, order, family, and genus. prose needs a LOT of work. three references is WAY too few. for a topic with "Very little physical evidence proving the existence of the waitoreke exists.", the topic needs significant references to establish notability and verifiability of all claims. LurkingInChicago 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - listy article, very limited references. The Rambling Man 20:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per lack of references, too many lists, and prose. Raime 00:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The promotion itself stretches the limits of AGF, and the article does not seem to meet GA standards at this time. Plenty of comments were left on the talk page, no need to rehash them here. If the comments left on the talk page were addressed, this would probably be a GA... but not as it stands right now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Lack of integrity in the way it was promoted. It is wiser to post here if you disagree with a review. Doesn't have enough citations to join the ranks of GA articles. Wrad 02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, not a valid pass, and it doesn't sound like the concerns for the first failures were really addressed mostly. Homestarmy 02:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Article is far from GA. Shameful pass. Lara♥Love 04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shunga

Result: No consensus. General lack of participation. Improvements have been made to the article, however. Lara♥Love 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed 03 April 2007 by Lakers via directly posting the {{GA}} template on the talk page and leaving only the briefest of reviews. About a day after this review, Homestarmy left an advisory on Lakers talk page in connection with another brief review. I gather Lakers stopped the practice of telegraphic reviews after that.

I've apologized to the editors for the poor quality of the original review, and have advised them that I am posting the article here for an independent review of what appears to be an out-of-process case. Quite apart from this, I have given the article a brief review and find no reason to speedy delist; it seems at least a viable GA candidate. My one concern is that much of the article draws from really only one reference; it has a rather specialized scope and it is not clear to me how many references cover the ground. My own recommendation is to reintroduce the article to the candidate queue so it may have the benefit of a full review. Take care. Gosgood 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm leaning towards delist considering I question some of the references. In searching for some of them, I can find nothing relevant. ISBN searches result in one book having a different author and different publication year. I'm also confused on what the main source is. It doesn't appear to be a book but, rather, an art show program or something. That needs to be clarified. I formatted and named the refs, so that is no longer an issue. However, I am curious, the question marks in parenthesis... am I seeing ???s because I don't have that language programed into my browser, or are the ???s there as a request for translation? Lara♥Love 19:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems pretty serious to me. The principal ref has been published for an exhibition by a museum, that's about as reliable as can be. This is the exhibition, and here is the catalog. I added the ISBNs. No ??? on my browser. --SidiLemine 12:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still have concerns about the ISBNs for the 2nd and 3rd references. They don't correspond to the listed books. Lara♥Love 17:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think I've fixed both. Please check and advise.--SidiLemine 12:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed them. Lara♥Love 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Popper

Result: Delist. Article fails several criteria. Issues not addressed. Lara♥Love 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has already been submitted for a GA Review, with result being "Keep". However, it still fails to meet some criteria. The article has a very inadequate lead, and the main image used in the infobox is a copyrighted fair use image that does not have a fair use rationale. The image is from a book cover, so it does qualify for fair use, except that it has no rationale given whatsoever. The final and major issue is that the article lists only 10 in-text citations, with almost all references being given in (an incorrectly formatted) bibliography form. It is a very long article, so more citations should be made. Raime 15:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - This article clearly fails to meet the criteria. I've tagged and listed the image for deletion. Article needs additional citation, fact tags are a disqalifier for me. References need to be consistently formatted per WP:CITE. Lara♥Love 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per lead (needs multiple paragraphs and full summary) and minimal inline citation (although the bibliography could be used to fix that). Image FURG could be done instead of tagging, but there are other issues. Giggy Talk | Review 22:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Lead too short. References appear e.g. to criticisms of Hempel but no indication of where Hempel made those criticisms or what secondary sources discuss them. --Peter cohen 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist also note that the previous GA/R was almost a year ago, so there is no problem with re-reviewing this article.Balloonman 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Sharon

Result: Delist. Article fails several criteria, especially referencing and citation. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted here [6] as far as I can see. Dunno about then, but it doesn't meet the criteria now. Very minimal referencing for an article of that length and depth (especially with current status etc.) Giggy Talk | Review 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_26&oldid=1140157625"