Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/1

G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted Whether the original nomination was in good faith or the furthering of an agenda is no longer relevant as other editors have since joined the debate. The original concern was that unreliable sources had since been added to the article, violating criteria 2b. Nikkimaria, Ruhrfisch and SilkTork have further raised questions about source reliability. While none of these editors called for an outright delisting due to this issue and some have since been removed or hidden, there are still some (5 of those listed by Nikkimaria and Ruhrfisch's example) remaining. An even greater concern are the unsourced statements listed by Silktork. They were brought to editors attention over a month ago, but still remain unsourced even after they were brought up again two weeks ago. As such I am delisting the article. AIR corn  (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this article should be reassessed because since the fair review it was given and it's subsequent pass. It's core editors have added an array of fansite references to then article, which seems suspect. When me and another suggested they be removed, we had a backlash telling us they are notable because they are GI Joe fansites. Many suggestions have been given and met with hostility. Some of the sources came under discussion here Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92 and still ignored suggestions they be removed. Rain the 1  BAM 20:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It does appear from your link that several unreliable sources have been introduced. I note that the article is also undergoing peer review at this moment. Should we let that review run its course first? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It also appears that Raintheone is attempting to avoid any dissenting opinions, by creating this discussion, when similar points have already been brought up at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, you are referring to this very reassessment page! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the links are similar, but the discussion here was created first. And then after Raintheone ran into opposition there, a second discussion was created on this page. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that is the discussion page for the GAR process. This is the re-assessment page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted an outside opinion but did not get one, only the same editors claiming fansites are fine. Like I said you were not willing to review the fansite material after the peer review so I nominated it. As editors will see when they look on the articles talk page, I was told my opinions do not count because of the peer review. So I think this peer review should be put on hold and handed over to the community in general. Rain the 1  BAM 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: It was just that there was a mention of sources and no sign of the sources being removed. Plus an image was added back after the suggestion one be removed. But I guess we can wait until it is over if you really want too. If my views are pushed aside and I think not enough is being done to adress issues, I just thought this was the best place for it. Rain the 1  BAM 21:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which image? I believe the contentious ones brought up in Peer Review were removed. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rain, with all due respect, I've never claimed that your opinion doesn't count. But for all your talk, about how bad you think the fansite references are, I do think that you're going about fixing them the wrong way. I'm sorry if the the editors of WikiProject G.I. Joe have not met your standards as quickly as you expect. But I don't understand why you continue to remove information from G.I. Joe articles, when you admit yourself that you know very little about the subject matter. And then when someone disagrees with you, why do you ignore the editors who've been working on those articles, and decide to nominate an article for deletion, or ask for it to be reassessed? Wikipedia is built by editors coming to a consensus, but I do not feel that you have tried to work together with the editors of G.I. Joe articles. Instead, you have intentionally caused problems for others to fix, which again is not helpful or constructive. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussion of how the article does or does not meet the good article criteria. Please discuss that here rather than engaging in disputes with other editors. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The guidelines for Good Article Reassessment state "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment." That is the primary reason why I dispute Raintheone's motives for reassessment, and I apologize if my comments were considered inappropriate. I personally believe that the article meets the criteria for GA status, as evidenced by Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics), and in fact has addressed the points of the peer review, to be considered for FA status. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to explain why you think it meets Ga in the current format. That GA review was for a the article in this revision - Then next edit after that saw the article double in size with the inclusion of fansite material. The review was carried out by Jezhotwells himself, a fair reviewer of many articles - I do not think he would have not adressed the multiple use of these sources. Rain the 1  BAM 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the GA Reassessment instructions, you are required to "leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page." As such, the burden of proof is yours. The rationale given at the top of this page is nothing more than a generalization of what you perceive the problems to be, and is lacking in specific details and the comparison to GA criteria as specified. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is individual reassessment not community. Rain the 1  BAM 02:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Community assessment: "If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises." Have you done actually done that individual reassessment, and if so, where is it? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Raintheone's implication (see earlier comment time/date stamped 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)) is that a decrease in quality must automatically follow from an increase in quantity - a logical fallacy at best, and intentionally dishonest at worst.
 * I would also note that the fansite material you mention consists of interviews with the creator of the G.I. Joe comic book. Given the context in which the material appears (i.e. discussion of the publishing background, the creative processes involved, and impact of the series), I find it hard to believe that you can get any more reliable than the man himself.  So while I can understand concerns about using other material from these websites (e.g. plot and character summaries) which could be interpreted as unsourced original research on the part of the website owners, it's hard to argue the same about statements coming directly from Larry Hama's mouth. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can start a fansite tomorrow and make an interview with him all by myself. You'd then use it for wikipedia, great. Yojoe have been at it for years without any form of verification. If it is a video interview, that is a different sttory. In context in this article, which I'd suggest the community, someone that is not involved in this project - look at it and opine on the fansites hosting interviews. This is something a lot of editors grapple, they just ignore fansites with interviews - why does this article gain exception. Rain the 1  BAM 03:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply:
 * So you're saying that at least three different websites have deliberately falsified the interviews? Sounds libelous to me.
 * I can't speak for those other editors who "just ignore fansites with interviews", since I neither know those editors, nor am I familiar with their work. So as far as I'm concerned, fansite interviews are being used elsewhere - your job is to prove the absence, or the policy that specifically prohibits their use. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - given that this stems from what is essentially a content dispute, I'm thinking that one or more of these alternatives would have been more appropriate rather than jumping straight to GA Reassessment:
 * Third opinion
 * Requests for comment
 * Mediation Cabal
 * -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No it does not. I nominated this because I believe it has unreliable information comprimising it's GA status. You won't even wait for other editors opinions. You are trying to shut it down before it has began. Rain the 1  BAM 03:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course I'll wait for other editors' opinions - I just happen to be waiting for editors who don't have a demonstrable bias against this WikiProject and its member editors -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I received a request on my talk page to look at this reassessment, particularly the claim that unreliable sources were being introduced into this article. Generally speaking, interviews are given more leeway in terms of reliability, but may be considered primary sources. Also speaking generally, be sure to consider WP:COPYLINK. Examining the specific sources used here, I would argue that this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this are of questionable reliability. If you have RSN discussions or other material supporting their use, they may be justifiable, but without that background I would advocate their removal in most cases. In a more general comment on the process here - 3O isn't currently a good dispute-resolution method for this article; MedCab or RfC might work, although I'm personally having trouble framing the dispute in the clear-question format preferred for RfCs. Community reassessment is more feasible than individual in this case. Whatever forum this dispute ends up in, I would encourage editors to avoid personalizing disputes and remain focused on content. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To let community editors know, we have RSN discussion of a few of those here -Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92. Rain the 1  BAM 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And to let community editors know, the aforementioned RSN was in regards to specific types of content (i.e. material such as character bios, plot summaries and scans of G.I. Joe toy vehicle blueprints and action figure filecards) hosted on those websites. Importantly, it should be noted that this article's disputed content is not the same type of content (i.e. interviews with G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero creator and writer Larry Hama. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure editors can read it for themselves. Here is just one example looking at the context of the RSN why is the claim "However, it eventually became one of the series' most enduring issues." - cited to and  - This is a pretty big claim for fansites to be backing up. Rain the 1  BAM 13:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Although the nominator may bring up some good points about source reliability, this GAR seems to me to be the latest round in an ongoing grudge match against the members of the G.I. Joe Wikiproject, from its self-appointed content supervisor. I have personally been the target of this sort of attention before (see User:Gavin.collins), and I know from experience that it can get ugly and really ruin one's enjoyment of editing the Wiki.  I have noticed that Raintheone will start a discussion politely enough, but quickly get frustrated and feel the need to take some sort of action against the parties if they do not do what he wants in the way he expects it.  I have encouraged before, and I will again encourage Raintheone again to continue discussion with the people involved rather than jumping into action.  If there is an ongoing dispute with other editors, we have a dispute resolution system - which, by the way, does not involve going to AFD or GAR to get one's way. BOZ (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with BOZ, because Raintheone does not appear to desire a consensus with the editors of WikiProject G.I. Joe, instead he seems to be taking this debate about reliable sources personally. Unfortunately, his good intentions have degraded into disruptive editing. He has prevented other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve G.I. Joe articles, by intentionally creating problems for others to deal with, such as the aforementioned AFD, and this GAR. He has continued to edit G.I. Joe articles in pursuit of a certain point, despite opposition from other editors. And he has repeatedly disregarded other editors' explanations for their edits, because of his vendetta against certain sources.
 * Regardless, I believe that this article meets the criteria for GA status, as evidenced by its recent GA Review, and I dispute that any added content has automatically reduced the quality of the article. Since Raintheone has asked for a community reassessment of this article, with no regard for good article criteria, or the points of the peer review, it is his responsibility to specifically address the criteria for GA status, and explain on each point how this article fails to meet the criteria. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is just just the shared GI Joe editor's opinion. I brought it here to see if the sources compromise the GA. Not for the same group of editors to tell me off even more, you think it is okay, you would, you worked on the article. On the personal side you keep maing, I'm hopeful an admin will look into this and see what I've been through - Being told to go away because I don't read GI Joe, being told fansites are okay and the Guidelines and my questions are opinion because GI Joe editors reached a consensus that these are fine. Well four editors is a week consensus.. Rain the 1  BAM 17:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and why should your opinion be worth any more than any one of us, forget about being worth more than all of us? And if, as you say, "four editors is a week  [sic] consensus", then what do you call a consensus of one?  Or is that why you're currently out there canvassing for admin support? If you're calling bias on me because I worked on the article, then I can easily call the same on your vendetta. What's truly sad is the amount of work that could have been done to address deficiencies in the article, if the G.I. Joe editors hadn't been wasting so much time having to deal with your constant harassment. Personally, I hope an admin does look into this to see what you've been putting the rest of us through.  And for the record, I'm not telling you to go away because you don't read G.I. Joe ... I'm telling you to go away because you don't understand G.I. Joe. ... and likewise, I would never dream of editing Coronation Street etc., because I have no understanding of those.  -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, there is an admin looking at all of this - and while I'm not generally quick on the block button and would prefer to block neither of you, I'd willingly block both of you, if only to make you stop harping at each other. Jake: if you have a problem with Rain's behaviour, take it to WP:RFC/U or WP:AN/I. Rain, same goes for you. Both of you: the purpose of community GAR is to seek input from the wider GA community as to whether this article should remain a GA. Commentary here should be restricted to the article's content as it relates to the GA criteria. Comment on editor behaviour belongs elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Observation - you know what's awesome? Between this GAR, the discussion that immediately preceded it, and numerous other discussions on the article's talk page and the G.I. Joe WikiProject talk page, the total accumulated bytes worth of chatter is well in excess of the size of the actual article.  How's that for efficiency and good use of time?  The government (any government) would be proud. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I peer reviewed the article and commented that to become a FA it would need sourcing for things which were then without sources. While WP:RS applies to all articles, the higher an article goes on the quality scale, the less tolerance there is for including non-relaible sources. A GA has to follow WP:RS. That said, I have sometimes seen interviews in what seemed to fansites cited in articles at FAC. I looked at one of the interviews here There is relatively little on Hama and his work in it, and the main point Isaw (that Carl Barks was an influence on Hama's GI Joe books) is explicitly stated to also be in a foreword to a book. That is what should be cited. Wherever possible look for backups to the material from these interviews. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Question - so what happens now? It's been over a week since the GAR was posted.  It's no coincidence that editing on the article in question has ground to a halt. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: well, the specifics of the rationale are that the addition of new material and new sources meant that the article no longer met the good article standards.  Little has been done to address these concerns.  The review may be kept open until some consensus is achieveed or there havs been a pweriod of four weeks without comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the rationale was a little vague, suggest that the nominator provide with a point-by-point and we'll do what we can to address each specific deficiency as identified. Otherwise it seems to me to be a bit of a Catch-22 then - I can't speak for the other editors, but personally I'm reluctant to do anything until I know that I'm not wasting my time, but nothing is going get addressed until someone starts editing again. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Detailed look
 * *The paragraph in the Reprints section says - "G.I. Joe European Missions was published monthly from June 1988 until May 1989. The European Missions series are all reprints of Action Force Monthly, which was published in the UK. Unlike the weekly Action Force series, these were all original stories, never before seen in the U.S. They were not written by Larry Hama, and fall somewhere in between being part of the official continuity and outside of continuity." - This is cited to the Yojoe fansite, it is also a reword of what they said, it is being used to cite the whole block of text.
 * Removed Yojoe ref, and added Citation Needed -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * *In the plot section, there is a claim that reads: At first, the issue was controversial; some readers felt cheated that it had no words and could be "read" so quickly. However, it eventually became one of the series' most enduring issues. - This source doesn't really help and it fails to meet WP:RS.
 * Well, for one thing, the source you indicate doesn't refer to the first part of the claim you quote above (which is properly cited). Have now removed the myuselessknowledge, and added another -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * *This one is absolutely out of the question, this link to a FORUM post is backing up text reading as such: "The series directly picks up from the end of the Marvel Comics series, and with Hasbro's statement that "Fans can read it according to their personal preference, but we are currently taking the brand in a direction that does not take the Devil’s Due story into account", the intervening series published by Devil's Due Publishing from 2000 to 2008 have been rendered non-canonical."
 * Hid it. Didn't delete it outright, as it's important, and I'm still hopeful of finding a source that meets Raintheone's exacting standards -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The events of these issues would later be embellished and elaborated on in many subsequent issues." is cited to a fansite and the article is here
 * Removed -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - In the 'years later and cancellation' section the text and claim "Shortly after the final issue, a G.I. Joe Special #1 was released, with alternate art for issue #61 by Todd McFarlane. The cover features Snake Eyes in a crouched-down position, in a homage to the Spider-Man title that McFarlane illustrated during his tenure at Marvel." - Trying to assert that it pays homage to something using a fansite is iffy. Is there no professional insight or is it mentioned in a interview with one of the associated personel?
 * Added a new source -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * *This source Is frfom mediacommons - They are group that is primarly built of students and aspiring journo's testing their writing skills. A org that also lets anyone interested in media join and post. They are not professional reviewers or anything. They also post in blog formats. - So basically this is one of many blogs.
 * I just did some digging, looking into the edit history for this article, and the edit that brought this reference into use actually predates the final pass into GA. So if it's good enough for the GA reviewer, then it should be good enough for you. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "As of April 2011, ten volumes have been published" - There is 11 per
 * Actually, there's 10. One of the 11 on that page is a re-print of issue no. 1, as part of the "Hundred Penny Press" line. It is not considered one of the Classic G.I. Joe reprint volumes. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * *"The shape of comic book reading" quote by A David Lewis, which page is the exact quote on? The ref is too brief, so the claim is not easily backed up.
 * So I guess that means that you've never learned to use the  function? Pity. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - NYCGraphics is actually a group of niche media people running a site hosted by Blogspot - I guess you could argue they have worked for some good companies though.
 * Again, you don't like this website, then get it blacklisted. But just to humour you, I've changed put in a new reference -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - Even die hard fans make mistakes so why is good to use this fansite for a about 7 sentances, a big block of text.
 * Removed the offending bit of text. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - In addition to these there are number of fansites hosting interviews - there is talk they might be okay though so I left them out. Nikkimaria raised issue with some of those, Ruhrfisch notes that WP:RS is important at GA and some are in question and that Jezhotwells notes that not much has been done to adress the issues, in the original rationale the sources were adressed in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92. Rain the 1  BAM 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "and that Jezhotwells notes that not much has been done to adress the issues". Why would I waste my time addressing anything, if you're just going to flush everything that I do? Your biases are showing more than ever. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Raintheone: fair enough - and if I address all of the points above, either by finding a better source, or deleting the claim, are you going to drop the harrassment? Or are you going to remain ensconced in your role of self-appointed content supervisor? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference 9 reading :"^ a b c d e f g Zimmerman, Dwight Jon (July 1986), "Larry Hama", David Anthony Kraft's Comics Interview" - Where is that from? What type of media was it? Rain the 1  BAM 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you'd bother to do a little checking, you'd know that it's a magazine article reprinted online. Since you're such an expert, why don't you tell me what the proper citation format is? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Joepedia is a an external wiki of bad quality and shouldn't really be used as an external link. Official sources are good for further reading. Rain the 1  BAM 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're just harping -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * These are pointers to help it meet the GA criteria. With the citation, as the magazine reference was vague, I as the reader didn't know where to find it. The general reader wouldn't know this. Citations should be laid out correctly. Is there a link please? Rain the 1  BAM 22:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd bothered to check, you'd know it was there. Or else googled it. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors are meant to cite the source - Readers aren't meant to google and find a ref that may or may not exist. An editor of the article should really make sure they provide info that is verified. We can assume good faith, but it is a little vague. What publication, page number etc. Good progress is being made, just a few more things left. Rain the 1  BAM 22:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why thankee massa, I sure is pleased youse approvin' of the progress. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jake Fuersturm, please keep your comments civil and remember to assume good faith. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jezhotwells - Raintheone's the one questioning my good faith, or did you miss the exchange a few lines above. Furthermore, I'm simply reminding him that Wikipedia editors are volunteers, not slaves, especially not his. -- 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jezhotwells - fyi, if you go through the points Raintheone listed today, he's actually questioning your judgement on something that made it into the final version of the article prior to it being passed in GA back on 2 March. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Raintheone is pointing out something that I missed and should have picked up on. Such mistakes do happen. Please keep your comments to the point of whether or not this article meets the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have been dealing with things earlier, if Raintheone hadn't waited a week to actually provide something concrete. You'll excuse me if I'm loathe to waste my time dealing with generalities.  But as you can see above, once they were properly enumerated, I have been dealing with them. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The request for me to adress more problems was made today. This is community GAR open to any editors insight. Plus you have been asked to stop making this personal - so please respect that. There are still issues there.
 * I made the request a week ago: "Per the GA Reassessment instructions, you are required to "leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page." As such, the burden of proof is yours. The rationale given at the top of this page is nothing more than a generalization of what you perceive the problems to be, and is lacking in specific details and the comparison to GA criteria as specified. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a request for a further explanation which I gave. Nikkimaria also raised the issue of several sources. Today there was a request for a point by point from the nominator. I'd like to request once again that we stick to the tasks in hand please. Rain the 1  BAM 02:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To which I responded: "Community assessment: "If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises." Have you done actually done that individual reassessment, and if so, where is it? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" - and I am sticking to the task at hand - you held it up by a week. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The forum reference that is now hidden - needs not be there at all. Perhaps you can save it in your sandbox, it is still visable when editing - A GA should not have any unreliable claims anywhere in the text. Certainly not when a forum is being used.
 * The external links still have fansites
 * There is an issue still with the ref that was missed from the first GAR.
 * There are too many fansite interviews - It is up to other editors to decide, perhaps taking it to the RS Noticeboard mght be a good port of call.
 * There is still a NYCGraphics link (hosted by blogspot) being used as a ref. Rain the 1  BAM 01:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's it. Forget about it. I refuse to edit anything more unless I get a solid commitment from Raintheone that if these final points are addressed, that he's going to drop the matter once and for all. He can't just keep adding stuff to the list, that's just being ridiculous. I have too much to do in real life than to come here and be his whipping boy for his amusement. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC) They are points that have been incorrectly adressed from above, with an addition of something I missed. It is not for myself to decide as this is the community GAR and there will have to be consensus that it meets the criteria. At present there are outstanding issues that should be adressed. If everyone thinks enough work and changes to comply with the criteria have taken place, then it is very likely it shall pass. Once again, please try to avoid making personal comments like the one above - you have been asked several times by three editors - not to do so. Rain the 1  BAM 02:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The prose in the article could be tightened so it is more encyclopedic in tone - presently it is a little informal; however, the prose is clear enough for GA criteria 1 (a). It mostly meets 1 (b), though I would like to see the lead developed a bit more per WP:Lead - I don't see much of the Background and early development in the lead, for example. It meets most of 2 - it has a reference section, and doesn't appear to deal in OR. There are some statements that appear unsourced - such as "When G.I. Joe began, most toy tie-in comics lasted an average of two years, so G.I. Joe, lasting for 14 years, was considered a runaway success", "Many readers praised the series for its attention to detail and realism in the area of military tactics and procedures", and "The comic book's popularity with women has also been attributed to the strong female characters featured in the comic, such as Scarlett and Lady Jaye." And there is the question of the reliability of some of the sources used, which prompted this GAR. The sources I looked at do have staff, and appear to use academic writers; however there is an informal air about them, and they are being used to support some strong claims such as "the series has been credited for making G.I. Joe into a pop-culture phenomenon", and a "historically crucial moment in media convergence." The claims made for the series tend to be praise, and squeezed out of questionable fan sources, or not supported by any sources, so it might be failing 4 - neutrality. I'm inclining to the view that the article needs tighter sourcing, both in terms of challengable statements, and in terms of  quality of sourcing.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Question for Raintheone: I see you are unhappy with the quality of the WP:External links in this article.  Can you tell me which of the six Good article criteria requires compliance with the EL guideline?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist. The issues I raised above have not been addressed.  SilkTork  *Tea time 11:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Silktork: so are you telling us that the original GA listed version is qualitatively superior to the current version? Here's a side-by-side comparison. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just looked back at my comment and I don't make any mention of any previous versions. I was evaluating the article as it stands now. I have not looked at your side-by-side comparison, as it is the article as it stands now that is under discussion. I came here as I am archiving my talkpage, and I am just checking I left a comment on this GAR. I don't have this discussion watchlisted, so if this GAR isn't closed, and the issues I have raised are addressed, please let me know, and I will reassess.  SilkTork  *Tea time 20:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)