Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thomas S. Monson/1

Thomas S. Monson

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Thomas_S._Monson/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept There have been no delist comments. Szzuk (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

NPOV - seems pro mormon rather than neutral. Few non-LDS sources.andycjp (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * GAc4 is that an article "represent viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each." What evidence is there that the article does not accomplish this? What specific information is either excluded from the article or presented in a POV way? Also, seems inconsiderate for the nominator to have rushed to GAR without discussing specific grievances on the article's talk page first. —Eustress talk 13:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the nominators opinion based on a diff on the article's talk page is that the article is "Marketing rather than encyclopedic" and that it is not NPOV because "No criticism or controversies at all? Hard to believe." However we've already been thru this several times, both before & after the initial GA Review, as the nominator of this reassessment would have seen if they had looked thru Talk:Thomas S. Monson/Archive 1. I think this nomination for reassessment is premature and not well framed, almost to the point of being an wp:IDONTLIKEIT discussion. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eustress and 208.81.184.4. It would appear that Andycjp's nomination is a wp:IDONTLIKEIT situation where he fails to address any specific issues.  This Nomination should be rejected and the article should remain a GA.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Tag removed, cheers —Eustress talk 14:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * It may well do. But that is a discusion for another forum. AIR corn (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Keep No specific reasons given why it should be reassessed. The article clearly passes the Good Article criteria.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 17:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)