Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tofu/1

Tofu

 * Article (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Article talk (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Watch article &middot; Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. Article has been here two months, and while it has improved, all problems have not yet been fixed. It can be renominated at WP:GAN when it is up to standards. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  23:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was found during sweep process. It carries a lot of information, but I feel that it's a little too much (per criteria 3b). The references are not uniform. Also, trivia section was found. It definetely doesn't deserve a bold delist, so I want others' opinions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. It clearly does not meet WP:LEAD at the moment. Although this doesn't deserve a bold delist, it might be appropriate to use a regular delisting procedure, as described in the guidelines at the top of this page: i.e., list your concerns on the talk page, maybe try to fix some of them, wait a week or so, and if the article still does not meet the criteria, delist it. Geometry guy 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist Yes, the lead is definently too short, it can't possibly be summarizing most of the article. Homestarmy (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist lead is too short for an article this long. 哦，   是吗？  (User:O) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
 * Comment - I've expanded the lead, how does the lead look now? -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Better! I've done a copyedit and some reordering. I suggest reviewers take another look at the article. Geometry guy 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is much improved. I'd be happy to support keeping it listed, once the Miscellanea section has been reworked as something like "Tofu and culture" with well-written prose. Geometry guy 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist Calling a trivia section something else does not make it NOT trivia. The miscellaneous section has to go. Also, the "choosing tofu" section needs to be incorporated elsewhere in the article; it is unreferenced and seems kinda how-to-guide-ish.  The Etymology section needs a reference, and should probably be moved to history section, perhaps under the origins part.  But if those three fixes are made, this is GA quality IMHO.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - The 47,572 bytes article has 22 citations, and even some of those are not good. It has some unreferenced information like "It is excellent for camping, in that it is very light, may be sold flattened, and makes a very filling nutritious meal on the road." - Hαvεlok   беседа   мансарда  08:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per everything mentioned above. Drewcifer (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wanted to close this as "delist", but I found that the trivia section has now been integrated into the article. I've also removed the unnecessary "Choosing tofu" section. I'm not convinced that there is a serious citation issue: the sentence quoted by Havelock is certainly awful, but the solution is to rephrase it more neutrally or remove it, not cite it. This is not the kind of material that is likely to be challenged. Most of the arguments for delisting are now out-of-date, and updated views would be most helpful. Geometry guy 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has simply too much unreferenced information without footnotes. The article also seems to follow differing style patterns in some parts as it has two footnote formats and such. You seem to be doing a great job addressing everyone's concerns so I thought I would point out a WP:MoS check and using footnotes wherever necessary. Hαvεlok   беседа   мансарда  11:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but actually, I've only made pretty trivial edits: other editors have made more substantial fixes. I could probably sort out the inconsistent referencing format, but I cannot fix the perceived lack of references. I'm mainly interested in closing this GAR, so I would remind reviewers that: (1) referencing and inline citation are not necessarily the same thing; (2) the criteria only require inline cites for "quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"; (3) only certain parts of WP:MoS are GA criteria. If reviewers can pinpoint clear failings in (2) or (3), then that would short-circuit this discussion nicely, and the article could be delisted. If not, I'll try to fix the formatting of the footnotes. Geometry guy 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blimey those references were a mess. I couldn't bear to leave them that way, so I've sorted them out. Geometry guy 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Relist on GAN. The article has since been improved, but more citations are needed for the sales and etymology section, if you ask me.  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist Insufficient number and formatting of citations (some sections completely unreferenced), numerous one sentence paragraphs and sections, suspected violations of summary style. Trivia concern is invalid, as trivia sections are only discouraged, not forbidden.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)