Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 18

To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves disputes which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.

Kaziranga National Park
Result: Returned prior hold status

This artcle was a WP:GAC and was put on hold on 8 May, 2007. But today on 9 May, 2007 it failed.(The banner says minimum of 2 days) Though there was some issue of minor copyedit. Most of which is now done. Apart from this due to difference in time zones, the issue got further problem in addressing in time. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  11:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral That seems a bit rash for an on hold, nonetheless, the Fauna section is massively overlinked. And I wouldn't call the copy editing issues minor, I found this sentence: The park is having the world's largest population of the Great Indian One-Horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) (1,855),[20][9] Water Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) (1,666), IvoShandor 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Return hold until normal expiry of 7 days. It is clear that the article is being improved and the hold issues are in the process of being addressed, so I see no compelling reason to fail the article within 2 days when the hold has not yet expired.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Return hold - should be enough time to address comments of IvoShandor. Particulary, fauna section is MASSIVELY overlinked, especially when a main article exists.  ChicagoPimp 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This was my review... and my mistake. I was requested to review the article by the nominator. It took me almost three days to complete it. I should have passed on the request or, at the very least, drafted the review until it was complete. When I put it on hold, I had not completed the review, which I noted in the preliminary conclusion. At that point in the review, there didn't seem to be too many issues. I thought I'd let them get started working on it and I'd finish it the following day. When I returned the following day, there had been no edits made and, as I got further into the article, I found there were more issues than I had expected when I placed it on hold. As far as the issues with the fauna section, there are suggestions in my review for part of that section to be rewritten, which should cut down on the links. I'm neutral on this decision. I'm not one to be put off by my determination being overruled. I see that much progress is being made to address the concerns. I do, however, request that someone else review it after all the corrections have been made to pick up on issues I may have missed. This was, admittedly, a difficult review for me.  Lara Love  Talk / Contribs  20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Return hold, it can sometimes take time for editors involved in an article to find the time to start addressing concerns, not everyone can live off of Wikipedia :D . Homestarmy 15:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brazil
Result: Delist 6-0

The article is extremely under referenced considering it's size and it seems to be over illustrated, there is also the concern that the user that passed it is part of WikiProject Brazil wich may conflict with WP:COI - 凶 14:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - There are some issues to be dealt with... both minor and major.
 * There's a missing parenthesis end in the first sentence... poor first impression, really. Other small MOS errors in places.
 * Stand-alone years randomly wikified.
 * It is over illustrated, and I believe in staggering images.
 * There aren't enough references, many unsourced statements/claims, and the few references aren't properly cited or formatted, which bothers me.
 * Fact tags are GA disqualifiers.
 * It's a nice article and has potential, but it has a ways to go. -- Lara Love Talk / Contribs  16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist per above. Underreferenced with fact tags, but a good start. ChicagoPimp 17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. Needs lots of references. --Victor12 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. What I find the most disturbing is that the user that "reviewed" is in direct conflic of interest with the article. Over illustration is a main issue, and the neutrality too. AlexCovarrubias 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. This article does not accurately depict the country. Please read the Special report on Brazil at the Economist and compare with this article. Then, you will understand my concern User:RobertoMalancini 10 May 2007

San Francisco garter snake
Result: Speedy Delist 2-0 No review necessary

Speedy Delist per: Good start but not of GA quality. ChicagoPimp 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation needed footnote present in lead
 * Multiple redline links throughout
 * States in lead that a given number of snakes exist and later states estimates are difficult
 * Needs more inline citations in range, lifecycle, taxonomy, and dna analysis
 * Delist per above. Lara Love  Talk / Contribs  03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist per the lack of references - but what's wrong with redlinks? Surely a lack of coverage in a field doesn't mean we can't have a good article in the field. In fact, I quite like redlinks, as they're a clear and obvious target to improve upon, and which require no updating when the article does get written. 88.111.221.213 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Red links tend to detract from aesthetic qualities and frustrate readers, they are helpful to editors in small amounts, but red links do nothing to add to an article because there is no need to keep a page red linked to remember an article is needed about it. Potentially an anon user could create the page if it is red linked but I don't know how often that happens. Probably not a major reason to fail or delist a GA unless the whole article is practically red links, which could be easily addressed. Either way it seems that the review has other concerns anyway. IvoShandor 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article could really be speedy delisted, feel free to do that at any time Lara. Homestarmy 16:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

EMD F7
Result: Delist 8-0

Article has no citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist Citation issues aside this article easily fails the broadness criteria as well. IvoShandor 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - per above. ChicagoPimp 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - per above. Listed as GA before current standards/review process put in place. Lara Love  Talk / Contribs  22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist, and, overall, is lacking in references. -- Phoenix  00:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist the Lead appears to be as big as the entire article body, I really don't see how it could possibly be avoiding introducing original content that isn't discussed in the body anywhere. Homestarmy 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist The article consists of a lead and not much else. Plus it is underreferenced.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist Needs more inline citations. --Nehrams2020 17:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

EMD BL2
Result: Delist 7-0

Article is listy in places, has zero citations and an inadequate lead. Delist. LuciferMorgan 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - (1) no inline citations to support statements such as "The mechanical components within the engine compartment were difficult to access and maintain, reducing its appeal among railroad shop crews." (2) lead is too short to describe article (3) preservation section would be better presented as a table. ChicagoPimp 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. This is another article that was tagged before the current GA process was established. Never reviewed, tagged by author. Lara Love  Talk / Contribs  04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist Doesn't meet broad requirement either. --Nehrams2020 07:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist: Per above comments, agree completely with Nehrams2020. IvoShandor 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist Just a history section and some lists? Needs more material divided into more sections. Homestarmy 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist inadequate lead, not broad enough in coverage, listy, unreferenced, what else do we need? --Jayron32| talk | contribs 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul Hackett
Result: Delist 6-0

Nominate for delisting per the following:
 * Lack of inline citations. While there is a long list of references at the end, it is impossible to verify the miriad claims this article makes, therefore it should be delisted pending the addition of inline citations.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: There has been a notice on the talk page since September, 2006 warning the custodians of the article of the lack of inline citations. No action has been taken since then. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delist per above. Tagged/listed in 2005 before GA criteria/standards put in place. No review ever done. -- Lara Love Talk / Contribs  06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. LuciferMorgan 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per lack of inline citations to support individual claims. ChicagoPimp 12:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist: per lengthy time period of warning. IvoShandor 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delist LordHarris 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega
Result: Delist 3–0

Too few references, other issues such as solo linked years.Sumoeagle179 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Solo-linked years is actually permissible, and recommended in most cases, per WP:MOS. Dr. Cash 07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Solo linked years is generally not recommendable, see WP:DATE; specifically here there is considerable dispute though. In my experience in FAC's they're not well liked. Although that's an easy fix. Quadzilla99 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this review need any more attention, I see a 1 to 0, and although there's no rule against it, I don't really think its a good idea to act on a 1 to 0, its just one vote so to speak..... Homestarmy 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, 1 to 0 is no consensus, default keep. I will look at the article if I have a chance. IvoShandor 11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Too few references in article, and source of references is narrowed primarily to APO references. Expanding references to a broader variety of sources would likely increase content and improve verifiability. Background of formation is sufficient, but article needs a section of significant contributions, expansion of charity events and/or community service. For having 300k members, a mention of notable alumni also would help. ChicagoPimp 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist for lack of independent sources, and in general needs more references. --Fang Aili talk 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Taking into account the recent changes to the good article criteria, I don't think the lack of references alone is a good enough reason to delist the article from GA status. Dr. Cash 20:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist: The GA criteria has not weakened its stance on the use of reliable sources OR on the use of inline citations in longer articles. This article fails on both counts.  Every source comes from A-Phi-O directly, and there is no attention given to information generated independant of the organization.  While the tone of the article is fairly good, I have serious NPOV concerns when an article ABOUT an organization is ONLY referenced to information provided BY that organization.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per everything Jayron32 stated. Lara Love  Talk / Contribs  17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton
'''Delist 6-0. Also returning to GAC per discussion here'''

Nomination for delisting: This article was recently promoted as a Good Article. However, there are some issues that seem to indicate that this promotion was inappropriate. Specifically, there are several problematic images which are in direct contravention of the Wikipedia's policy on the use of copyright images. These images must be removed or replaced with free alternatives or the GA status will be delisted. Additionally, there are referencing issues, specifically, several paragraphs have no citations to indicate where the facts they report come from. A full list of the problematic images and uncited facts are on the article's talk page. This article is quite good in places, but these problems seem to indicate that it does not meet all requirements of the good article criteria and this needs fixing ASAP. If these fixes are not done in a timely manner, it should be delisted.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 17:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Image:Hillary Clinton New Hampshire.JPG - Image link is broken, I suspect it was deleted for the reasons listed above." I suspect you are correct and that it was deleted.  I don't think anyone would object if we removed the link / box for it.  Fanra 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "In the Senate, Clinton sits on five committees with nine subcommittee assignments in all:" As for this, if you visit her Senate web site, it lists the committees she is on.  I will put in a citation for that so we can clear this issue.  Fanra 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please go back to the talk page and remove any issues that I have cleared up, since I'm not posting there but here as you requested. Fanra 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist -Per nominator's concerns. - 凶 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - per nominator's comments and extensive discussion of issues on talk page. ChicagoPimp 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - per above. Also, I don't see that it was actually reviewed. It seems to have only had the tag updated. Lara Love  Talk / Contribs  21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that Fanra is trying to address the issues. I will not change my vote to delist until these are all fixed, but I would also be willing to change my vote to keep as a GA if all fixes ARE made in short order.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy back to GAC This article was clearly promoted incorrectly and, if the nominators concerns are right, without regard for much of the GA criteria, all the diff shows is someone changing the tag from GAnominee to GA. However, since its here now, I don't see much of a problem in passing it if the concerns given on the talk page are addressed, after all, if someone can fix the problems, then that's more or less like someone dealing with problems in an On Hold situation, right? Homestarmy 15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with allowing the "pass" to stand in light of the discussion here, assuming the fixes are made (as Homestarmy says, its like a "Hold" right now). If concerns are addressed and the article is clearly GA quality after going through GA/R, there is no reason then to delist it and renominate.  If the article remains in the state it is in, however, and is not fixed up, well... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist and back to GAC - now I remember the article was promoted in a very dubious way, without a proper review, with one user promoting three articles at a time (I can't recall which were the other ones, so I guess if somebody could dig in the history of WP:GAC) - it is a large article on a potentially controversial topic, which requires extra care when reviewing to make sure nothing sneaks past. If somebody is willing to give it a thorough review (and there is any hope an editorial team would take care of any concerns within a week), then please put it on hold after reviewing the entire article. I can't imagine Hillary getting passed without a full, proper review. PrinceGloria 09:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC) PS. To add to that, I now see the article was nominated by a user who nominates articles pretty, well, liberally, so the fact that Hillary was nominated does not mean that she is anywhere close to meeting the WIAGA as of now, which is one more reason to expect a full, detailed review. PS2. The other two articles promoted in the same "bundle" are Leo Ryan and Luke P. Blackburn, two other Democratic politicans. Needless to say, neither has any trace of a GA review on the their talk pages (Blackburn's talk page is essentially empty save for templates!)
 * Reply: The three rapid listings is what led me to check them all out. The other two (Ryan and Blackburn) actually check out despite the insuficiency in their promotion, and I could find nothing wrong with leaving them as a GA.  However, this article (as I noted above and at the talk page) is rife with issues, and should not stand as a GA.  I am of the mindset that if we delist it, there is no need to renominate it back at GAC.  I have essentially left a fail-review on its talk page, and the issues have, to date, NOT been fixed.  I say give it a day or so more to see if it is fixed, but when we delist it I see no need for the person who delists it to go out of their way to renominate it.  Let the people working on the article do that when and if the fixes are made.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist and back to GAC I was the nominator. However, unlike all other prior nominations I had no involvment in the editing of this article.  While taking inventory of articles at WP:WPChi, I noticed this was a highly developed article and nominated it.  It seems to have minor flaws that other GAs have passed with.  I have no problem with a second review. I will be uninvolved with the editing.  If someone want to shepherd it they can.  I also note that there were some oddities with the diffs.  I saw this diff and have no idea if it was a valid edit in truth.  However, I assumed it was and then made this edit. I actually continue to favor its GA status, but could see it failing.  As noted by PrinceGloria, I have been active at nominating GAs.  I have made 52 edits to WP:GAC.  Counting typo corrections and revisions this probably is for 30-40 nominations. Counting Hillary 16 were successful.  I don't actually know if this is liberal or not, but these are my stats. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Many of the 30-40 were renominations and 5 are still active WP:GACs. We are probably talking about less than 25 articles of which most have eventually made WP:GA. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker
Delist 7-0

Lead is far too short. Early career section covers six years in one paragraph and is unsourced, personal life section is unsourced, and there's even a citation needed in the infobox. There's POV/peacock language being used, examples "legendary "Superfly" Jimmy Snuka", "After putting on a great match". Footnotes are often before punctuation contrary to the manual of style. Sentences are often very short and stubby, and on occasion make no sense, example "After Undertaker defeated Triple H at WrestleMania X-Seven and the right to face Triple H and Austin". Delist. One Night In Hackney 303 03:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * delist I endorse all of the above problems, and also go to note that the article is ENTRIELY referenced to "primary" sources (statistics and data), and no referencing is done to works of analysis (i.e. "secondary" sources). Additionally, WP:FICT may apply, since the article does take an "in-universe" perspective on what is essentially a fictional character (gasp... did he say that...)--Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. Quadzilla99 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per all above. I would like to note, however, that I feel for the editors of these entertainment wrestling articles. I reviewed and failed World Wrestling Entertainment recently because of referencing issues. It was pointed out to me that the wrestlers themselves are bound by their contracts not to release information of the events. I'm also fairly certain that all events are copyrighted to the point that details can't even be published about them. There quite literally aren't any outside sources available. In the case of this article, there could possibly be something in print, but I'm not sure it's a realistic expectation that any of these articles can meet GA standards. -- Lara Love T / C  04:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist The almost non-existant lead clinches it. Homestarmy 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - poor lead, insufficient references. ChicagoPimp 14:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Insuffiencent references? There's 129 references! Neldav 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: The number has noting to do with it. You can hang a ref tag after every word, but if the quality of the references doesn't meet expectations, they are still insufficient.  To expand what I said above, the references are ALL to primary source data, which is simply a presentation of results, statistics, or data WITHOUT any critical analysis.  While primary sources have their use, articles should be referenced to SECONDARY sources, that is a source that provides critical analysis for us to cite here.  Insofar as the article provides its OWN analysis without referencing such analysis to an outside source, it is also an example of original research.  See WP:RS for more info...  Also, the article takes a perpective that is almost entirely IN UNIVERSE.  For example, it says that The Undertaker is Mark Calaway.  Not really, he's a character played by Mark Calaway.  By starting the article with Mark Calaway's name, you imply that he is The Undertaker and we can expect to see him as such, say at the grocery store or playing at the park with his kids (for why this is patently rediculous, picture that in your head for a second).  If you want to write an article about Mark Calaway, go ahead, but I would expect it to be more than a run down of Undertaker wrestling matches, which is all this article really is.  The personal life section tacked on the end is also weird...  Is this article about the character "The Undertaker" or about the man who plays him "Mark Calaway".  I have no idea...--Jayron32| talk | contribs  21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment A rather hideous trivia section has been added as well. One Night In Hackney 303 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist The article is merely a rundown of the results of his wrestling matches, and since wrestling is kayfabe and fictional it should be written from an out of universe perspective. The citations just merely point to results so the citationing is inadequate, and also they need cleaning up with a citation template. LuciferMorgan 18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther
Delist 8-1; status quo

Request Relisting This article was summarily delisted by editor Slim Virgin without explanation and in spite of the fact that she has been an active editor on the page for at least a year. Request a relist and review here of its compliance with GA standards. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy RelistPending legitimate explanation, all speedy delistings are supposed to be accompanied by an explanation of why an article fails the Good Article criteria. If, as I suspect, this was delisted because there was an edit war, (Whom the delister is a participant in) I personally don't feel that an ongoing edit war that has only lasted maybe a few days or something concerning what appears to be a mere single sentence (If not the usage of a single fact tag )really counts as ongoing enough to mean an article should lose Good Article status. Yes, i'm being extremely subjective, but if all articles that ever have an edit war are delisted, then almost every single controversial article ever could be a GA maybe a few weeks tops before it would have to be delisted, irregardless of whether its truly Good or not. Homestarmy 00:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy relist per above. I notice that slimvirgin and hornplease have made many talk page edits there today, they've been feuding elsewhere as well. This article was caught in the middle. I'll relist myself tomorrow night pending no objections.-- Wizardman 02:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC) I'll look over this later, I voted in haste.-- Wizardman  04:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep delisted. User:CTSWyneken has acknowledged that he is employed by the Lutheran church to develop onlines resources about Luther, and that that includes Wikipedia. He wrote in June 2006: "Please realize that your statement concerning my employment could be read as a personal attack, which I assume you did not intend. For your information, in any case, my position is tasked with the generation of electronic resources, which does take in projects such as wikipedia." He therefore stands in a clear conflict of interest in relation to the Luther articles. He took ownership of Martin Luther a couple of years ago, and has done everything in his power to keep criticism out of it. He has edit warred, supported sockpuppets, supported one abusive editor who is now banned (another employee of the Lutheran church), used poor sources, denied the scholarship of academic sources, and generally filibustered on the talk page, wasting dozens of hours of people's time, until almost all sensible editors gave up and wandered off. As a result, he has been largely left to his own devices on this article, to its great detriment. It should never have been given good article status in the first place given this situation, which I suspect those who supported it were not aware of. SlimVirgin (talk)  03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep delisted per SlimVirgin. This article is the subject of a continual Thirty Years War that has just flared up again over the issue of Luther's attitude toward Jews and his role in anti-Semitism. I had thought that some kind of consensus had been reached, after thousands of words of wearisome discussion over a period of months. But noooooooooo........ here we go again! Another fight over issues that I had thought had been settled. The article simply is too prone to continual and repetitious bickering to allow itself the stability required of a Good Article. Also it needs to be pointed out that this is a flareup of a longstanding editing war. Homestarmy is not correct that this is just a minor scuffle over the past week. We are talking the same issues that many editors, myself included, fought over a year ago. --Mantanmoreland 03:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep delisted. I'm sure CTSWyneken is trying to do a good job, but the fact that he is employed by the Lutheran church to, in part, edit this article, has kept the article from becoming balanced. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, it's easy to end all this. I've been asking for a little cite for a couple points that are otherwise OR for almost a year.  Just find the cite.  Or remove the OR.A Musing 16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse delisting I am marginally troubled that the delisting was done without discussion by a person involved in the dispute, but ultimately SlimVirgin is right: The article is unstable, and thus fails a basic criteria of a good article. If a stable, neutral article can be done, it may be renominated, but for now it looks hopeless.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Good Article status supposed to be about the quality of the article and not who an editor is? If I am wrong on this, then Jayg, SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland all should be disqualified from voting on this, since they are the authors for a a substantial part of this article. Indeed, they, too, have taken ownership of the material relating to Luther and his comments on the Jews. If it is about the article, then perhaps someone can point out flaws in the article itself that disqualify it. I do not see anything about the article above. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this grotesquely unfair reference to myself. I have barely edited this article in recent months, though I did weigh in recently. To say that I "own" any part of this article just reflects on the bias and intransigence of this editor. Also I find it odd that you feel I shouldn't "vote" on this while you can.--Mantanmoreland 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we are not "authors for a substantial part of this article." We've been fighting you for 18 months, maybe longer, to keep in one short section that amounts to criticism, and that's just in one area. There may be many, many other areas of criticism that you're deliberately keeping out of the article. As I said above, the page needs to be reviewed by an independent scholar. You have taken ownership of the article and yet you have initiated this review; but we're not supposed to comment? There's the problem in a nutshell. As for the claim that no one has taken overall control of this article, CTSW (employed by the Lutheran church to develop online resources about Luther, including at Wikipedia) has made 878 edits; Drboisclair (employed by the Lutheran church) has made 615; Ptmccain (employed by the Lutheran church; now banned for personal attacks) has made 433. That is a total of 1,926 edits to the article made by people paid by the Lutheran church, and who have only ever edited in one direction. I'm next with 200 edits, most of them reverting CTSW's attempts to remove criticism. This is exactly the kind of conflict of interest we should be taking very seriously on Wikipedia. We're not here to promote the propaganda of any single institution via its paid employees. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Point of order here. I am not employed by the Lutheran Church to make edits here, and I am not employed by the Lutheran church period. Hey, I thought that we are all supposed to be anonymous here. I am a Luther scholar, and I have always tried to be as objective as possible in my edits. I have no problem with having an "independent" scholar being brought in to review this article. As far as I can see CTS and others have made use of non-Lutheran scholars to reference this article. What troubles me here is the bias against certain editors that is exhibited here. As far as editors claiming that their time has been wasted ... welcome to the club! I think that such a statement betrays a feeling of superiority over other editors. --Drboisclair 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I myself have been involved in a limited way with this article, CTSW once asked me for help over the type of content that is now being fought over in the article, I tried to help re-write a rather large chunk of the article for the purposes of making it shorter and less of a quote block in the anti-semitism section, and although it doesn't appear to me that anyone has taken absolute control of the article, my brief experience with this article was not amazingly productive, despite gaining a supermajority for part of one of my suggested re-writes, I was prevented from assisting, and not by CTSW or anyone on his side. My point overall is that this article's problems are certainly not being caused by just one side. On another note, the current edit war appears to be solely concerning the existance of like two fact tags at the moment. While of course it is indeed an edit war, it doesn't seem to be one which is actually making the article very unstable at all. Homestarmy 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When this is dealt with, it'll be something else. The point is that the Lutheran church has controlled this text. That is unacceptable. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that's a much more serious claim. The Bill Clinton article has largely been written from the Clinton library at Arkansas. Nobody's whining about it above. 'Controlled' is much stronger than alleging an individual conflict of interest in a particular editor. That they have revealed their affiliation is at least helpful for the rest of us. We've no way of knowing who else is being paid and how; to assume that anyone who voluntarily revealed affiliation of this nature is being 'controlled' is a very problematic assumption, and I recommend you reword your criticism. Hornplease 19:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a serious claim, and an accurate one. Look through the history of the article and the talk page archives, and you'll see the extent to which CTSW has absolutely controlled the POV, and yet has admitted that he is paid to develop this resource. This isn't just someone who is editing from the Clinton library; this is someone who is PAID to do it, which takes it up a level, and I don't see how it helps us that he admitted it. (He admitted it as part of a boast, in an effort to show that he knew about Luther and the rest of us didn't.) Please explain how it "helps" us. We still have to fight tooth and nail to get any criticism into the text, and bear in mind that I am talking only about one tiny area of Luther's work: there is likely to be a great deal of other material that he has left out that we don't even know about. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have looked through the archives as much as possible - I complained about how disorganised they were, actually. And according to the diff you listed, he says he is in a 'called position'. There is no indication that he admits to editing WP. In any case, if this is your concern, launch dipute resolution with this editor; in the absence of such efforts, I can't see any difference between a librarian at Concordia editing this page and "written by the Clinton museum'.Hornplease 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading CTSW's userpage right, his work for the Lutheran Church online appears to be limited to one particular online project that he's linked to. However, if the Lutheran Church really controls the article, they don't seem to feel like following through with the whole thing, the section concerning Islam doesn't even look like it was written by someone here, and looks compleatly unfinished. Homestarmy 19:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CTSW himself said that he is paid to develop online resources about Luther, including at Wikipedia. (I wouldn't have mentioned it in public had he not revealed it himself.) I didn't say the articles had been well-written, Homestarmy. I agree that they haven't been. I said that the POV has been controlled by the Lutheran church, and trying to insert any criticism at all has resulted in the most frustrating experience I have had on Wikipedia, which is saying something. This is exactly the opposite of what a GA or FA should be. There is no point in having our COI guideline if we're not going to take it seriously, and this is exactly the kind of situation it was developed to deal with. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from a different perspective. I was frankly surprised when this article became GA last August. The very same day, there was an edit war over the antisemitism and witchcraft sections, and there was an active discussion of the Catholic perspective running on the talk page. The antisemitism section has been shortened considerably, but this section is Summary style with two sub-articles so *perhaps* the content has been moved (and some paraphrases of Luther have been replaced by a long quote, which is arguably an improvement). The witchcraft and Catholic-related texts are gone, perhaps to shorten a long article, but gone nonetheless. In my opinion the article should not have been made GA in August, and knowing that a fair amount of content has been deleted, I would not support a GA status now without some explanation. Gimmetrow 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just looked up the Missouri Synod, which the three key editors of this article work for, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and it is apparently regarded as a fundamentalist branch even by the other Lutheran churches. It has often been in conflict with other Lutheran groups because it insists on conformity to "pure doctrine." (See "Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod," Encyclopaedia Britannica). Ideally, we need to find a completely independent scholar to review all the Lutheran articles to make sure we're not promoting idiosyncratic views. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To repeat: Who I am is supposed to be irrelvant to Wikipedia. What counts is the article itself, is it supported by verifiable sources and does it represent all major viewpoints.
 * Further, it is irrelevant to the GA process, other than as an active editor on this article, I should not participate in the process of deciding this. I have respected this process. SlimVirgin has not. That is why I requested the review. I would hope such a promenent editor would do the same.
 * Finally, I am open about who I am precisely because it helps folks to know where I've come from. It is at a personal risk that I do so, since one editor has used it to try to attack my public reputation in my real world life. I do not get paid in any sense to write Wikipedia articles. I'm a called clergyman which means that my role is 24/7/365. My role at the seminary is as a librarian charged, in general, with creating electronic resources, helping students find resources and use them. What all this means as far as Wikipedia is concerned is I sometimes use seminary resources to work on Wikipedia articles. I suspect the same is true of many wikipedians.
 * Does this mean that I own or control the Martin Luther article or any other? Hardly. In many places, it would sound quite different if it did. Indeed, altohugh much of the article is my work, much of it is not. Anyone who cares to check the article history will immediately see this is true. The real question if this is a problem is whether an editor should avoid every subject for which the person has an interest and some expertise.
 * Finally, since the basio text of the section in question was authored by SlimVirgin, I think she protests too much. Indeed, all I've done recently is back up other editors who wished to make these changes. Again, if someone cares to check, they will see this is the case also.
 * Now, may I suggest someone actually review the article and stop attacking my religion? --CTS Wyneken (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is attacking your religion, so please drop that straw-man argument. What is being criticized is your control over this article despite the fact that you are employed by the church to develop online resources about Luther. You are simply ignoring WP:COI. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:COI has nothing to do with GA status, if somebody has a conflict of interest with an article yet the article fulfills the Good Article criteria, I really don't see what the problem is. Besides questionable stability, what specific things make this article non-neutral? In my time trying to help out, all I got to see mostly was the Anti-semitism section, so I don't know if there's actually something legitimate being left out or not. Homestarmy 00:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One example I've given on the talk page is that he was famous for his very coarse language. This has been repeatedly removed by CTSW and the others, yet it is one of the traits that was very distinctive about Luther. As for COI, it is, of course, relevant that the content has been controlled by an employee of the church, and by a known fundamentalist branch of it. It means we can't trust the neutrality and we can't trust that the coverage is comprehensive. Ironically, they have made Luther must less interesting as a result. He was a fascinating figure; our article paints rather a bland picture. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CTSW above says "I do not get paid in any sense to write Wikipedia articles." Given that, he is merely a Lutheran seminarian who edits this encyclopaedia. Judging by previous RfArbs, I think the community tolerates the presence of religious adherents as editors on the articles of the founders of their church. (In the context, there, of various NRMs.) I rather think that CTSW's status as a seminarian and librarian is relatively unimportant here. In particular, I have not heard a withdrawal of the allegation "the Lutheran church has controlled this text." Hornplease 00:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears that the article is now indeed far too unstable to be a GA at present, though it appears to mostly be due to Slimvirgin's recent edits, which are even now being disputed on the talk page. However, knowing how these types of wars can pan out, the net effect at the end of the review may result in very little changing, so I won't vote to keep delisted just yet. Homestarmy 02:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it has become unstable again because of CTSW's attempts again to dilute the criticism, and other people's response to that. I'm now trying to restore some of the material that I see CTSW has been quietly removing over the last few months. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it is obvious from above that SlimVirgin has her own point of view and agenda, thus all that she accuses me and others of doing she is now doing -- once again. I'm inclined to believe that she's determined the article will never long achieve any recognition. No matter, This conversation is fruitless. I'll will no longer reply to her here. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk)  10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Example of the problem: I'm leaving this here for future reference in case this article comes up again. One of the Missouri Synod editors added this description of Luther's final sermon to Martin Luther and the Jews:

The sermon actually reads:

This is the kind of distortion the Luther articles have seen, and it's why they can't be trusted to be accurate and neutral. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely they must be thinking of a different sermon? The interpretation you say is in that article now would be an outright lie otherwise. However, I don't see how that's quite Germane to the Martin Luther article specifically.... Homestarmy 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There was only one last sermon, and yes, as things stand, it doesn't look honest; that's why it's germane to the Martin Luther article. It's the same people who wrote both. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, SlimVirgin won't let things be. She uses Missouri Synod Lutherans as a perjoritive; No one would tolerate saying "the blacks keep..."), quote a portion of a translation of Luther's last sermon and tries to pass it off as the whole sermon, gives an inverted page range that is not referencing this sermon at all, but a commentary on Psalm 101. She then does not tell us who produced the translation and then states words quoted and cited by the Missouri Synod itself are not present in the sermon. For those who care, the portion quoted above as if it were falsified is from Siemon-Netto, Uwe, "Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Witness 123 (2004) No. 4:18. I and others have taken her at her word that her quotation is accurate, she should do the same for us. Now, if she will just stop leveling charges, I'll go away. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This second translation is just as biased as the first in that it omits the first quotation, which would show a more balanced presentation.--Drboisclair 04:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not compound what you've done. No matter which translation you choose, they all give the opposite impression to the sentence you took out of context and presented as an accurate summary. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure about the de-listing, I will have to think about it some more. However, using CTSWyneken's church membership and profession as a reason to de-list seem out of line. I come from the "other" lutheran denomination (ELCA, the more "liberal" of the larger Lutheran churches), and I have never found CTS to be anything other than cooperative and friendly, and I have never found our personal theological differences to be a problem on wikipedia. Further, his profession - as a librarian at a Lutheran seminary - gives CTS access to a unique set of resources that would otherwise be unavailable for building the encyclopedia. Pastordavid 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and if he would use them in an intellectually forthright and transparent manner, regardless of POV, it would be wonderful, but he doesn't. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not using Missouri Synod Lutherans as a pejorative term; for the 1000th time, my objection is that you (CTSW) are paid by them to create online resources about Luther, that you edit in a highly POV fashion, that you never write for the enemy, and that you actively obstruct editors who are trying to add anything you perceive as critical of Luther.


 * As you don't like the primary-source material for the final sermon, here are secondary sources (the quote below from Luther is also from a secondary source):




 * The first insertion of the misleading description of this sermon that I can find is in Martin Luther (it was later moved to Martin Luther and the Jews). It was added by User:Drboisclair, one of the editors who edits with CTSW, at  12:31 Nov 3 2005. He wrote:




 * This is a very misleading summary, because that was not all that Luther said by a long chalk. You have seen this summary of the sermon in the article many times in the last 18 months, and yet you didn't change it, didn't alert us to its one-sidedness. It is because of issues like that that I object to this article being given GA status. We have no idea whether there other similar issues in it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse delist. SlimVirgin's points make sense to me; specifically the GA criteria that are at issue are 3a, broadness, and 4, neutrality.  It would be very difficult for an editor not familiar with the topic to review this and be sure it meets these criteria, given the concerns SV has raised.  I would like to see an expert review this, and I would think there are editors who have the skills -- perhaps someone from one of the Christian WikiProjects?  There's one on Catholicism, for example. Mike Christie (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment These edits were just carried out on the article  As you can see, a significant distortion was corrected. The culpability for this serious error is beside the point for this discussion. Suffice to say that there is no way of knowing how many other errors there are in this article. In light of this, I think this discussion should be brought to a close. I don't see how this article can possibly be considered for Good Article status until it is vetted by an independent, unbiased scholar.--Mantanmoreland 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As is quite clear by now, the Martin Luther article has been steadily "cleansed" of negative information about Luther; the people responsible are still pretending that they haven't been doing this, or that their misrepresentations of Luther's words were entirely innocent. Look at what happened just today; as soon as the section on Luther's beliefs in witchcraft were restored, apologia (include original research) were inserted into the section. Within hours of inserting a more accurate view of Luther's last sermon, it is deleted because it has suddenly become "irrelevant" and "out of place". It is obvious that as long as this article continues to be whitewashed it cannot become a "Good Article". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist, per the article's current instability. That said, I find the delisting by S to be in bad faith, and a number of the comments made here about regular contributors cross the line of civility.  I find it interesting that outside commentators have said that this article really needs the eye of someone with expertise in this area - yet that is exactly who has been working on it.  The only person you will find in this area with more expertise in this field of study is someone who has a PhD and wrote his or her dissertation on Luther -- and by the standards being applied here, that person would have too much of a COI to edit the article as well.  This is an excellent example of why people with high levels of expertise feel pushed out of the project.  Pastordavid 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * DELIST I believe the way this article was delisted was inappropriate and agree with pastordave---the Slim's delisting of the article crossed the line in delisting an article in which slim was actively involved. Having said that, the discussion here is enough to warrant it's being delisted.Balloonman 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville, Florida
Delist 6-0

Nomination for delisting: This article has almost no references, and an extremely poorly written lead section. Delist Zeus1234 06:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist The lead isn't extremely poorly written, really. The quality of the prose is up to GA standards.  HOWEVER, the lead does NOT adequately summarize all parts of the article, and that is a problem.  A bigger problem is the referencing issues.  The article is almost entirely unreferenced.  There are some  tags here or there.  Some imbedded external links masquerading as footnotes.  A few genuine inline citations, but FAR too few.  Really, this article is LONG way from GA standards of referencing, and is so far off I am not sure that this is an easy fix.  The following images ALL have problems as well: The Library Logo and Newspaper Logos do NOT have adequate fair-use rationales.  The Downtown Panorama was created in 1910; it is not unreasonable to believe that its creator lived until 1938 or later, meaning that the picture would NOT be in the public domain.  Additionally, the current tag on that article is ONLY valid in the US, and as wikipedia is a multinational entity, a more inclusive tag is needed.  The Gaumont Studios picture has the exact same problem.  Those should be enough reasons to delist ASAP, wouldn't you say?--Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist None of the general references at the bottom could possibly hope to cover the massive amounts of unreferenced material in this article, as by their titles, they all appear rather specific in nature. This is certainly not well-referenced. Fair Use violations would also probably constitute grounds for speedy delisting, not being well-referenced is one thing, possibly breaking the law is quite another. Homestarmy 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - needs references, references, references. NRHP, sports, architecture, development, etc etc.  ChicagoPimp 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per all above. Lara Love  Talk / Contribs  17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist Lack of references, copyrighted images do not have fair use rationales. --Nehrams2020 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Terry Wogan
Delist 3-0 with WP:SNOWBALL invoked

This is a recently passed GA, which I feel falls short of standard. Whole patches of text are uncited, the cites have no retrieval dates etc. (they should use a cite template), it's stubby in places, and the lead is inadequate - the article falls well short of the criteria, and it's shameful this was passed. Delist. LuciferMorgan 08:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist: per nom. Ugh. IvoShandor 08:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist: per nomination. Zeus1234 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)