Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13

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.

Florida East Coast Railway

 * Result: 3 to 0, Delist

Warned 5 weeks ago by me regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delist Sumoeagle179 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist, all three of these articles have not improved since they were notified of their status. Teemu08 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool and Manchester Railway

 * Result: 3 to 0, Delist

Warned 5 weeks ago by me regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delist Sumoeagle179 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist, all three of these articles have not improved since they were notified of their status. Teemu08 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Van Halen

 * Result: 6 to 0, Delist

I continue my cleansing of band articles unworthy of GA status by submitting this one for review. It fails 2a, 2b, 3b, 4a and 6c. Teemu08 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * sections "(2000-2004) Four years of silence" and "(Dec 2005 - Present) The Future of Van Halen" are almost entirely a list.
 * the whole discography part of the article needs to be broken off.
 * sections "Influence on culture, music and business" and "(1985-1996) with Sammy Hagar ("Van Hagar")" are completely uncited, and two of the other sections (including David Lee Roth years) only have 2 citations. Info in this section has POV tendencies (Van Halen pioneered the way for the modern "Rock and Roll Show")
 * many external link jumps in the article.
 * external link farm at the end.
 * a trivia section seems to be forming at the end of "Notes".
 * Logo needs fair use rationale (and, frankly, a reason for randomly placing it where it is).
 * Excessive use of copyrighted images, two of which lack fair use rationales.
 * Yeesh, this looks bad. Certainly Delist, and if anyone who wants to read this would support it, I think we should do a special sweep of just band articles, all in all, it looks like we got alot of bad articles on the list about bands at some point or another. Homestarmy 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, its probably like that in every category, not just music. Teemu08
 * I dunno, there's just been so many music articles up here lately, and almost every single one of them reads exactly the same drama-inducing way, I think this is a pattern limited to just most music articles. Homestarmy 15:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist One of the worst GA's I've seen. M3tal H3ad 02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist Somebody needs to clean this one. LuciferMorgan 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Delist Hey, an article this shabby would never be considered a GA if it wasn't one. I cannot see why this article is still considered a GA, because it surely ain't one anymore. --Tirolion 08:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ew, delist.-- Wizardman 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object to me snowing this? Homestarmy 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like Teemu08, who nominated the article for review, to vote first. Thus far he's only nominated this article for review, but hasn't voted. Once his vote has been cast, I wouldn't object to snowballing. LuciferMorgan 03:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he specifically said "It fails 2a, 2b, 3b, 4a and 6c", that sounds like a vote to delist to me. Homestarmy 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, delist per above. Teemu08 20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 6 removes compared to zero keeps is rather comprehensive. Remove it now I reckon. LuciferMorgan 22:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas College, Perth

 * Result: 3 to 1 to delist, it was speedy delisted by Orderinchaos it seems anyway

I don't agree with the GA pass at all, and I have listed my objections on the talk page. In my opinion these points should be improved before the article can be assessed as a good article. Considering the length of the list, I would like to give the authors at least 7 days to improve the article, if it does not have all attributes of a good article, I would like to see the article to be assessed as B-class again. - Ilse@ 04:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The user that passed the article has passed 8 more good article nominees and has a total of just 27 edits, this leaves me wondering... - Ilse@ 04:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the article was still under GA review and several key issues had not been addressed (and this has been under some discussion for a while), I have reverted the GA stamp on this article per WP:BOLD. In my view it's not a situation of unrating, but more a situation that it should still be considered a GAC and that process is still active. If I have acted incorrectly, I would not object to another independent Wikipedian reverting my change and subjecting the article to GAR instead. Orderinchaos78 12:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the passer does give relatively unhelpful pass notes, it doesn't look like he's doing it just randomly or anything. But putting it back up for another review doesn't seem that much of a problem to me, I mean, it was pretty unhelpful the first time :/. Homestarmy 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delist lousy ref status alone is enough to delist. 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maniots

 * Result: Err, wait a minute, this should of at least been a candidate first...

I just finished re-writing this article on the people of Mani. It contains a detailed history section as well as ethnology and culture section. I would like to know if this article could become GA and if not what it needs tp become GA. Thanks. Kyriakos 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, why not nominate it as a candidate first? :/ Homestarmy 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kyriakos: nominate it and we'll tell you. / Fred-Chess 15:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen (band)

 * Result: 2 to 0, delist

As long as I'm at it, here's another one. Fails 2a, 2b, 2d, 4a, and 6c. Teemu08 20:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "History of Queen", "Live performances", "In the digital realm", "In film and television", and "Logo" are completely uncited. "In musical theatre" only has one.
 * "Historical success" (which is a POV title) is mostly a series of lists. It also has a fact tag and an external jump.
 * "Influence on other musicians" is mostly uncited, and the fourth paragraph is mostly a list.
 * Quotes section needs to be incorporated into influence section.
 * Citations are not properly formatted.
 * "The Official International Queen Fan Club" should probably be removed or branched off into its own article.
 * External link farm at the end.
 * Queen II album cover and band logo need fair use rationale.
 * Aye, Delist. Homestarmy 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War

 * Result: 5 to 1, snowy Keep

I don't agree with a fail GA and I want someone else's opinion. Kyriakos 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could someone please take a look? Kyriakos 12:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Without judging the article itself, I must say the reviewer gave a scarce reason for failing it. / Fred-Chess 22:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the prose is actually compelling, and that's a rare and very welcome sight. No complaints. Pass as GA / Fred-Chess 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it just needs a copyedit. Pass as GA, no problems with the article.-- Wizardman 16:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reviewer should have cited a few examples of the language issues he mentioned. Contact him and ask. Let us know results. Rlevse 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pass article meets all of the criteria for GA. Teemu08 21:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pass I think it's fine. the person who failed it should have listed vice summarily delisting.Sumoeagle179 13:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone mind if I archive this early as pass, as per the request on the talk page? The outcome appears a bit...obvious :). Homestarmy 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pass. First failure was controversial IMO and second failure was not properly justified.--Yannismarou 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Homestarmy: sure go ahead. / Fred-Chess 23:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield 2

 * Result: 4 to 0, Delist

The article has become inflated since its review in May 2006. From my perspective, the article now contains too much in-depth content against WP:NOT, lists too many things that are unhelpful to readers, and contains some elements of WP:OR in some of the online strategies. The inclusion of both booster packs is making the article look too cluttered. --Scottie theNerd 09:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have to agree that the article is now bloated with non-significant information about Battlefield 2. My main concern is the Gameplay section- Infantry class article. I'll try to condense it this weekend if time permits.--BirdKr 15:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The booster pack sections read almost like ads, they aren't really trying to advertise the product per se, but the way they list the "features" and of course the "....can find it in most stores for 20$" part makes me suspicious. But yes, this seems far too long and in-depth, Delist. Homestarmy 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BirdKr's edits to the infantry classes were a good quick fix. The article still looks too bloated for it to be digestible to a reader though. --Scottie theNerd 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist. per above and inconsistent and nonstandard ref formatting.Rlevse 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)...ref 4 is in the middle of a sentence, B.F.2.S. website is an external jump, not an inline citation, entire sections don't have a ref, ref 13 is not spaced properly, as for nonstandard and inconsistent-compare how footnote 1 looks now compared to the others and you'll see.Rlevse 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * DelistAs i have mentioned on the discussion page for this article, it definately breaks WP:NOT . Mattyatty 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Georg von Boeselager

 * Result: 3 to 0, delist

This article needs cleanup and in my opinion can still be more comprehensive. Anyone else see anymore problems? Tarret 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist. needs major work.Rlevse 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist. per Rlevse.Sumoeagle179 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sociology

 * result: Delist 5-0

I was suprised to see it had some projects A-class assessments. I think it is barely GA - it has no inline citatins, for starters. I am not sure if the proper GA procedure was followed in the first place (I can't find GA discussion or reviewer comments). What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget inline citations, its not well-referenced period. A subject this wide-reaching should have plenty of references out there, yet I only see three at the bottom and a few hyperlinks in the body just apparently attributing some works of people. The spam thing at the bottom also doesn't look good. Delist . Homestarmy 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist. not even close.Rlevse 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - I cannot find any record of this article actually passing a GA nomination; this is causing me to raise questions of GA fraud :) delist immediately, and register for cleanup...somebody needs to sort this out, especially the references section! Regards, Anthony  cfc  [ T &bull; C] 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a fraud, many old articles don't have a review somewhere recent because they were passed back when you could just stamp the tag on any articles you thought were good. This was a pretty long time ago, like more than a year, the GA system wasn't really defined very well yet. Most of the articles probably don't pass today, but I think at least a few train articles probably still do. Homestarmy 22:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gflores added the GA tag on January 23 2006 . Was the nomination procedure in force at the time? Hbdragon88 02:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, that sounds a few months too early. We might of had a preliminary candidates page, but the candidates page was optional at first, for articles that people might not be sure about or something. Homestarmy 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delist Sumoeagle179 21:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delist Huge sections go uncited, and has one of those vague 'Further reading' sections. The JPS talk to me  18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a 6 to 0 vote so far, anyone think this might be a WP:SNOW situation? Homestarmy 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

M.I.A.

 * result:Delist 4-0

Fails criteria 4: phrases like "lush music video", "an innovative recipe", and "who had furnished her so successfully" contribute little to content of the article and raise questions about POV. It also fails criteria 6(c): there are three images used with no source given. —ShadowHalo 07:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another article which seems to of been written by music critics, and the image tagging thing is a problem too, Delist. Homestarmy 13:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * delist Rlevse 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above, trivia section, lead should be two paragraphs. M3tal H3ad 07:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. LuciferMorgan 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

 * result:Delist 4-1

Badly fails criteria 2a: only 3 inline cites in the entire article excluding the trivia section that should be removed per WP:TRIVIA. In September '06, a user posted a message on the page saying that the article needed to be cited, but apparently didn't return. Also, the lead is pretty short considering he's one of the most influential guitarists of all time, too many EL's that don't link to official sites, and a pair of images lack fair use rationales. Teemu08 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though the second image does cite the source at least. Delist. Homestarmy 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Insufficient citations - delist. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist as per above. Tarret 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article's certainly well-written, but the lack of citations in the main article is cause for a delist. -- Wizardman 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delist Trivia section, heaps of one sentence 'paragraphs' lead should be 3 paragraphs, lack of citations and some aren't formatted properly, dates aren't formatted properly. This article is at FAC at the moment and has 7 objects ;\. M3tal H3ad 08:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RE-EVALUTE ARTICLE I have personally added over 20 citations since the last review and will continually be adding more (it now has over 30 citations) and the images have all been given fair use rationale or have the proper copyright tags. Please don't remove because my recent work negates most of these complaints and it should be re-judged. Thank you so much. - Patman2648 07:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then, let's look at a small example of how the article is written: "Although Cream was hailed as one of the greatest groups of its day, and the adulation of Clapton as guitar hero reached new heights, the band was destined to be short-lived.". Hailed by whom, adulated by whom, where is the cite for the vast consensus of sources referring to him a "guitar hero" specifically, (as that would be the only likely justification for this POV) what does "new heights" mean in encyclopedic terms, and why is the word destined used when a more neutral and less dramatic word could be used? I maintain my delist vote, the area of the article this one sentence is in has large problems with WP:WEASEL like this and dramatic language. Homestarmy 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweden

 * result: delist 4-1

As much as I have contributed to this article (I am the main contributor ), I do not believe it adheres to the GA criterias. I think it became listed at some time because it contains a lot of interesting information and nice images, but it probably doesn't conform with the current GA requirements. Everyone is adding his/hers bits and the article is a mosaic of generally unsourced information, trivias and list-like sections. / Fred-Chess 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delist Fails meerly on the cite needed tags and it is undereferenced.Rlevse 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it only fitting I let this line from the article be seen: "ABBA is without a doubt the most well-known popular music group from Sweden, and the only one that ranks among the most well-known in the world". Well, there's something else "without a doubt" here to me thanks to that music section, namely, that this article should be Delisted. Homestarmy 22:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have changed my mind. Keep. It covers its topic sufficiently, and with the revision of criteria 2b, inline citations aren't required anymore. Some cleanup is necessary, but I think it should be a comparatively minor issue. / Fred-Chess 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delist The "Culture" section alone would justify its removal. No citations, and most of the section is only music. Way too many unreferenced and poorly referenced sections in this article. Teemu08 06:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delist refs are a mess and there are not enough for this size article.Rlevse 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Blair Witch Project

 * result:Delist 3-1

Despite having adequate references, this article should be temporarily removed from the list. The "popular culture" section might need to go or be merged, and there is one fact tag near the end of the article. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist I wouldn't delist an article because it has a lone fact tag but this article has a pop culture section which reads like a trivia section. Tarret 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * delistrefs don't go in the middle of a sentence either. Pop Culture needs fixed or removed.Rlevse 14:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the pop culture section Jaranda wat's sup 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep GA Status - the article is acceptable as a GA article, though only just. Work is needed, but so far good progress. Delisting would not be appropiate. Regards, Anthony  cfc  [ T &bull; C] 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist The DVD section section is careless. "Does not exploit..." Does one review really deserve such emphasis? What about what the DVD does have? What are these extras? I'm not convinced about Image:Blairwitchcast.jpg either. The JPS talk to me  18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics

 * result:Delist 4-0

Article has some striking problems. For one thing, citations are too sparse and scattere around; at least every paragraph should have one citation. This article has an ActiveDiscuss and a unreferenced tag, as well as several fact tags, which indicates that it's going through active changes (fails #5) and everything isn't verified (#2c). Issues not fixed after six days. Hbdragon88 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this, an article on an MMORPG? "Special abilities may only appear after many generations down the road in a very different environment". The intro also doesn't attribute the opinions it espouses, Delist. Homestarmy 02:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist. has neutrality and cite needed tags.Sumoeagle179 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist. per Sumoeagle179. Rlevse 16:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above Teemu08 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops-Leon

 * result:Remain as Failed GA (nomination withdrawn)

This article failed its GA nomination with this comment from User:Wizardman: "I failed the GA since I felt there just wasn't enough content in the article. I know there can't be too much expansion, but it needs more than that." As best I can tell, he is asserting that it failed criterion 3(a): "it addresses all major aspects of the topic." Honestly, I think this article does meet the criterion&mdash;I could make it much longer by going on about the historical context, but frankly my selection of which aspects of "historical context" were relevant would border on original research, and anyway that stuff is all found in other physics articles (many of which have been linked, where appropriate). I had previously understood that WP:GA was designed to include short articles, of limited scope, which would simply never work as featured articles; in this spirit, I nominated Oops-Leon because I thought it was developed as it really could be. I'd like to ask either for (1) a reconsideration of the GA status of the article, (2) a clearer explanation of minimum length/content requirements for GA, or (3) concrete suggestions on "major aspects of the topic" that don't appear in the article. Thanks very much. -- SCZenz 18:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * not GA This is barely a stub. Footnotes go after punctuation too.Rlevse 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That comment is not helpful; as I said above, it is a thorough development of a very narow topic. On what basis do you claim it is "barely a stub"?  What is missing? -- SCZenz 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the footnotes are after the punctuation... unless I'm missing something? -- SCZenz 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject_Scouting/Assessment, while the page is specific to Scouting, the article levels (stub, etc) are not. Also see How to write a great article and [{Wikipedia:Manual of Style]].Rlevse 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the article assesment categories, thank you. I do not believe that this article even vaguely resembles a stub... See Stub: "Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub."  The point is, whether something is a stub or not is a function of what content it has and what content it should have, not just a function of length.  Short articles on narrow topics may, in some cases, be complete.  I believe this is such a case.  Now can you please turn off your "look for 5 seconds and give a stock answer" mode, and give concrete information on what ought to be present that is not? -- SCZenz 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose GA Way too short, it doesn't even have a table of contents. If you can't expand it further then this article should'nt be put up for GA. M3tal H3ad 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where in What is a good article? is there a minimum length requirement? There was a time when the whole point of GA was to label well-written articles that, for one reason or another, couldn't be featured... for example, because the topic can't be developed to featured length&mdash;has that changed? -- SCZenz 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article has no intro section. LuciferMorgan 14:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's short, it doesn't need one. -- SCZenz 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support GA regarding length. IMHO any real article, regardless of size, is GA eligible. However, it doesn't satisfy critera 1 for me -- I don't understand what it is about. Not even the first sentence. / Fred-Chess 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Does length matter? No, as long as it's well-written and done properly. However, I could not figure out what the article was about all that, so it does in fact fail criteria one (it should be written so someone with no knowledge of the term understands it well after reading it). The reference problem can be easily fixed though. If you can rewrite it I'll reconsider.-- Wizardman 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What reference problem? -- SCZenz 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This ref problem. They must be put after punctuation. I can do that now though, since it's no big deal.-- Wizardman 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed it myself, so nevermind.-- Wizardman 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what is meant by Footnotes: "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers." --NE2 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I second NE2's comment. I placed the footnotes after the fact of sentence I was citing, and nothing that you've linked to says this is wrong. "Footnotes come after punctuation" only means that if the footnote happens to be next to punctuation, the footnote is second: "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence; footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation, without a space" [emphasis mine].  The place you moved the footnotes to happens also to be OK, so if people like it better we can keep it&mdash;but I think I deserve an explanation in words of what rule I was breaking. -- SCZenz 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to fix what you saw as the problem, though. This being a wiki, that's often a better way than just linking a rule. :)  -- SCZenz 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at this article, it has three paragraphs. That's enough material to turn it into three sections with the equals sign thing, which certainly would help with that "Look how tiny and without sections it is, must be a stub!" impression I think most editors get with articles like this. Homestarmy 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Sections ought to be multiple paragraphs each; a three-paragraph article doesn't need them.  The "impression" that people get from looking at an article for 5-seconds is not relevant; people who don't take the time to evaluate content should not be contributing to the GA process. -- SCZenz 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it for Kanab Ambersnail, and the results appear to have been favorable. Sections ought to be multiple paragraphs each when the topics of each section actually have multiple paragraphs in them, there's no law against sections with only one or two small paragraphs, and even if there was, WP:IAR would certainly have a debatable application here. Homestarmy 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When you ignore rules, you need to use common sense. My common sense tells me that having a subsection for every small paragraph is a greater evil than not having a table of contents. -- SCZenz 12:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I checked with a preview, and having the two bottom paragraphs under section headers doesn't generate a ToC. Dunno why it would need a ToC necessarily though anyway.... Homestarmy 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You need more than 2 headers to generate a TOC, I think. Anyway, I think my last comment is equally valid with "not having a table of contents" replaced by "not having a lead and subject headings," which is the real point I was trying to make. -- SCZenz 12:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's start over
Look here at the text from the infroduction on Good articles:
 * About 0.1% of Wikipedia articles are Featured Articles, which have been thoroughly reviewed and designated as the very best of Wikipedia. However, there are also many articles containing excellent content but which have not yet reached Featured article standards or are unlikely at present to become featured due to very short length. So long as they meet certain quality standards and have passed through the Good Article nomination process, they may be listed as Good articles.

See that part about "unlikely at present to become featured due to very short length"...? That's one of the reasons good articles exist, at least according to the GA page. Now, all the feedback I've gotten so far on Oops-Leon has been variants on "it's too short" or "not enough content"... but I don't think (as a subject expert) that the article can be expanded very much, which means it can be good regardless of length. If you have ideas for expansion, please let me know... But in any case, can we please start the review over according to the standards posted by the community at Good articles and What is a good article...? Thanks, SCZenz 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a holdover from earlier times with GA, the focus officially was only to grade short articles which would never become FA's, (There's a few articles about distant stars I think) but we just kept grading any article :/. However, I thought we had changed that wording to make the focus shift away from short articles, i'm pretty sure we discussed it....The problem I think with Oops-Leon is that the criteria were once again changed, (and I don't like it either, but the alternative suggestion was even worse) so that although at first I would be quick to dismiss that article for having no lead, as there are no sections, so logically there can't be a lead, its ambiguous now that the sections thing was changed. Homestarmy 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response; this is at least moving things in the right direction. I hope you can appreciate that this situation is somewhat off-putting to outsiders; if WP:GA says that short articles are allowable, then they should be allowable, or at least I should have gotten a reasonable explanation earlier instead of brief and derisive comments like "barely even a stub."  I have both consistency and civility concerns regarding this review... do you think that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles is the right place to bring those up? -- SCZenz 20:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I see no ambiguity regarding leads. From What is a good article? 1(b): "where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles)" [emphasis mine].  And 1(c): "it follows the Article lead guideline (unless it is too short to have a lead)" [emphasis mine].  Can anyone point to a reason why I've been repeatedly told there isn't enough content, when there's no requirement for any such thing? -- SCZenz 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is though, when the "short articles" thing was more the status quo, it didn't mean "short" as in about 4 or 5 short paragraphs, it meant short as in the whole article could fit on maybe a screen and a half at most, including refs and pictures and all, and there was just a very short lead with maybe one or two sections concerning every last bit of verifiable information there was on the subject. The ambiguity isn't literally in that criteria you mention, the ambiguity comes when that line was recently changed, (with rather little discussion honestly, as your article proves, it can have a big impact that I don't think many people realize) where before there was no "where appropriate" line. Homestarmy 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the problem is that WP:GA is afflicted with bureuacracy where common sense could be used instead. Obviously short articles that don't need leads oughtn't to be required to have leads.  The initial reviewers gave stock answers rather than thinking about the content.  That's bad. -- SCZenz 22:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, making sensible edits to pages doesn't require discussion beforehand&mdash;this is a wiki. Your note that the changes were made "with rather little discussion" is therefore irrelevant. -- SCZenz 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like alot of the more recent rules or stipulations either, but i'm afraid i'm not very bold when it comes to arguing with people over GA, and not many people seem to chime in to the GA, Candidate, or WIAGA talk pages when there's something serious to discuss about rules, and over time there's been instruction creep. The weird waiting times is a good example, originally we were supposed to be clarifying how somebody should go about submitting a GA/R, and then someone tacked on the wait timer thing to immediete delistings, (which wasn't really necessary) and I was the only person to protest :/. The line in that criteria being changed was sort of similar, I think the only people who discussed it were me, Seraph, and Fred.....But that's why I think you're seeing some "stock answers", its because that criteria was the same for a very long time and after maybe one or two days of discussion it was changed with maybe just three people realizing it. If the criteria hadn't of been changed, I would of given Oops Leon the stock answer myself. But of course, if you think this all compleatly irrelevant, then I have no highly valid way of agreeing with you against instruction creep, as this is an instrumental part of my primary argument. Homestarmy 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why people wouldn't expect the pages to be edited until they made sense... that is, if a stated goal of WP:GA is to recognize short articles (and it is!) why would you ever refer to a guideline that contradicted that stated goal? Instead, you would change it.  -- SCZenz 22:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The criteria did make sense before, someone only would need to look at Oops leon, go "Hey, this has no lead!" and fail it. When it meant short at first, I don't think it ever meant this short.... Homestarmy 22:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, it appears to me that what it meant was "as short or long as appropriate for the subject." Any kind of strict paragraph count would be silly... and the reason I am objecting here is that nobody has yet been willing/able to provide me with concrete information on what content is missing.  If there's no content missing, then common sense says the article is long enough. -- SCZenz 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As i've been trying to say, the "where appropriate" text was added in very recently. As far as I know, it has never been in the lead criteria ever before. No strict paragraph counts were necessary, if there were no sections, there couldn't be a lead section. Homestarmy 22:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why was the lead requirement instituted in the first place, despite the stated goal of WP:GA to include short articles? Why did nobody notice this?  Why did no one fixed it?  And why is everyone so surprised when it was fixed?  It seems to me like you, and some others, have a tendency here to miss the forest for the trees: you hold the text on WP:WIAGA sacred, but sometimes for get the goals of WP:GA itself.  This is not good for users trying to navigate the many pages on the Good Article process; if I weren't both experienced and rather assertive, I would now be completely stumped. -- SCZenz 15:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the short articles we normally found were split into visible sections, generally due to their high quality and clear categorization of ideas, even when there wasn't much content in the ideas. Everything else was pretty much a stub. WP:LEAD refers to a lead as the part before the very first heading, which is implemented as "Headings are used to divide an article into sections.", and goes on to discuss that the double equals sign thing forms a heading. This article seems to have clear categorization of ideas in its three paragraphs, but with no headings at all, it has no lead by MoS standards. Homestarmy 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As with Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) below, you seem to be hung up on bureaucracy. To me the article seems short enough to not need sections; adding sections would not be an improvement. --NE2 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I pointed out that that article didn't seem like a WP:LIST thing because it looks like it falls under WP:TABLE, which isn't in the criteria at all. Homestarmy 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had you confused with someone else... but the point still holds; you need to look at it not from a "what do our policies say" perspective but from a "what makes sense" perspective. --NE2 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant of length, the first paragraph has zero citations. LuciferMorgan 08:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because every single statement in the first paragraph is backed up by the citations in the subsequent paragraphs. Is that wrong? -- SCZenz 12:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think the last sentence of the first paragraph actually did need to be cited. I did this&mdash;did I do it right?  (In particular, the same source appears twice... should it be written in its entirety both times?)  -- SCZenz 12:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can use the ref=name thing for the twice citing thing. Homestarmy 13:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensibility
I appreciate Wizardman's and Fred's comments that they can't understand the article. This is obviously a valid concern. The question is... what to do about it? This article is on professional work in particle physics, and it is certainly based on some technical knowledge. This knowledge includes the ideas such as: subatomic particle, particle accelerator, invariant mass, resonance, and lepton. All of these terms (which depend on further concepts like magnetic fields, momentum, conservation of energy, and special relativity) are linked from the article, as "technical jargon" in complaince with requirement 1. So now I have two questions: If the answer to the second question is yes, the article will become many times longer, and repeat many facts that are available in other places on Wikipedia. These explanations would have to be repeated in every good particle physics article as well. Is this really what's required, and what people want? -- SCZenz 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Are there other concepts that are difficult to understand in the article than the ones I'm aware of and have linked?
 * 2) Does the article need to explain all of these concepts so that it can be read by a layperson without clicking links?


 * It might be good to add a sentence to the beginning, like "Oops-Leon is the name given by particle physicists to what was thought to be a new subatomic particle "discovered" at Fermilab in 1976." And then go into the more jargony stuff.
 * Well, the lead paragraph certainly looks a lot better now. I'm willing to call it a good article now.-- Wizardman 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea, thank you. I rewrote the entire 1st paragraph with that sentence as a starting point.  How's it look now? -- SCZenz 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose GA - since the article is so short, and since some people have been confused by the article, there is plenty of room to provide more background on things like the meaning of sub-atomic particle. Pehaps in a "background" section which explains who scientists look for these particles. If that is done (and reasonably well of course) then I will support. Johntex\talk 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you want every article on particle physics to explain the purpose and procedures of an entire field of science? That's an honest question.  -- SCZenz 15:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The GA criteria says "necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided." - technically, the article may fulfill this, since there are wikilinks. However, given that there is sufficient space to do so, the reader would be better served by working in a short explanation directly into the article.  I think that would better comply with the spirit of GA, which is that the articles are meant to be broadly accessible. Johntex\talk 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your suggestion and you reply. I'd like to make sure you realize the implications of what you're asking, though: essentially, you're requesting content that will largely be copied from other articles, and would be copied verbatim into any other articles on related topics.  The purpose of wikilinks, as I understand it, is to allow explanations of terms without tremendous amounts of repetition.  It seems better to have someone click the links on particle physics if they want to know why people look for new particles, rather than repeat the explanation.  I fear also that if I explain the context further, the explanation will also require further explaantion, until the article becomes very long indeed. -- SCZenz 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand your concern, if taken to an extreme. It would be an endless and fruitless process to try to explain every term.  In a long article, it becomes almost impossible to give very much background.  The reader is forced to refer to other articles for the background.  As you say, this is normally what wikilinks are for.
 * However, we could take things to another extreme and imagine an article saying "201 Pine Hill Lane in Buffalo, New York is the birth place of famous person. It is an adobe house which makes it unusual for the area."   Even with 10 references, this is not a good article because it does not tell the reader enough without them having to goo look at other articles.  Who was this famous person?  Why is adobe unusual for Buffalo, New York?
 * In the case of Oops-Leon, however, you do have room for some explanation and it would help the reader greatly.
 * One other small point. You mention "the "discovery" was named "Oops-Leon" as a pun on the original name and the first name of the E288 collaboration leader."  Could you add the pronunciation of "upsilon" in order to make the pun more clear. Johntex\talk 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get the pronunciation in, sure. I disagree with your suggestion that Oops-Leon "has room for some explanation" and should therefore go into more depth than would be required in a long article; our standards for appropriate level of detail should be the same everywhere.  There's no particular amount of "room" in the article: amount of content times appropriate level of detail equals the right length for that article. -- SCZenz 12:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this; this explanation is for articles like particle physics and subatomic particle (both linked in the first sentence). We don't say in today's featured article that "The United States Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the United States of America." We link to United States Constitution for further information. --NE2 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at What is a good article?, it says good articles should adhere to the following guideline: Explain jargon. Johntex\talk 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I read jargon correctly, not all "terminology" is jargon. For example, words like lepton and standard deviation are not jargon.  Is that right? -- SCZenz 12:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, our article on jargon is completely unreferenced, so I don't think we can really give it any credence in the discussion. I understand it is not reasonable to expect every term to be explained.  I also understand that Explain jargon is a guideline, so we should not be extremely strict about its enforcement.  I would just like to see a bit more effort put into making the article more approachable to a reader without making them follow tons of links.  As I mentioned, there is space in the article for a more complete treatment of these related concepts.  If you can move the article some reasonable distance in that direction, I will remove my opposition and possibly even be able to support. Thanks for your effort. Johntex\talk 16:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, but here's the thing with the word "jargon": I understand it to be a perjorative word for "unnecessary terminology." The terminology in physics is rarely unnecessary (except at the meetings, perhaps); rather, we're describing things to far outside of ordinary experience that we need new words for them.  I understand, in any case, that accesibility is an important concern; I'll take another look at the article and think about what can be done.  -- SCZenz 12:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm almost ready to support GA at this stage. Regarding that it is short: I know it is unfair that short articles are so much easier to bring to GA status than long articles, but please remember that we want our articles to be as good as possible; and when an article meats the GA criteria, it is GA eligible. Regarding the jargon, I've been looking at some other GA and FA physics articles, and I don't think the technical terms get easier than it is. SCZenz: Maybe you could shorten down sentence 5? I also request an explanation of what an " E288 collaboration" is (anyone who knows what it is, please raise a hand). / Fred-Chess 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the name of a group of people collaborating on the experiment, with E288 being more or less the name. Perhaps there ought to be an article on collaboration (physics) to explain how that term is used, or would it suffice to replace "E288 collaboration" with "scientists working on the E288 experiment" or something like that? -- SCZenz 12:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn for now
Upon consideration, I'm convinced that this article requires some revision to be easily comprehensible, so I think it's best to withdraw this review request. I will most likely make substantial revisions, and I'll certainly need feedback from that to do that, but the proper place for such feedback is Peer review rather than here. There are aspects of this review that I did not think were sensible or useful, and I will be opening a discussion on those in an appropriate forum in the near future, but there were also a number of helpful comments. I'd like to thank those who took the time to offer concrete suggestions about the article; once it's revised and ready to go to peer review or return to GA consideration, I'll be sure to let you know and get your thoughts. -- SCZenz 12:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)

 * result: Pass as GA 3-0 (original nominator's vote doesn't count)

I disagree with the failure. The two objections were that the exit list should be separated into a new article (!) and that the "future developments" section is somehow not encyclopedic. Here is my rebuttal: --NE2 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as articles about rail lines list stations, it makes sense to list exits in the article. I see only a few lists that are separated from the article:
 * Exit list of Interstate 96 in Michigan
 * List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)
 * List of exits on Interstate 5
 * I-10 exit list
 * I-15 exit list
 * I-90 exit list
 * There used to be others, like I-95 exit list, but there are now separate articles for each state that I-95 passes through, and so the list has been moved into those articles. The only others here that cover a single state are I-96 and Highway 401. The exit list for Highway 401 is 35 KB, so it was kept in AFD. The I-96 list is similarly 33 KB. But the I-295 exit list does not give such a message when placed in a user subpage, and the entire article is only 32 KB. Therefore, I don't think it is useful to split off the exit list of I-295 (and many other similar articles).
 * The future developments are things that have been officially talked about for a long time, and are well-cited.


 * Hi, I was the reviewer. Looking at your lists of exits, aren't they evidences that lists should be separated into WP:LIST articles? Having more than 50% of the total space in this article, it seems that the Exit List section is better to be separated. You said: the exit list is only 32KB? Please look at WP:SIZE, 32KB is the upper limit for a considerably good size of WP article. What do you mean by placing in a user subpage? And about future developments, they are indeed well-cited, but I don't recall any future projects, future plans or future events in an encyclopaedia book. However, I might have a second thought about the future developments section, as long as editors warn readers with future template. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read my statements more carefully; I was saying that the exit lists that are split are over 30 KB. Here the entire article, including the text, is only 32 KB.
 * "Encyclopedia books" generally do not include future plans because they are books, and cannot be updated. Wikipedia is not paper. O-Bahn Busway, a featured article, includes future plans (at the end of O-Bahn Busway), and MTR, another featured article, has a whole "the future" section. --NE2 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right about the future section. It is allowed, but the article still suffers with the "list problem". Either split (less than 32KB size is not a problem for a list article) or treat the whole article as a list article. WP:LIST does not merely contain list, but also some textual sections. However, both split and treat options still hold for the GA failed decision that GA does not cover list, per WP:WIAGA. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an article that contains a list, not a list that contains an article. Or are articles like Northeast Corridor actually lists? --NE2 23:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If Northeast Corridor is nominated for GA/FA, then I'm sure somebody would suggest to separate the listy part into list article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indon (talk • contribs)


 * Let's wait and see if someone else comments, and I can decide whether to continue to ignore the GA process. --NE2 12:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the large table in the article count as a table or chart rather than just a list only? Homestarmy 13:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, if it does not cover more than half of the article space. The section itself is named as Exit List. I suggest to make a description (1-2 paragraphs) about prominent exits from this highway and use details or see also template to point readers to the complete Exit List article. Would the article then too short? Well, you can Accidents or Maintenance sections, for example. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno, just because a table is big in comparison to the rest of the article, I don't see how it stops being a table. It looks like it falls under WP:TABLE, where they can be used as lists of information.... Homestarmy 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still confused as to why the list should be split out. It seems wholly unnecessary, especially since whenever exit lists are brought to AfD - or when discussion is held on WikiProject pages - consensus is always to merge them with the main highway article. To quote WP:LIST: "Embedded lists are either included in the article or appended to the end of articles. They present information or aid in navigation to related articles." Perhaps if Indon would explain exactly what the "list problem" is, rather than linking to shortcuts, I might be less confused.

It's true that good article criteria does not cover lists, but as has been oft repeated, this is not a list, but an article that otherwise (as far as I can tell) meets the criteria and happens to contain a list "appended to the end of the article" to "present information". -- NORTH talk 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to listen opinions here. If consensus says the article is not WP:LIST, then I concur GA for the article. The rest of the article is excellent. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you for keeping an open mind. -- NORTH talk 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Perhaps my understanding about WP:LIST and Embedded lists are wrong. Anybody else? &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, everyone who's commented here is correct at least in part. It would make sense to split the exit list into a separate article (as you said), but only if the article or the exit list itself were long, which it's not (as NE2 said).  WP:LIST allows for lists to be included at the end of articles as "embedded lists" (as I said), but apparently according to Embedded Lists, the exit list isn't the type of list it's talking about.  Which brings me to what Homestarmy said.  Are we sure this is a list at all?  Just because it's called an exit list doesn't make it the same sort of animal as List of AM stations in Las Vegas.  I think WP:TABLE covers much more closely what we're talking about here, which under #When tables are appropriate says "lists of information" "best presented in row-and-column format" – a perfect description of what an exit "list" actually is. -- NORTH talk 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading WP:WIAGA, I have a couple more thoughts to add on the "list" issue. As Indon pointed out, GA status does not apply to list articles. But this is not a list article – to beat a dead horse, it's an article that contains a list to add additional information in a neat and organized fashion. So let's look at the actual criteria at WP:WIAGA -- NORTH talk 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it well-written? (IMHO, yes.)
 * Is it factually accurate and verifiable? (Yes, everything should be referenced well enough to meet this criteria.)
 * Is it broad in its coverage? (Yes, covers past, present, and future.)
 * Does it follow the neutral point of view policy? (IMHO, yes.)
 * Is it stable? (Yes. There are some reverts here and there, but certainly nothing that was in danger of becoming "an ongoing edit war".)
 * Does it contain images, where possible, to illustrate the topic? (Other than the shield images, there is only one, but it has a "succinct and descriptive caption", and "a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status."

In regards to the exit lists, the project standards fully back exit lists. If there is a problem with that, it should be addressed there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support GA. After some thinking, it seems to me that this most likely is a table, and since there's nothing in the criteria about WP:TABLE, (and because its not that bad to just IAR it or something) I don't think its length is really a big problem. The article is quite good in most other ways even if the long table looks a bit odd. Homestarmy 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support GA (as original nominator) per Homestarmy and my most recent comment above. -- NORTH talk 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support GA It's a table, folks. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support GA Per NORTH and Aerobird. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hani Hanjour

 * result: delisted

I can't see this page being a good article. Its titles for the paragraphs are just years and the sources aren't even done right. And only 12 lines are sourced. Chaldean 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delist per Chaldean. No inline cites in the entire article, only external jumps. Teemu08 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist with most of the article apparently unreferenced, this doesn't look very well-referenced at all to me. Homestarmy 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist Embedded links need conversions. LuciferMorgan 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

 * result:Keep as GA 3-0

I believe the article should be delisted. The article has changed greatly since it was listed, and largely, the article has become increasingly unstable. It has had to be protected from vandals, including a few registered users. Also, there is a new unsourced edit in there that suggests that Shakespeare was gay. I say delist. Diez2 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that its highly unstable, looking in the history, the main activity seems to of picked up on the 2nd of January, and appears to primarily of been vandal squashing. Homestarmy 14:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone else want to comment? Homestarmy 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I note that there is no notice at talk:William Shakespeare regarding this review. I have now mentioned it. Perhaps you could wait a while for an editor who contributes to the article to have an opportunity to get back to you? LessHeard vanU 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is extremely stable and is only protected b/c a large number of anonymous school kids regularly vandalise the article (probably after they are forced to read Hamlet :-). The overall copy has changed very little in the last six months. That said, a few days ago I added in a ton of references to the article and fixed up a few flaws, including the "gay Shakespeare" section (which is a speculation about Shakespeare that has long been debated but is only fringe view; still, it should be mentioned). The gay Shakespeare section is also excerpted from Sexuality of William Shakespeare, which is full of reliable references. This is a very good article that, with a little more work, could actually be a featured article.--Alabamaboy 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, although Reputation and Authorship should be cited. That shouldn't take too much work, however. Teemu08 17:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but I want to add that the External links section looks like a mess too. / Fred-Chess 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Execution of Saddam Hussein

 * result:Promote to GA 5-0

Quite frankly an erroneous and POV judgement. ~ UBeR 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussions on the talk page as well as the above user's edit history. Obviously COI. Sfacets 10:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I highly recommend expanding the lead with at least a paragraph on the reactions, at the moment, I question whether or not its an adequate summary that qualifies under WP:LEAD. Homestarmy 14:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it some, and have asked for others to help in doing so. ~ UBeR
 * It looks pretty good now, so good as to be Good, Promote. One thing to fix though might be this part: "Although the United States approved of the trial, an attempt was made to postpone, stay, or overturn the execution order. The U.S. government appears to have been concerned with the perception of the legal validity of the execution. Attempts were made to contact the Iraqi government to validate the legality of the execution under the new Iraqi constitution. The parliament, under the notion that the security issues presented a need to act swiftly, dismissed the request". There are no citations, and it doesn't say whom the government appears to, so it looks a bit odd. But the rest of the article is more or less ok, perhaps think about organizing it better in the future, it seems almost a bit haphazard in that there's criticism all over the body and in the actual criticism section, but I don't think its bad enough for this to not at least be a GA. Homestarmy 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It needs to be borne in mind that this has been a difficult and contentious subject. Such subjects are harder to encapsulate in good articles than non-controversial topics. As indicated above there is still some work to be done but I think that the efforts of the editors should be recognised by at least a 'GA' and, in due course, after tidying even a featured article could be considered. Promote. TerriersFan 03:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that some sources did say that prosecutor Munqith al-Faroun was the one who managed to get the audience to stop taunting Saddam when he was on the point of death. Plus, there is more about the story on the Dec. 31, 2006, issue of The Hartford Courant (e.g., Muneer Haddad, a judge on Iraq's appeals court, kept on reading its ruling and the verdict despite Saddam's raising his voice; and the gallows room was very cold).  You should look on The Courant online in order to find that issue, alright? --Angeldeb82 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look into who said that during the execution, as I know it was noted several times. The fact Saddam may have been talking during his verdict, I feel, is fairly irrelevant to this article. ~ UBeR 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks like a 2 against 1 review, anyone else want to make a comment before I archive this as no consensus? Homestarmy 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The original GA reviewer wasn't neutral, and as such, should be disregarded. Check the article's talk page. -137.222.10.67 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Promote - I have to say that this is the best sourced article I have seen. Compared to some of the mass of unsourced pages this stands out. Bridgeplayer 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Promote - this is a well-written and well-sourced article. I do not notice any NPOV violations in this article. It should be promoted to GA, and the concerns that have been delineated here are more like those that would be normally raised at an FA. The history of the article is irrelevant, other than the fact that it appears stable enough. The revision of this article, as of now, is GA- (and near FA-) quality. Any instances of non-NPOV should be cleared, understanding that not all sources (and source are that upon which this article heavily relies) are neutral, but as far as I can tell, all have reliability. Grace notes T  &#167; 06:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PromoteSumoeagle179 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)