Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 4

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 approximatly 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 16 days old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion.

Elizabeth Smart kidnapping

 * Result: 3 to 1, kept delisted

Was recently delisted after months of being listed. Complaint was NPOV. This was not a very specific complaint - no instances or examples were given. I am requesting a review and comment so that it may be relisted if possible. --Overdubbed 11:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would of cited some specific problems, except the entire article is basically one big problem. References are also rather sparse. Homestarmy 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I examined part of the article on the Elizabeth Smart talk page, if anyone wants to take a look. Homestarmy 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remain delisted; renominate and put on hold: I have just taken a look at the page. The article has several problems:


 * Apart from a few external links, there are no inline references. Especially where quotations are included, we need to document them a bit more formally. Not to do so would be considered plagiarism in some circles. It is also not quite in keeping with WP:OR, WP:CITE and WP:V.


 * I agree that the language, in general, is not neutral. It makes value judgements and statements of facts without citing sources for them, and so has Wikipedia taking positions. For example, in the Abduction section, we state: "This backfired," "Mary Katherine pretended to be asleep," "The man threatened Elizabeth with a gun" and similar things. This, in part, is a language issue. Since this is an encyclpedia, we should be using summary style or news style. It's not that we should be including negative information, look to portray anyone badly, etc. It just we are a tertuary. We summarize or report the words of witnesses see Primary sources or the analysis of others. see Secondary sources. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions. However, one matter I think is not correct. You mention: This, in part, is a language issue. Since this is an encyclpedia, we should be using summary style or news style.  I think that this is your personal opinion and not a wikipedia standard.  If I am wrong I would like you to point to the policy or standard that says otherwise.  Please note that I am not arguing tertiary vs secondary vs primary.  I am directly addressing the "language" issue you raise.  I have looked all over wikipedia to find support for such a view and it just is not there.  The best I can find is that an article should be written in a compelling manner.  Can you find a place in wikipedia where your view that types of language are good and other types are not?  If such a policy or guide or standard exists, I would like to know about it.  I do not think that an article has to be written in a stilted style to be a good article.  Are we in disagreement on that matter?  --Overdubbed 02:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The language issue is not my main problem with the article. The main issues for me are citation (it is not fair to a source not to point out where a quote comes from) and the article taking sides (see an example of what I mean and how it can be corrected at WP:NPOV), trying to make the reader sympathetic with Miss Smart and her family. I'd submit that they are inherently sympathic and that anyone reading a neutral account of their story will feel such sympathy without the article attempting to sway them. If these were corrected, I'd pass it. The tone issue is simply my suggestion for improving the article. I believe that, well, an encylcopedia article should sound like one.


 * On the tone issue, please note in What Wikipedia is not, numbers 4 and 5, How to write a great article, thrid last paragraph, What is a featured article?, no. 5 and, finally, Summary style. I'm not the only one who sees it this way. I'll repeat: I do not see this as Good Article failing criteria. It is intended as an idea of where to go next. If you were to write to summary style, I believe the WP:NPOV issues would evaporate. In any case, I do not think it far from GA status, which is why I suggest a renom and a hold to give you all time to adjust it. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments, but they are not very specific. They do not really help.  Here are my feelings on this:


 * 1) You claim the article takes sides. I do not see any "side" to this, but rather the recounting of a series of events.Could you describe the various sides that exist and the side the article takes among those various perspectives?
 * 2) I do not see what you mean being described in WP:NPOV. What statements do you feel are biased in the article?
 * 3) What statements do you think are inherently sympathetic?
 * 4) I already know that wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The article is composed almost entirely of unoriginal thoughts, all taken directly or paraphrased from other sources.  There are no personal opinions or essays there.  Yet you indicate that this is a problem. What specifically is the area where personal opinions or essays exist?
 * 5) The article is in encyclopedic style. It is objective (though you do not seem to think so, you do not explain in any detail where it is not objective).  It avoids avoid personal comments (except by the actors), It does not use personal forms.  I have not checked the grammar yet, but you do not seem to be troubled by grammar so far.  I do not understand that objection.
 * 6) The article is already written in summary style.  I suspect what you really mean is expository style.  I think the article is already in expository style, but it is not as dull as a police blotter report. That may be the problem with it.


 * I am working on the article and I am seeking to include remedies that I can understand (if you check you will see that is already underway) but I need more specific critiques to improve it.--Overdubbed 05:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll move over the the article's talk page to see if I can help with it. This is really not the place for such discussions. It is not my role here to edit the article, but to give my opinion aw to whether or not it meets GA standards. Three of us concur that it does not. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * After just reading the Abduction section, the article fails the criteria. Changes to make to that section :


 * First of all, all the items in the list should be footnoted.
 * POVness or needed cite :
 * Returning home, the family had evening prayers together and kissed each other good night.
 * By listening to the creaking floor as Elizabeth and the kidnapper walked, Mary Katherine thought she could tell where the kidnapper and Elizabeth were, so when it seemed safe she hopped out of bed to tell her parents, but froze in terror when she nearly ran into the abductor and Elizabeth as they seemed to be looking into her brothers' bedroom.
 * Although this caused some problems with crime scene contamination, it was never a major cause for problems in the investigation.
 * Using the technology of the Internet and the media, the search for Elizabeth Smart moved into high gear., what is high gear?
 * Endorse delisting. Lincher 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have copied these comments to the talk page on that article so that the changes can be made. --Overdubbed 00:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle

 * Result: Delist, 3 to 0

First time I've done this so didn't want to be too bold and de-list it on my own, but this article has no inline citations. plange 02:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the GA criteria doesn't call for internal citations, just some good references. Of course, internal citations are good and necessary eventually, but not for GA, unless something changed while I was on vacation this week :/. Homestarmy 23:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon looking at it again, the references section doesn't read like it was being used in the article, but that books were just thrown in as a "small selection of books on Aristotle", which sounds suspicious and since there are no page numbers, facts would be increadibly hard to check for the article. I think it would be safer to delist unless a whole lot of hyperlinks suddenly appear in the article. Homestarmy
 * I have to agree, the references were just dumped as a sole purpose to have a reference section and be done with that. Lincher 03:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ECHELON

 * Result: as per article talk page, no consensus

I believe thee article is mostly a collection of rumors and half truths and factoids collected under the rubric of ECHELON. See my critique on the talk page Talk:ECHELON.--agr 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Joe Dever

 * Result: 2 vs. 1, Keep Delisted

Was failed on the grounds that, quote, "it is longer than the subject warrants". As this is not a real objection, and it is not longer than 34k, and is comprehensive, I am appealing. Judgesurreal777 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Biography seems shorter than it could be but I don't think that "longer than the subject warrents" is a criteria at all, if it went off-topic that's one thing, but I don't see any of that here. It's well-referenced, NPOV, etc. etc., I say pass it. Homestarmy 20:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it was re-nominated and then failed again, maybe im being too lax? Well if it's been re-nominated, i'd say the dispute kind of got resolved through re-nomination and failure again... Homestarmy 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted several reasons as to why I failed it on the article's talk page. -Dark Kubrick 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Chadian-Sudanese conflict

 * Result: Case resolved, User:Lincher delisted it.

I have several concerns over this article and wonder if it should stay GA :
 * The Lead section could be summarized a bit better.
 * The subsection Border town raids in January 2006 should be expanded. I also don't think there is a need for a main article to link too since it is a minor incident in a large conflict.
 * Inline external links should be turned into footnotes.
 * Too many quotes ... it dilutes the message ... it also means referencing which is sometimes lacking.
 * Lastly, it has a current event tag and a not up-to-date tag that states that the article is not broad enough.
 * Whatever the decision is ... we should afterwards copy the comments on the talk page. Lincher 02:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article isn't up-to-date, i'd say a fair argument can be made that makes it insufficiently broad since, you know, it doesn't cover all of the topic. Homestarmy 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment ... should the article be a GA or not? Lincher 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it isn't up-to-date, then it's not sufficiently broad, and can't be a GA. Homestarmy 19:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Case closed : delist. Lincher 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oasis (band)

 * Result: 2-0, Delist

Not stable by a longshot. Not really warranted considering Oasis releases a new album about once every ice age.


 * Im not sure about stability, but I do notice many of the paragraphs are filled with speculations and non-notable things, and the article's references are very sparse. I vote delist. Homestarmy 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Organic food

 * Result: 1v1, no consensus

The user Zeamays, delisted this article was de-listed without review or discussion. One reason given seems to be disagreement with use of the word "sythetic" which is easily changed. The other is that "the arguments for it [organic food] are illogical and inaccurate." The arguments are verifiable and are from peer reviewed journal articles.

Basically, the these could have used some discussion before a delisting. JabberWok 02:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not personally familiar with Organic Food debates, but is what he was saying about the article using words that have radically different meanings true or just an exaggeration? Homestarmy 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

 * Result: 3 against 1, relisted as GA

User:Coffeemaker removed the above article from the listing because edit war and article not broad in coverage. It's reason is strongly objected and I recomend it to be relisted.
 * There actually is no edit war, reasonable users from both a supportive and critical viewpoint of INC agree this article presents all sides fairly and have worked together to make it a good article, something which I am very proud of. Unfortunately, a banned editor has come back using anonymous proxies, in disregard for the rules of Wikipedia and in disregard for the work put up by many of us in the past. I humbly request support for semi-protection once again. --Ironbrew 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the reasons for delisting this as a good article. Although the article is not fully covered, GA doesn't require it to be so. The edit wars are from an editor who is banned from editing the article per ArbCom decision. Aside from beliefs, the article suitably covers critisism and origin nicely. I don't believe the article is even close to WP:FA standards, but it meets, and possibly exceeds GA standardes. It should also be noted that the article was delisted one day after it was added.--LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 09:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page edit history, there appears to be some sort of dispute, though primarily concerning IP addresses. If it's just the activity of one banned user, I don't really think that should count to delist this article. Homestarmy 21:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I had seen these minor edits when I juged the article in the first place, I decided to forget about them because they didn't purport big changes to the article as a whole. The criteria added after the review were additions to better the article (in such a way to help the progression). Lincher 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Article will be brought back to GA status. Lincher 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

 * Result: delister vs. one editor, no consensus.

The reasons listed on Talk:USA PATRIOT Act, Title II are rather specious. The objections are that there are not citations provided for the various commentators of the Patriot Debates. However, Summary style specifically states that:
 * There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article: the "Summary style" article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The "Summary style" article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole.

I would like this article to be reconsidered a "good article", as currently the only thing I can see stopping it from being FA is its length. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

 * Result: Re-nominated

Nominated July 23 as a Good Article by Homestarmy, nomination removed without comment on July 29 by SlimVirgin - who has been involved with the article - without comment. I've been involved with the article myself and would say that it is a bit light on Luther's influence on European thought. Outside comments are appreciated. Dr Zak 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure Slim is a major contributor, I think re-nominating would be the best thing to do here. Homestarmy 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm re-nominating since it wasn't even properly delisted in the first place, (No failure tag) we'll see what happens. Homestarmy 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Technological singularity
Result: Kept as a good article. Cedars 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has no "criticism" section. It simply assumes that the Singularity is likely, when a lot of people (me included, not that my opinion's significant) have read Kurzweil and reckon he is grossly over-extrapolating Moore's law to general technological development. Try this, by Australian economics professor John Quiggin (this appears in his blog but was later published in the Australian Financial Review). --Robert Merkel 06:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not familiar enough with this sort of topic to really tell much about whether a criticism section is truly warrented, but one thing I noticed really quick, is that there are apparently no inline citations and the references seem limited; im not sure if they cover the whole article. Homestarmy 07:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is now a criticism section although it is not extensive. That said, I read this article six months ago and again just then. Both times I was impressed with the article. The subject is clearly presented as speculation so the typical will reader will naturally be critical. There are also inline citations just not done in the standard Wiki style. Insufficient criticism is a potential barrier to it becomming a featured article but not a good article. My vote is firmly to keep. Cedars 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Beside needing more inline citations, the article fairly and squarely meets and surpasses the GA criteria. I would remove the inline external links from the text. Maybe a history section about how the idea on Tech singularity evolved in the researchers' world and how it is being transformed into reality. Definite GA ... keep. Lincher 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Err, how did a discussion from 6 July come back to 10 August? :) Homestarmy 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know but the discussion hasn't been resolved and no consensus has been reached so might as well close the subject ... please and go on to some other reviewing. Lincher 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain
Result: Featured, discussion can be archived. Cedars 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC) I've delisted this article on grounds of it being a list (we don't have good lists yet). Thought I'd throw that in here in case anyone wants to object. -- Run! 06:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's clearly not a reason to delist an article. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then do you concede that List of places by Jedi, since it adequately meets all the criteria, must be a Good Article? This decision will open the floodgates for lists. -- Run!  07:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea but List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain has more prose than the other article though. Jaranda wat's sup 07:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't think we should consider lists here. Just as FA and FL are separate, I think GA should be separate from any GL.  Actually, I think with lists there's really no need for an equivalent - GA is supposed to be about short but excellent articles, while FL includes lists of any length anyway.  I don't really see how our criteria can apply to lists.  Worldtraveller 09:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with worldtraveller that GA is not the appropriate place to assess the standards of lists. Where as theres FA and FL, I dont think there is value to wikipedia in creating a GL assessment as any list that meet a GL criteria would undoubtable be able to meet the current FL criteria. Gnangarra 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When compared to current FL's List of Kansas birds List of Anuran families this is almost ready for FL anyway Gnangarra 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I find this a bit odd. I'm not particularly attached to the GA tag on this list - it's just about to pass FL anyway, but, can you point me to where in Wikipedia it says that an article which is a list is not an article? FL exists as a distinct entity from FA for a good reason, which was discussed and agreed, but I'm not aware of that discussion having taken place in respect of GA. Surely, if it meets the criteria, it meets the criteria. What's wrong with a "flood" of lists becoming GAs - either they're GAs or they're not? And if the difference between the Jedi list and the Dragonfly list is simply the relative lack of prose introducing the former, that's fixable. SP-KP 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I thought changing the criteria to allow lists would be a good idea, but we've been down this road, and it's been sort of decided that the "Well-written prose" criteria won't be exempted for a lists benefit. Therefore, a list can't technically be a GA because it's not in prose, if an article was partly a list and partly an article with prose in it then im sure we could tackle that problem if it comes up, but eh, until then, if there's pretty much no prose, then it can't have "well-written prose", you know? By the way, on List of places by Jedi, im not sure if the MoS says anything about lists, but most of that article consists of a single infobox, it hardly seems like a very amazing list :/. I mean couldn't someone maybe look up stuff that might examine the issue further, or perhaps merge the whole box into a Jedi (religion) article or something? Homestarmy 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's a nice "short article" above the list. Would a list that includes enough text to count as a short article be worthy of consideration at a GA? Guettarda 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So that I can see where you are coming from on this, can you explain what it is about List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain that makes it ineligible for the well-written prose criterion. Sorry for being slow!! SP-KP 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, actually, now that i've looked at the article, I think I see the concern now :/. Alot of it is, in fact, in prose format. I just took a cursory look at the debate and assumed it was over whether lists were eligable at all or not....but I don't think it matters, the FA list nomination seems to be proceeding in this lists favor, and really, I think there's enough prose to make a case for GA status, but once again, I don't think it will matter. Once it's an FL why should it go backwards? :) Homestarmy 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you understand my point - but when you say it doesn't matter, you're only citing this particular article. My concern is a more general one. If there are lots of lists out there that could be good articles, but aren't yet up to FL standard, why deny them GA status? SP-KP 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if there are list articles like this one that have plenty of prose, then i'd say there's a point one could just change the title of the article to refer to the prose, and use whatever list is in there to help the article. Homestarmy 23:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the list mentioned is a special case between a GA and a GL (knowing they don't exist), we have to have criteria to reject lists or not and not revert decisions everytime a reviewer adds a list to GA.
 * I say, if the list can contain prose, whether it is as a table that the list has been formatted or just as a list ... if it contains well-written prose for the listed items and if it has somewhat of a lead section then the list should become a GA.
 * What I also think is that some lists are controversials like, e. g., List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people which will probably one day come by this system ... will we reject it or not that is to see but one thing is sure is that it needs damn good references and this may be another criteria that the lists will need. They will need to have footnoted references associated with every controversial entry in the list. Lincher 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Beslan Massacre
Result: no objection to delisting This article currently has a neutrality dispute tag on it. Should it be delisted? Cedars 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have had a quick look through and couldn't find any problems with neutrality - though this could be because I did not look thoroughly enough. I did find some other problems - most of the images don't have fair-use rationales, one image uses the deprecated PD tag, and the web citations are not formatted per citation guidelines.  But what I just pointed out can probably be fixed rather than delisting the article (in fact I may try to address them myself).  I will wait to see what others have to say.--Konstable 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am delisting it for the reason of the neutrality dispute and the other reasons I gave above.--Konstable 12:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone has delisted it already. But woooow... The article has been redesigned and rewritten in a lot of places since I last checked.--Konstable 12:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

TIRTL
result renomination Gnangarra 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC) This article was delisted on 21 June citing various reasons. See the talk page for details. I believe that most of the cited problems have been resolved, so I posted a request for comments regarding a relist. The assertion was raised that the lead still needed a copyedit. Could someone help me out with what needs to be done in the lead? I can't figure out what may be wrong with it. If someone could give me an example of what's wrong with it, if it is a systemic problem, I'd be more than happy to do the legwork to fix it. --JaKaL! 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have renominated this article Gnangarra 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyedit has been handled. It's safe to archive this one. --JaKaL! 13:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Banksia brownii
Result: withdrawn The nomination was rejected because "Technical terms need explaining. Midrib, perianth, tepals, pistil, anthesis and fructescence are all words which few outside botany will understand." However, every single oneof these words is linked to an article defining it. If the user wishes to get a definition, he simply has to use the link. I've always taken it as unecessary to provide definitions for linked terms (and actually removed them in several instances). Circeus 21:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the reviewer for this. Links are good but I think you still need to give a brief explanation of words which are only likely to be understood by specialists.  To understand this article I need to refer to other articles three times within one sentence - I feel it's unreasonable to expect a reader to do that.  Worldtraveller 21:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * thank you for the review, I do disagree with your reasonings GA criteria requires this in part 1 section (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.. Gnangarra 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also strongly disagree with this outcome. Worldtraveller, your efforts in reviewing the article are very much appreciated, but I think that if we replaced the technical (i.e. correct) terms by wordy explanations, the article would be the worse for it. And if we then took it to WP:GA again, the next reviewer would be just as likely to require us to use the linked, correct terms. Snottygobble 05:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is an encyclopaedia after all, with the added advantage that we can hyperlink technical terms.  The criteria would seem to suggest this is OK and it has always been my understanding in the time I've been editing here that this is the norm.  I just read the article for the first time and have to say as a non-technical person who didn't know the meaning of most of the terms referred to above, I didn't feel lost or intimidated while reading it.  The article flowed well and was readily comprehensible.  I looked up some of the terms I felt I needed to clarify by clicking on the link.  I hope we don't start dumbing-down this place by having to explain every little thing at the cost of good prose.  Scientific articles as opposed to the those on the humanities will obviously tend towards technical terms and FA's like say Ackermann function or Chemical synapse show that they can pass FA scrutiny without extensive explanations of each technical term. There appears to be a tendency in the FA space towards humantities, possibly for these reasons. -- I@n &equiv; talk 10:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, honestly, I don't see the cost to the article of explaining jargon. I write lots of articles on scientific subjects, quite a few of which are FAs, and I think it's part of the mission of an encyclopaedia to make subjects comprehensible to intelligent laymen.  I found these technical terms unnecessary and offputting.  Links don't always help anyway - the link to perianth tells me it has three separate meanings - which one is the relevant one here?  Pistil redirects to carpel.  Infructescence leads to an article on inflorescence - is this the same or different?
 * The GA criteria say explain or link, but looking at the history it seems the 'or link' part was added without prior discussion a couple of months ago, replacing the long standing guidance that technical jargon should be explained. With that revision it said 'at the very least' provide a link - this was removed in a later copyedit.
 * I really think it's good practice for a general encyclopaedia to explain specialised jargon in situ - why force the reader to leave the article you've written? What would be wrong with replacing until anthesis with until the flower opens? Worldtraveller 10:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. The answer is that Banksia flowers don't open at anthesis. The perianth remains fused but the style end breaks free from the upper perianth parts. This is important information that need to be added to Wikipedia, but in a forthcoming Morphology of Banksia article, not every single species article.
 * I have removed the word "inflorescences" from the opening paragraph, as the opening paragraph should be an accessible summary. I have rephrased parts of the description so that "inflorescence" and "anthesis" have plenty of context, making it largely unnecessary for a reader to follow a link unless they really want to know more.  I have replaced "infructescence" by "fruiting structure", as I agree that the word "infructescence" didn't really add value to the article. I still strongly object to including definitions of terms such as "midrib", "perianth", "tepal" and "style", as there is no way to define these terms briefly, and Banksia brownii is not the place for a longer definition.
 * Snottygobble 01:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with the need for rewording, though I wont revert Snottygobbles efforts, the question here is did Banksia Brownii comply with the WP:WIAGA criteria, as shown above according to section 1d it did, and therefore Worldtraveller should have passed the article, at the most the article should have been put on hold pending discussions of the suggestions. Gnangarra 01:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My edits were aimed at improving the article, not improving its standing against the good article criteria. Like Gnangarra, I am certain that the article meets the good article criteria, irrespective of my edits today. Worldtraveller, can you tell us what current good article criterion/criteria the article fails to meet? If not, you really haven't get a leg to stand on, and must concede that Banksia brownii is a good article. Snottygobble 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If I'm going to be told I haven't got a leg to stand on, I lose all interest in reviewing your articles. If you want people to have to leave your article and go to others three times in one sentence, to articles that apparently are not even accurate, or which give the reader one of three options for what your article might have meant, then you can of course keep it that way.  Worldtraveller 07:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you won't review according to the Good Article criteria, then you shouldn't be participating in Good Article reviews at all.
 * Ha. And who are you exactly?  Seeing as you won't accept any criticism, attack reviewers rather than listening to them, and seem much more interested in getting an article on a list by being argumentative than in actually improving it, I'd suggest you haven't fully understood what GA is about.  Worldtraveller 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You still haven't stated a good article criterion that the article failed to meet. We nominated for Good Article, not Worldtraveller's Personal Blessing. If you think GA reviews are a forum for you to impose your own personal opinions and standards without reference to the assessment criteria, then it is you who doesn't understand GA. Snottygobble 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I started GA. I wrote the criteria originally.  Who do you think you are, really?  You've been obnoxious and rude right from the start, a completely inappropriate way to behave when someone's taken the time to review an article.  If I see this kind of behaviour again involving anyone else I'll file an RfC - I will not be reviewing any articles you've had anything to do with.  I am really very surprised that you need me to spell out that an article riddled with technical terms is quite simply badly written.  Worldtraveller 07:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good for you. You still haven't stated a good article criterion that the article failed to meet. Snottygobble 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have. Worldtraveller 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This article dispute was withdrawn two days there is no need to further question the reviewer and the article nor is there a need to continue these personalised comments. Gnangarra 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile folks, I am substantially rewriting the article in response to finding a couple more references. I suggest we withdraw this review request, and resubmit to GA when the article is stable again. Worldtraveller has expressed his lack of interest in reviewing the article, so I'm confident that next time we'll achieve a reasonable outcome. Snottygobble 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

article withdrawn by the editors of the article. Gnangarra 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion can be archived after 7 days Gnangarra 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Music of Afghanistan
Result renominated -- Run!  10:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Ok, the first time I could understand because the review was a really long time ago and the rules may not of been the same about images as they are today. But "Still no images" is still not an excuse for delisting, their optional, as per Criteria six, which says that "It contains images, where possible". Afghanistan is sort of in a bit of ah, how shall I put this, unstable situation militarily speaking, and I believe there's enough precedent for not demanding that articles have pictures already to warrent a real dispute listing this time. Homestarmy 00:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake. When I took a look at the article, the only complaint about it on the talk page was the lack of images. Since that hadn't been addressed I thought it was safe to delist it again. But you're right, images aren't necessary. I'll have a more thorough look at the article. -- Run!  10:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
Result: kept listed Read through the discussion. Really not NPOV. Can we split this article to balance?


 * On a personal level, I don't like the whole "Everything creationism related is pseudoscience because (Insert name of so and so scientist type people here) says so!" thing which purposefully is in many articles related to ID, but the only major discussion I see is a dispute over whether to use Harvard reference format or something else, I don't think that's a content dispute, it seems like a technical one. Would I like people to write the ID articles and related ones without the predictable reference-bombing of ID sources in a negative light? Absolutly! But I think im probably in the minority, and really, the articles aren't amazingly bad, they just kind of have that slant thing sometimes, but I don't think enough people would agree that they aren't NPOV. The GA disputes page is also for deciding on whether or not articles are fit for GA status, not for splitting them up, that kind of thing belongs on the article talk page. Homestarmy 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. While being a highly controversial topic, the ID article does a pretty good job of maintaining NPOV. Actually, surprisingly good, considering the strong opinions. There will be constant little flareups, but just because the article isn't perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be a GA. Articles like this usually get to a good NPOV state, then someone pulls it one way with a few edits, then someone pulls it back with a few more. Then it gets pulled the other way. It's like a tug of war match. But as long as the 'average' position is somewhere near the middle, things are ok. From a WP:WIAGA standpoint, it still meets the qualifications.


 * On a slightly different topic, "Can we split this article to balance?" No. That is a bad idea... See WP:POVFORK for the full guideline. Content forking is not good at all. If we split the article up, you'd just end up with all the ID-lovers on one side editing their little POV free-for-all, and you'd have all the ID-haters on the other side editing their little POV free-for-all, and the poor readers (for whom this all exists in the first place) are left in the lurch, with no clear article on ID, and multiple articles of cruft to wade through. The important thing is to work together, and think about the readers. Phidauex 01:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Article content is well supported by cites and policy. FeloniousMonk 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * keep I don't see any substantial objection raised. If Homest the nominator has specific sections which he objects to, he should bring them up on the talk page. It is unproductive to bring the matter up here first and then do so in a vague manner. JoshuaZ 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - this article is well-balanced and is a good example of NPOV. Guettarda 03:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Your complaint seems to be that you don't like a claim which is not in the article, and your suggestion is to POV fork. This is a Good Article: Keep per Phidauex. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per KC, FM, Phidauex, Guettarda, Josh... &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article is well-cited and very approachable, especially for such a controversial topic (controversial to at least some). Various points have been challenged time and again, and each time, the main editors show they have done their homework well. --Ramdrake 15:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam

 * Result: Kept delisted

Reviewing this article for WP:V0.5 I noticed that the GA tag was missing. I tracked the change to this edit by User:Gurm (contribs). I'm concerned that this delisting had nothing to do with the quality of the article, because: This may be simply a newbie problem - the user only has 19 edits in total. Could someone else look at this? Thanks, Walkerma 01:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit did not mention anything about delisting in the edit summary.
 * The delisting tag was not placed on the article.
 * No details were given of reasons for delisting.
 * This article is notorious for POV problems.
 * Doesn't seem like a standard delist to me at all, I think we can just review this article right here and come to a decision. Homestarmy 03:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A few quick things, firstly, the introduction seems to miss out on several important parts of the article, the organization section in particular probably had something important that could go into the intro and the intro just plain looks too short. Nextly, there are a whole bunch of citation needed tags at the bottom, I know many editors with this project who would probably have serious misgivings about that even if just half as many tags were in the article, so one way or another, I don't think this article really meets the standards or stands much chance if more editors look at it :/. Homestarmy 03:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dog

 * Result Retained GA status, discussion can be archived. Gnangarra 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

Need to be reviews it is just to pro cruilt dog dog by being to pro using dog as food. It should be nested in cruity to dog along with other dog abuse like puppy miles, unethical breeding, and paining inducing experiments on dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.162.173 (talk • contribs)
 * I think the article meets all the requirements, plus it is really broad in its coverage ... one section is missing but it is not really needed for GA status. I doubt the article is too cruel or based solely on experiments on dogs. There are, also, enough subarticles to make this article comprehensible. Lincher 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed this article and besides your dislike for the inclusion of human consumption of dogs. An encyclopedic fact about the subject that needs to be included in the article to be comprehensive and for which you have been warned about deleting. The deleting and reverting caused by this has increased the the number of edits to the article, yet this isnt type of vandalism isnt considered when assessing the stability cirteria. Unless there are specific criteria according to WP:WIAGA that the article doesnt comply with there is no reason to remove the article from the GA list. Gnangarra 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)