Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 5

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 a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion.

Educational attainment in the United States

 * Result: Two to re-nom (I think), one to re-list, so re-nomination seems the best thing here

This article was just failed as GA because the sources were not broad enough and because it does not provide historical context. I, the author, beg to differ with both objections. First, the article covers a narrow subject as defined by the title-the only and best source on the educational attainment of the American population is the US Census Bureau which has been keeping track of these figures since record keeping began. Second, the article does provide historical references. The article clearly describes how the educational attainment of the US population has changes; the most prominent graphic in the article along gives the educational attainment for the US population since 1949. I do request an impartial review. Thank you. Best Regards,  Signature brendel  22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * renom On quick review, I'd say the article contains a lot of good information, is thorough and is a good essay to have in wikipedia. I would have probably passed the article, but would also have suggested the following: I'd like to see more interpretative essays brought into the article and citation mix. I haven't checked the lead thoroughly, but I suspect it could use some attention re: WP:LEAD. The prose is also a little difficult to read for the average reader. I'd recommend that the article avoid passive and participial constructions, shorten sentence length and do something to break up long sections into smaller paragraphs. The graphics at the end confuse my poor old eyes as well. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I second both the comment on the prose as well as the graphic at the bottom. There has to be a better way to present the information. In addition to being hard on the eyes, it's not very easy to follow. Agne 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

 * Result: well, hmm, three wavering people, and one person who seems certain, so Delist

This is my first time here, so I figured it'd be good to get another opinion before delisting this. I have multiple questions or concerns just sbout the second section, "Biography". For example:
 * 1) It's not clear whether his family members are still alive.
 * 2) It's not clear which sister is 18 months younger than he is.
 * 3) How could math not be available for him to study in college?
 * I listed a couple other questions on the article's talk page. Maurreen 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It really looks like your call, I can see this article going either way depending on how strict a reviewer holds articles up to being well-referenced and being thorough. Homestarmy 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have some serious reservations about this article, but I'll just mention two. First off, we get 8 paragraphs about his disease and a measly 3 about his research achievements.  Granted, many readers are probably interested in his condition; that's not my issue.  But how can his scientific contributions be treated so peremptorily?  He is a famous physicist - the physics should be dealt with more seriously.  Also, the section on the bet he lost has its own article.  It could just be replaced with something like "he famously lost a bet with ...." and then cite the daughter article.  Ok, one more.  There's a section called Recent Comments which has stuff that shouldbe embedded into the main text; it mitigates against stability and looks amateurish. Eusebeus 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

De-list for failing Criteria #3. It no where near covering all the major aspects of Hawkings work snd as reader coming to the article to learn more about Hawkings very signifigant contributions, you are left sorely lacking. As a side, it also needs an expanded lead section. Agne 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

American Meat Institute

 * Result: 4 to 1, delist

My main concern with this article is that it does not have "compelling prose" (it offers fairly dry coverage of the topic) and it is not "broad in its coverage" (it doesn't cover anything beyond basic structure, functions and two events but no controversies). Cedars 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cedars, delist. Homestarmy 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I passed it becuase it may not be entertaining but it covers the subject, is NPOV, well-referenced and has good lead-in. It seems to meet all criteria IMHO.  Signature brendel  20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I stopped by as I thought Gerd was saying something about the other article :D From what I can tell, this is hardly the most brilliant article around, but perhaps it does say all that it is to say about a less braod topic in a concise form - that's what GA's were originally meant to be about. BUT, if you can prove there is something about the topic that actually WAS omitted, then it's a sure reason for removal (unless someone can quickly fix it and add an appropriate section). Bravada, talk - 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I was under the impression that this article pretty much said everything there is to be said-if I was mistaken than this article definitely needs to be expanded.  Signature brendel  00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist unless these question are resolved :


 * Doesn't talk about the creation too much (like who created this ... I want to see names or business names).
 * They seem to have yearly or over the years publications? this could be mentioned.
 * They try to avoid BSE (mad cow), any research on that is necessary for the article/about banning imports from Canada. Lincher 01:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist per Lincher and I would also like to see an expanded lead section. While not an absolute lead, I would be interested in an image of some sort. Is it possible to get a fair use image of the logo? Is there a quality stamp that members puts on their products? Agne 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups

 * Result:2 to 2, no consensus

This is not a dispute per se, but is still a review request. Richardshusr nominated Google Groups, an article I wrote, for Good Article. Samsara failed the article, citing "Unsourced section" as his reason. Although I agree that the nomination was premature, I intend to do more extensive work and polishing of the article in August, followed by a Peer Review, so that it will become a good article by September. As the article was written by me completely from scratch, and until now almost all of the content comprises my contributions, the article may still reek of newbie mistakes. Therefore, I wish to know whether the unsourced section is the only reason for failing the article, and hope to get feedback which will help me improve the article in August. To quote Richardshusr: "I would have hoped for a more expansive analysis of the areas where the article needed improvement to reach GA status. If one unsourced section is the only deficiency, then that should be easily addressed." In addition, determining whether the unsourced section is the only problem will decide whether Google Groups becomes an unreferenced GA. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the delisting was initially unclear, if the software is in development, I dunno what guarentee of stability that could give the article, safer to just leave it delisted for now. Homestarmy 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Solid GA material to me too. Lincher 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fujiwara no Teika

 * Result: 4 to 2, relist

As far as I can see, the only objection to this article was that its footnotes are clumsy. (It is fully noted; but the full citation for each reference is repeated each time the book is cited.)

They are clumsy, and they should be fixed before the article is featured. I have suggested a method of doing this, and the main editor has put it on his agenda. But this isn't, and shouldn't be, a good article requirement; this is the sort of detail that peer review is for. JCScaliger 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be correct, citation format means nothing unless it's so horrible nobody could make heads or tails of which citation goes where even if they spent a few minutes trying to use it, because then nobody could tell if it was well referenced or not. This article should be a GA unless something else comes up. Homestarmy 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A week should indicate that there is no other objection; I will consult with the original objector, and then list. JCScaliger 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the talk page there makes it sounds like that overall there are two for and two against, that's not enough to relist, we need more opinions. Homestarmy 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One of those objections entirely, and the other largely, makes an invalid objection, as Homestarmy admits. I'm new here; please explain. JCScaliger 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the GA disputes page is supposed to work by a fairly simple consensus, because normally the answer to whether an article should be a GA or not should be fairly obvious. We don't have any clauses which could strike out inactionable objections, so more people would have to chime in on this dispute for there to be a majority vote. Homestarmy 18:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the referencing format is that bad ... I've seen worst. For my part, there is a necessity to have all the criteria and then I check if there are references (reliable sources that is) and decide to pass the article if there are some (that pertain to the subject. In that matter ... there are loads and they are necessary, clumsy or not. So PASS. (PS : We are working on making a well-written encyclopedia not a well-written bibliography of a subject) Lincher 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And they have now been revised, in a form which makes the notes lighter. JCScaliger 03:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pass I agree that the particular style of the reference shouldn't be a "make or break" factor for GA but a valid area for suggested improvement. As long as there is good, reliable references that pass WP:V then it should be GA. Agne 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lithium Aluminium Hydride

 * Result: Situation resolved, keep listed

There is a diagram showing the reaction of this reagent under the 'Use in organic chemistry' header, and i am reasonably sure that when reacted with a ketone, the product formed is a secondary alcohol, not a tertiary as shown. Does anyone else wish to verify my concern? Olly2282 09:55, 14 August 2006 (GMT)


 * I don't think the GA system can handle non-existant articles like Lithium Aluminium Hydride :) Homestarmy 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is Lithium aluminium hydride. I added a redirect.--agr 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok then, im no expert in Chemistry, but it does look odd because a hydrogen atom seems to dissapear in that section :/. Do you by chance have any sources about what would happen with Lithium Aluminium Hydride if it reacts with a ketone? Homestarmy 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have dropped a note on the talk page of the user who apparently created in the image in question to help clarify matters. I would say even if the image is incorrect (and an accurate replacement couldn't be found), the article still meets GA standards--just absent an image. Agne 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Silly error, I've fixed it. I'm surprised one of the chemists hadn't spotted it before now!  I'll watch this page in case there are any more issues, but hopefully that resolves it.  Walkerma 21:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Akatsuki (Naruto)

 * Result: 3 to 0, delist

It doesn't look like it fits the criteria for a good article. 65.175.202.243 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Half of this article's information has "non-notable trivia" written all over it, and it's primarily written in-universe. Plus, it has no inline citations. Delist. JimmyBlackwing 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the limited looking references and lack of inline citations don't make this article look like it's actually good at all, and there are a bunch of list things which look like they should be moved to a more specific article. Homestarmy 17:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane John (2006)

 * Result: Objections fixed, keep listed

This article was posted on GAC last week, and it was promoted by a member of the tropical cyclone wikiproject who contributed to the article in its early stages. I don't feel that the article quite meets the requirements, as the storm history and impact sections are in need of cleanup, and the details are subject to change when its Tropical Cyclone Report (which may contain more information) comes out. --Core des at talk! 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno, it looks pretty well put together to me, do you mean things like it needing more indents inside the history section? Homestarmy 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite of GA standards, if an article was passed as GA by its own contributor or member of the article project, then it is a bad practice. It will allow others to pass articles of their own project. I'm afraid that the quality of GA will reduce significantly and GA will just a template tagging without any review. I think this article should be renominated and cancel the current GA. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 11:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page history, the person who passed it only seems to of made one edit to the page, hardly a "major contributor" in my book. While his passing of the article did have almost no details, i'm sure we could determine whether it was really valid or not to pass this article here now. Homestarmy 12:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. He only made 1 edit. So he is not a major contributor of the article. (I take back my suggestion, sorry) &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 13:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * However, in terms of quality of the article, I think the article fails GA standard #2. The first 24 references cannot be verified, because the links are broken. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 13:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you're right, that's a serious problem. While the second half of the article is ok, the first certainly isn't. The editor who added these in might know where all those things may be archived however, i'll leave a note asking for that on the article talk page, but if it isn't resolved in a timely manner, this article should be delisted. Homestarmy 13:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ...Okay, it was resolved in about 30 minutes, i'd call that timely, this is now definently a Good Article. Homestarmy 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

 * Result: 2 to 2, no consensus, keep listed

This article has a bullet point trivia section, I am confused as to how it got GA status with one. Also, the images have no fair use rationales, seems to be a link farm at the bottom, and has two personal sections. Judgesurreal777 04:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree ... it doesn't give its FU rationales and the trivia section bothers me too. Lincher 11:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Trivia gone, more references, and all images have rationales and sources, except one that needs a source which is in process of aquiring. Judgesurreal777 21:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Article is in much better shape than previously -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This article looks good to me. (And I mean that Good Article-wise) Homestarmy 23:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco smoking

 * Result: Since being submitted here, this article has been reviewed and failed again, 2 to 1, no consensus

The article was removed from the Good Articles list for no apparent reason. It had minor NPOV which were fixed. I have renominated the article as a Good Article. Please review it. --GoOdCoNtEnT 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks well written and neutral, solid GA material. Yet I wonder why the environmental effects of tobacco smoking aren't discussed: it's a significant littering problem and in dry climates such as Southern California, wildfires have been traced to careless tobacco smoking. Durova 08:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Metric expansion of space

 * Result: re-nominated

I think that the request for more references is a bit shortsighted. The references given in the article are high quality and cover the subjects completely. --ScienceApologist 00:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But there's only five, only one of which refers specifically to one part. Homestarmy 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this means: "There are only five references, only one of which is linked to a specific assertion." Yes, there's only one note. What's the objection here? If it's that an article such as this should have a longer, more impressive-looking list of references (of unexplained relevance), I utterly disagree. (That smells of the bibliography-stuffing practiced by feeble undergraduates desperately trying to impress.) If by contrast it's that specific assertions should be linked to specific references, then for other articles I'd strongly agree; however, in my very limited understanding of cosmology this article is an attempt to summarize what's pretty much agreed among interested physicists and it's therefore unnecessary to say that A comes from X and B comes from Y. If I'm right here, then I suggest that the article should get either (i) some discursive footnotes, describing roughly what in the article comes from where (in addition of course to any needed footnotes saying which more controversial assertion comes from precisely where), or (ii) descriptions in the list of references, wherein the contribution of the source to the article is briefly explained. -- Hoary 07:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether something is agreed upon, what matters is whether the article qualifies as "Well-referenced". With the small number of references and the books, it is difficult to determine whether the article is actually wel-referenced or not, I don't know where to find those books and who knows if those books are all that anybody should ever want for this subject. Homestarmy 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a judement call on our behalf. I have no reason to believe the references are inadequate. Be careful for what you ask for otherwise you'll end up with a referenced article like the one at Rosalind Franklin.  Well referenced for sure, but it does not change the fact that "who knows if those books are all that anybody should ever want for this subject". David D. (Talk) 12:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Im saying it would help if there was more there so that it looked like the article got information from more sources than some unknown parts of three books and one essay, there has to be more on this subject than just five citations. Homestarmy 13:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this logic at all. Homestarmy: It doesn't matter whether something is agreed upon. It certainly does. Let's consider an extreme: Suppose you have an article that needs to refer to the two laws of thermodynamics. You don't need specific references for these laws: no physicist disputes them and they're explained in every decent introductory physics book. Homestarmy: With the small number of references and the books, it is difficult to determine whether the article is actually wel-referenced or not. Adding to the number of the references would, in itself, do nothing whatever to suggest to me that the article is better referenced. Homestarmy: I don't know where to find those books. A good library, or interlibrary loan service, in an English-speaking country; an excellent library, or interlibrary loan service, in an affluent non-English-speaking country. Or of course abebooks or similar. (Or do I somehow misunderstand your predicament?) Homestarmy: and who knows if those books are all that anybody should ever want for this subject. It hadn't occurred to me that anybody would ever imagine that they are all that anybody would ever want for the subject. If anyone wants a list of all the books that anybody would ever want for a subject, he or she should not be looking for the list in a Wikipedia article. (Consider a WP article about this or that Shakespeare play. It may go on a bit, but it only takes a few screenfuls. Meanwhile, a bibliography of scholarly works -- and not just popular derivatives -- written on a single Shakespeare play during part of the twentieth century takes an entire book of hundreds of pages.) Remember, this purports to be an encyclopedia article on the subject, not a bibliography for the subject. Homestarmy: Im saying it would help if there was more there so that it looked like the article got information from more sources than some unknown parts of three books and one essay. I for one don't give a damn about the first impression given by the sheer number of sources given. If a larger number of sources is necessary, by all means cite them. Homestarmy: there has to be more on this subject than just five citations. Well of course; but again, this doesn't purport to be a bibliography. Homestarmy, did you read what I wrote at the end of my earlier comment ("If I'm right here....")? -- Hoary 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC) revised 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then don't add books, add hyperlinks, like most articles do. "Well-referenced" is pretty subjective anyway, so if you don't "give a %$#*" about the impression the low amount of references gives, I can't stop you, it's 3 to 1, and this article should be relisted if the majority wants it to be relisted. Homestarmy 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm another reference stick-in-the-mud, often asking for them in reviewing articles. There are purposes for asking for in-line references and they have nothing to do with note stacking to make it look impressive.


 * The first is to give academic credit to someone who discovers a fact, compiles a statistic, creates a hypothesis, comes to a reasoned conclusion, etc. (The negative side is to avoid charges of plagiarism) My rule of thumb is that, if a statement can be found in two or more expert sources, no need for a citation. I also arbitrarily look for at least one cite per section.


 * The second is to help a reader find the exact source of a notion if they want to learn more. This is what I actually urge my students to use the wiki for.


 * The third is to help us with verification, especially where there is controversy among editors (this one may not apply to you.


 * I've got to go, but will look at the article later. In the mean time, why not renom it? --CTS Wyneken (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is so renominated. --ScienceApologist 14:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ordinal number

 * Result: Dispute withdrawn

This is a tricky case. The term ordinal number really has two linked meanings, the first being our normal ordinals, 1,2,3,4 etc. the second being a more sosphiticated treatment coving infinite sets. The article as it stands is generally directed at the latter. However the article is heavily linked from many pages which discuss the first usage, for example 0 (number) and the other number pages, Roman numerals, Addition, Danish language, Rastafari movement. For these the article does not do a good job of explaining the term and I think fails GA criteria 1(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers. For the more sophsticated usage I think the article does a good job, there the more technical language is appropriate to the intended audience.

Possible actions which could be taken could be creating a page called Ordinal covering the simpler usage. Alternively a section covering the basics with less technical language could be used. --Salix alba (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm now withdrawing request for review. A discussion on suitable nameing is underway. --Salix alba (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ales Hemsky

 * Result: 2 to 0, keep delisted

This article is currently in RfC and has templates for neutrality (or rather lack thereof) and citations (also for the lack thereof). Having been one of the people to respond to RfC, I'm hesitant to take any action myself. The second RfC respondant has seconded my concerns on the talk page. Requesting impartial review of GA status. Durova 08:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A single reference relating to his contract is not sufficient for being "well-referenced" at all, delist. Homestarmy 14:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * delist per Homes and for instability re: Durova plus lack of information on formative years. Where did he grow up? Did he attend a college? etc. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei

 * Result: Err, well, i'm not sure where the mediation thing was, so I can't get much of a count. But apparently that was resolved and it has been relisted.

This was in the good article list from January to May, that's four months, until some ideologues complained it was not NPOV. A mediator from the mediation cabal and another one from the Mediation committee have since then affirmed that the article is neutral. The mediators explained that it is mainly based on established expertise. See the resolution here: Suggested size reduction and expansion of response section have been undertaken. I propose this be given back its good article status. Cabanes 02:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an open-and-shut case. Once a resolution is given by mediation, the dispute is over. I'll give it back its GA status. Ran9876 00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally dispute the article is a good one. I think it's very biased, overly-long, and poorly written in some parts.  It has problems of verifiability and organization.  Though it's a verifiable fact that Opus Dei is the most controversial organization in the catholic church, the article has not allowed a coherent, straightforward presentation of the criticisms of that organzation.    BUT, I'm probably too close to things to remove it from GA myself-- but I urge other people to take a closer look at whether it belongs here. --Alecmconroy 05:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read through the article and it seems to meet GA standards to me. It seems stable, presents both the organization's view of itself and the views of its critics, is reasonably organized and clearly written enough to be easily understandable. The whole article is referenced and the list of sources is fairly substantial and sometimes academic. As is true of most GA articles, there is much room for improvement. The article could use less jaron, explain a little more for outsiders, written with fewer passives, participles and long sentences, etc. But GA is only the first major milestone on the way to FA status, so perfection should not be expected. Please note that I am a Lutheran clergyman and not exactly a proponent of Opus, which exemplifies much of what Lutherans most dislike about the Catholic Church. I say this to note that even so I believe the article to be of GA status. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Passenger vehicles in the United States

 * Result: 2 to 1, no consensus, kept delisted

I guess this is quite not how it works, as I want to argue that an article should be delisted, but this issue is quite controversial and the article ended up with uncertain status and with editors involved in the GA nomination/promotion process in disagreement over it.

Primary reason
Basically, my concern is that this article, although detailed and in general very good compared to the WP average, acutely fails to comply with GA criterion 3a ("it addresses all major aspects of the topic"). The topics currently not addressed in the article, but important when discussing the subject, are: The two former issues have been raised a considerable amount of time before the GA promotion, and there was no disagreement on the editors' side that they should be included, rather on the contrary. Nevertheless, no mention of those appeared in the article since then.
 * historic perspective with regard to all sections
 * discussion of the role of the passenger vehicles in the American culture
 * also, the role of passenger vehicles in the US economy is not discussed

Secondary reason
A secondary reason for delisiting would be failure to comply with GA criterion 1 ("it is well written") in general. The article presents huge amounts of statistical data in a narrative from which can be hard to absorb by users, especially those not interested in the topic. Moreover, some of this data at least is not put into any perspective, either temporal or comparative with other countries, which makes it impossible to interpret for users not familiar with the topic. This makes one wonder why the data is cited in its entirety at all (including a rather lenghty table) without appropriate discussion, when it could simply be linked to in external links/sources.

The primary author of the article has also authored another similar one, Household income in the United States, which is basically a discussion of statistical data on the topic, and it does contain graphs, charts and tables that help understand their significance (although one might agree that more background information would enable non-US readers to put the given information in a wider perspective).

Please note that this might be a subjective matter, and it is not that easy to accurately define non-compliance with the criterium there, therefore it is listed as secondary reason only - if the general consensus would be that this reason is invalid and the article does comply with criterium 1, it does not invalidate the primary reason.

The bottom line
The bottom line is that the article does indeed result from dilligent and time-consuming efforts by one editor mostly, and it is only natural for him to seek recognition for his extensive work. Nevertheless, this cannot be a substitute to fulfilling ALL GA criteria, even if this is a bit inhumane and bureaucratic, as the GA nomination process is a purely formal way of selecting articles complying with certain set criteria and not a way of recognizing somebody's efforts. Bravada, talk - 12:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (I was the first reviewer to the article) See it as you may, delist it if you want. After a review of the breadth and the quality of writing (which brought me to re-read the article at least 3 times now because you disagree with the decisions) I still maintain that the article, altough not broad enough for FA process will, if it grows bigger, have its subpages and will be outside of the scope of the GA process. Bottom line : the article merits the GA status. Lincher 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed my primary concern, however. I wonder whether anybody else will read it anyway, so we might not have moved anywhere with that... :( Bravada, talk - 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To address your first concern one has to go back and read the WIAGA which I did and I twice noticed the parenthesis comment beside the 3a rule that states that even if there is a necessity for inclusion of all the major topics pertaining to a certain subject, it is less strict than the FA process' one. I think that in that way, it met the criteria 3a.
 * Would another reviewer please take a look at this dispute and help in giving their opinion so we can have a clear cut decision on that article. Lincher 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have taken a (second) look at this article. The first thing that stands out to me about it is Bravada's second point: it is very hard to read. try reading Passenger Ratios and I hope you can see what I mean. This section is full of potentially interesting information, but is impossible to read. The fact that this section is so early on in the article will discourage many readers (I know it discouraged me) from reading the rest. This section and the two after it are summaries of reports and not encyclopedia entries.
 * There are also some grammar errors/typos. These can be easily fixed, but are numerous and widespread.
 * I think I can see both sides of the argument in the case of the First Issue presented by Bravada. On one hand we want to hold Good Articles to a high standard, but we don't want to hold them to the standard of FAs. If we do this then there is no point to the project. The topics Bravada wants to see in the article, however, seem pretty basic and necessary to this article; the article seems to only deal with statistics and information about companies, not cars' place in the American society or economy.
 * I don't think that this is a Good Article until these issues have been addressed.
 * -- The Talking Sock talk contribs 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This dispute is rather old, has the article changed signifigantly since August 11? Homestarmy 01:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. As for the comments mentioned above, they don't seem to have been improved or cleared out. I guess leave B-class for now. Lincher 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mission Earth (novel)

 * Result: it's already been delisted, and 3 to 0

Present article is biased by being uniformly damning and condemnational. The sales controversy is no more than urban legend and should be cited as such, unless citations and proof of sales tampering are supplied. The novels themselves contain a hefty number of positive reviews, none of which are referenced. Just needs some balance and objectivity. Is totally one-sided as is. User:Store Hadji 28 August 2006


 * The article does seem to use much POV language -- both ways. It is also hardly referenced at all. Still, it seems to be stable. I'd suggest that the protesting user try to edit the article to add other points of views and reference them. If this is done in a non-confrontational manner, those with a different perspective might just do the same. --CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 07:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delisted due to NPOV and lack of references. Tarret 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Pondok Indah and Pondok Indah Mall

 * Result: 2 to 1, speedy keep delisted. (It's an open and shut case)

These excellent articles are my contribution to Wikipedia and it is disappointing that we were not considered a 'good article'. They are both highly informative and you may have reviewed our article when they were vandalised, as such I have reverted our page to it's official state. Remember that although you may add comments to the talk page, editing is NOT permitted unless you seek my permission first. Thank you for your understanding. Ayden161 08:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles you listed are stubs with no inline citations—they do not meet the good article criteria. By the way, you cannot restrict other people from editing articles in that way. Also, the overuse of inappropriate templates on the articles constitutes as vandalism and has been reverted. I recommend you take a look at Five pillars before editing further. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing 08:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither of them have references and one of them has no lead since, you know, there can't be a lead without a body, and please read WP:OWN. Homestarmy 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lexus LS

 * Result: 4 to 0, (including editor on article talk page) delisted

This used to be a good article but has had to much POV sink it-I have tried to remove some, but somehow it still sounds like an advertisment.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  20:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be so hard on it, I don't think there's anything about it that cannot be fixed quickly. I'll see about that. Bravada, talk - 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with gerd on this one, most of the vocabulary is rife with pro-Lexus adjectives and whatnot, but if you want to fix it Bravada, I don't see why we shouldn't wait a bit. Homestarmy 13:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, if the POV is fixed than perhaps this will once again be a true GA. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, perhaps I created some confusion here. I meant I am going to visit the article and take a closer look at the issue, I did not mean to volunteer to fix the article to GA status - sorry for that. Anyway, here are my observations:
 * First of all, there is a much more important reason for deletion - the article is almost completely unsourced, and the citations sparsely dispensed in the text are done technically wrong!
 * I would not say that the article is all that POV - I removed one or two POV adjectives, but most of what can be said about the model when sticking to verifiable information and not expressing somebody's (I mean either the editor or somebody being cited) opinion IS generally "positive", as the vehicle is well-engineered. So, while sounding pro-Lexus, most things that can be mentioned as notable about the LS will be positive. Oh, and I am no Lexus fan, on the contrary if anything. That said, what bothers me is that some claims made in the article, which do put the LS in a positive light in a way, are completely unsourced, and therefore might look like expression of POV - I do believe there are more or less right, but they absolutely need referencing.
 * The article is very American-slanted. Starting with the competitors - the most direct competitor of all vehicles would be the Q45, that's for sure, but the two other vehicles are US-only, and their competing with the LS is possible yet, I would say, they are not the most direct competitors. The RL is still cheaper than the LS and struggling to maintain its position in a similar price class - according to msn.cars.com, it sells at quite hefty discounts. In Europe, the Legend is certainly one (or perhaps a half) class lower. On the other hand, the LS actually costs more than base versions of German luxury cars such as the W221 (S-Klasse), and I have seen it compared mostly to such cars in European press. STOP! I just realized I am talking about the "similar" field, which should list similar cars not competitors. Well, the Q45/Cima is surely similar, but the DTS and RL/Legend are technically very different (FWD etc.) I believe more "similar" vehicles can be found, and the W221 would be the first one that I can think of - I could argue that better later on the talk page.
 * Continuing with the "US bias" - the article should also deal with the Toyota Celsior (the Celsior redirects there, though it's not even in the aka field of the infobox!), yet there is little to no mention of the model's position or faring in the Japanese market. I am also not that sure whether JDM peculiarites are covered. The same can be said about the European market.
 * I believe the most important fact about the LS in general is that it broke the taboo - I remember everybody being skeptical about the chances of a top-level luxury car from Japan with a manufactured badge. This should be discussed in the article, and perhaps then the listing of awards in the first-gen section would become relevant, as it would give some insight into how LS achieved its success.
 * As concerns individual features mentioned, it would be good to conduct some research and check whether they were really so unique to the LS (like the LS was the only or one of the few to have them for a longer period), or whether LS was the first to have them. If not, some of them at least could be removed or reformulated so that it does not sound that "special".
 * Finally, the three last sections - any section on "future" has no place in WP, encyclopedias cover facts, i.e. past, and not future. If something was confirmed by Toyota, it should be discussed in the section devoted to the fourth generation. The awards section brings about the question of notability - I believe this should be discussed within the WikiProject Automobiles and a standard should be established, and only then could we have a take on that. Last but not least, encyclopedic articles should not have "trivia" sections - either it's encyclopedic or it's trivia. The first and the fourth bullet are irreleavant gossip, the third would belong in the awards section or the discussion of the third generation (if we find it notable), while the second might be interspersed with the discussion of the LS's whereabouts in the European market (if it is true).
 * OK, all in all I have reviewed the article, but as I said, I did not fix it. I think there are reasons why it can be removed, but they still can be fixed within a reasonable time by an editor (or a group of editros) more well-versed in LS-related sources, who could find appropriate references and expand the article. I am not one, and I am sorry to say that I don't feel like doing research into the LS at the moment, given the backlog of other tasks I have. I thought Gerd was the primary "author" and nominator, and thus the "maintainer" of the article, but if he doesn't feel like that either, and there is nobody in sight who would, there might a reason to delist the article, as it will not be brought up to standard soon. Regards, Bravada, talk - 09:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well actually I am not the main author or "maintainer." I did a revamp on the article once, but am not a Lexus expert myself-I am also really busy one) vacationing (I'm editing wiki from my Hotel-I am I addicted?) two) editing my articles relating to the US-I'll see if I can do something on the LS article, but it will be some time before I get to that. BTW: I didn't mean to imply that you (Bravada) should clean up the article-sorry about any confusion. Also-US bias, can be kind of difficult for me to correct-I never paid attention to Lexus when I lived in Germany-its mainly a US sold car. Also, is starts at $57k here-much less than the S-Klasse, more like the top Cadillac/Lincoln/Acura/Infiniti. Anyways-great work so far-I'll see what I can do further down the road.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)