Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 8

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.

Star of Bethlehem

 * Result: Passed by Moreschi

I failed this as a GA once, because I felt that it was insufficiently broad in coverage (details on talk page). Some time later, it was renominated; I commented on the talk page that I didn't feel my concerns had been dealt with, but decided to leave it to someone else to review formally. Today it was promoted by a new user, BMoos, and the promotion was in fact his/her first edit. This seems questionable to me, but I would welcome outside opinions about the GA-worthiness, or lack thereof, of the article. MLilburne 17:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a sock puppet to me. Clearly not a new user. The review makes no reference to the GA criteria. Recommend to relist back as a nomination candidate. --RelHistBuff 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Relist - The short lead section isn't worthy of GA anyway. LuciferMorgan 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the article's talk page - the discussion seems to say it has been failed, and it has been before. This new user I would say is a sock puppet, and I suspect Kauffner of this - I want an admin to investigate this. LuciferMorgan 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article had been failed twice before (once by me) before being passed by BMoos. How do we get an admin to look into this issue? I would bring it up myself, but having been involved in the situation, perhaps someone else should do so. MLilburne 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Relist. Agree the situation looks odd. --Ling.Nut 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I will go ahead and relist it then. Hope that's all right. MLilburne 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I asked a friend to do the review. I wasn't trying to game the system, just get some constructive criticism and help the review process along. I'm sorry if she was too generous. I guarentee a check will confirm that we are in fact different people with different computers and unrelated IPs. The article has been substantially improved since the first review, which described it as "close." So I think the request for another review can be justified.Kauffner 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Comment This Review page isn't the place to nominate an article for consideration; that would be WP:GAN. In fact, that is exactly where all the "relist" votes were gonna send it... fear not; the article will have its day to be reconsidered.--Ling.Nut 05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - passed. Well worthy! Moreschi 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone has any objections, i'll archive this discussion in a bit since the last comment about relisting was 7 or 8 days ago. Homestarmy 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Berlin Wall

 * Result: 5 to 1, delist

I suspect vandalism in the section entitled "Proposed Barrier". A barrier made of puppies? And with purpose of keeping homosexual East Germans out of the West? Come on!!
 * Err, vandalism isn't something we delist articles for :/. Homestarmy 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd delist based on insufficient inline cites. LuciferMorgan 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right, there is very sparse referencing for this article, it should probably be delisted for that reason. Homestarmy 19:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not surprising as it got GA under the old promotion system. Recommend to delist. RelHistBuff 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(remove indents) 'Delist. There are even direct quotes of famous living people that are not cited.--Ling.Nut 19:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain. There are thirteen footnotes; and the main narrative is quite clearly derived from the (four) narrative sources in Further Reading. Do we really need page numbers for "Ich bin ein Berliner"? Septentrionalis 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad, Further Reading sections are not supposed to be references, they are supposed to contain interesting things pertinent to the subject that a reader might be interested in, but which don't actually contribute content in the article. Number of references alone is not a good way to distinguish a well-referenced article, how well the article as a whole is referenced matters. Homestarmy 18:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, the authors seem to have made the understandable error of calling References, and thus misnaming their references. This is the sort of thing that should be fixed, not quibbled at; so I did. Septentrionalis 20:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you know if the five or so things in the former Further Reading section are actually, in fact, referencing content intentionally in the article? The main narrative is not really clearly derived from them at all, while they appear very general in nature, there's no easy way for readers to tell just exactly what was derived from them and what is OR. Homestarmy 20:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delist until citations are included. Neil916 (Talk) 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Egypt

 * Result: 3 to 1, relist

This article was listed as a GA a while back but was failed by an anonymous user (we added some of the suggestions to the To Do List). Shortly after that, the article was rated A-class by the people responsible for Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia. Right now, having the article saying it's A-class but failed GA seems rather counterintuitive. In any case, I just finished working on all the areas that were missing, so I'm requesting a review. &mdash; [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   &middot;   ☥  19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you find the diff where the user delisted it, I couldn't see it, and it doesn't look like it was delisted properly. (A note has to be left on the talk page or something about delisting the article) Homestarmy 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the note the user left after failing it and this is the diff of the user delisting it . &mdash;  [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   &middot;   ☥  19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say this fails criterion 2. b - I think more inline cites are needed. LuciferMorgan 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I took a look at Algeria and Morocco to get an idea, but noticed that they use fewer citations than Egypt. They are both listed as good articles. It would be helpful to know which parts specifically need citing. &mdash; [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   &middot;   ☥  23:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The section on Politics of Egypt specifies no sources as far as I can see; neither does the main article (the link to which seems to have been mislaid). Septentrionalis 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote to Keep until another GA reviewer proposes to delist the article. I am wary of an anonymous delisting, considering the possibility of sock puppets. An anonymous nomination is certainly fine, but the GA rules does not accept an anonymous promotion. Similarly an anonymous delisting should not be allowed. We should discuss this in this talk page RelHistBuff 09:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that more inline cites are needed, but vote Keep because of IP delisting. [Note to editor who requested guidance:At a bare minimum, any place I see a number, a percent, a specific piece of data like 90% this, 2 million that, I would want to see it cited...it just begs to cause problems otherwise.]--Ling.Nut 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of article where 2b is appropriate; but it does not require, and never has, that every statement be sourced. GA is not FA, and is not set up to be; furthermore, most of the article is summaries of sub-articles, many of which are sourced. Requiring that these sources be brought back and consolidated into giant footnotes would not be helpful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that GA is not FA (you'll note I voted to Keep, although it was really an example of "released on a technicality"), and that not every detail need be referenced for a successful GA. BUT >>> numbers, specific quotes, population figures.. THOSE are the bare minimum. The bare bare minimum.--Ling.Nut 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who commented on the article. I didn't contribute to Politics of Egypt so I can't comment on that, but I have included citations in the section in the Egypt article. I've also cited the numbers I found, basically from sources mentioned elsewhere. &mdash; [ zɪʔɾɪdəʰ ]   &middot;   ☥  23:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're Still the One

 * Result: 2 to 1, no consensus

There seems to be some dispute on talk page as to whether it should be listed or not with the tag removed and then added. Listing here to gain consensus and go through correct process. --Salix alba (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it stays as a good article. Keep. --Thankyoubaby 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the criteria that needs to be inspected? LuciferMorgan 01:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From the articles talk page -
 * This article has been delisted, as it fails criterion 1 ("well written") &mdash; it does not conform to the Manual of Style. Specifically, see WP:MUSIC/TABLE for the proper layout of the indiscriminately collected information that makes up over a third of the article. -- keep sleep ing   slack   off!  16:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * --Salix alba (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

HSV Senator Signature

 * Result: 6 to 1, keep delisted

This article is at the moment a good article nominee, I think a have checked all the bad parts and corrected everything but I desperately need a second opinion on the article HSV Senator Signature.
 * You created this article yourself, and all editing has been done by yourself in the past few days.   Forgive me, but it seems a bit pretenious to nominate it for good article yourself as well. i kan reed 07:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One can nominate article that one has worked on. One cannot promote to GA status an article that one has worked on. The article should be listed on the GA nomination list. The article will be reviewed by a GA reviewer and a decision will be made simultaneously. --RelHistBuff 10:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fails criterion 2. Delist. LuciferMorgan 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody passed this... GA is real lax I must admit. LuciferMorgan 01:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It reads like advertising to me in many places, i'd vote to delist this too. Homestarmy 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd vote for delist too. All images are uploaded as fair use, but they do not fulfill the fair use requirement #2, "a free image could not be created to replace it". / Fred-Chess 09:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote for immediate delist. It was passed by someone who worked on the article contrary to our rules. --RelHistBuff 09:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(remove indents) 'Speedy Delist' If contributors to a particular article can promote that article, then the whole GA process loses legitimacy. --Ling.Nut 04:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've delisted the article, we don't need the review for us to stop violations in passing articles like this. Since this seems to be nearly unanimous opposition to it as well, I have not relisted it to the candidate page. Homestarmy 19:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The intention of GA was that one uninvolved editor was sufficient to accept the article. When did this change? Septentrionalis 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The editor was not uninvolved. Nothing has changed...--Ling.Nut 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that. The nominator was the author of the article; how was the acceptor involved? Septentrionalis 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the diff where the GA tag was added; check the name of the editor. Then look at the history of the page itself.--Ling.Nut 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominated and seconded it, did he? Speedy delist and explain in full on talk page. Septentrionalis 21:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems to settle the issue in my opinion :/. Homestarmy 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Holden VE Commodore

 * Result: This shouldn't of come to review....

I would like to nominate this article for Good article status. Myself and several other contributers have been working on this article for the past few months - and I believe it is of relatively high standard. OSX 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is nominated, so just wait your turn in the queue. Someone will review it. --RelHistBuff 18:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War

 * Result: 4 to 1, delist

I believe that this article should be reviewed due to the fact that it over-emphasizes slavery's role in the civil war and does not properly credit state's rights, which was more a cause than slavery was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.45.101 (talk • contribs)
 * While i'm hardly a historian, I think you might be right, I'm fairly certain that "The root problem was the institution of slavery" is really not true of the Civil War at all, there were many issues, and while Slavery certainly played a large role, I really do think it was more of a state's right's thing in general. The article doesn't seem factually correct in that regard. Homestarmy 18:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the "Analysis of the Outcome" section also has alot of lists that need to be prosified. Tarret 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Although the "root problem" statement is contentious, I don't think the article overemphasises the role of slavery as other reasons for the cause of the war are also given in the section. The slavery vs. states' rights argument as the root cause is one that has been debated for a long time. In my opinion, given the length and coverage of the article and the fact that it is well-referenced, this article should keep GA status and someone should simply neutralise the "root problem" statement. As for the lists, this should be brought up as a discussion on the talk pages for fixing. I vote Keep. RelHistBuff 11:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote Delist based on criterion 2. Whole patches of text remain uncited. LuciferMorgan 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If there are places where citations are needed, then it is better to put "citation needed" tags and let the editors work on that. A lot of work seems to have done in providing citations so it largely satisfies criterion 2. --RelHistBuff 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It has to wholly satisfy criterion 2, not largely. LuciferMorgan 16:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning the application of non-scientific criteria, I tend to use the Pareto rule. Criterion 2b does not say what is the absolute number or the density of citations. Hence, the application of Pareto (80%) is perfect here. --RelHistBuff 10:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I largely disagree with the anon's complaint. But I agree to delist. This article continually attracts cranks, some of them well-read but incompetent or opinionated as historians; given the subject, this is unavoidable. When they are being contested it violates 5; when they are not, it violates 2d.


 * The section on "regional economic differences" is a a POV compilation of half-century old sources, upholding a position denied by MxPherson, the standard modern historian of the subject. Septentrionalis 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bolivia

 * Result: 5 to 0, delist (Isn't consensus great for once? :D )

In the history section, it points out that a Socialist president is now running the country, and that all major industries are now being nationalized and must pay the government. But later in the article, it talks about movement to Capitalism! Also, all dates in that section are 2004 or earlier - this part has apparently not been changed for several years. Someone needs to fix all this...
 * well, a country can be moving towareds capitalism while communist :/. However, the article seems to have very sparse coverage reference wise, I would vote to delist for that reason. Homestarmy 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Recommend to delist. RelHistBuff 15:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist due to criterion 2. b. LuciferMorgan 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist. Long article, only 6 refs. Doesn't come within whiffing distance of passing my subjective "looks like 80%" test of 2(b). --Ling.Nut 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

 * Result: 1 to 1, no consensus

This was passed by a reviewer today, and anyone can say 43 cites is sufficient but there are still unsourced claims present which need citing - this fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?' as far as I'm concerned. If needed, I'll tag all the statements I feel that need tagging. LuciferMorgan 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The parody section seems far too much like a list (and a pretty non-referenced one at that) but most Scientology articles have a reasonably large pool of editors, I don't think the article needs to be delisted, surely this could be easily fixed? And although there are unsourced claims, I think its still enough to be considered well-referenced. Homestarmy 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The unsourced claims can be viewed as original research. Maybe we can inform these people of our concerns to see if they fix them. LuciferMorgan 03:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria

 * Result: 2 to 0, delist

I'm nominating this for GAR because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?'. It has insufficient inline citations. (PS - Instead of speedily delisting articles, I'll be nominating them for review here to gain consensus). LuciferMorgan 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's your call on the delisting, but even though many editors of scientific type articles may insist otherwise, if this article isn't an example of a science-related article with insufficient citation, then we might as well not call for verification for any scientific article at all, because this clearly is not well-referenced. Using Nupedia as a reference can't possibly be up to date, and I would hardly call a single public domain source able to possibly be comprehensive enough to give everything there is to know about Bacteria. Homestarmy 00:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it open for a week. After that, I'll personally delist it. All the editors in the world can moan, but if this article doesn't meet GA standards then it's waving bye bye to its GA status. LuciferMorgan 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway.
RESULT=NO CONSENSUS Hi,

I'm new around here. But have some concerns. Are my concerns in line with what old hands consider valid?

I'm just looking at the most recent GA, New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway. The only reason I'm discussing that article is simply because, at the time I had these questions, that was the most recent GA.

If I were reviewing it, I would look down at the notes section, see a total of 7 notes, and think "'Next!'". No way would I accept that level of skimpiness with respect to verifiability. I get the coypvio shudders when I see only 7 notes in the middle of a large number of factual assertions. I would not even need to read the rest of the article to know it was a GA reject.[However, I would read the rest of the article, in order to offer constructive criticism.] I mean, look at this: The New Jersey Western was the most profitable of the roads and, led by Cornelius Wortendyke, began operating at Hawthorne in 1869. Later that year, Wortendyke signed an agreement with Dewitt Littlejohn to give the NY&OM trackage rights over the NJW to reach New York City. This agreement was pivotal, as the two roads would soon see themselves merged in 1870 to form the New Jersey Midland Railway (NJM)

In my mind, this article needs (and should contain) far more tags than it has photos.

I would reject it despite its nice maps and photos. Nice maps and photos are the least of my concerns (tho having at least 1 is kinda required, if I read WP:WIAGA correctly.. but I'm surprised WP:WIAGA makes no mention of infoboxes!).

Thanks --Ling.Nut 00:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How many references do you need? Have you ever read a series of railroad books on a specific topic? There is only a certain amount of ways to cover and explain the same topic. In cases like this, its the quality of sources, not the quantity. If you want, I can add 4 or 5 more books on the NYS&W that cover the same material. However, the references listed are the BEST on the subject. 3D jonny 14:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are sentences like the one you quoted above all through the article, or is that just one occurance? Homestarmy 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no requirement of how many inline citations in WP:WIAGA. If you need more inline sentences, then put the tag in that article. All I read from the article, that it qualifies as GA, as for now, in terms of inline citations. Perhaps, reliable citations should be questionable, regarding one reference links to an anonymous IP address. And why should WP:WIAGA mention about infobox? &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply/comments, Indon. I hope I can answer your questions.
 * It's clear that there's no numeric requirement, as you stated. But I strongly feel we should be doing our part to encourage their use, as preventitive medicine against copyvio problems. WP:5P suggests "citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible."
 * I also agree that there is an element of subjectivity here, at least at the level of "Good Article." I would do a gut-check: if my gut tells me that something... approaching... 85% of the citable statements have been appropriately cited, I would consider it acceptable (in that one respect, at least) for GA. I would put a comment, though, regarding some of the remaining possible cite-worty assertions.
 * I mention infoboxes because Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment does, citing them as a "key element" that may be missing in Start-class articles. If start-class articles shoud be checked for infoboxes, shouldn't GAs? It is also the case that there may not always be an applicable infobox. Given the proliferation of infoboxes, though, this would seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
 * I didn't put tags on the article because I am approaching this as a new reviewer. If I tagged everything I saw, some articles might look like Christmas trees bedecked with "Citation needed" ornaments. I may do so in the future, but not at this early stage.
 * Not only do I not need to have read any railroad books, it is preferable that I have not. For one thing, knowledgeable people may forget that not everyone knows/understands domain-specific terms (see my comments at Talk:Treatment of Tourette syndrome). For another.. very, very specific facts such as those mentioned above (e.g., "The New Jersey Western was the most profitable of the roads" could and should be challenged with "Prove it!".
 * Thanks! --Ling.Nut 15:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that the citing of references is pretty weak, this one is not of the worst. I would say it is marginal, so I vote keep for now. However, you found some good examples of bad GAs (the "Six related articles" above). If you find more of those, then I would suggest that you go ahead and simply delist them without having to bring them here for Review. Just remember to leave a message on the talk page giving the reasons why it is delisted. RelHistBuff 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I retract my vote to keep. As pointed out by Fred above, one should expect better citing of sources especially for a history section. RelHistBuff 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an infobox on this article, Infobox SG rail is right there at the top. Slambo (Speak) 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problems with the article despite the lower number of references. As already pointed out, I've never seen a minimum number of sources as a requiement in WP:WIAGA. Hence, I don't really understand why we're here to begin with. We could go though the article nad paint it up with each reference listed in 5 places in the article if we wanted, but I see it as detracting from the article's readability to repeatedly reference the same thing repeatedly. Perhaps you're correct, but until I can see something that says it doesn't qualify for Good Article status, I'm voting keep. thadius856talk 19:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ack! Argh! Gasp! Sputter! Readability? Since when does readability trump "no copyvio" and "no WP:OR"? I can answer that for you. Since never. I don't even need to be an old hand at this project to know that. It's written in big, barn-sized letters all over WP:5P and every other policy/guideline you'd care to give a leisurely read on some rainy evening. I'm serious; not trying to be argumentative. Do a wordsearch in WP policies/guidelines for "readability." Then do one for the other criteria just mentioned. --Ling.Nut 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I must apologize. I started this thread, and now must lamely shuffle off to wikibreak 'til dec. 16 or so. If I don't finish my research papers, my goose is cooked.
 * I think the current WP:WIAGA sets the standards too low. GA-articles should be a near-complete reflection of all the policies/guidelines I mentioned above. Current standards do not seem to reflect that idea.
 * Please leave a message on my talk page if there is serious debate about revising WP:WIAGA. I... even then I can't do much. But at least I'd wanna know.
 * 'Til then. --Ling.Nut 21:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm humbled you defered your research papers in order to critique the article. But I do salute your effort in making Wikipedia a better place. The master plan is to kick the 'ol Susie Q up to FA status, so we will firm up our references. 3D jonny 21:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put a lot of work into this article. It's been a real pet project, and something of a personal matter since I grew up with the railroad — I might just be a tad biased.  I concur with 3D jonny who states that the history texts on the NYS&W are best utilized as general references rather than inline citations.  That said, texts on this particular railroad are not the most plentiful, nor easy to come by in some areas.  Of course, this does not excuse any improper or inadequate referencing.  I understand the issues put forth by Ling.Nut.  They've been a concern of mine for a while now, and I've tried to combat it as much as possible.  3D jonny has been an asset in adding reference material and I'm sure that he and the rest of us working on this article can improve the citations.  Please also take into account that it's a good article — not a great one or a featured one at that.  We certainly have room for improvement, and we'll be working on it for a long time I'm sure.  Please vote to keep this article, even if conditionally tentative upon an increased number of citations.  I believe in the quality of the work that has been done by myself and others on this article.  Thank you.  Kether83 06:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(no indent, comments for Ling.Nut). This place is to raise for further review of an already passed/failed GA articles. So please stick on it, not to discuss about revising GA criteria. If you have any proposal to improve GA criteria, then submit it on appropriate places. One more thing that you should know about GA project, that the GA process is actively done by a reviewer. A GA reviewer is not merely judge an article (although some do that). That's why we can use "On Hold" tag at WP:GAC to let editors improve an article first. Or we can actively contribute it, as I've done with Taiwanese aborigines, that you've nominated yourself at WP:GAC, here:, while we reviewed the article. Alas, you just simply reverted back. Perhaps you should learn more about GA process in detail. Cheers. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 10:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indon, I really, really, really, really, really wanted to spare your feelings. But since you're lecturing me in a public forum, I must respond. Your edit, marked "minor," introduced no less than eleven grammatical errors and three factual errors. Not to put too fine a point on it, but.. please spare me your lectures. Sorry to be so blunt. I tried and tried and tried to be nice. I tried to be nice across four different forums, including my editorial review. I tried to ask you very sweetly and nicely to discuss your edit.  But you refused. I tried to avoid pointing out in public the very, very large number of errors you made. But you would have none of it! So please, before you lecture others about the speck in their eye, mind the plank in yours.
 * --Ling.Nut 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * *gasp* &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 17:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (remove indents) Note that I originally posed this entry as a question or request for information, rather than an actual request for review. Perhaps I put it in the worng place; but then again, there have been subsequent votes for delisting.
 * I personally am not gonna delist this article; delisting it seems a bit more controversial than the other 6.
 * I would, however, like to resolve the issue. Any consensus here?
 * --Ling.Nut 18:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as consensus is concerned I don't think there is one, I count 2 against and four for the article to be a GA. Homestarmy 18:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK to archive as KEPT then? It's been over a week. --Ling.Nut 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd call it a no consensus situation, but either way, the end result would be the same. However, that week limit is supposed to be after the discussion has died down, not a week limit starting when the discussion begins :/. Homestarmy 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bronx High School of Science

 * Result: Relisted to candidate page by Indon

just an hour ago passed Bronx High School of Science. This is a newbie passing out of order. When is an article half filled with various irrelevant lists ever a good article? I'm tempted to just revert the edits by Qazws11 but I'll probably get some complaints, so please speak up. / Fred-Chess 23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll speak up. :-) Actually, I was going to put the article here also with the same issue. Yes, it's very listy and I'd fail it from GA. Oh, please take a look at his/her contribution page. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 23:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is indeed quite out of order, speedy relist to the candidate page. Homestarmy 00:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Too listy. LuciferMorgan 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

→ The article has been relisted back. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Six related articles
Still new around here; still have no idea what I'm doing. Didn't want to make six new sections for six extremely similar (and related) articles. Should I have? Anyhow, lack of inline cites... going back into ancient history: Thanks --Ling.Nut 08:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 2-6-0
 * 2) 2-8-0
 * 3) 4-2-0
 * 4) 4-4-0
 * 5) 4-6-0
 * 6) 6-2-0
 * Odd, I always thought our train articles were the best examples of old GA's that we had :/. But you seem to be correct, there aren't alot of references for any of these, and while I still hesistate to delist something solely for inline citations, I think a case can easily be made that although they are referenced, they aren't necessarily well-referenced. Homestarmy 14:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of the older railroad articles that had GA badges simply slapped on their talk pages do not meet the current standard and if they were properly nominated, would easily fail now. Someone from the railroad-related wikiproject had mentioned that they were going to bring the articles up to current standards. However, that was a few months ago and not much has been done. Those articles listed are almost stub- or start- class articles. I vote to delist them immediately. RelHistBuff 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with RelHistBuff on this, so I vote delist - if the criteria isn't enforced it has no point to it. LuciferMorgan 17:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why these articles that are quite short are required to have inline references, when just the history section of New_York%2C_Susquehanna_and_Western_Railway is longer and still has no inline references. Are inline references there just for show? E.g. New_York%2C_Susquehanna_and_Western_Railway is a 28k article with only seven inline references (that is circa 1 reference / 4 K) while 2-6-0 is a 4k article and zero inline references, so there's not a great difference. IMO inline references are more important for long articles when one may assume that sources contradict each other. For short articles, I feel confident that the references at the bottom cover everything.

Fred-Chess 20:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you check below Fred that article is also under review. LuciferMorgan 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, although I said it was marginal, I voted to keep and now I believe it was a hasty decision. I will change my vote below. RelHistBuff 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: In addition to not satifying criterion 3 (broadness), the articles appear to have been given GA status by the original author which in my opinion strikes me as a conflict of interest and is against our current rules anyway. --RelHistBuff 10:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Question How long do articles stay up for voting? I'm a little surprised these haven't been de-listed. One person suggested that I merely delist them myself rather than place them on this page...
 * --Ling.Nut 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, most reviews normally stay up for a week after the discussion has died off, just to make sure nobody else wants to say something. But anyone can still delist the article at any time of course, and that commonly happens. Homestarmy 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delisted all 6 as per these discussions: lack of inline cites in all; some lack broad coverage.--Ling.Nut 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Marvin Gaye

 * Result: 3 to 0, delist

I'm nominating this for GAR because it fails criterion 2. of 'What is a Good Article?'. It has insufficient cites. LuciferMorgan 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and as with most articles in this category of biograhies, it is not NPOV, especially in the legacy section. Homestarmy 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - there's a few GAs that need reviewing, only if I blanket nominate I may be accused of not properly searching for the criteria in the articles. LuciferMorgan 21:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally, whenever I see a bunch of articles that clearly have obvious errors on the GA list, I just delist them all. (Especially ones which don't appear to of been reviewed) All you have to do is explain why you've delisted it, and if anyone disputes it, (which is not common on most articles) then it ends up here sometimes. Homestarmy 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have them reviewed to avoid anyone accusing me of anything. LuciferMorgan 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote delist. RelHistBuff 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Electron beam welding

 * Result: 3 to 0, delist

I was about to immedietly delist this article until I noticed somebody had actually reviwed it, something I consider uncommon enough for articles that should be immedietly delisted that I thought I might as well take it here. There is but a single reference which gives the article an unknown amount of text, and the article doesn't tell the reader precisely what sorts of things this form of welding is used for, although it tells readers about the materials and metals commonly used, it doesn't say whether we're talking chop shop welding, industrial grade skyscraper beam welding, or really much of anything. I don't think this should be a Good Article. Homestarmy 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I recommend to delist. It does not satisfy criteria 2 and 3. --RelHistBuff 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. LuciferMorgan 21:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Beatles for Sale

 * Result: 2 to 0, delist

I'm nominating this for GAR because it fails criterion 2. of 'What is a Good Article?' like the Sgt. Pepper article. It has insufficient cites. LuciferMorgan 12:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would also like to point out that most of the article is filled with weasel words, from the introduction to the very end, with lots of "some people say..." type things and many highly subjective opinions being presented as fact. Alot of these musician type articles seem to suffer from these same kinds of problems, i'm not sure why :/. Homestarmy 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's because they come from a social group who discuss music, and then they see themselves as music critics. LuciferMorgan 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedrun

 * Result: 2 to 1, no consensus

This article is extremely poor. It goes into far too much detail which is boring to the average reader (probably why it's at a staggering 77KB right now). The tone is very conversational and not formal at all. Some of the details are so gratitous and self-promotional that I added advert in one section; I haven't even reviewed the other parts closely enough to see if there was detail. I don't think this is even a B-class, much less a GA-class, but I would like someone else to weigh in. Hbdragon88 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think most of the content is good for compleatness purposes, but the lead is problematic. It violates the rule against self-references, (This article will discuss....") and is probably too long. It did seem odd to me that it got so specific with particular games, though the references seem to make the specifics somewhat notable. However, in the end, I also think it should be delisted. Homestarmy 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The self-reference thing should be replaced with a few footnotes (for the hour:minute:second conventions). I see nothing wrong with the length- a huge amount of gaming terminology and gaming concepts need to be discussed to properly cover speedruns, and the article does that very well. Honestly, with a bit more work, this could eventually become FA-class. I'll go as far to say that this is the best game-related article we currently have. --- RockMFR 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just moved the self-reference thing into a footnote- this is no longer an issue. Upon looking over the article again, I think the "Route planning" section could be trimmed a bit, but I don't think this is a reason to delist the article. A large portion of this article's size is from markup and references- the prose is no longer than a typical Featured Article. --- RockMFR 04:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The length is an issue due to how much detail it goes into. The parts about specific websites and their histories sounds unwiedly and purely promotinal, if anything. The whole spiel about Metroid2002 uses its own website as a source, for instnace, and even a forum link (WP:RS is spinning in its grave). As far as I'm concerned, it's completely non-notable unless, say, Nintendo Power mentioned the website and its notability (or something like that). THe tone is far too conversational and would require a top-down rewrite to actually make it sound factual and encyclopedic. If a large majority comes from the markup, the markup needs to be trimmed down, then; it shouldn't excuse the massive article size. Hbdragon88 05:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it very odd that you are asking for a complete re-write of a very good article. It seems that this review is stemming from some relatively small disputes on the main editor's talk page. --- RockMFR 05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it very odd that you are very blind to the flaws of this article and are attacking my credibility instead of actually aruging the pionts that I bring up. Hbdragon88 06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just don't think articles should be brought here when there are ongoing content disputes. You seem more concerned with winning a debate with the main editor, rather than caring about the quality of this article. --- RockMFR 16:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, what content dispute? Homestarmy 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

 * Result: 3 to 0, delist

I'm nominating this for GAR because it fails criterion 2. 'What is a Good Article?'. Has insufficient cites and references. LuciferMorgan 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see how the small number of refs given can give a compleatly comphrehensive account for this entire article, and the large section announcing no references is problematic as well. The large amount of lists also seems over-detailed. Homestarmy 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend to delist. In addition to the section with the citations-missing template, there are some assertions of certain actions and decisions taken by McCartney which should be cited. Although this is not a biography, one should take care to follow WP:BLP. --RelHistBuff 10:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm delisting - it's been a week. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Microsoft

 * Result: 3 to 2, no consensus
 * Relisted dispute back up at top to gain more input

On 6 June 2006, I nominated this article for Good Article. The nomination passed. However, on 11 September 2006, someone moved the article from Criticism of Microsoft to Analysis of Microsoft. The move was deemed unhelpful, and the article was moved back to Criticism of Microsoft. However, in the process of the article being moved and moved back, the Good Article template was somehow removed from the talk page. The article does not appear in the list of good articles either. The talk page does not contain a FailedGA or DelistedGA template. As the delisting of Criticism of Microsoft was unjustified and out of process, I request that the Good Article status be reinstated to Criticism of Microsoft. If you believe Criticism of Microsoft should not be a good article, please add an appropriate template to the talk page, indicating your reasons, as the article was a former good article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Were the history or talk page archives deleted, or do you think we could see the diff showing it being passed? Homestarmy 12:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the history of Talk:Criticism of Microsoft. That's where I got the dates (6 July and 11 September) from. Look for edits made on those dates. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it now, Lincher seems to of promoted it, this should be relisted unless somebody sees a major problem. Homestarmy 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Relist : I went through it fast and it didn't change much so I still back up my earlier promotion. Lincher 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, shouldn't this have ran for slightly longer than 21 hours?-Localzuk(talk) 06:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer in a nutshell, this edit requested a removal of GA (I had awarded ) upon changing title. The title change didn't occur and so I re-evaluated the article in the same manner I had done earlier. If you find enough reasons to delist it, then go ahead but leave the reasons on the article's talk page, if not, just leave your comments on the talk page and they will fix the minor criticism you could have. Lincher 12:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some thoughts on the article's talk page but overall my inclination is for De-listing. Agne 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Delist A typical example of this article;

"Critics of Microsoft have accused it of using its dominance in desktop operating system to leverage market share in other sectors of the computer market, such as web browsers (Internet Explorer), server operating systems (Windows NT), office software suites (Microsoft Office), and streaming media (Windows Media)."

Critics? Who? This is just an example of the weasly sentences in this article. It fails criterion 2. of 'What is a good article?', so therefore should be delisted without a second's thought. LuciferMorgan 15:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Special relativity

 * Result: 5 to 1, three for speedy close, and the last review was already overwhelming keep.

The following is a copy of the GA page for special relativity that describes relativity as passing the required math check for it to then have a GA rating.


 * This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics.

Mathematics grading: GA Class Top Importance Some work needed on material relating to equations }~

It is an undeniable fact that the math of relativity fails, and it is therefore impossible for the math check to have found the truth concerning the math involved, and therefore is factually not compatible with the GA requirements. And, as described repeatedly here, that math failure can be confirmed by any unbiased, competent math professional in the world as absolute fact in its failure.

With this fact as undeniable, it is the full situation of whether the GA review group stands up with integrity and truth concerning the factual math error, or fails to maintain integrity and truth concerning the GA rating. If failure occurs, the GA rating is worthless as far as any credible truth.StevenCrum 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's not undeniable, since the Math Project replied that your math was wrong and stood by their assessment. --plange 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The only end conclusion to that situation is since the math proof is factual then they aren't being unbiased or even looking at the math involved, or they just don't know the math. It doesn't matter in any of those situations because you are only looking for an excuse anyway. So, that is your problem because whether you or they understand the math truth or not, the three math proofs are factually undeniable. So, that again, is your problem and not mine. The future will show soon that the math proofs are factual, and then you can explain if you can why your experts couldn't figure that out after it was explained in detail right in front of them. So, do what you choose, and the situation will just come back and bite you with the truth involved.StevenCrum 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it will not come back to bite us, and we are not looking for an excuse, because we have never claimed to be the publisher of original thought, so if this is published elsewhere to be factually true in a reliable source, we will happily change the pages to reflect this. There will be no egg on our face, because we will have consistently applied our policies. So please, expend your efforts with a journal that has the power and ability to publish your findings. We cannot do that, pure and simple, so you can keep arguing until you are blue in the face, but our policy of WP:OR will not change. --plange 00:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether the WikiProject actually checks their math or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether or not there is a concrete source we can cite to demonstrate that one of the fundamental aspects of physics is compleatly wrong. So far, you haven't given us a single reliable source. While it is true many mathematics articles have a rather bad habit of never providing really nice references, (I think the excuse is still something about it being common knowladge to highly specialized collage graduates, and therefore, adding a citation is just advertisement for the source or something) most of those articles aren't really accepted as GA's nowaday, and I don't think that the way to solve problems here is to turn an article which has references and passes GA into an article with almost no references and fails miserably. (Since, of course, we'd be using your compleatly unreferenced content) Homestarmy 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as this comment it is amazing to me how many times the truth about the math failure concerning the GA rating is ignored and the endless excuse thing of publications gets used in trying to slither around the truths here. But, if that is your professioanl choice in the matter of passing the buck and irrepsonsibility and excuse-making, then so be it. It's your failure in choosing that is your full choice to make. I have better things to do than to explain professionalism, credibility and other characteristics of "whatever" to even mess with the entire lot of you. What an excuse for what an encycloedia is supposed to be. So, go for whatever excuse thing you want to choose. It sure as beans isn't professionalism or truth-based at all. BTW, vandalism has hypocritically occurred here endlessly also. That fits fully as well.StevenCrum 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Steven, the reason your math is ignored as fact is because Wikipedia's core policies demand that nothing ever be presented as fact unless there are verifiable sources to back it up. Wikipedia wouldn't be professional at all if anybody could just write whatever they think are "facts" into articles, you don't think everyone in the entire editing community who might want to share original reaserch would do it as well as you think you do, do you? Finally, if by "Vandalism" you mean the closing of the review, I really think WP:SNOW sort of applied. there, I didn't do a count of votes or anything, but it looked somewhere around 7 or 8 to one. Homestarmy 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not slithering around anything. Your math was checked and found false. --plange 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close - This has alrady been shown to violate WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Steve had no case before, and has no case now. --EMS | Talk 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close - this renomination is just disruption. I've left a warning on the users talk page. --Salix alba (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close - per Salix alba. --Pjacobi 15:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Contact Lens

 * Result: hrm, there were no comments beyond the first person, no consensus

I believe this article should be reviewed as it is missing a major function in the Contact Lens story. Although the materials are mentioned this article fails to point out the extensive R&D/testing/science that material manufacturers go through to achieve a finished material and actually how most of the science lays with them. Many of the Dr's involved in the R&D process (at the material manufacturers labs)have supplied the information used in this current article. I also think that if you are going to mention finshed lens companies (who are just basically buyers) the material manufacturers should be mentioned as well. In my opinion this is a bias article aimed towards advertising (also with Johnson & Johnson brands named) and it is not actually explaining the full story!

Thanks in advance for any comments Wikitinker 09:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

 * Result: 2 to 1, no consensus

This article was recently delisted due to the claim that the "writing is bad". There is some pre-existing discussion on the talk page. I would appreciate some input from others, as I believe this is a Good Article. -- BlueCanoe 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the last line in the hiking section reads like an advisory and should probably be removed, but I don't think the writing in that section is half bad, let's wait and see if the delister has anything else to say. Homestarmy 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

 * Result: 1 and a half to 0, no consensus

A recent BLP noticeboard alert posted by the man himself has led to a major overhaul of the text. There's an AN thread regarding the issue. I think this article has become unstable (if it ever was stable, as I imagine that it would be a prime target for vandals and trolls) and should be delisted as stability is a key component of the GA criteria (it's the reason why PS3 is still at a B-class). Hbdragon88 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think you're right, there seem to have been a few major changes over the past few days, it might not still be a GA by the time its done :/. Homestarmy 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So should it be delisted, or should we wait until the dust settles? Hbdragon88 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the dust settles quickly it should be fine, but you could delist it now if you feel that would be best. Most reviews stay open for around a week....Homestarmy 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)