Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 40

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 41)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 39) →

Messianic Judaism[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Disagreements over content are best dealt with on the article talk page or in other fora such as WP:RFC, if necessary. If there are still quality concerns after content disagreements have been resolved, a new GAR discussion can be initiated. Geometry guy 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admin that delisted the article did so without rationale, and only on suspicion that the article needed a second review. inigmatus (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The delisting was completely against process, so I have reverted it. If other editors think this GAR needs to continue, please comment here, otherwise, I will close it. Geometry guy 20:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My error, the delisting process needs the full GAR, so the article should remain a GA as of now. However, there are inaccuracies and improper POV extrapolations that made their way in to the article, and the article should be delisted and reviewed before re-listing. -- Avi (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in discussing any POV issues with the article with you Avraham on the talk page. inigmatus (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples on the article's talk page and there was the restoration of the full Harris-Shapiro quote that somehow got lost, to name a couple. -- Avi (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought more examples on the talk page. -- Avi (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Geometry guy is correct, the delisting was contrary to policy. However, I suspect that it was an honest mistake on Avi's part; let's face it, not everyone is familiar with the new GAR process. That said, the article has several major shortcomings which merit community discussion at a GA review. It needs additiona citations. The re are some problems with the quality of the prose, and there are far too many stubby sub-sections and lists. I am agreeable to either continuing that discussion here or speedy-closing this review and allowing editors to decisde whether they want to open another community review. Majoreditor (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close The delisting was the result of a content dispute so it is rather unsettling to allow it to continue under the circumstances with one side of an apparent POV dispute determining the outcome. As you say, it is completely against process and sets a very bad precedent. If someone wants to put it up for review through the proper process, then let it happen that way. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's close and have the editors discuss issues on the talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, although if the issues are not worked out, we may bring it back for delisting (properly this time). -- Avi (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPod[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Community GAR not needed; the undisputed individual reassessment is here Geometry guy 10:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the widespread distrust in my reviewing ability I am reluctant to delist this article as I would otherwise have done now that its hold period has expired without the required work having been done. Who knows, I may have misjudged it, and all it needs is a couple of months here in intensive care. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L. Ron Hubbard[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. See below. Geometry guy 10:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: PresN (initial GA reviewer), WP:SCIFI, WP:SCN, WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:SKEPTICISM, WP:BUDDHA, WP:MONTANA, and WP:SCOUT.

This article was passed as a WP:GA on November 7, 2006 - see Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/GA1 for the archive of the first GA review. I think it is time for a good article reassessment, as in my view the article in its present state does not measure up to current standards at WP:WIAGA.

The writing quality is certainly lacking and the lead/intro of the article does not satisfy WP:LEAD as it is not an adequate independent summary of the article. It is true that portions of the article are factually accurate and verifiable, but many whole sections/paragraphs are either completely unsourced or verge on WP:OR. Many aspects of the subject's history are discussed, but some are lacking including for example a bit more information on family history and personal relationships with immediate family, wives, children, etc. A recent post to the article's talk page notes at least one large chunk of text with NPOV issues. The article has been relatively stable lately but it should be noted that it has been permanently semi-protected since July. Images seem okay, but this one Image:MastersOfSleep.jpg has a "public domain" tag and a fair-use rationale which is rather confusing. These issues and others which other people may raise here should be discussed and addressed, but my take is that the article would need a significant amount of work to retain GA status at current standards, and should be delisted. Cirt (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a dense article, and I haven't given it more than a cursory glance at this point. However, I haven't found an entire section which is unsourced. The article doesn't suffer from a lack of citations; however, I'm not sure that all of the references are quality(sigh, it will take some time to check.) I'm also concerned with borderline POV-issues Cirt mentioned. The tonality drifts from neutrality in spots. Majoreditor (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct actually, there is no one singular subsection that is entirely without citations, but there are whole paragraphs that are unsourced, in addition to lots of other portions of the article that aren't sourced that well. Cirt (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. This article is significantly under-referenced, which is the main reason it should be delisted. Other problems include a heavy reliance on quotes (both block and in-text), and a lack of consistency in formatting the numerous block quotes found throughout the article. The references themselves need quite a bit of work. All web references must have access dates and publishers, and titles should be linked, rather than having bare links. References should be formatted the same way - currently some use templates and others do not. Books should have page numbers. Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article sports 128 in-line citations at present. Admittedly, I identified (and flagged) three direct quotations lacking in-line citations, but this doesn't make the article "significantly under-referenced". My bigger concern with references is that some citations aren't complete, some aren't properly formatted and others may be of dubious quality. Majoreditor (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Several citations don't use reliable sources. See, for example, "Affidavit of Andre Tabayoyon (5 March 1994). Source: alt.religion.scientology." Many of the footnotes aren't properly formatted. There's also the matter of POV. Majoreditor (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Doesn't follow WP:LEAD. It is too long. Citation formatting is inconsistent. Sourcing quality is spotty (Cirt is right, some sources are good and verify material in the article, but others are of dubious or unknown quality or don't verify the text). Too many quotes. Image:MastersOfSleep.jpg is both fair use and PD-age. Tone is choppy. Taking a section at random (World War II, I know that it summarizes another article) sees tone problems, factual errors, some misunderstanding regarding the navy's promotion scheme, and other issues. Various style problems. This isn't an awful article but it isn't a good article. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, the lead is underdeveloped; all the quotes are distracting; it could use some subheaders as the large blocks of text are pretty ominous; several of the references need proper formatting; citation needed tags; etc. Nikki311 18:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Weak keep. This article has been brought to reassessment many times now, but seems to hover forever at the borderline. I hope someday someone takes pity on it and brings it to featured article status. Meanwhile, there is yet again no consensus to delist. Geometry guy 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't feel very informative per se, more accurately how the article is organized and fleshed out. Many bits of information feel more peppered through the article than emphasized as actual points, and there are a few citation tags in there too it seems, not to mention some blocks without references. Fair-use imagery usage is a bit troubling too; the box for the video game for example references the anime before the anime is even discussed. The card doesn't bring anything of use to the table either, as all pokemon at this point have been printed in card form. The prose really needs an overhaul too at this point. It's a decent article and should be B-class, but really doesn't seem like it should remain GA at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm kind of disappointed this article still uses the old Poké-template organization. While it worked as well as could be expected for the other hundreds of now-merged articles, doesn't feel right when applied to the most famous of them all. Just a gut feeling I have. Nifboy (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I honestly think this article would benefit from being delisted, but I'm not sure it is blatantly outside the GA criteria. I have issues with the FU images and with the coverage but nothing that I would just fail an article for. If I reviewed this today for GAN, I would probably put it on hold with a page of recommendations. I am, however, not inclined to delist it just based on that fact. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is only one "citation needed" tag, and I believe that could be adequately addressed by using the previous cite. I also don't see a major error with the organization of the article. It is written in a standard way: Concept and Creation, Characteristics, Appearances, and Real-world impace/history. Everything seems to be there, perfectly cited. If you could give some examples of the "peppering", that would be great.

I'll have to look through it again, though I think I mistook a bit in there as a cite tag, so I'm going to go ahead and retract that statement.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think the card image should stay. I'll be bold and remove it. The prose isn't the best, I agree, but certainly good enough for GA? There are many GA articles out there with even worse prose. --haha169 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is what Nifboy talking bout but im not sure, anyway shouldnt the infobox be changed from the Pokemon species infobox template to VG character template. The current template is incredible in-universe. Salavat (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But remember, Pikachu isn't just a video game character. In fact, it is more famous for its appearances in the anime, so I'm not sure if a video game character template would be appropriate. Artichoker[talk] 13:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Nifboy's refering to I think is the structure of the article rather than the infobox.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh yeh i forgot to consider the TV show. So then shouldnt it be changed to simply Template:Infobox character? Salavat (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I think that template would be appropriate. Artichoker[talk] 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. writing isn't great, but most of the unsourced paragraphs need simple in universe sources, and the important sections are sourced well enough to just stay as GA. Don't think it would get promoted as is though.Yobmod (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sharapova[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. GA problems raised below remain. Geometry guy 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite a way below GA class in my opinion. Some of the major problems:

A large array of citations missing, only a few have been tagged, but a lot of work needs to go into solving it.
The prose is dire. It's basically a rewrite of her WTA page. This is accentuated by the "season summary" which appears at the top of each year section, exactly the same as the WTA page. The format is basically a wikilinked copy-and-modify-a-bit-and-paste. Let's remember we're trying to write engaging prose, not merely summarise every quarter, semi and final match she's ever appeared in. That way lies dull, uninspiring prose.
There's a "quotations" section which is simply trivia. And we discourage trivia sections, so this should be discourage as well. If the quotation is signficant (e.g. the "cow on ice") then include it in the prose. Otherwise this section should be removed.
There's a "notable matches" section which has some vague criteria (just added by User:Tennis expert) such as "trailing badly ", "heavily favored ", " big lead", "long or very close, or both.". It also includes "(5) finals" but then doesn't include all the finals she has been in. The inherent WP:POV in this section means it should be removed or "big", "badly", "close" etc should be defined.
References are in bad shape. Between about [30] and [65] we have no accessdates, publisher information, nothing other than a link.

I advocate the delisting of this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The misrepresentations you (The Rambling Man) have posted here are truly breathtaking! Let's take a brief look at the most important one. If you look at the Maria Sharapova information on the website of the Women's Tennis Association, you will see very quickly that this article has nothing to do with that website. It's astonishing that you would claim that anything in the article is "exactly the same as the WTA page." Did you even bother to read the WTA website before posting your false claim here? Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, does this article still meet the good article criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This article has a ton of work that needs to be done on the references and referencing before this article can remain at GA status. First of all, as mentioned before, all web references need accessdates and publishers. Current refs 14 (RolandGarros), 15 (Wimbledon 2008 Statistics) and 59 (RollandGarros) deadlink. What makes these refs reliable (and note, these are only from the refs that have publishers listed):
- #6 (About.com) (About.com is almost never reliable)
- #87 (Jurgita)
- #87 (ThinkExist)

Links such as the one in ref #25 (Edmondson book) should be linked to the title of the book, rather than being a bare link. I also agree with the Rambling Man that the items in the quotes section should either be incorporated in the article or removed and transcluded to WikiQuote. There are a number of fact tags in the article that need to be resolved. There are some direct quotes that do not have references, which is a big no-no (see the end of the first paragraph of the Endorsements section for an example). Also, is it really necessary to have a "summary of the year" and a "year in-depth" section for each year, even when the year-in depth section isn't that long (for example, 2003)? As a final comment, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and therefore usually doesn't need references unless they're supporting a direct quote. Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The article needs substantial improvement before it meets GA standards. The prose is lacking, a problem common in all too many WP sports articles. The layout style is unencyclopedic with far too much emphasis on "and then..." chronology. Stubby paragraphs and sections have a half-baked feel to them. Sections such as "Awards" are nothing more than a bullet-point list. The quotes section has trivializes the article. Plus, there's formatting issues with several citations, as noted above by Dana Boomer.

Some of the of the {{fact}} tags are overkill. As an example, does the statement Sharapova developed rapidly at the academy and began playing junior tournaments really require a citation? My interpretation of GA criterion 2b suggests that referencing isn't required in this case as it's not a direct quotation, a statistic, counter-intuitive, contentious, etc.

I hope that the article's editors don't give up on discussion. Step back, take a rest from the article if needed, and come back recharged and ready to iron out differences. Majoreditor (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I feel that the edit-warring is sufficient grounds, even if everything else were perfect. Which it isn't. There's some astonishingly disruptive WP:OWN editing evident on this article. Reinstatement of MOS-breaching date linking is also not helping and is inviting a listing at WP:LAME. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist (unanimously) Geometry guy 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with this article that lead me to believe it is no longer GA class:

"Set design" is unsourced.
{{Citations missing}} tag at top.
"Gameplay" section contains several one sentence paragraphs and unsourced info.
No section on critical reception whatsoever. Isn't this an essential part of a television GA?
Other formatting isuses, such as typos (game show is two words, not one).

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with delisting this article, per TenPoundHammer's comments. It was borderline when I checked it over last December (maybe I was slightly lenient too :P), and unfortunately time hasn't been kind. EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Lacks enough information on critical reception and isn't sufficiently referenced. Majoreditor (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I agree that the majority of information in the article is currently unsourced. Ruslik (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per cleanup banner and other issues mentioned. Nikki311 18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yotsuya Kaidan[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: delisted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 08:11, 24 October 2008

This article has no inline citations. The general references show that sources must exist, but without cites it is impossible to see where the info came from (and if all the claims come from the current sources.) I guess the criteria were not so strongly applied in 2006, but i don't think it merits being called a good article at the moment, is more B class.

In addition, i think it would benefit from a copyedit/restructure to remove single sentence paragraphs etc (of which there are many), and make the lead into a summary of the article. I went for community assessment though, as sources exist, so maybe someone can cite them easily.Yobmod (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Actually, the article has a small number of in-line citations. However, it's woefully deficient in many other ways. It's arguably under-referenced, and what references and citations it has are often not properly formatted. The lead is scant. Sections and paragraphs are stubby. It's a borderline "B" article. Majoreditor (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a reference has been added since this started :-). But still not enough. (Update: and the number of cites is still growing...).

It's not that hard to look up the websites in the references section and try to match them inline with information... However, I agree that it should be delisted. My concerns are that the prose feels fragmented and too short on detail in places. For example, except for the (not-inline-cited) information about the hair-combing scene, there's no information in the article on how the play was staged - how the rotating door was achieved. -Malkinann (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist (for now). I'd like to tidy this one up however, and encourage other reviewers to do likewise. Geometry guy 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've delisted it, per all the comments above, and the fact that the main contributor to the article is pro delisting (Malkinann, who is doing good work on sourcing so far). I think it can be brought back to GA in the medium term, and adding the sources is maybe simply a case of reading all the links in the article, but it will take longer than the 2 weeks this reassessment has left, and there are still all the MOS and copyediting to do.Yobmod (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 581 c[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Geometry guy 18:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very soon after this article was granted Good Article status, the article has undergone significant editing, including various tags such as {{contradict}}, passages of text in the article criticising the references, an RFC on the talk page. I thus believe the article no longer fulfils criterion 5 (stability), and possibly not 2 (accuracy and verifiability) or 4 (NPOV). As an editor who has been involved with the article I feel it would be inappropriate for me to carry out an individual reassessment, hence my request for community reassessment. Icalanise (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support delisting on the mere basis that the current revision is significantly different from the reviewed revision, as well as 2 and 4. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting as per Icalanise. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Effective Temperatures section is in a wretched state. It's a poorly written confusing ramble. Majoreditor (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The star's article was just listed, and is much easier t understand. This needs o be rewritten, and copyeditied. also the leads one big paragraph is difficult to read, and if it summarises the article, then all those citations should be moved into the main body.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 09:39, 21 October 2008.
Delist. Although this article is not bad, and not particularly unstable, it really does need some work on it. I agree with Majoreditor's comment on the Effective temperatures section. Also the lead does not summarize the article very well. It would be nice to have a more expert reviewer's opinion (e.g. Ruslik). Geometry guy 20:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my above comment. Majoreditor (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist per consensus. When finished, please renominate at WP:GAN. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was summarily delisted by a single reviewer. No opportunity was given for improvements to be made, only 5 problems were listed. This was completely outside of the delisting process for Good Articles. If genuine concerns are present with the articles content they should be presented clearly in the normal fashion, wikipedians should be given time to address those concerns (as is normal).--ZincBelief (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "delist" issues given are/were:

~~There are at least five outstanding requests for citation, some dating back to April 2008.~~
- Redress comment: This could easily be addressed by sourcing cites or removing/tempering uncited items. There are 4 that I can see. None of which seem either controversial or critical.Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: This has since been addressed. Guliolopez (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large sections of the article are completely uncited: Geology, Science, ~~Air, Rail,~~ and almost all of Economy, for instance.
- Redress comment: This would seem to be a fair point. Though may be readily addressed with recourse to the refs provided in the relevant "sub-articles". Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Air and rail are largely addressed. The remaining text is so generalist (given its summary nature) that specific references would be difficult to apply. The Economy and Geology sections probably still need review. Guliolopez (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit confused by this, Geology has citations? None of it's beyond what's the school textbooks.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Places of interest section is a list and gallery of images should be moved to Commons and a link provided.~~
- Redress comment: These issues (list/gallery) has already been raised on the talk page and is under review. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: Places of interest has been replaced by a short referenced list in prose. The gallery has been removed and the existing link the the Commons should now suffice. ww2censor (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of the sources given in References is inconsistent.
- Redress comment: This would seem like a minor issue that can be addressed without recourse to a GA review activity. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are two dead links.~~
- Redress comment: I cannot find these, so this may already be addressed. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: This is confirmed to be a dead issue. Guliolopez (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is an inline external link in the first paragraph of Sport. External links should only appear in the External links section.~~
- Redress comment: I cannot find this, so this may already be addressed. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: This is confirmed to be a dead issue. Guliolopez (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The places of interest section and the image gallery appear to be the only two valid concerns. The first is a brief prose issue, somebody needs to sit down and work up some common theme (such as being in the tourist attraction menu) for these places. Given the number of them I'm frankly not too objectionable to a list, but perhaps that is also an argument for clipping. The second is just eyeball rolling.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I worked on the dead links yesterday and I could not find the inline external link mentioned in the sports section. So let's work on the outstanding issues. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - The main issue with this article is that it is significantly under-referenced. To Guliolopez, addressing his "redress" comments above, rather than arguing about how many tags there are, fix them. No reviewer (including myself, and obviously Malleus) is going to spend hours working on finding citations in an article that they really don't care about personally. I agree with Malleus's delisting of the article, and think that it will quite probably take more than the usual length of a hold to address the issues with the article. My suggestion would be to allow the article to be delisted, spend a few weeks going through the article piece-by-piece, making sure everything is up to par, and then renominate the article at GAN. To be honest, I'm not sure why you think GAR is "easier" than GAN (as you mentioned in the talk page discussion), because at GAR you are giving multiple editors the right to pick at the article, rather than only one as you would in GAN. Now, on to some other issues I see in the article:

The Places of Interest list/image gallery, as mentioned before.
The refs are in a sorry state. Web references need to have at the very least a publisher and an access date, which many of them don't. You should either always use cite templates or never use them, rather than going back and forth like the article does currently. The books in the References section should either have some connection to in-line cites to specific pages, or be removed if they're not actually used to reference the article.
Why are all of the Further reading books on the wildlife of Ireland? This seems like undue weight to me. If these books are used as references, turn them into references, if they're not, just put one here and add some books on other things to do with Ireland, or just remove the section entirely.
It looks like the broken external links have been taken care of.

That's my comments for the moment. This article needs significant work, mainly on referencing and ref formatting, before it can be considered to be of GA status, and so I believe it should be delisted. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe copy editing the references to be significant work? It strikes me as a trivial if tedious process. --ZincBelief (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana. A couple of quick things. Firstly, in your "response to Guliolopez" above, I'm not sure I entirely follow you comment, but I was specifically addressing the point that you note. That is, the delisting editor was the one "arguing about the number of tags". Not I. (The rationale suggested that "five CN templates" was over some threshold. When clearly if we delisted every article that had a CN note, there'd be scarce few left). I was therefore simply pointing out that there were only a handful, and could be easily addressed without the recourse taken. Anyway, to your request that "stop arguing and fix them", you will note that I immediately started looking at the missing references issue. And wasn't just "arguing" as suggested.

Secondly, you go on to use the term "you" in several places in your note ("you should always use cite templates", "you mentioned in the talk page", etc. These comments seem to be referring to one editor in particular. And I can't figure out who. I can only assume it's a "collective you" (like "one should") because I'm sure you (Dana) realise that the reason there are - for example - multiple REF formats is that dozens (if not hundreds) of editors have added those refs over time. And have added them in the format which was either common at the time, or which they were most familiar with. Anyway, per ZincBelief, this would seem to be a trivial (if time consuming) copyediting/formatting issue. And possibly worthy of a talkpage note or template than a summary delisting.

Thirdly, (and again with respect to the "you must do this", and "you should do that" comments) all I was doing was making note of the delist rationale given. I had not directly advocated a "keep" and was simply listing the issues that had previously been noted by another so that we (collectively) could figure out how to address. I am neither GA (re)nominator nor taking individual responsibility for the points listed. I just followed the link on the talk page and thought it useful to list the issues raised and point out that some are already mute, and others could easily be addressed. (And are being addressed) That's all. Guliolopez (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. And as an FYI. The reason there is undue focus on wildlife books is because about a year ago an editor (who has a disproportionate interest in flora/fauna issues and a history of "dumping" loosely related "fauna facts" into high level articles) had inappropriately dropped a "further reading" section into the middle of the article. At the time, rather than blanket reverting his edits as not "100% fully formed", I just moved them to the end. With the expectation that they would either be weeded out or extended into a more general "further reading" list in due course. That apparently didn't happen. Even with 12 months of subsequent collaborative edits the further reading list didn't expand to include more general books. And that is apparently now a "delist" argument?

Possibly its just me, but that seems a little strong. It also seems to encourage editors to blanket reject anything that isn't 100% "fully formed". (IE: Unless an editors contributions are "100% perfect" before they go in, they should be rejected. Because relying on natural collaborative forces to redress might not work, and will result in a delist). The one thing I'm sure of is that I probably should stay away from GA reviews - because (personally) I struggle with the idea of applying critique that seeks to impose perfect rules to an imperfect/organic process. Guliolopez (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the things that I mention above (with the exception of the lack of referencing) is grounds for delisting in and of itself. However, when taken together, they point to an article that is in desperate need of some serious work before it can continue to be listed as a GA.

Gulio - I was simply pointing out that if one editor says it's five citation tags and another comes back and says, no, it's four, then this seems to be arguing semantics, rather than the point. Yes, I realize that many current GA's have fact tags in them. I am not saying that the presence of a few fact that is grounds, again, in and of itself, for delisting. It is the fact tags, combined with the large unreferenced sections, the missing pieces of many references and the poor formatting that are grounds for delisting. In WP:Citing sources you can read for yourself that referencing styles should be consistent throughout an article; the guideline doesn't say which style should be used, it simply says that the same one should be used. Also, having publishers and access dates are not part of my formatting comments - they are pieces of information that must be included for a ref to be complete. Without it, it would be like having a book with just the title.

Everyone else - I would really like to see some work being completed on the article, rather than the extended talk posts roasting Malleus and everyone who agrees with him. In its current state, the article is more than worthy of being delisted...so I have a suggestion - instead of complaining about how the article was delisted, since that is already a done deal, how about everyone who thinks the article shouldn't have been delisted put in a solid few hours of work on the article and see if you can get it up to par. I honestly don't care one way or the other - Ireland (although I'd like to go there one day) is not an article of particular interest to me - so I'm not going to spend hours ensuring that it's kept as a GA. But several of you seem to care about the article being delisted (and good for you, there are articles that I care about, and I would hate to see them delisted), so why not work on the article instead of spending time trying to persuade us that you think Malleus is a dick.

And I know that I'm using "you" again. Call it a personal peculiarity - I'm promise I'm using it instead of "one". Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Thanks for the response Dana. A few quick things again however.:

RE: "Please focus on fixing the issues rather than talking about them". If you look at the recent history you will see that I am. And I'm not arguing it's delisting at all. As stated above I wasn't advocating either position in this review - but just listing the items so that we could address them in a structured way.
RE: "Number of citations needed". I think you've read way too much into my original comment. I wasn't attempting to debunk the original argument through some debating logic that "if one part is untrue then all is untrue". Now was the point of my comment to correct the point that there were "4 and not 5". I was just pointing out that there were items that needed redress. You focused on the amount of them. Not me. (FYI. In the interest of keeping a "good article" - in the non-legal sense - it's actually very likely that I added the CN tags in the first place.)
RE: "Why not work on the article instead of convincing us {personX} is a dick". Your reference to {personX} above is the first time I've ever actually noted the name. I've never crossed paths with that editor, so I have no idea how I could be perceived as attacking them or their position. In any way. So I'm totally at a loss with that comment. (Perhaps again however it's a case of "you" appearing to be directed at me, but instead being shouted at the wind).

Anyway, as noted before, perhaps I should "unwatch" this page because (given your comments) these type of review discussion have clearly begotten pettiness in the past. And I'm not the slightest bit interested in such behaviour. As much as you seem to think otherwise, I *am* actually interested in keeping the Ireland article as good as it can be, and apparently shouldn't have wandered into this discussion under that remit. Clearly this type of review operates on some kind of a bi-partisan "opposers" versus "nay-sayers" model. Rather than a collaborative approach. And there is also evidently some history of inter-personal pettiness, and a presumed "partisan" politic that goes with GA reviews that I'm clearly not familiar with. Anyway, I'm off back to that side of the project that works on articles. Guliolopez (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulio - I'm sorry if you thought most of the above was being aimed at you. I'd forgotten that I'd added your name to address a certain point of the reply at you. Really, only the sentence or two that followed your name was meant for you. The part about Malleus was meant for other editors who may or may not be reading this. I apologize again, and I've edited my post to (hopefully) make that more clear. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delisting. The Places of interest section is an embedded list and should be converted to prose. There are also issues with lack of citations; I've flagged a few in one of the sections. For example, the statement In 2005, Ireland was ranked the best place to live in the world, according to a "quality of life" assessment by Economist magazine should have had a proper citation. (I have since added one, but there are plenty more statements which need proper referencing.)

I have all confidence that the article can be brought up to GA standards; however, the question at hand is whether the article was GA quality at the time of the delisting. Unfortunately, it wasn't. Best to close this community GAR and focus our efforts on improving the article. When it's ready to go it can be re-nominated at GAN. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done two rather brutal edits to bring us toward GA status here. Firstly I removed the Image Gallery. Secondly, I converted the List of places of interest into a short paragraph, focusing on World Heritgae Sights. AONB and the like could be added later. Personally I object to closing the GAR without giving time to resolve issues with the article. I think this is impolite.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that attitude to me is indicative of the real abuse of process here; using GAR to short circuit GAN. What is this supposed to be a review of? Surely of the review and delisting, not of the article. Is this to be a future trend? Complain loudly enough about a review and get your article fixed for free in what is effectively a new fast-track GAN process? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered to review properly, then don't review at all. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note your edit summary of "hypocrite". Shame that you find it imposible to conduct yourself like a rational, mature adult. Anyway, I wish you luck with your new fast-track GAN. Great idea, I can see a lot more people using this system now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your endorsement.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new trend. In the c. 18 months that I have been working at GAR, it has not been about reviewing the review or reviewing the delisting, but assessing the current state of the article against the criteria. However, where Malleus is correct is that GAR is not a fast-track GAN. Nor is it a sick-bed, where articles are nursed back to health. If reviewers find that the article does not meet the criteria, then the article will have to be renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delisting. In the current state the article fails WP:GACR by a wide margin. It is significantly undereferenced including such potentially controversial sections as North Ireland and History. The reflist does not have a consistent format, many references lack publisher, date, author information. The lead is also not particularly good. It should be both longer and provide more complete summary of the article including history, literature and arts. Current lead is too focused on the origin of the name and population. I actually believe the desisting was correct. Ruslik (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pro delist. This is the place to see if articles still deserve to be called GA, not a point by point explanation of what is wrong so that it can be fixed up in time to not delist. The article was already delisted (deservedly, per citation issues), so should go back to GAN, the same as all the others.Yobmod (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't delisted per GAR guidelines, so it was given no opportunity to address the issues.--ZincBelief (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in here, almost everyone agreed that Malleus' delist is correct and acting within GA reviewing guidelines. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misleading comment Ohana, as you are well aware. Malleus did not act within the GA reviewing guidelines, you are very well aware of the RFC I opened related to his ignoring of point 4 in those very guidelines. Why ~~lie~~ claim that the actions lie within the GA reviewing guidelines when they do not infact lie within the GA reviewing guidelines here? Perhaps you think your sweep team's guidelines are more important?--ZincBelief (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it is better for the community to inform contributors and give them time to improve the artcle in individual assessments. But we cannot turn back time, and the people asking for the review have still not improved the article sufficiently, even with more time than the reassessment advises. For such a broad and important topic (a whole country!), the GA requirments need to be strictly adhered to, so this article should be delisted, no matter the method by which it was initally delisted.Yobmod (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I was simply pointing out that it was incorrect to suggest that the article was delisted within GA reviewing guidelines.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also endorse delisting. History, Culture, Energy Network, and Economy sections (just to name a few) are under-referenced. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delist. I've been through the article now, and 10 days after delisting, it still has many issues. The most significant is something not mentioned so far (shockingly): the quality of the sources is miserable. The items in the references section (of which all but two are on flora and fauna) are all uncited in the article. Instead the article relies almost entirely on web sources, ranging from government sources to online newspapers to news sources of variable reliability to University web pages to websites such as http://www.cie.ie, http://www.hibernianwindpower.ie, http://www.thrifty.ie, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk, http://www.roman-britain.org, http://www.unrv.com. There are but a handful of citations to books or journals.

The article contains many statements that need citation to reliable sources. Many are uncited. Others use unreliable sources. At present, the article does not meet WP:V, let alone WP:GA?. Further issues include a lead which does not summarize the article, tortured prose and words to avoid in the (disproportionately long) section on "All island institutions", a listy section on "Cities", and overly long sections on economics and sports.

Once these issues are fixed, the article can, of course, be renominated at WP:GAN. Geometry guy 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started work on the references/citations a couple of days ago and they do need improvement, but this can be done and hopefully in a week or two (with the help of God and a couple of policemen...)Hohenloh 18:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are doing very good work! Given the consensus forming here, I hope we'll be able to close this GAR sooner rather than later so that you can get the article onto the nominations list as soon as possible. Community GAR is not like FAC: it can't re-review post improvements very easily (voice of experience). However, I hope that one of the reviewers commenting here will be able to provide a high quality GAN review once the article has been fixed. Geometry guy 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: More specific and informative tags for the article are now being worked on. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not directly requesting here that Bates method be passed as a Good Article, but rather attempting to give it a chance to get a GA review. I understand the reasoning for the quick-fail, but I think in this case that logic falls short. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for states that one problem to look for when initially skimming a nominee are "cleanup banners which are obviously still valid". It is my opinion that the templates are outdated. However, we seem to have reached an impasse on this, but that means the article will probably remain stable for a while. Moreover, due to the nature of the issues in question, it is apparent to me that the only way to glean any further insight into whether or not the templates are still valid is to get the kind of thorough impartial review this process offers. Now, I understand that resolving content disputes is not the purpose of this project, but I've done everything I can to get the article to GA status, and the feedback from a review would be very helpful. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse GA fail. GA reviewers shouldn't pass an article which sports an original research tag. GAR isn't a forum to dtermine which tags are still valid. It's better to use the article's talk page for that. If that's not working you could consider a comment or peer review. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review states that "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners", so that is out of the question. The talk page has not worked in resolving the major issues (see the "impasse" link above), but it does make more clear what said issues are. They surround the manner in which the main sources are being used, so the best and probably the only viable step is a thorough and impartial review which includes examination of the sources. Again, all I'm asking for here is a chance for this to happen, if a reviewer chooses to commit the time. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(The reviewer) I didn't fail just because of the tags at the top, but I'm sure that GA says something to the effect of "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners" somewhere —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your previous statement which you edited out (why?), there is only one tag currently in the text of the article, discussed here. To me this just goes to illustrate why WP:OR should not be taken 100% literally (per WP:IAR) in regards to this article. However, the paragraph about selection bias is not what the OR template at the top refers to, see here. And the issue with WP:PSTS is the kind of thing which it seems only an in-depth, impartial review, including examination of the sources, can help us with at this point.

In regards to your last point, even if that's true, an article with cleanup banners could still be given a GA review. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried mediating on this page, and from what i can see the tags are spurious, with no identification of actual OR or NPOV. The quick fail criteria still must be applied, but i think some brief assessment of the tags should be done in such cases, and if the tags are deemed to be unnecessary then GAN can proceed. There is currently no way to stop the one editor there from preventing this article being GA - could GAR do this in future?Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to evaluate the OR and NPOV tags then consider using the Request for Comment process, requesting a third opinion, visit the policy talk page, or try formal Mediation. Good Article Reassessment isn't the place to come to resolve content or OR/NPOV policy disputes. Majoreditor (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coheed and Cambria[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Consensus is to delist - article needs a section on critical reception, some sources have 404ed and the article needs a copyedit. Malkinann (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fan site, not an article- much less GA[edit]

Bless your hearts C&C progrockers... but "Good writing" is balanced writing. At this point this long piece on an act with breakout sales has a single, consistent tone: an approval apparently hopeful of raising the act's profile (cf. the editorships' rush to GA) alongside the sort of endless detail which obsessed fans might collect. I imagine howls if the article were to be made anywhere comparable to a "real encyclopedia" and were immediately reduced by 50%. But less IS inevitably more readable.

The C&C "Talk page" confirms the adulation throughout the article's editorship. Perhaps that emotion extended to the GA reviewers...? If not then please explain to me- Where is the article's genuine criticism- fair or subjective? Where are critics of the band, the music's derivation vs. what might be a broad derivativness? Where is any question or consideration expressed of the act's commercial expansion, its exploitation of arts, its bold pretensions, or its vanities? Or- is this act mature enough to have attracted any actual criticism? And if indeed not then this too needs be admitted and considered for what it is.

To promote academic articles such as this one as 'good arts writing' in the abscence of any of the above indicates either partisanship or a peculiarly narrow concern with styles over substance. Though the article may be some model of the grammar niceties- of accuracy in its unending dates & modest sales figures- or of another of the more mechanical GA criteria-- In my view this article is rather a model of failure of the GA process, since it fails to offer anything of "balance" to what is essentially one generously unpaid promotion from fandom via the "Wikipedia service".

Lacking balance and objectivity in tone, the article can neither be said to be broad nor impartial. Thus I must suggest this aricle can not be said to be "well-written" at any useful depth. Looking at the evidence as a whole, the involved editorship and their article entirely lack consideration, much less expression, of any true neutrality.

Hilarleo (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there have been fact tags lurking on the article since last November and February - per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, this is usually considered a problem. I find the prose of the article difficult to understand in places - it seems like I have to read The Amory Wars in order to understand the Coheed and Cambria article properly. I'm also concerned about the fair use rationales of the non-free media items - the one for the logo seems sparse, and the music clips don't have fair use rationales for the band. Are two song samples really needed? Is there sourced critical commentary on how the songs are exemplary of the band's work? -Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've deleted one piece of unsourced information and sourced another, also attempted to clarify some of the information you tagged. I'll have a look at a prose later (although I was never very good at it) and see if I can remove some of the unnecessary text to make it more understandable. As for the image and media issues, I can have a look at them but I feel it might be best if they were just removed (especially the logo), but personally I'd like to try and find sources to keep at least one media sample. Rehevkor ✉ 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) You might like to re-read WP:NFCC and Wikipedia:Music samples to give you some ideas as to how to improve the case for the fair use of the media. Usually, if the article text talks about the media's critical commentary - like "So-and-so said Jimi Hendrix's riff in this song was "ace" and showed his skill and "free spirit"(ref)" then you should be alright. -Malkinann (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added quite a few sources to back up a lot of thr article (if there's anything I missed please tag them). I've removed one of the samples and replaced placed the remaining one in a quote box, I don't know if the quote will do but it seems the best way to keep at least one sample. For now I've kept the logo, if I can't find a couple of sources I'll just remove it. As for the lead, I've been struggling to really do it justice, would anyone else care to give it a jab? I'll see what I can do either way. Other wise I think it's getting there. Could do with a copy-edit though. Rehevkor ✉ 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix up the fair use rationales for the logo and the media sample for the Coheed and Cambria article. When a non-free sample is used in different articles, it needs a clear and detailed rationale for each of its uses in different articles. Please also use the negative review a little more, rather than just using it to help define genre. -Malkinann (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article could benefit from a section on critical reception. It also needs copyediting. Note the runon and the sentence fragment in this example:

Coheed and Cambria were nominated for Best International Band and Best Music Video (for "Feathers") in the 2008 Kerrang! Awards, they won the nomination for best music video.[33] In October that year the band played an event called Neverender, a four night concert series with each album being played each night, that were held in New York and Chicago. With a third due in Los Angeles in November and a fourth in London in December.[34]

There's other shortcomings as well. The lead could be better developed as to be a fair encapsulation of the article. And the fair use rationale issue needs fixing. I think the article can eventually meet GA standards, but the best course of action may be to de-list, give editors time to improve it, and then renominate at GAN when ready. Majoreditor (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per all the improvments needed above. The short unimnformative lead caught my attention too.Yobmod (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I've done what little I can but I just don't have to time myself (between work and Fallout 3) to do it justice. The main proponents that pushed for the GA in the first place do not seem to be active. Rehevkor ✉ 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel as though the reassessment discussion has been helpful enough in establishing what needs to be done if people decide to take the article to GAC again? --Malkinann (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough to be getting on with. Rehevkor ✉ 14:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:Lead is too short and Questioning relaibility of references: (NOT checked all)
- killyourstereo.com: read About, seems to be a commercial website
- http://www.bettawreckonize.com/interviews/coheedandcambria_interview.html: tagline "What you need, when you need" Directory of advertising links --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huletts Landing, New York[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Keep. Minor improvements have been made, e.g., to the organisation. There is now no support for delisting. WikiProject criteria are not part of the GA criteria. Geometry guy 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was recently promoted, but does not appear to meet the completeness criterion of WP:WIAGA. There are numerous very short sections and poor organization issues. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles do not need to be "complete" for GA, that is an A-class criterion. GAs need to be broad. I think this article mostly stacks up with another GA on a small town, Cullacabardee, Western Australia. For further development of the article, there should be more discussion of the amenities, but I believe the article is sufficiently broad. -Malkinann (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having "short sections" is not a reason to consider delisting an article, especially hours after it was passed. Seriously. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having such "short sections" is an issue with criterion #3 of WP:WIAGA. It's an indication that the editors of the article did not do a very thorough job and have much work to do. I'd rate this article at B-class, probably C-class, at best. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how the WikiProject would rate the article: the only issues for good article status are the GA criteria. This is why I believe the confusion of WikiProject assessments and good article status under the umbrella of "GA-Class" was a big mistake, and I am not alone. Geometry guy 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only section that is particularly short is Tourism, but since this is not Wikitravel I don't find that to be a fault. If anybody thinks it is badly organized, well, the solution is for that person to reorganize it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the above comments: this is one kind of article that GA should recognise. However, I'm a little concerned that most of the article is from a single source (G.T. Kapusinski), and this source is not very independent. I have not seen issues here that are likely to be challenged, but I encourage editors to question the material for possible bias and promotion. Geometry guy 20:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article also doesn't even come close to complying with the guidelines for a US city. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a city. It is a hamlet. But I did notice there is no section on governance (how is it related to Dresden, Washington County, New York, for example?) And are there any public schools? Or private ones? Public transportation? Local library? What else do you think might be added to bring up the rating? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To GeorgeLouis: I'll add the stuff, but it doesn't look good when the hamlet is in better shape than the town it is governed by. To Derek.cashman: GeorgeLouis is right, why are you trying to turn a hamlet (with an unrecorded population) into a city guideline? That is ridiculous.Mitch32^(UP) 11:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a hamlet, it has no government. As far as the town of Dresden is concerned, this place is simply a section of the town. Since this is primarily a resort area, I do not think there are any schools or library here (I could be wrong on this). It does have its own post office so in that sense, demographic data for the ZCTA should probably be added. --Polaron | Talk 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's clearly not a U.S. city, so let's not use those guidelines. I'd suggest adding material on governance, if any is available. Additional sources would be useful. Overall, the article is in good shape. Majoreditor (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — It seems no effort has been made to contact the involved editors. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Would be nice if it were longer and had more citations, but it seems broad enough for a GA on a hamlet, all the basic info i would want to know was there.Yobmod (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an example of a reasonably complete and balanced article on a minor subject. The references aren't unreliable and the article is neutral in POV. Majoreditor (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've had another look at the article and agree with Majoreditor's analysis. Even if this were a city, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline, like most WikiProject subpages, has no formal status as a guideline. Their role in GA is purely advisory, representing project norms. In this case, I'm underwhelmed by advice which suggests "Presumably 95% of the people in the city work for a living, what do they do?" Presumably about 20% are under 16, 10% retired, and a nontrivial proportion of the rest are registered unemployed or full-time homemakers. In any case, virtually nothing there has any bearing on the application of the GA criteria to this article and the GA criteria are the only criteria for good article status, not WikiProject ratings. Geometry guy 21:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Considerable efforts were once made to steer this article towards good article status. They have been undermined. Editors supporting keeping this article now do so with the good faith intention that Wikipedia should represent the best sources. However, that is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission and process. Who decides what is "best"? Wikipedia's neutral point of view is, first of all a, a point of view, but second, it is not the point of view of the "best sources". Instead it is a point of view which represents all widely held viewpoints with due weight. What is "due weight" can be argued ad nauseum, but fringe views cannot be given excessive weight on the grounds that they are the experts, or we would end up sourcing articles on dowsing primarily to dowsers. The consensus here is clearly to delist. Once the arbcom case closes, I suggest reverting to a more stable version, and renominating. This article should never have lost its GA status: there has been a failure to listen to Wikipedians who understand Wikipedia's mission. Geometry guy 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been commandeered by cold fusion proponents to slant the entire article away from WP:NPOV toward a pro-cold fusion love-in. Editors who try to mitigate this problem are reverted on-sight and false claims of consensus are employed as tactics to try to prevent users from improving the article. The article as it currently stands is plagued by being overly accepting of cold-fusion-proponent claims and relegates criticisms (which are by most neutral accounts the major feature of cold fusion claims) to minority status in violation of WP:UNDUE. In short, the NPOV problems and the heavy-handed nature of pro-CF editors means that Wikipedia should not be endorsing this as a "good" article. It is manifestly not a good article as it uses unreliable, unverifiable, and non-neutral sources and sentences to create out of whole-cloth a new reality where cold fusion is not the deprecated and dismissed pseudoscientific endeavor it actually is treated by various government panels and the scientific community in general.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that ScienceApologist has not given any evidence from reliable sources in support of his rejection of cold fusion. The article was assessed as good as recently as May 28. Since then, it has still been improved by many editors, despite the heavy tactics of ScienceApologist. For a full history of the article and of ScienceApologist's dubious involvement in it, please readUser:Pcarbonn. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that this page is under so many problems right now and is acknowledged by a number of editors to be problematic (including User:Eldereft (WP:FTN#Cold fusion conflict of interest report and User:Looie496 (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Request_for_injunction_against_Cold_Fusion_investor). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These challenges have been rejected by the wikipedia community. Why do you want to reopen them, without any new evidence ? Pcarbonn (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist cold fusion is rejected by the majority of the scientific community and our article should reflect this per WP:UNDUE. While these problems remain this should not be classed as a good article. Hut 8.5 10:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "majority of the scientific community" is not a WP:reliable source according to wikipedia, because they don't publish on the subject in peer reviewed journal. Please find a reliable source in support of your opinion. Remember also WP:Parity of sources : if 2 peer-reviewed journals are favorable, you need another peer-reviewed journal to argue the contrary. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely easy to find reliable sources saying that cold fusion is rejected by most scientists:

[1]: cold fusion has been largely dismissed by the scientific community

[2]: most scientists believe cold fusion does not exist

[3]: most scientists regarded cold fusion as a discredited farce

[4]: cold fusion has fallen into disrepute among scientists

[5]: most of the scientific community no longer considers cold fusion a real phenomenon

It didn't take much effort to find these. Since the theory is a minority one, WP:UNDUE applies: the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. The current version of this article is in violation of this policy and so should not be listed as a good article. Hut 8.5 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point: the sources you provide make reliable statements about an unreliable source. Furthermore, they are very old.

Please have a look at ArbComm's unanimous decision on NPOV for science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Cold fusion is a scientific controversy, as the 2004 DOE shows, and it deserves fair representation of both sides. The DOE was evenly split over the evidence of excess heat, and was unanimous in recommending publication in peer reviewed journals. Why don't we follow their advise, instead of representing the view of the uneducated majority of scientists ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Also, please have a look at the book published by the Am Chem Soc and Oxford University Press.

Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., editors, Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook, American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

Surely they consider the field worthy of publication in a positive way. Why don't we ? In some ways, the minority view has been the skeptics: the balance of publishing in reliable sources is way in favor of CF. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bollocks reinterpretatation of the DOE report has been a thorn in the side of Wikipedia for years. More than that, your continued disdain toward conventional understanding of cold fusion is something that Wikipedia expressly forbids us from entertaining. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, not a place to write great wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reinterpreted the DOE report. I have only insisted for it to be quoted in full. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selective "full quotations". We obviously do not quote the entire report in full. However, you cannot bear to see the summary of the report read anything but "cold fusion should be supported" which is manifestly not what the results of this report are. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that the report contradicts itself? Kevin Baas^talk 15:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I have only reviewed the lead, and while I have no competence to judge what is mainstream in modern physics, I am very concerned about the use of sources.

Why is a specialist journal, Surface and Coatings Technology, with impact factor less than 2 given such prominence at the end of the lead?
The footnote "e.g. Mosier-Boss et al. 2008" is used to back up the claim "Since 2004, additional supporting results have been reported in peer-reviewed journals". This is a primary source for a claim like that.
The lead should mention the current scientific status of cold fusion. Just as for global warming and evolution, this is not based on specialist journals, but rather general purpose high-level journals and magazines, e.g. Science or Scientific American.

In general, the lead of this article seems to over-emphasize the acceptance of cold fusion by their own original research using articles published in fairly low-level specialist sources, rather than relying on high level coverage of the topic in general purpose science journals, popular science magazines, and statements by scientific organizations. These are better sources on the general acceptance of a theory, while specialist journals are more reliable for technical details. Based on this, I think the concerns above are justified. Vesal (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just confirming that by my assessment (mentioned above in reference to my participation on the talkpage some weeks back), the article (averaged over editwarring) is in gross violation of WP:UNDUE. It misrepresents the consensus among physicists that cold fusion research as it is currently (in 1989, in 2004, and ever since) practiced is not a promising line of research and no more money and time should be wasted on it. If cold fusion occurs, it does not do so in the systems being investigated. Presenting those scholarly articles which do appear has a place in the article, but until anyone outside of fringe proponents cares, this is not the place to right great wrongs. I have not reviewed the GAR delisting conventions, and so do not have a formal opinion on that matter. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. To read this article you would hardly realise that cold fusion is basically a laughing stock in the mainstream scientific community. The major author of the current version has openly admitted that he set out to better reflect a fringe view, and he is a single-purpose account; this is reflected in the article, much of which is argument from sources of highly dubious reliability or expertise and lists several fringe sources to "balance" every mainstream view. A comparison of this with the featured version form a couple of years back is instructive, you can see just how far it's been skewed towards the tiny minority position. It should never have been GA listed in the first place, to do so debases the already debased currency of "good" articles. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to last definite GA version and restart work to reach FA. Pcarbonn helped arive at this version, so he should agree. Any recent changes to the text should be discussed before if still desired; refs added to the old version are available in the history and should be non-controversial. NJGW (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. This article gives undue weight to the point of view that cold fusion is not pathological science. This is in direct opposition to the overwhelming body of evidence among reliable sources. As an aside, the fact that a known POV-pusher is crowing about his triumph over the article on his user page and blog[6] is a serious red flag that the article is slanted. Skinwalker (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinformed. Please have a look at PhysicsWorld showing that your statement is unsubstantiated. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously pointing us to a blog just because they share your misinterpretation of the DOE review? NJGW (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist--Ipatrol (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist peer above reasoning. Help with a reasonable rewrite would be appreciated.--OMCV (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Reverting to the GA-passing version is a decision for the editors at the page - if they choose to keep a GA-failing version, it should be delisted (per all the reasons above).Yobmod (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is based on the best sources that could be found. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. A dreadful article that is a serious disservice to our readers, for the reasons delineated above. - Nunh-huh 17:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - too unstable to be considered a good article. IwRnHaA (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm concerned about undue weight given to marginal sources and their POVs. Majoreditor (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the "delist" have only one argument: that the article doesn't validate their POV. and that's not a valid reason. Kevin Baas^talk 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC) - with the exception of the "too unstable..." argument, which is a stretch. The article " does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.", and thus meets the good article stability criteria. Kevin Baas^talk 15:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this if it's not a content dispute? -Malkinann (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question. Are you saying that my comment constitutes a dispute of some of the article's current content? If I didn't think the article's content was up to par, why would I vote "keep"? And I was talking about stability - how is my comment evidence of the article changing significantly? I don't think I'm interpreting your question correctly. Kevin Baas^talk 19:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having the guts to ask for clarification. :) I'm curious as to how you'd describe the current struggle by editors to keep the article NPOV. My interpretation is that spirited debate due to the inherent controversy of the subject matter is inevitable, but given that there seems to be acrimony between the editors that work on it... I'm wondering whether that pushes it over into being a content dispute. --Malkinann (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly acrimony. A lot of people accusing others of pushing a POV, and a lot of discussion about content. But an "edit dispute" means a dispute on the article page, not the talk page. i.e. an edit war of sorts. And the discussion is usually focused on small pieces of text, and the content of the article doesn't change very much from day to day. Here's a diff showing the most recent 4 days worth of changes. Notice there are only two things that stand: The "In 2004, the US DOE organized another panel charged with examining cold fusion..." para having the last two sentences removed, and being moved up a paragraph. And the short paragraph "In 1991, Eugene Mallove stated that the negative report issued by the MIT Plasma Fusion Center in 1989, which was highly influential in the controversy, was inaccurate." being removed. In both instances, content of low significance was trimmed per consensus. The rest of the changes were single-word changes or citation tweaks. That four-day diff doesn't show any significant day-to-day changes in the article, nonetheless week-to-week changes. So yes, there are disputes over content on the talk page all the time, as there will be on any active talk page for a controversial topic, but they are over small parts of text and the article itself is quite stable. Kevin Baas^talk 20:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDelist NPOV violations, weasel-ness, citation issues, what's there to keep it GA?--Ipatrol (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Statements such as "Most people attempting to publish anything about the subject faced rejection of their papers." are definitely not neutral. Captain panda 13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not neutral? It's a pertinent, factual statement. So let's say that people who try to publish a paper in a field almost always get it rejected, would you say that's pertinent? How would you inform the reader of that in the article? How should we? Or should we just leave it out? And if so, why? Kevin Baas^talk 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "citation needed" tag right after that sentence not withstanding, the statement seems to suggest that there is some sort of conspiracy to prevent people from talking about cold fusion. Changing the wording to something like "Papers about cold fusion are generally not published in scientific journals" would help to make it sound more neutral. Captain panda 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did try and remove this statement on the grounds that it doesn't cite a source but I was reverted. Hut 8.5 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm available if people have questions about my GA review in May. I lean towards skepticism myself, for the same reason most scientists do: keeping something this phenomenal under wraps for 20 years would require a wildly improbable conspiracy theory. The Naval Labs in San Diego have claimed an experiment that happily emits neutrons for some time now; a neutron counter in a shielded room would answer the question instantly, but no one seems to be interested in arriving at an answer ... only at getting more funding to study the question, and it's pretty easy to detect a tendency towards disinformation by the U.S. and other governments (see the hopelessly mealy-mouthed 2004 DOE review). It's sad to see the world's dysfunction cause ill-will among editors at Wikipedia, who are, for the most part, accurately reflecting the FUBAR sources. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment Note that Arbcom is now looking into this. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Per concerns on undue weight given to fringe views and the disjointed pro/con forking within the article. Majoreditor (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I (as 209.253.120.198) tried to stop it from being listed as a Good Article, but was overruled by Dank55. No article with this much ongoing conflict should be listed as a Good Article. Olorinish (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is slightly rusty, Olorinish. There wasn't this much conflict until the day after I gave it the green cross, and that was the problem. Despite messages on many talk pages, most of the people who had been active during April's mediation took a vacation during my 3-week GA review. The article was stable at the time and represented consensus, or at least, that month's consensus. I would have loved to have seen the input we're now getting at Arbcom. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is not rusty at all, Dank55. This article had a messy mediation and one dissenter to Good Article status (me), which should have been enough reason to delay Good Article status. Similarly, it should be delisted now due to the ongoing disagreements. Olorinish (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My sense is that no one here is blaming me for the way things turned out with the article ... please correct me if I'm wrong. Certainly, everyone who expressed an opinion at that time ... including Olorinish (209.253), Seicer the mediator, and Pcarbonn ... thought I had done an excellent job. As I said at the time, Olorinish, your input was very helpful all during the review. But it's bugging me a bit that JzG/Guy is implying in his Arbcom statements and you're implying here that I ignored an active controversy and passed the article over objections. I've re-read the whole archive, and I'd love to talk about it, but it's not relevant to the current List/Delist question (that I can see). I'll meet you guys over at User_talk:JzG. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist In my opinion this article needs to be delisted ASAP. I just read it for the first time and it's been badly hijacked by NPOV and unverified claims. One of the worst articles I've seen in wikipedia on a major topic. Phil153 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Judaism[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Manifestly fails to be an encyclopedic treatment. Instead it concentrates on arguments over the status of Messianic Judaism and advances arguments rather than describing them. As a result it fails numerous GA criteria (such as WP:LEAD) as detailed below. Geometry guy 23:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for delisting[edit]

As a major editor to the article, I am requesting a community reassessment of this article's GA status. Let me preface my remarks by saying that having been absent from the GA process for a long time, I was under the mistaken impression that any editor could remove the GA status, and was unaware of the GAR process, so I delisted the article, inappropriately, last week, and was educated as to the process, which I am now following.

The good article criteria include factual accuracy (#2), neutrality (#4), and stability (#5). This article fails those three points, in my opinion.

The article had been failing factual accuracy on many points, please check the edit history for some major corrections and proper restatements of various sources. While it is better now, the lead of the article is still under intense discussion and is viewed as inaccurate by both Messianic adherents and non-adherents.

As can be seen from the talk page, this debate also indicates that both adherents and non-adherents believe that the article is not neutral, each from their own perspective.

Lastly, the article has become dangerously unstable, with reversions and counter reversions, and blocks for 3RR have actually had to have been applied recently.

As such, I believe this article now fails GA criteria and should be delisted. -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. This article is clearly unstable and shows no obvious signs of stabilising any time soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is stable aside from the dispute over the lead sentence at the moment, which only recently (last week) was changed without consensus. Since the parties who changed it outnumber the parties who were just fine with the previous lead sentence for well over a year, the dispute has been ongoing since and is currently listed on WP:MEDCAB for resolution. Aside from this, the rest of the article is in fact stable and meets GA guidelines fully. inigmatus (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The very fact that it needs to go to MedCab underscores the lack of stability and neutrality, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is a summary of the article. If that is not stable, then how can the article be stable? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep (for now)~~ I don't feel that one short term edit war is sufficent to force a delisting under the stability guideline, for an article that was a stable GA for a long time. If it does go on for a longer time (eg, a month), then i would change my mind maybe. But the tiniest things can result in a weeks worth of reverting - if that caused delisted, it would be very easy to get a controversial article delisted.Yobmod (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually delist for other reasons. The article is full of one sentence paragraphs and one paragraph sections, and unreferenced whole paragraphs, and has citation tags and templates. A few of these problems would get by any GA review from me, but not this many. Editors need to spend less time arguing, and more time improving on non-contention MoS issues. At the moment, this is not a good read, and needs thorough copyediting.Yobmod (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I lean toward delisting. Firstly, the quality of the article's references is questionable. Secondly, the article has far too many stubby sub-sections. It's quite distracting to have the prose shattered into fragmented sections. Thirdly, I also find myself agreeing with Jayjg (yes, you read that right :o ) that the lead isn't a proper encapsulation of the article. Messianic Judaism is controversial, and the lead should not gloss over controversy and criticism. Finally, I'm puzzled as to why the article's first section, "Identity", make no mention of how virtually all branches of Judaism and the vast number of religious scholars do not consider the movement to be part of Judaism. That omission from the Identity section raises NPOV concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The current lead is disgraceful. It fails to summarize the article and advocates a point of view. Messianic Judaism is indeed not a branch of modern Judaism, but it isn't the job of Wikipedia to thrust this down readers' throats at every turn. We describe, we don't editorialize. We don't say "The central characteristic defining the Messianic Jewish movement as Christian, rather than Jewish, is its belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ.", we say "Messianic Judaism is commonly regarded as a Christian movement, because it believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ", and we support this with reference to very reliable secondary sources, not a Jewish or Christian webpage. Please, please, in everything you write, let the reader decide. Geometry guy 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per my above comments. Majoreditor (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bush[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action. Nominator recommends closure of the GAR. Work on the prose is recommended. Geometry guy 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is quite POV. It contains one paragraph of potentially negative information, and it continually repeats positive things about her. Also, it is not very well written. Jonathan321 (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As User:AuburnPilot said on the discussion page, where there is a discussion underway regarding your placement of a NPOV tag without any discussion, there is nothing that you have pointed out to us that is POV other than your own personal opinion that an event which occured 40-some years ago should have additional weight added to it. As for your other claims: Repeats positive things? Like what? We are not going to go out and dig up dirt on Laura Bush to provide "balance" -- that's called poor editing. Not well written? How so?

I recommend closure of this GAR as this seems to be a complaint regarding one paragraph in the article, which should be discussed (and has been discussed many times) on the talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you now. I want to close this GAR and I removed the paragraph discussing the car accident. Jonathan321 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At first glance I see no major POV concern with the article. Do any of the editors have specific recommendations for adding critical content? On a related note, please retain the section on Laura Bush's car accident. As best I can tell most biographies of her pointed to it as a seminal event in her early life.

While POV isn't a major concern, the quality of the writing is borderline for a GA-class work. The article's prose is spotty and could benefit from wordsmithing. An example:

She first became involved with The Heart Truth awareness campaign in 2003. It is an organization established by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to raise awareness about heart disease in women, and how to prevent the condition. She serves in the honorary position of ambassador for the program leading the federal government's effort to give women a "wake up call" about the risk of heart disease. She commented on the disease: "Like many women, I assumed heart disease was a man's disease and cancer was what we would fear the most. Yet heart disease kills more women in our country than all forms of cancer combined. When it comes to heart disease, education, prevention, and even a little red dress can save lives." She has undertaken a signature personal element of traveling around the country and talking to women at hospital and community events featuring the experiences of women who live, or had lived, with the condition. This outreach was credited with saving the life of one woman who went to the hospital after experiencing symptoms of a heart attack.

The prose here is, at best, listless; at its worst ("signature personal element") it's awkward. Is it poor enough to fail GA criteria? Maybe not, but I hope that editors can hone the writing, even if this GAR is speedy-closed. Majoreditor (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Song[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action. There is clearly no consensus below to list this article as a GA, even if it may now meet the criteria. This discussion should have been closed weeks ago to free up the article for renomination. Geometry guy 20:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GA Review of this article (though it involved two reviewers) has caused some contention, and in this contention at least one editor has been blocked. Given this, and per request, a GAR would seem to be in order. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From SandyGeorgia

I preface my comments by saying I don't understand why this article is here. The instructions at WP:GAR say:

If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it.

I've examined the article and can't decipher any reasons for it to be denied GA status, yet when Gimmetrow tried to relist it at GA, he was reverted. So, I don't understand these processes or instructions, but here we are.

The first issue seems to have been some past edit wars from IPs and new accounts, which seem resolved.

Both GA reviews refer to issues which I can't detect. WP:OVERLINKing is not part of WP:WIAGA as far as I can tell, nor does GA have the same requirements for fully formatted and consistent citations as FA does, so several of the issues raised don't seem to apply to GA.

The reviews also refer to an allegedly "listy" Career section, which I don't see. Everything that was raised in the reviews appears to have either been addressed or not been there to begin with or is not part of WP:WIAGA.

In summary, looking over the issues raised in both reviews, either I don't see the issues there at all, or they are not items of WP:WIAGA. This looks like a GA to me, it looks like it was a candidate to be relisted at GAN, and yet someone ended up blocked for trying to bring a perfectly good article to good status. Sad, particularly since GAs inferior to this one regularly appear at FAC, so I'm more and more confused about just what a GA is, and if some reviewers are now applying FA standards at GA.

I believe this article is GA. If it's not, many GAs appearing at FAC daily aren't GAs either, and something needs to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be here as a result of a dispute over the recording of the article's history. There is indeed no minimum time limit between nominations, but a renomination is always new nomination. When Gimmetrow renominated, he also removed the fail history. Only the removal of the fail history was reverted. Gimmetrow seems to believe that this renomination counts as the same nomination. I'm amazed that a maintainer of ArticleHistory could believe that, but he is not the only person who's head is not particularly clear about GA issues at the moment. Why this had to escalate into a block baffles me.

Anyway, that seems to be why we're here, but not what we're here for. Instead, lets focus on the article. Geometry guy 09:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I think it should go to GAN, where a different reviewer can decide pass/fail question. Ruslik (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Promote~~. Let me say, first, that I hadn't looked at the article in any detail before putting it up for GAR. And (in response to SandyG as well as for the record), it seemed to me useful to put it up for GAR even though the GAR rules don't require it, both because the GA Review had caused sufficient controversy and conflict for a valuable editor in good standing to flout 3RR and subsequently be blocked, and because said editor also indicated he wanted a GAR.
Now that I have looked at the article in further detail, I believe that it satisfies WP:WIAGA. It is certainly well-referenced, and mostly well-enough written.
I have some sympathy for the comment (by Mattisse, the editor brought in for a second opinion) that at times "The prose is choppy with too many short sentences." It's true that the section on "Endorsements and public image" is rather listy, and as a whole the article tends towards proseline. Some general assessments of Song, her career, and her significance would be useful. On the other hand, the article doesn't suffer from such defects much more than similar articles that have been adjudged of GA standard.
On the other hand, I do not agree with the final judgement that "this article would appear to need significant restructuring" or that "the article [is] still plagued by containing far too much information about her more minor roles which made the career section long and confusing." I don't believe that any particular section is either too long or particular confusing, and I don't see what restructuring is needed.
So, in short, yes some work on prose, on topic sentences, and on introductions to the sections would help reader comprehension. But these are very common faults on Wikipedia, and are not in my view sufficiently severe in this case to prevent listing at GA. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I've changed my !vote because, now that Gguy has pointed me to it, I agree that the lead should be improved. I have no time today, but may have some tomorrow if nobody else has gone in and fixed it already. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Issues remaining from the review seem to be the fair use image (per criterion 6a) and the structure of the filmography (per criterion 1b list incorporation and criterion 3b focus). I disagree with the fair use concerns ("as there are three other images in the article"): this image is illustrating something quite specific, and is not replaceable by any of the other images in the article. However, there is another image, Image:Brendasong20071.jpg, which ElCobbola (on commons) believes is a copyvio. This needs to be checked. Concerning the list issues, I would suggest that the subsection on guest appearances is not particularly helpful to the reader. This could be cut or converted into prose. Geometry guy 09:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the images... I also felt that the fair use image was fine. I've dropped ElC a note about the other one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an issue, then it probably also affects Image:Brendasong006.jpg: this was almost certainly taken by the same photographer; see this very similar photo. The question is, who copied whom? If in doubt we have to err on the side of caution, I think, and remove the images. Geometry guy 11:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed both images, which in any case have now been deleted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promote - Seeing how well the career section has been restructured, I would say that this article now does meet the good article criteria. I should have perhaps placed the article on hold, but I did not realise such a significant amount of work would be completed in such a short amount of time since I failed the article. The recommendations editors have made above I agree with, and these could be done as future improvements to the article. Million_Moments (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promote and close this GAR. Since the initial reviewer indicated that the article should be promoted I propose to close this GAR and promote the article. At the moment there is no conflict that need to be resolved by this GAR. Ruslik (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've set out my thoughts on the GAR process at my talk page. But the article is not here because of the 3RR violation. The article is here because there was conflict regarding the GA review result. The history is really not at issue. At GAR, we are called to look at the article as it is now. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And thanks for your talk page remarks and encouragement: this is how I view GAR as well.

I think it is important to note that the article was much improved between the time of the fail and the opening of this GAR, and this is largely a consequence of Gimmetrow following the good advice of the reviewers, who are to be thanked for their efforts.

However, the last paragraph of Matisse's comment is a mischaracterization of this GAR. Sandy may well have "weighed in" early with a long comment, but she didn't check her facts and has been pulled up over it. Most editors commenting here have judged the article as it is now, which is what GAR does. Resolving conflicts is secondary: the resolution process is to apply the criteria to the article. Oh, and GAR is not a vote. Geometry guy 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have looked more closely at the article (I didn't have time before). I realise now that my concern over the filmography section is probably a new one. The section on "Guest appearances" is not only a list of minor facts, but I could verify very little of it from the rest of the article. I'm not an expert on GAs for film and television, but is this really acceptable? One thing I am sure of, on the other hand, is that the article does not meet WP:LEAD, in that there is only one word ("singer") on her music career. Also, arguably, the image law-suit could be mentioned in the lead. I would fix it myself, but it would be better done by someone who heard of Brenda Song before today :-) Geometry guy 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(See talk page and edit history for additional comments.)

GANominate. Improving a delisted article and then asking for a GAR bypasses the correct method of submitting to GAN imo - even if the delist was in error. The fact that contributors agreed it needed improvment means it should go back to GAN.Yobmod (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. This article has never passed GAN and so it was never delisted. It is not up for delisting now. Rather, what is at issue in this GAR is whether to promote the article to GA in the first place. After it failed GAN, the article's editor did relist the article [7] on GAN on October 21. But for some reason, the use of GAN was rejected (not clear why) and a GAR decided upon. After this GAR was open, it was removed from GAN on October 22 on the basis that a GAR had been opened.[8] So this is an article that has never been promoted to GA but is nonetheless undergoing GAR to be promoted to GA for the first time. Your suggestion makes sense, as it is in accord with the GAR rules. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, no, according to the reassessment guidelines, the only thing which really matters at GAR is whether the article meets the criteria or not. If you can identify ways in which the article does not meet the criteria (as I have done) then please list them. There is enormous precedent for listing articles as a result of reassessment when good reviews have been provided by multiple editors. GAR is not a review of reviews. "Renominate at GAN" is a frequent outcome of GARs, but it is not a required outcome. Please only use it if you believe the article has not been adequately reviewed. Geometry guy 20:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it says at the top of the article: "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently undergoing a reassessment of its status as a good article." So why is that on the article? Has the GAR mission undergone a change, or have the templates on pages always been incorrect? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't read too much into those widgets, which were added only recently without consultation and have not formal status. They are only visible to logged in users and can be turned off in your preferences. "Currently undergoing reassessment of its status as a good article" is only an accurate description if it is read in the sense "Currently undergoing reassessment as to whether it should have good article status or not". Note however, that it is the article being reassessed, not the review. Geometry guy 09:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the reassessment banner says "if you believe there was a mistake", not "if you think you have sufficiently improved the article and want it fast-tracked". Why should i not advise every GAN i fail to work on it for 2 weeks then go for reassessment? But as to whether it passes now, i think the lead is too long and over-cited, so in a GAN would put it on hold, and fail if not changed (although should be an easy fix).Yobmod (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first time I've heard GAR referred to as a "fast track". I guess it is a compliment, but in many cases GARs take just as long as GANs. Anyway, since you are now an expert about GAR, I will leave it to you to decide whether to close this discussion as "List as GA" or "Renominate at GAN" and also to decide when would be the right moment to make this decision. Geometry guy 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Substantial edits have been made to the article. I'm now inclined to agree that renomination at GAN is the best course, but if other reviewers believe that the article now meets the criteria, I can be persuaded to support listing, on the grounds that the article has been assessed carefully by reviewers here. Geometry guy 09:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it can be listed now. All GA criteria seem to be met. Ruslik (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I agree with Geometry guy that renomination to GAN is the best course. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment therapy[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 18:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article fails to meet 3b of GA criteria. Its subject, Attachment therapy is a pseudoscience. However, the article contains large sections that either are about mainstream medically accepted material, diagnoses, etc., or sections that are focused on the pseudoscience. There are also sections that combine mainstream medical information with the pseudoscience.

The structure of the article is confusing and also mixes science and pseudoscience.

Many of the references are unreliable. I have listed these under Talk:Attachment_therapy#Serious_problems_with_article or are not accessible, so it is difficult at times to disentangle whether real science or pseudoscience is being referenced.

The many wikilinks in the article are mostly to mainstream psychology/psychiatry information, although some are to "alternative therapies".

Note: There have been four GA reviews: See:
- Failed "good article" nomination failed by Sandstein October 9, 2007
- GA fail failed by Nikki311 April 9, 2008
- GA Review failed by Jclemens September 1, 2008
- Second Review passed by Dana boomer (which should be labeled "Fourth Review" for clarity) October 22, 2008.

Also, Michael Devore, a very good copy editor, has given considerable help. See: Article question(s) September 3-6, More questions and issues September 13

A single editor has worked on the article, putting in over 900 edits.[9]. I do not believe this editor has the perspective to sort out the article alone.

I believe this needs a group effort to bring it to GA status. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of article sections and why they are confusing

In the section on Treatment characteristics of attachment therapy (the pseudoscience), there is a section on Traditional attachment theory based methods.

Under the section Theoretical basis (presumably of Attachment therapy), there is a section on Attachment theory with no indication if this applies to Attachment therapy or not (presumably not, as it is not considered pseudoscience) and a section on Theoretical principles of attachment therapy which is about the pseudoscience.

The sections Historical roots and Range of attachment therapies both seem to be about Attachment therapy.

The section Diagnosis and attachment disorder has as mainstream wikilinks under the heading Attachment disorder and Reactive attachment disorder which is a legitimate medical diagnosis and not pseudoscience. The section talks about "current official classifications of RAD under DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 are largely based on this understanding of the nature of attachment." These link and the body of this section refers to mainstrean diagnostic categories used by mental health professions and has nothing to do with pseudoscience. It refers to attachment styles (piped) appears to be mainstream looking at the references.

Under this section (Diagnosis and attachment disorder) are two sub sections: The first is Diagnosis lists and questionnaires contains some mainstream diagnostic tools, and some instruments whose status is unclear and has wikilinks to mainstream disorders and the second is Patient recruitment which appears to apply only to the controversial pseudoscience.

A section on Prevalence - appears to be about mainstream medical science

A section on Evidence basis and controversial therapies is apparently on the pseudoscience

There is a section on Mainstream therapies with mainstream information and links.

The last section is Cases - notorious cases.

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Wait I was the 2nd opinion GA reviewer on this article, after it had had a 2nd opinion tag on it on the GAN page for over a month, with no one (including Mattisse) offering a second opinion and taking the review through to conclusion. I thoroughly read through the article, copyediting as I went, and made several suggestions on the talk page. When these had been completed to my satisfaction, I passed the article to GA status. Immediately after this passing, Mattisse posted a long list of issues (similar to the list above), as well as a message on my talk page notifying me that he was thinking about initiating a GAR. I read his comments, compared them to the article, and found that I agreed with several of them. I posted a message to this effect on the talk page, as well as a message asking the main editor (Fainite) to respond ASAP. Fainite responded within a day, asking for a little more time as they were busy with RL, and responding positively to our comments. I figured that this time would be given, as Fainite appeared willing to make the changes we've asked for, or at least discuss them, but then I see that Mattisse has initiated a community GAR.

My view on the article is that it is well written and well referenced, and that it provides a comprehensive overview of the subject, with good distinctions between the pseudoscience of attachment therapy and the mainstream therapies that are more commonly (and properly) used. I agree with Mattisse that there is perhaps a little extra weight in the article on mainstream therapies that could be removed, but I do not see the article in its current form as harmful to anyone. IMO, it makes a clear distinction between pseudoscience and mainstream therapies, and, with a little bit of work by Fainite, which that editor seems willing to do, the extra weight can easily be cut out. I see nothing about this article that is ethically wrong, as Mattisse has claimed, and I ask that other editors give Fainite a chance to get a break from RL to work on the article (this weekend was what we were told). Dana boomer (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that all are agreed that their are genuine GA concerns with the article. It makes sense to me to see if Fainite can address them by this weekend, but if Matisse's view is borne out and further work and the involvement of other editors is needed, then it may be better to delist with a view to future renomination. Geometry guy 19:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That would be fine with me. I am simply asking to give Fainite the time that they asked for, due to RL busy-ness, rather than summarily delisting the article. Mattisse seems to be taking a fast-track approach on this article, which IMO may lead to un-necessarily hurt feelings and an un-necessarily delisted article. It won't hurt anything to give Fainite a few days to work on the article, so there's no need to rush things along. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will see you later in the weekend. In the meantime here is a copy of the review page (the link seems to have gone) which contains the matters referred to above if anyone is interested. And perhaps given this [10] and this [11] its time for a little WP:AGF around here. Fainites ^barley 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Attachment therapy/GA1 (It cannot be transluded here. Geometry guy 22:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi guys. Thanks for waiting.

Dealing with the main point - what I was attempting to do was make clear the distinction between attachment therapy (AT) theoretical base, diagnosis and practices and those within the mainstream. I did this because attachment therapists claim that AT is based on attachment theory and claim that they are treating "reactive attachment disorder" as well as "attachment disorder". Often what are in fact attachment styles are described as attachment disorders. Therefore it seemed to be appropriate, for the sake of clarity, to set out the article so it says effectively attachment theory says this whereas AT says this. The DSM/ICD definition of RAD is this whereas ATers use "symptoms lists" which say this. AT cklaims to be able to diagnose this whereas mainstream says you can't. And so on. The first point is - is this either not an appropriate way of approaching the material, or it is appropriate but just hasn't been done well enough. If the answer is the former then I can remove the paragraphs that set out the brief description of attachment theory, the classification of RAD from DSM and ICD and mainstream diagnosis tools. If it is the latter then I can rearrange or reduce the material as suggested by Dana. Probably the severe reduction approach is the best - given that Dana has said s/he did not find the comparisons between mainstream and pseudoscience confusing.

The Taskforce Report itself, which is a significant source in this article, takes the approach of setting what the mainstream position is on attachment theory, classification, diagnosis and treatment. Then it sets out what the AT position is and how it differs. I have not seen any criticism of this report as being misleading as a consequence of this.

If people agree I would propose to reduce of the sections describing mainstream classifications, diagnosis and treatment but I think a brief description of attachment theory ought to remain. Otherwise the significance of the fact that its claimed to be based on attachment theory but isn't is lost.

If it is being suggested that because this article is about a pseudoscience then there should be no meantion of mainstream science at all then I don't agree with this. Where a pseudoscience claims quite specifically to be "evidence-based", based on a mainstream theory and to be within the mainstream when it is not, it is inevitable that there has to be some discussion of the distinctions between the two.Fainites ^barley 13:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Matisses point on the prevalence section at all. It gives what mainstream sources I could find about the prevalence of AT and lists major organisations that have taken a position against all or part of AT. Is it being suggested this is not relevent? Fainites ^barley 13:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you focus on the subject of the article, you do not have to worry about mainstream prevalence of the disorder, unless you want to change the article title to "Comparison between mainstream and pseudo scientific treatment of attachments disorders in children". The article is not about the disorder; it is about a pseudo scientific treatment. Prevalence of a disorder is really not a main issue in an article on a treatment for a disorder that is a pseudoscience, unless you mean prevalence or frequency of the use of this pseudo scientific treatment. If you want to work in a sentence some where about real world prevalence of the disorder, you can do that. But I don't see the point of the Prevalence section when the article is not about the disorder. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prevalence section is not about prevalence of the disorder. It is about prevalence of attachment therapy. I'll change the title to make it easier to understand.Fainites ^barley 16:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you start with the lead sentence that clearly focuses on the subject of the article. Current first sentence: "Attachment therapy is the most commonly used term for a controversial category of alternative child mental health interventions intended to treat attachment disorders." - Attachment therapy is not an "alternative child mental health intervention."

Maybe something like: "Attachment therapy is the common term for a pseudo scientific treatment of attachment disorders in children. It is considered pseudoscience because it is not based on medical evidence that it is effective. Attachments disorders are common in children. In the 1970s attachment therapy became popular and gained a cult following (or whatever you want to say) but has since been discredited by blah and blah. Currently the most effective treatments for these disorders in children are considered to be blah. - or something along these lines.

Perhaps if you write a clear lead, then the rest of the article will follow. Or you could start with the sections of the article that pertain to attachment therapy and remove the rest. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a)It is considered a pseudoscience for a variety of reasons, not just because its not evidence based. The line about pseudoscience currently carefully follows the source. I have put a summary of the main criticisms in the lead. Are you suggesting they be removed?

b)There is no "official" diagnosis of "attachment disorder". This is a diagnosis used by attachment therapists. Within mainstream it is sometimes used as a shorthand for reactive attachment disorder and sometimes people mix it up with attachment syles. I have a section in the article briefly describing the difference between RAD, attachment disorder and styles. I believe it is one of the sections you want removed.

c)Attachment disorders are not common in children. RAD is comparatively rare. It is attachment therapists that claim "attachment disorder" is common and indeed that it affects nearly all if not all adopted or fostered children - their primary market. It is very important that this article does not repeat attachment therapy propaganda.

d) I had a section about mainstream therapies in the article. You complained about it. I took it out.

e) Whilst I would agree that its following can certainly seem "cultlike" ("Awesome Moms"), I have as yet found no notable source that describes it as such.

f)I'm not fussed about the word "alternative" one way or the other. It simply means outside conventional medicine. (Though I would agree that it never seems quite fair to mix up mild unharmful airy fairy therapies with aggressively marketed pseudosciences like this one). I have one source (albeit a pretty notable one) which uses the word pseudoscience. The others say things like unvalidated, controversial, potentially dangerous, potentially abusive. There was some discussion about the use of the word "controversial" on the basis that pretty much all the mainstream commentary on this subject points one way so the "controversy" is over so to speak. The choices really are "pseudoscientific" or "unvalidated" of people don't like alternative.

g)On the issue of the use of the words "Attachment therapy" - the lead is quite carefully worded because AT is largely a USA thing therefore a UK person hearing the term might just think it meant any therapy aiming to address attachment issues. Therefore I have endeavoured to make it clear what is being described - ie the phenomenon for which the most common tern is "Attachment therapy".Fainites ^barley 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section on mainstream therapies. The sentence that said all mainstream interventions are based on increasing carer sensitivity I added to the the brief description of attachment theory methods - now retitled "contrasting....". I have also removed the brief description of attachment theory. I am still puzzling over the second two paragraphs in diagnosis as it is a feature of AT to claim reliance on DSM and to mix insecure attachment styles with disorders and the distinction needs to be made clear. However - if generally other editors think it is better removed I can do that. I have also found the new site for the one dead link to Hughes old site. Unfortunately he's changed his content! I have an alternative source for the point though. Fainites ^barley 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple edit conflicts)

Comments Whatever. All I am saying is this article is on Attachment therapy. Focus on that and not the disorders that it supposedly treats. You can check the Alternative medicine article and the pseudoscience article and see which it fits. However, your last section Cases is rather ominous. Someone put this article in the Category:Pseudoscience. If it is alternative medicine, then Category:Alternative medicine would be appropriate. There is also Category:Fringe science.
Also you have a number of references that are questionable that I list on the talk page. What makes these reliable sources? (Some of these you can probably justify but the copyvio links must go. And the dead link)

http://www.caica.org/Krystal_Tibbetts_attachment_therapy_death.htm?

Quote from website:"DISCLAIMER, WARNINGS, AND NOTICE TO READERS: This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website (the "Service"). None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with this website in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in these web pages. All information provided using this website is only intended to be general summary information to the public.

FAIR USE NOTICE: These pages may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner."

Same disclaimer as above

http://www.childrenintherapy.org/victims/marr.html

http://www.childrenintherapy.org/victims/gravelle.html

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/at.html - written by a "Ph.D. student from Texas who earned a Master of Arts in Counselor Education from Sam Houston State University in 1995. She also holds a Master of Divinity from Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University."

http://web.archive.org/web/20030820043048/www.theadoptionguide.com/complaints/Polreis.html

http://www.stolaf.edu/people/leming/soc260fam/news/April_18.html#A1817.html - this is a copyvio from the Boston Globe but you :have incorrectly attributed it to the Boston Globe in the references. The site has the disclaimer quoted above.

http://www.caica.org/Krystal_Tibbetts_attachment_therapy_death.htm - copyvio of The Salt Lake Tribune article. The site has the disclaimer quoted above.

http://www.childrenintherapy.org/victims/ciambrone.html

http://www.childrenintherapy.org/victims/swenson.html

http://www.center4familydevelop.com/http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/hughes.html

http://danielahughes.homestead.com/Model.html - this link is dead

http://www.attach.org/position.htm

http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/cline.html

http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/attachmenttherapy.htm

http://www.childrenintherapy.org/essays/index.html

http://www.childrenintherapy.org/essays/abuses.html—Mattisse (Talk) 17:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Overlinking. Please see MOS:Overlinking and underlinking which states that any one term is to be linked once per article as a general rule. You have Attachment theory linked twice in the lead alone.

You say in the lead: "This form of therapy, including diagnosis and accompanying parenting techniques, is scientifically unvalidated and is not considered to be part of mainstream psychology or, despite its name, to be based on attachment theory, with which it is considered incompatible." Therefore, that should be the end of it, except for the place in the article body where you explain this. No more wikilinking to attachment theory; you have already said it does not apply and also per MOS:Overlinking and underlinking. It is misleading to continually wikilink to mainstream articles. This article is about a pseudoscience, or whatever you have decided it is. The same with repeated wikilinking to other mainstream articles like Reactive attachment disorder. This includes the See also. If it is wikilinked in the article, you have to be able to justify putting it in See also. FAC, for example, do not normally allow any see alsos.—Mattisse (Talk) 18:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The attachment therapy versions of what they say attachment theory is and attachment disorder is is part of attachment therapy. And - its not up to me to decide whether its a pseudoscience or not. This has to be sourced - and it is. I suspect that there are many who would argue in any event that "alternative" and "pseudoscience" are not mutually exclusive.Fainites ^barley 19:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a)In relation to the links regarding the cases - these cases are largely reported in newspapers - often with a degree of reasonably in depth investigative reporting, and some have judgments/appeals. Advocates for Children in Therapy use news reopoirts and in some cases personal attendance to compile their individual case reports. Similarly CAICA. These are the best sources there are. Apart from Candace Newmaker on whom there is a book, these cases are not reported into peer reviewed journals or the like although they are referred to in peer reviewed sources - for example the one that cites "at least 6 deaths" and the Taskforce report.

b)I understand Quackwatch is frequently cited in articles on pseudosciences as is skepticreport.

c)The chair or president of the professional board of advisors of ACT is a professor of psychology (child development I believe) and published in peer reviewed journals on the subject of attachment therapy. Fainites ^barley 19:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios removed. Fainites ^barley 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites, any website, such as CAICA, that has the above quoted disclaimer (DISCLAIMER, WARNINGS, AND NOTICE TO READERS) that is it not responsible for the material on the website and that some of the website material may be in violation of copyright law (FAIR USE NOTICE: These pages may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.) is not considered a reliable source by wikipedia. Additionally, it puts Wikipedia at risk for violation of copyright law. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed the CAICA ones. Fainites ^barley 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

One of the issues I feel most strongly about is misinformation on articles. I have not studied the former version, only the one at time of writing. I haven't looked at the sourcing. I think Matisse is right to be extremely wary of how mainstream science material can and may be interpreted in this article. However, this is an agonisingly difficult path - leaving enough material of mainstream practice and theory to provide context, yet not mislead the reader into validating what is clearly a fringe/pseudoscience practice:

e.g paragraphs 3 and 4 of Diagnosis and attachment disorder provide some context (which is a good thing (?) ), however they focus on the unclear nature of the DSM diagnoses and their relation (or lack thereof) to styles of attachment theory. Now part of me reading this (though happy to get some context) could construe this as a direct criticism of mainstream therapy and hence validation of this therapy by its mere presence. This is my impression anyway. I can also see why it is there so this is why it is so difficult. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this a really tricky one myself. It would be easy to just remove those two paragraphs - but then there's no context. Its complicated by the fact that when RAD came out in DSM, attachment therapists seized on it. They also do things like quote papers on attachment styles in support of their diagnosis of "attachment disorder". Suppose I take those two paragraphs out and then look at it afresh. On the article - it hasn't really changed much. Just some bits removed. I took out a section titled "mainstream therapies" and a paragraph titled "attachment theory" which was intended to help explain the difference between attachment theory and the theoretical base of attachment therapy. Here's the pre-GAR version [12] Fainites ^barley 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it all except this bit Within mainstream practice, disorders of attachment are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as reactive attachment disorder, (generally known as RAD) and Disinhibited attachment disorder. Both classifications warn against automatic diagnosis based on abuse or neglect. Many symptoms are present in a variety of other more common and more easily treatable disorders. There is as yet no other accepted definition of attachment disordersFainites ^barley 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The prose could do with a copyedit (I am trying to do some) as it is repetitive in places and could be pruned (see my edits). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Fainites ^barley 22:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel uneasy about the heading Proponents claims to evidence base but have no alternative off the top of my head other than the succinct Claims, which I actually think works ok. I get worried that scanning thrgouh may give folks the wrong idea if their eyes settle on evidence base here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'cept once you read it there is no evidence base of substance. Claims is OK. Or how about "Lack of Validation" ? Fainites ^barley 22:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's make it Claims as it most accurately portrays content of section. I am not keen on Lack of Validation as it is a negative and doesn't encapsulate how these therapies claim to do XYZ. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share Casliber's concerns about the Diagnosis and attachment disorder section. It seems to be a general discussion of the problems in classifying attachment disorders in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 and their diagnostic categories (Disinhibited attachment disorder, Reactive attachment disorder) and is irrelevant to this article, as is the description of "four attachment styles ascertained and used within developmental attachment research." The section implies that "mainstream" research and practice is confusing and contradictory, thereby offering a rationale for nonstandard classification and treatment. I also agree that attachment therapy is clearly a fringe/pseudoscience practice. Why is "symptoms" is quotes? It seems to suggest that the word is being used incorrectly in the diagnostic manuals

I agree that Claims is better than Proponents claims to evidence base. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from Mattisse

Write the Diagnosis and attachment disorder section in a manner similar to the section on Diagnosis lists and questionnaires. In this section you seem concentrate only on the methods used by Attachment therapy, without unnecessary links to mainstream articles. You do not introduce at this point Measuring attachment in children and do not compare/critique these mainstream measures. There are no links under the section heading to main articles.

Linking to mainstream articles must be done only with care and thought as to the consequences. For example, in the section discussed by Casliber, Diagnosis and attachment disorder you have listed under the section heading as main articles: Attachment disorder and Reactive attachment disorder. You have wikilinked each of these a second time in the section itself. ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR twice. Remember, this whole article is on a pseudoscience.

You say Advocates for Children in Therapy "give a list of therapies they state are attachment therapies and a list of additional therapies used by attachment therapists which they consider to be unvalidate." Perhaps the rest of the article could expand on this.

Oh blimey they list about 10 assorted therapies ranging from EDMR to NLP to Feldenkrais to neurofeedback. Everyone a minefield. How about linking to the list and then people can look them up if they want. They probably all have articles on Wiki but whether they're any good or not I don't know. Fainites ^barley 22:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this what the article is about? I am confused now as to the subject of this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about attachment therapy - not EMDR etc etc etc. I'm confused now as to what you want in. Do you want the list of what ACT say are unvalidated therapies in the article? Or just a link? I don't see how this article can go into each unvalidated therapy in any depth. Also - we could list them all but would you want them linked to all the articles on these unvalidated therapies on Wiki? I can certainly do that. Fainites ^barley 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second. Fainite - is the list you're talking about the "list of therapies they state are attachment therapies" or the "list of additional therapies used by attachment therapists which they consider to be unvalidate"? Mattisse - how about you? Also to Fainite, what's the difference between these two lists (the quick and dirty version, please)? If we're talking about the second list, I see no reason to list these therapies - just because some Acupressure practitioners also practice Breema doesn't mean that breema should be discussed in the acupressure article. However, if we're talking about the first list, anything that ACT calls "attachment therapies" should be listed in the article, since the article is called "Attachment therapy". Make sense? Dana boomer (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I'm with you now. Sorry. There is a a list of "attachment therapies". These are attachment therapy by another name. The practitioners keep on changing the name of what critics say is essentially the same therapy most commonly known as "attachment therapy". I have included in the article a list of the alternative names the Taskforce give but did not include the entire list ACT give. It ranges from the original Z-process of Zaslow, through rage-reduction and holding time right up to dyadic developmental psychotherapy. The other list is a list of adjnctive therapies used by some attachment therapists which ACT say are unvaklidated. I can easily include the list of "attachment therapies by another name" - except at the moment as of yesterday, for some reason my computer is not accessing the ACT links. I e-mailed one of ACT about this but they say its working. Is anybody else having a problem with ACT links? Fainites ^barley 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the links and I've added the list in the notes. Fainites ^barley 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the article Attachment-based therapy (children). The section in the article, Differentiation from attachment therapy seems a more succinct and accurate description.

Everything in that paragraph is already in this article in various places I think. Where did you have in mind putting it? Fainites ^barley 22:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just noting that you wrote a clear, succinct description there, whereas this article has balloon up. On October 21, the article was 86,595 bytes and the explanation was not as clear to me as your simple summary in the other article. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattisse

Your comments above are over my head. I am just becoming more confused about what the article is about. I do not know about "EMDR etc etc etc." This discussion is only confusing me more, as my knowledge base is mainstream and I do not know what should go in this article about a pseudoscience. Casliber said, "I think Matisse is right to be extremely wary of how mainstream science material can and may be interpreted in this article." Maybe you could get some input from other editors. Ask Casliber if he would provide some more input as he has expressed discomfort about some issues. Has this article been to peer review? The article definitely needs fresh eyes, input from others who are knowledgeable about mainstream medical issues and how they should be presented in an article about pseudoscience but who are not so involved in the topic of this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber is still involved.[13]Fainites ^barley 13:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having reduced the mainstream material considerably I have now put it in two sections - both headed in a way that make it clear these are contrasting mainstream methods/diagnosis/classifications. Hopefully this will enable the reader to be absolutely clear about the basic but essential differences between attachment therapy claims and beliefs and the mainstream. One is here [14] and the other is here [15]. I am also adding the ACT list of "attachment therapy by another name" as proposed above. As it is a very long list I've put it in the notes as a quote.Fainites ^barley 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Quackwatch refs. I can remove the Skeptic Report article material. It provides a few added historical details about the roots of AT, and where and by who it was practised in the early days. I asked at the Sources noticeboard here. If the consensus is to remove I can do that easily. Fainites ^barley 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mattisse, do you still have things that you would like to see Fainites working on? If you don't, this review can probably be closed as a keep, but I didn't want to do this without making sure you were satisfied. I think that Fainites has done a good job in responding to your comments, and the changes have been beneficial to the article. Let me know your thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stand by my comments above. My specific complaints:

This article needs vetting by editors knowledgeable in the field. I recommend a peer review at the very least.
This is an extremely long article, even by FAC standards (72 kB of readable prose when FAC informal cutoff is 50 kB), that is about a pseudoscience. That is almost twice as long as the article on Attachment theory (43 kB of readable prose).
Is it appropriate to have such an extensive article on a pseudoscience, when all the material that is not on the pseudoscience itself is repeated in the many articles on attachment, attachment theory etc. on Wikipedia?
This is a pseudoscience that had been discredited - my impression is that it is not widely used now anyway. What are the statistics as to its current use in 2008? How recent was the last "dead child"?
I think the entire article should be whittled down to a focused description on the pseudoscience itself. For example, since it is a pseudoscience, is an extensive treatment of its "Historical roots" necessary, when in the end we are talking about a pseudoscience? The length and depth and repetition in the article are unnecessary and inappropriate, in my opinion.
The article should start out by explaining that this therapy is considered a pseudoscience and explain why.
As it is, the article lacks focus.
I would really like to hear the opinions of more editors. I am uncomfortable that such a weighty article's content is being determined by two editors, the article's sole editor (with over 900 edits) and one GA reviewer who admits not being expert in the field. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Mattisse (Talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been extensive involvement in this article by Jean Mercer - an expert in this field.
There is no rule that says pseudosciences have to have short articles. There is very little material that is not on the pseudoscience itself - which is plain to see.
What is the basis for your impression that it is not widely used now anyway? Have you googled "attachment therapy". Would you recognise it if proponents changed its name? Do you realise the Taskforce only reported in 2006? Why would APSAAC so recently seek the expertise of most of the known names in the attachment world for this taskforce for something that was a dead duck?
The article is a focussed description of the pseudoscience itself. If you troubled to look at it you would see that there are only two very short sections giving the contrasting mainstream position.
An extensive treatment of its historical roots is necessary. Thats why so many mainstream commentators have troubled to publish material on this in peer reviewed journals. This is a pseudoscience that does a good job of pretending to be mainstream and based on attachment theory. Public money and insurance money pays for this therapy.
It is clearly stated in the lead that this is a pseudoscience and why. Other editors do not appear to have had the trouble you have had in understanding why and how it is a pseudoscience and how it differs from the mainstream.
I can't help your discomfort, frequently expressed. I have endeavoured to address every concern you have raised - but there has been no response to this from you. Just repetition of vague expressions of concern and discomfort.
I do not accept your basic premise that there is something inherently unethical or dodgy in one editor playing a major role in the writing of an article. Neither has there in fact been only one editor involved. If you look in the history you will see that this page - along with the other attachment pages, was "owned" for over a year by attachment therapists and half a dozen sock-puppets. After they were disposed of by an arbitration, the articles were rewritten. This process involved a number of those editors who had sought to edit when the pages were owned by the sockmaster, not just me. I have been the main editor involved in the process necessary to achieve GA - much of which has little to do with basic content but relates to citations, copy edits and the like.
I am puzzled that on the one hand you seem to wish to reduce the article to little more than a stub because its "just" a pseudoscience that you think nobody practices any more - yet on the other hand you express concern that such a "weighty article" is being determined by two editors.
As I say - I have endeavoured to address all your explicit concerns - but it really is impossible to deal with, satisfy or address vague implications and slurs based on number of editors or edits, unspecific expressions of "discomfort" and statements about the articles subject which are unfounded.
As for getting in other editors - GA, peer review or FA is the only way to do this on obscure psychology topics. Three editors went separately to the psychology project asking for help when it perpertrated dangerous nonsense for over a year. No response was ever received. Nor to RfC's. There are no other editors interested apart than those who do GA's, peer reviews etc. Casliber came - but he is obviously very busy at the moment on MDD. If you sit and wait for interested psychologists to come and take an interest you'll sit and wait for ever.

If the net result of this is no GA - then so be it. I don't need a gong. If you have any explicit issues capable of being addressed then by all means set them out - but frankly otherwise, this is a waste of time. Fainites ^barley 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weighty, meaning size-wise. I have suggested peer review at least twice before and I suggest it again. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Just of note, this article contains only 49 kb of prose, which is within Wikipedia's length recommendations. I believe it's necessary for Mattisse to explain what the article lacks, exactly. I know little about the article's subject, but after I read quite a bit of the article, I don't see anything of terrible concern. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My concerns are listed above at great length here and on the article talk page. But if you find nothing wrong, you are free to pass the article for GA. I am done giving any more explanations and reading through the reams of answers by the editor. This has required an enormous amount of time on my part. I am no longer willing to dwell on this longer. It is not "necessary" for me to explain more.

I recommend peer review because of its psychological content. However, you are free to disregard that also.

Casliber above, who also expressed reservations, is busy with his FAC Major depressive disorder and will not weight in again.

You can make whatever decision/recommendation you want. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)⋅[reply]

Comments from Montanabw I hate to weigh in this late in the process, especially to take the position I am about to take, especially when many of you don't know me at all, but someone asked for an outside eye over here. I think it is important to note that the entire article is fundamentally flawed in that it categorically lumps too many things in as "attachment therapy" and includes relatively mainstream uses with the most fringe versions, dismissing it all as "pseudoscience." I do not say this as an advocate of AT, I am personally rather critical of the concept. Nor am I confusing this article with attachment theory, I know the difference. But for GA, an article has to be NPOV, and this one paints with too broad a brush. On one hand, there are the very legitimate concerns with fringe theories such as "rebirthing," which has resulted in fatalities. Then there are individuals such as Foster Cline (Evergreen model) who certainly gets a cult of personality going and has been in trouble with licensing boards -- the controversy attached to his techniques, particularly the models as they were advocating a decade ago, is well-founded. That said, even Cline himself has modified his techniques from some of his earlier concepts. Coercive Restraint Therapies are definitely a problem, and as such this article does well enough to explain the problems.

But the article goes too far: Coercive Restraint Therapies are not the only form of "Holding therapy." On the other side of the issue are appropriate uses of holdings in the treatment of RAD children. For example, a highly respected mainstream program that uses "attachment principles," including some holdings, is Intermountain Children's Home, which is a Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)-approved facility that has operated under the sponsorship of the United Methodist Church. I suspect they use the term "principles" on purpose to avoid the negative AT label, but they definitely use holdings and do not consider them a form of restraint. Here is a review of their program, which was not entirely laudatory and expresses some criticism of holdings, but as such, is pretty NPOV. Judging by Attachment-based_therapy_(children)#Differentiation_from_attachment_therapy, this article here has been written with language that is similar to that in an article which is quite dismissive of the whole concept elsewhere, thus this creates serious NPOV problems. As an aside, the tone here is also very dismissive of the contributions of Milton Erickson, labeling him a "hypnotherapist," when the broader picture is that he was one of the leading early theorists promoting family therapy, who yes, happened to also work with hypnotherapy (as did Freud). In short, while there is a need to point out the dangers of fringe programs, this article reads more like an expose than a GA.

I guess at the end of the day, for this to be a GA, it needs to get the overall tone off the soapbox and more accurately reflect the entire spectrum from mainstream to fringe. I looked at the abstract of the Task Force report and this sentence mirrors my own view: "...Attachment therapy is a young and diverse field, and the benefits and risks of many treatments remain scientifically undetermined. Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists." (my emphasis) It is a fundamental NPOV flaw to imply, as this article does, that there are only "good" attachment theory-based programs and "bad" AT-based programs, when the reality is that a middle ground exists. As in the example above there is work being done to use attachment theory with some holdings and related tactics when dealing with truly RAD children. And RAD is a genuine disorder, maybe over-diagnosed by the fringe in order to make guilty parents give them money, but if you have ever dealt with the real thing... =:-O So when I look at all of the above, my thought is that the article is in form not too bad, but definitely too POV for GA. Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Montanabw for clarifying the issues that I, not being a specialist in the field of attachment-related treatments, could only sense but not articulate so clearly. Hopefully, this ends the discussion, unless someone weighs in with an opposite view that is put forward as clearly as this one is.

My concern was also that if you Google Attachment therapy, this article comes up first or second, meaning most people searching for info on Attachment therapy will read most likely read this, one of the reasons Wikipedia must take care to avoid misinforming. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Matisse, Montanabw's concerns are almost diametrically opposed to yours. I shall respond to them a little later. Fainites ^barley 15:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what I was thinking. Montanabw wants the article to give more legitimacy to AT by describing some of the things that are accepted by mainstream practitioners, while Mattisse wants to cut mainstream stuff out and make the article say that there is no mainstream acceptance of this therapy and that it is completely pseudoscience. There are some side trips to their arguments, but this is the basic premise, as I see it. Dana boomer (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - but I can see the point about making it very very clear what the article relates too. (Perhaps I should also mention that what used to come up first on Google was a whole load of dyed in the wool AT sites of the CRT/Nancy Thomas parenting type).

Dealing with the concerns one at a time:

The article contains the sentence at the beginning of the second section Controversies arose about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners. It then describes the features of this particular "subset".
The Taskforce use the phrase "controversial attachment therapy" to refer to the attachment therapy techniques about which the controversy arose. However, they also examine the whole underlying theory/belief system. They generally use "attachment -related" or "attachment-based" to refer to everything else. They do however make the point - which is in the article, that there are differences within attachment therapy. If you think the distinction is insufficiently clear, then this point can be moved to the lead. The naming of attachment therapy is problematical as some (usually not in the USA) may take the name to mean anything attachment based whereas this article is aimed at the controversial, non-mainstream version which is generally simply called "attachment therapy". The other mainstream sources who criticise it tend to refer to it as attachment therapy. However, I shall endeavour to adjust the lead to make it clearer what is being addressed in the article - ie the controversial/Zaslow based efforts as described by the Taskforce and other mainstream commentators.
This article does not suggest RAD is not a genuine disorder. Indeed there was more information in it highlighting the distinction between RAD as per DSM/ICD and RAD as promulgated by the attachment therapists in question. This was largely removed at the suggestion of Matisse.
In relation to Milton Erickson, it is Cline himself who cites him as a significant source. Indeed he quotes the paper on that case at great length in his book and explains why he thinks it supports his theory. I don't know if Erickson ever replied to this or was even aware of it.
No disrespect is meant to Milton E. by describing him as a hypnotherapist. (I thought hypnotherapists considered him as one of the all time greats). However, if its thought preferable to describe him as a family therapist then thats fine.
As for the middle ground - I have put in a section - derived from the Taskforce about recent pronouncements and changes within attachment therapy. However, the Taskforce itself points out the difficulties as those practicing serious coercive restraint holding will call it gentle and nurturing just as much as the gentle nurturing ones. However - Wiki requires appropriate sources. The plain fact of the matter is - the substantial sources, published in peer reviewed journals and respectable books - are agin AT theories, beliefs, diagnoses and methods. The Taskforce contrasts it with the "traditional" "attachment theory based" approaches. Are you aware of any peer reviewed publications supporting these therapies other than those already in the article?
In relation to holding and the centre you describe - they do not call themselves attachment therapists nor claim to diagnose attachment disorder or reactive attachment disorder - certainly they don't produce a "symptoms list". However, the second link you provide shows that they undertake scheduled holding for therapeutic, not safety purposes. One of the stated purposes for this is to "recreate attachment cycles". You have already seen in the article what a variety of mainstream sources say about this idea. The Taskforce recommendations state Treatment techniques or attachment parenting techniques involving physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, ventilation of rage, age regression, humiliation, withholding or forcing food or water intake, prolonged social isolation, or assuming exaggerated levels of control and domination over a child are contraindicated because of risk of harm and absence of proven benefit and should not be used. In other words - firstly there is no credible peer reviewed material showing the benefits of either enforced holding or age regression techniques and secondly a significant swathe of mainstream researchers and commentators in the field consider it to be either potentially or actually harmful. In the circumstances, given that Wiki is supposed to present the mainstream view - albeit fairly, it is difficult to see exactly what the "middle ground" is and how it can be fairly presented other that by reference to Taskforce material (and a better distinction made as to which therapies exactly this article deals with).

I shall have a go at the lead to make the distinction clearer. Fainites ^barley 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Final statement I don't want anything other than a clear, accurate article. Other than that, I am disinterested. Please stop implying my motives were otherwise. Casliber and I agreed that there was an unacceptable confusion of mainstream and pseudoscience at the time it was passed as GA. Geometry guy agreed there were problems at that time My comments on pseudoscience were based purely on the existing assessment by Fainites on the article talk page that Attachment therapy was a pseudoscience. Please read the comments of Fainites stating this under More questions and issues. I accepted Fainites' statement. I was concerned about the interweaving of any pseudoscience with mainstream findings. I tried to answer the questions addressed to me but I admitted I knew nothing about the specific subject. I found the article very confusing, as I mentioned many times, and could not distangle the information. I also could not make my way through the editor's voluminous replies, using terminology that I did not understand. That is why I repeatedly recommended peer review.

I tried to help since no one else seemed to be willing. But that was obviously a mistake. Only more confusion has resulted.

Montanabw appears to know the subject well. It was not GA when I was involved. I have not read the article for quite a while, as its confusion makes my head explode. If you think I and Casliber misled you or Fainites, revert to a previous version and request Montanabw's opinion. Go by Montanabw's opinion and the opinions of other qualified persons. I still recommend peer review.

I have tried to clarify Casliber's comments, as when Fainites interrupts threads, as Fainites has, it makes it almost impossible for editors coming after to figure out who said what. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber did not agree anything of the sort. Please read his comments. Fainites ^barley 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV - I think Montanabw is justified in concerns about POV, per Fainites statements here: Quackwatch etc —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the original contributors to this article, have not been much involved lately, but would like to respond to Montanabw's remarks. I'm going to do this in bits, as I typed for 45 minutes earlier and the whole thing disappeared after "save page." Jean Mercer (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Terminology: I believe that one of the problems triggering Montanbw's response is the name given the practices in question. When I initially contributed on this topic, I used the term Attachment Therapy (with caps), to indicate that this was a special usage, not necessarily associated with "attachment", not necessarily a "therapy", and not necessarily a member of a category loosely termed "attachment therapies". In other contexts, I have also used the term Coercive Restraint Therapy, which i would prefer as more descriptive, but which is not as well-known to the public as Attachment Therapy.

There are quite a number of problems about the best term to use here. The term Attachment Therapy has a history, having developed as a replacement for the term Holding Therapy and having been offered by ATTACh in that organization's change of course following incidents such as the death of Candace Newmaker. However, examination of the belief system behind this approach shows that it is in no way based on attachment theory, and that its stress is on child compliance, not on attachment relationships. Employing a term that has no meaningful connection with the referent seems a specious strategy at best. In addition, we have the problem that the great majority of therapies are indeed "attachment therapies" (lower-case) in that they focus on relationships. The APSAC report used this category, defined it very loosely, and did not provide a list of treatments that should be described this way. Among treatments for children that might fit an "attachment therapy" (lc-lc), most refer to their specific names (e.g. Circle of Security) rather than saying they are among the attachment therapies.

So, what are we talking about when we talk about Attachment Therapy? For clarification in the present article, I would propose the term Coercive Restraint Therapy, which could be further described in the text as sometimes called Attachment Therapy or Holding Therapy. Alternatively, the earlier name Holding Therapy could be employed. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2.Scope of the article: Montanabw seems to be suggesting that Attachment Therapy be considered only as part of a larger discussion of attachment therapies (lc-lc). I would oppose this on two grounds: a.considering the number of treatments that would be included as the lc-lc version, such an article would be overwhelming to contributors and to readers. b. I object strongly to the idea that Attachment Therapy be included as just one rather different type of treatment that fits into a broad category consisting primarily of legitimate treatments. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. The "middle ground" approach: Montanabw appeals to a general wish to be tolerant of others' ideas and to make compromises. Such compromises in behavior may be socially appropriate, but in many cases, like this one, compromise in thinking leads to confusion and compromises (in its other sense) intellectual integrity. If Attachment Therapy is without empirical support and has no acceptable theoretical basis, why would we wish to allow it to contaminate legitimate thinking about childhood interventions?

I believe Montanabw is attempting to base this argument on the well-known attempts by Intermountain to re-define holding as a therapeutic intervention. This re-definition is in no way substantiated by Intermountain's accreditation status or by its association with the United Methodists. To demonstrate that holding, as practiced at Intermountain, is an effective treatment, someone must provide empirical evidence in the form of a well-designed and well-analyzed study. This has not been done, and regrettably David Ziegler's attempts to bring previous research to bear on this question were vitiated by his citation of claims about holding therapy, as well as by his failure to reference various studies he cited as support in his text. These problems of support for therapeutic holding (or whatever term Intermountain chooses)would probably be apparent only to readers thoroughly versed in this literature, but they are there. If Montanbw is considering the Intermountain approach as the desired middle ground, he or she will have to deal with the fact that there is no more empirical evidence for the Intermountain approach than for Holding Therapy.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Foster Cline: To say that Foster Cline has modified his approach is rather like saying that George Bush is modifying his approach to the presidency. Foster Cline surrendered his medical license following a disciplinary hearing and has not written for public consumption since that time. If Montanabw has materials that are acceptable for Wiki and that support his or her claim, M. should bring those forward-- this would be a most interesting revelation. Cline's brilliantly-named proprietary intervention, which has resulted in the Love & Logic empire, is said not to employ Attachment Therapy in any way-- again, if Montanabw can show otherwise, many people would like to know about this. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Milton Erickson: I don't consider reference to Erickson as a hypnotherapist to be dismissive-- of course he was a seminal figure. What is "dissed" here is Erickson's 1960 paper, quoted in its entirety by Foster Cline, in which he describes a case where a mother was advised to sit on her child for hours at a time and to feed him on cold oatmeal; Erickson also noted with apparent approval an outcome in which the child trembled when the mother spoke to him. Montanabw may want to compare these maternal actions with behaviors described under NIS-4 categories.

5. Conclusion: I believe the present article would be much clarified by the use of different terminology, as any of the terms using the word "attachment" are confusing at best. In addition, I think that-- whatever this is we're talking about-- is historically and theoretically vastly different from other child mental health interventions, and should be discussed by itself, not in a way that suggests it's simply a variant of a mainstream approach. I consider the "middle ground" and the "therapeutic holding" controversy to be red herrings, and I caution other editors not to be persuaded that there would be a positive effect of blurring definitions in this case. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per comments of Montanabw and Jean Mercer. Recommend peer review and help from Montanabw and Jean Mercer, if those editors are willing, and from other editors knowledgeable on the subject and on mainstream articles. Use Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) standards for sourcing if this is to be considered an article on a legitimate issue in psychology. Article can be resubmitted to GAN when it's many problems are remedied. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Jean. If you want to change the name, what too? I see exactly where you're coming from but the trouble is, the sources do tend to call it "attachment therapy" meaning this holding/coercive type of therapy. Thats how most of the proponents publish it. How is somebody looking for "attachment therapy" going to find their way to this article if its called "coercive restraint therapy"? We could make an even more specific statement in the lead as to what this article is about (as obviously it can't be about all attachment related interventions). Fainites ^barley 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this para to the lead - This term is not intended to apply to all interventions that are or claim to be based on attachment theory or to deal with attachment relationships and which may, loosely, be called an "attachment therapy". Rather the term as used here applies to a particular controversial subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners. These techniques have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.^[1] . However - the most commonly used term for this "subset" is attachment therapy and that is what most mainstream commentators call it. There's noi easy answer to this one. Were you proposing to change all the mentions of AT to caps?Fainites ^barley 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several things here: I did not mean to encourage the idea of delisting, nor am I in agreement with Montanabw's comments. I consider the article to be generally appropriately organized, written, and sourced. But as I noted, and as Fainites agrees above, I believe the terminology is a problem. To discriminate between a broad category of attachment-focused therapies, and the system discussed in the present article, I have called the latter Attachment Therapy (caps) or put the term in quotation marks. I would find either of these appropriate, or of course both caps and quotation marks could be used just in case anyone missed the point. The label Holding Therapy has been criticized because there is much more to the treatment than holding, and I've always felt uneasy with the term Attachment Therapy because attachment is not involved. Fainites' added lead material seems quite suitable, but i would also suggest stressing the difference between attachment therapies and Attachment Therapy, and noting that the latter is not one of the former. This might be done best by giving a couple of examples of attachment therapies.

It certainly would have been useful if APSAC had been more careful about terms. Before that report, people generally said "attachment-related" or "attachment-focused" interventions-- now we have this "attachment therapies" category. Anyway, I agree, forget Coercive Restraint-- only about 6 people in the world know what that means.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, with respect to sources, I don't understand the problem with Bridget Mahoney's education, or why disclaimers on web sites are a problem. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comments: I have no time and insufficient interest to become a contributor to the article, I was mostly just weighing in on the GA issue because an outside opinion was requested. In short, I agree with the clarification of the terminology and the tweak of the lead. I'm also not defending Foster Cline or any coercive model, I am merely questioning the tone of the article that suggests that that AT means only coercive therapies or that all holding therapies are always coercive and bad. I use Intermountain because it's simply an example of a mainstream, non-whacko program that is successfully using attachment theory AND happens to also include holdings. I'm sure someone could contact them and ask for cites to research that supports their program and evaluate it from there. (I don't have the time, personally) I fully agree that AT is controversial, but so were most new psychotherapy approaches at first; over time some were kept, others discredited. This one is still relatively new, so as far as peer-reviewed studies and such go, I haven't the time or inclination to dig into research on this topic, though anything that is cutting edge will inevitably have a limited amount of research out there. It doesn't mean it is good or bad, just new. Also, many of these therapies start out in ways that can be pretty hair-raising, and over time become refined and greatly improved (look at psychotropic drugs, the differences between the old MAOI-class drugs and the modern SSSRI-class drugs are phenomenal). But basically, this article is not really ready for GA due to all of the above issues, and that is really my only real position here: Delist GA. Montanabw^(talk) 00:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. This article is way overbalanced in the amount of space describing – too often repeatedly – a discredited form of therapy. It's not until almost the end of the article we learn that "Zaslow's ideas on the use of the Z-process and holding for autism have been dispelled by research on the genetic/biologic causes of autism." There's no explanation at all of why autism was regarded as a model for lack of attachment, and no explanation as to why presumably sane individuals came to be persuaded to treat children in the way that they did. The Milgram experiment comes to mind, for instance. This therapy arose and was promoted within a sociological context which the article does not explain. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, the treatment continues to be used in spite of evidence that discredits it. That's why the article exists. And, of course, it would be most interesting to know why people are willing to go for these things, but there is no useful evidence about the matter-- in addition, that would be a different topic.

As for Montanabw's statements about holding therapies, it's excessively naive to believe that Intermountain must have research supporting its choices-- this is exactly what I was commenting on yesterday. The literature in this area is quite complex, and it doesn't pay to jump to conclusions about it. You have to really know the literature to make reasonable decisions here. This isn't rocket science, it's a lot harder than that.

If Montanabw believes there is empirical evidence supporting holding therapy in any form, he or she should present it-- keeping in mind what I said about David Ziegler's work (and the same goes for Howard Bath). 72.73.196.59 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry, that was me. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discussing these therapies in general, I'm specifically discussing this therapy, so it is very much on topic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Malleous' comments - if I had sources putting this therapy in its sociological context I'd be delighted. The best I have been able to find are Speltz (who outlines its history) and the Taskforce but neither really put it in its New Age transformational context. The nearest to this is the Skeptic Report article which Matisse has objected to. I can't make stuff up.I will have a look at Eisner though and see if that helps. As for autism - the use of holding therapy for autism is a substantial subject in its own right. I believe there are some European countries where this is still done. It seemed to me though to be a separate subject to this approach which specifically is aimed at so-called RADkids in the world of adoption and fostering but something could be added to explain the Zaslow view (held by a number of professionals) that autism was lack of attachment, "refrigerator mothers" and the like.Fainites ^barley 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jeans comment - do you propose a change to Attachment Therapy in an effort to distinguish this form of therapy from any passing mainstream effort that may carelessly be referred to as "attachment therapy"? If so I can make that change.Fainites ^barley 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding matisses comment - are you suggesting that the article should reflect Montanabw's view that holding therapy is "middle ground" or "cutting edge" in the absence of any sources to that effect and in the light of notable sources contrary to that effect?Fainites ^barley 14:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I do propose that change, to Attachment Therapy with caps, and I always use that form in my own writing. I would even propose using quotation marks in addition to caps, but I suppose this would confuse searches. I would also suggest that mainstream interventions be described as attachment therapIES as a group, and by their own specific names if discussed individually. If it weren't for the confusing precedent established by APSAC, I'd argue that we go back to "attachment-focused" or "attachment-related", which used to be standard.

"Attachment Therapy On Trial" (Mercer, Sarner, & Rosa) discusses some of the background in popular thought which is being described as the sociological context.

One comment on the "middle ground" business: it's important to remember that "holding" as alluded to by Montanabw is probably not equivalent to "rage reduction" therapy. Instead, this is a mthod that involves restraint as an assurance of safety in crisis situations, followed by continued restraint (called "therapeutic holding") after calm is restored-- proponents of this technique believe that the holding of the now-calm individual has therapeutic value. This is obviously different from holding methods that incite distress and loss of control; however, there is no adequate evidentiary foundation to support the effectiveness of either method. (Please comment if you disagree with my definition, Montanabw.)In fact, little has been published about "therapeutic holding" in peer-reviewed journals, and the definition seems to have been subject to criterion creep. I would speculate that "therapeutic holding" is based primarily on assumptions about "age regression" rather than on beliefs about catharsis.Jean Mercer (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is a Good article reassessment. This is not a place for a general discussion of the article. That discussion should take place on the article talk page. This is not a place to argue with other commentors. Please see GAR Cold fusion for a more typical example of the GAR format. To know what the GA criteria are, see Good article criteria and evaluate the article according to these standards. Please register a Keep or a Delist with concise reasons for your position, if you have an opinion regarding this matter. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is a GAR, so further debate should do elsewhere. My main concern is that to the extent the article is exposing abuses of coercive techniques, it is too soap-boxy and paints with too broad a brush; and to the extent it tries to describe a controversial new therapy that is on the edge of mainstream but has yet to have a lot of empirical research on it, it fails to do an adequate job of doing so. So essentially, yes, I do differentiate between therapeutic holding versus rage reduction or coercing holding. I also agree that these therapies are not designed for children with autism, they are appropriately applied to children with reactive attachment disorder, two very different things. I would also agree that there are children who have issues related to attachment styles and are also NOT suitable candidates for attachment therapies. Perhaps the biggest issue is that "Attachment Therapy" is really two articles -- the nutty, clearly damaging stuff versus the concepts that might be considered state of the art 10 years from now -- and needs to either make these two issues clearer, or needs to be split into two articles. Hate to throw in a monkey wrench and then leave, but I just don't have the time to wade into the psych articles, too many other fish to fry. But hope my comments are understood as being in good faith and reflecting a legitimate concern. Good luck all with continued work! Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestion it wasn't good faith Momtanabw! Thanks for your input. In saying holding is suitable for children with RAD -you do part company with the mainstream but maybe somebody will do some research one day, but there's none supporting yet and the mainstream remains agin it. Attachment therapy as criticised by the Taskforce includes not only the most extreme coercive versions, but also scheduled holding (ie not for safety) and age regression, which seems to be the Intermountain approach. (Also - the 'nutty stuff' certainly wasn't just as long ago as 10 years. The Taskforce only reported in 2006. ATTACh only issued a definitive statement against the coercive/cathartic stuff in 2006). All the best and thanks again for your input.Fainites ^barley 21:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Jean. I can make that change. I'm not sure what I can do about Montanabw's concerns though. I have already put in the article the Taskforce point on variations of therapies and moves away from the more coercive stuff by some leaders in the field. I don't have a source specifically on "therapeutic" holding on non-autistic children other than the Taskforces statement in relation to scheduled holding and age regression. Also - the article quotes ATTACh on this point and they ought to know. Also - there's a reference to this in the lead - about the beginnings of change following Candace Newmaker. Any suggestions? Fainites ^barley 21:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have made the change. Can't change the title yet though without moving the page. Fainites ^barley 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus summary[edit]

Proposal to close as delist. GAR has let down this article in the last three weeks, partly because I have been wanting to leave GAR decisions to other editors, but also because this GAR is very demanding in terms of the amount one needs to read in order to make a final decision. Consequently I have now plucked up the courage to read the article carefully. My head is still spinning, and rereading the GAR did not help much.

At the moment (excluding my edits), this article is extremely confusing. Confusion starts already in the lead and the first section with statements like

This term is not intended to apply to all interventions that are or claim to be based on attachment theory or to deal with attachment relationships and which may, loosely, be called "attachment therapies". Rather the term as used here applies to a particular controversial subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners.
Controversies arose about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners.

It seems that the reader is supposed to understand nuances involving capitals and plurals. So are Attachment Therapists a subset of attachment therapists? Attachment therapies are more general than Attachment Therapy. But what about attachment therapy? Is it a subset of itself? Geometry guy 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this confusion exists in real life as it were and may not be possible to resolve it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation and conclusion. The confusion continues in the structure of the article. The first section is entitled "Background", but half way through I found myself wading into criticism of things which had not yet been explained. ("It has also been described as potentially abusive and a pseudoscientific intervention..."). Why are there separate "Background" and "Historical roots" sections? Why does the "Treatment characteristics" section discuss "conceptual focus" and other nondescriptive characteristics? What is the reader to make of the "Variations" section? "Diagnosis and attachment disorder" rapidly degenerates into a completely different purpose: discrediting AD websites and practitioners and their methods. I don't have a problem with doing that, but as a new reader, the section disoriented me even more. The "prevalence" section is terrible: it begins with history according to unreliable sources, followed by a bunch of inline links. The next section "claims" proposes to discuss the claims of attachment therapists, but starts deconstructing and criticising them before I had any idea what the claims actually were. Then suddenly, smack, we are hit with the "Cases". The rest of the article, dodging around the main points, unable to focus attention on one aspect, is no preparation for this listy and brutal description of why Attachment Therapy is so controversial. I had to reevaluate the entire article after reading this, and it made even less sense to me other than an overall feeling "Attachment Therapy is bad^TM".

The confusion is in the detail too. With every quotation mark, I found myself asking, "is this a literal quotation, a use/mention distinction, or a scare quote?" In many cases I have no idea. The tense in some sections jumps from past to present and back again with no justification. I have simply been left reeling by an article where editors have got into disputes over what it is about, rather than how can we present an encyclopedic treatment to readers. I found numerous places where I was unsure which source I could check to verify the contents of the article. And page numbers, while not a GA requirement, would be enormously helpful when refering to books with more than 200 pages.

The intention behind this article is one I applaud: an encyclopedic medical article should direct readers away from pseudoscience towards good advice. The current article tries to do this and completely fails. A big rethink is needed. Big rethinks are not something GAR can handle, hence the delay. Time to close as delist. Geometry guy 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary. The article fails the criteria as follows: 1(a) the article is unclear with multiple grammar and prose failures; 1(b) The overly long WP:LEAD does not summarize the article, layout is confusing, there are words to avoid, and arguably one listy subsection. 2(b) Does well in general, but this is a controversial subject and the sources for several statements are unclear (see the edit history). 3(a)(b) are much improved, but the scope of the article is still not completely clear, and the article is confusing. 4 The article needs to be reevaluated for an encyclopedic point of view. Geometry guy 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the title of this subsection indicates, please add comments if you agree or disagree with the consensus to delist. Geometry guy 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and close - I'm not sure if I should register my opinion again, as I have voiced my opinion above. However, I agree with your description of the article's problems and think this GAR should close. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is an invitation to re-register viewpoints concisely or raise objections, just to make sure that after all this time, the conclusion is appropriate and consensus-based. Geometry guy 00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough GG. It is very difficult to think how to present an encyclopaedic article on a pseudoscience, and protocols for writing articles on proper med/psych topics don't help much in this area. Each review raises different objections and you can please some of the people.... etc. Unlike many pseudosciences there are many peer reviewed articles and commentaries but as they are all agin AT it does produce a sort of soapboxy effect. The confusion over naming is a real problem (added to by the Taskforce) and one to which I have not yet found a comprehensive solution that finds favour with all parties. There have been so many suggestions and arguments on this point in the past and the current effort represents a sort of synthesis of all those discussions. Tricky. In relation to 'directing people to good advice' - there were strong objections to the inclusion of any mainstream material in this article so this is also a tricky one to manouvre. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly sympathise with your position, and appreciate the efforts you have made to improve an extremely difficult article to write. Concerning mainstream material, my reading of the objections here are that mixing discussion of mainstream therapies with Attachment Therapy causes confusion and is in danger of legitimising the latter. One also has to stay on topic.

Anyway, the article has plenty of good content (indeed it is probably too long) and you have heard many views on how to improve the article. Perhaps this is time to digest them and return refreshed to the article in the New Year? All the best, Geometry guy 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and close. My opinion has not changed from the one I stated above. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual transsexual[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Substantial work on the article is proposed. Once this stabilizes, the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for Featured Article status. Then based on concerns raised during featured article review I rewrote reorganized and expanded the article. The complaints were that the prose is too dense (i.e. using various on line readability test the article required a 16th or even 27th grade education to understand it.), that it may not be comprehensive enough. After the overhaul I have given this article it is very possible that this is no longer a good article in the opinion of uninvolved editors. I still think this is a good article. I would like to know from uninvolved editors (NOT James_Cantor or Jokestress) what they think of the quality of this article. Can you understand what it is about etc?--Hfarmer (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You might find it useful to notify WP:LGBT to give their opinions? At a glance, I feel that the article falls down by overusing jargon and probably can't be fixed within the time of this review. Please feel free to prove me wrong, though. ;) "Easter egg" Piped links like [[Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy|controversial]] (there are probably a few others in the article) are considered unintuitive to readers. I find it difficult to understand "opposite their own subconscious sense of their own sex." It seems like it could be made more succinct. I am surprised that Transsexual sexuality is merely a see also - as it seems that a "homosexual transsexual" is an expression of transsexual sexuality, I'd imagine that it should be linked earlier in the article. I hope this helps. -Malkinann (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that under advisement. I try to keep the really abstract jargon to a minimum but a certain editor seems to think that archane jargon makes it less offensive... Which it kind of does. Let me put it this way... I would never think that this should be in the artilcle. To state very simply what a homosexual transsexual is one could write. "A MTF homosexual transsexual is a transsexual who was a extreme sissy as a boy who grows up to be a transsexual who makes a feminine woman and is attracted to and attractive to men." Simmilar language got someone in big trouble. That is part of why so much jargon is present. As for sussicnt ness. A "featured article " reviwer said that the article was too short and the prose too dense. I have noticed that the readability grade levels go up (meaning the article is less readable) as the article is made more susicnt. The article used to be less than 1000 words. It had a 27th grade reading level. Now as long as it is it has a 13th grade reading level. (I would like to bring that down to 10th grade or less). Though I see where you are comming from we are writing a encyclopedia article not righting great wrongs. Perhaps short and simple is the way to go? But how to do that and be the kind of comprehensive article that the featured article people said it would need to be? :-?--Hfarmer (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like there's a bit of a content dispute. Jargon can be used quite effectively in order to remove embarrassment about writing on sexual topics, but also WP:JARGON is one of the style guidelines that is compulsory for WP:WIAGA, so I suggest that you discuss this with the other people who regularly maintain the article to achieve some sort of a middle ground. There's no need to try to make it overly simplistic for the readers. The article's grammar is a bit off in places, so a thorough copyedit would be good. Perhaps there's been a misunderstanding with my use of the word succinct - it means that you say what you mean, in as few words as possible. Good articles must be broad in their content - comprehensiveness is not really to do with how many words you use to get your content across, but in how well your words cover the content. However, a small article indicates that there may be some gaps in the content. Are all aspects of the topic addressed? Good articles do not have to be "complete", as an A-class article does, or "comprehensive" as a FA does. --Malkinann (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seem still a GA~~, with a content dispute (that could very easily be solved by a rename to Homosexual transexual (term). As the dispute is being worked on, i think it is too early to delist. If the tags are still there in a month, i would delist though.Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The work so far only seems to have gotten to the point that a complete rewrite is the next step. As such i don't think it is stable, and after such extensive changed a new GAN would be preferable.Yobmod (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is no longer a good article, because Hfarmer has removed all the published sources explaining why the term is controversial. It's all part of Hfarmer's attempt to make this article about Hfarmer. This is, in fact, one of the worst, most unbalanced articles about trans issues on Wikipedia. Jokestress (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. First of all look at the pre2003 controversy section I wrote. I summarize with due weighting all of the criticisms that existed before 2003. Jokestress would prefers many many very long block quotes which give undue weight to some authors simply due to their long windedness.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it divided into pre-2003 and post-2003? --Malkinann (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003 a book was released that changed a phrase that was unpopular and a phenomena that was undenied into a raging controversy which had this as a buzzword. "The Man Who Would Be Queen". Since then the response this word got went form mild offense at worse to white hot rage towards anyone who either used the word or who unknowlingly described themselves in terms even vaguely congruous with it's definition.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the book popularised the use of the term "homosexual transsexual"? I guess that might go a long way to explaining why the pre-2003 section is as long as the post-2003 section - people didn't really know of the term until then? --Malkinann (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he he Well I don't know how "popular" it is. But in the sense that it became well known to allot more people after this book yeah. If anything it made the phrase taboo in some circles. There were online boards where if a young transwoman logged in and talked about troubles with boys or school she would be verbally attacked. Where before she might have been told how lucky she was to an uncomfortable extent. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful comments from the talk page[edit]

I'm quite calm - no worries. I think the article should explain which sexologists - sounds like it was a select group or a minority opinion? That may help explain what's going on. The lede would also do well to explain who finds it controversial. That it's a term applied to transsexual people and not used as a self-identifier would also help. The lede (per wp:lede) should stand alone as an article explaining the overview summing up the major points and serving the reader to understand why the topic is notable as well as a summary of criticism. The rest of the article, once reworked and cleaned-up, then expands and drills down into details. It may help to look at beefing up the lede more even if the rest of the article is still being worked on. -- Banjeboi 00:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good suggestions. I will work on them over the weekend. It won't be easy to make a leade that is simply worded, brief, but self complete, that is not so simply worded that it is crude, yet the language only requires a 10th or 12th grade level education to understand. Oh boy. If I can do it all of this will be a good article indeed!--Hfarmer (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that an informal mediation request has been filed on this article. --Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The first thing that struck me when I read the article was that the lead left me completely unprepared for what followed. There are wording, neutrality and encyclopedic prose issues throughout. I went to the talk page after going through the article, and I see that article editors may not be in a frame of mind to resolve these issues right now. I hope the mediation is helpful, and recommend renomination once agreement is reached over the balance of the article. I have to say, I'm sympathetic to both points of view, and think that the editors have just got wrapped up in conflict. Geometry guy 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify just what you mean by un prepared? What hit you unexpectedly about the article? This will help me to address your concerns.--Hfarmer (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first section, to start with, which is probably undue weight to a single author, and not covered in the lead. But the last section was just as problematic. I can't comment in detail now. In the meantime, check my contribution slice to this article for ideas. Geometry guy 23:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm beginning to feel like this article could have words to avoid - especially in regards to ambiguity and that the term "homosexual transsexual" itself is considered offensive. The article also appears to make Wikipedia agree with the theories, rather than presenting them (esp. in terms of older, non-Western cultural groups that have been said to be analogous to the "homosexual transsexual" class). --Malkinann (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it has many words to avoid and so called weasel words but in this case many of them are needed. For exaple. let's talk about Dr. Blanchard's theory. Citing a paper either for it or against it means citing a paper that is often by three or four researchers. Should we ennumerate each one of them everytime such a paper is quoted? Or if the authors of a paper say "we note that blah blah blah..." Should we then leave out of the quote or paraphrase the word noted? What should we put there? A reliable source noted it in their research.

As for the alleged uncritical agreement with Dr. Blanchard's theory. Please see the controversy section I wrote where I summarized all of the criticisms. This is a term which existed and is on record long before Blanchard or Bailey were ever born. Can you suggest what could be done aside from some reasonable expansion to that section to make this less like it is agreeing with Dr. Blanchard's theory? Beware that the first paragraph as I wrote it, refering to this as a class of people, is based on the way this word and it's synonyms are used in scientific literature, and numerous numerous US immigration assylum cases which are essentially based on "homosexual males with female gender identities" being a class of person defined by immutable qualities. I suppose we could talk about the primarily trans and homophobic nature of most objections to that court ruling (i.e. the fear that a huge wave of LGBT people would seek assylum in the US due to it.) --Hfarmer (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words to avoid guideline and the weasel words guideline are separate. The words to avoid guideline is compulsary for GA, the weasel words guideline is not. In regards to weasel words, it may be appropriate to say that "some say" in the lead, but who says and when should be expanded upon in the article. It is not Dr Blanchard's theory I am suggesting the article completely agrees with. It is Richard Green's. I feel it would be more neutral to say that "Richard Green identifies the kathoey, hijira, etc. as being analogous to homosexual transsexuality because they exhibit traits x, y, z." and to remove the bulk of the current "History" section. If someone is really interested in the kathoey, they will go to the kathoey article. It gives Green undue weight, as most of the citations in that section are describing the cultural groups, rather than describing them in the context of homosexual transsexuality. If the reader doesn't realise this, it seems that more people than Green regard these peoples as being examples of homosexual transsexuality. --Malkinann (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see any case for keeping this GAR open. The current article doesn't meet the criteria and is unstable. I intend to close as delist shortly unless objections are raised (or someone else closes it first!). Geometry guy 21:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is there anything other than a copyedit, WP:JARGON, WP:WTA and WP:NPOV that needs to be worked on before another peer review or GA attempt? --Malkinann (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreement is needed on title and scope (is this article only about mtf "homosexual" transsexuals, or does it also concern ftm?). The book cover needs a fair use rationale for this article. And, once the rest of the article is stable, the lead will need to be rewritten to summarize it concisely. Geometry guy 21:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong (2005 film)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Keep. No support for the case to delist. Geometry guy 18:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is very good, but there aren't enough references in the Release, Cinematic and literary allusions, Musical score, and DVD release sections. Many have too be added; the Extended Edition scenes paragraph has NO references. Also, many of the sections should be merged with more main ones. For example the DVD release section should be merged with the main Release section. Lastly, there are quite a few links that are dead/need fixing. You can see them here. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problems are not enough to merit delisting imo - citations are only required for things likely to be challanged (or quotes / stats etc), even for FA.Yobmod (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User Alientraveller is addressing some of the nom's concerns, particularly the references. This is likely to be a keeper. Majoreditor (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Citations have been added. There's room for improvement but at present the article meets or is close to meeting GA requirements. Majoreditor (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not enthusiastic about the article, partly because of the "References to other versions of King Kong" section, but I agree with others that it now does enough for GA. In particular, low citation density in some sections is not a GA issue, and hasn't been for over a year. Geometry guy 21:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Moore[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No consensus to delist (Keep by default). "No interest" would probably be more accurate, but at least the article has been improved. Geometry guy 18:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is still GA class or not. I have a couple concerns regarding content, namely:

No info on his life prior to college.
Sources 2,3,7,8,9,13,14,17 look unreliable.
Seems very short overall, just barely covers bases.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the lack of information about his childhood is an acceptable gap - "articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic" are permitted as GAs. The "college" referred to seems to take students up till the age of 18, so he could have been from 15-17 or so when he dropped out. Have you asked at WP:RS/N about the sources? I'm unsure how you feel the article is perhaps too short? --Malkinann (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There're only two sentences for his tenure on To Tell the Truth, for one. Overall, it just feels underdeveloped. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that I agree. Moore was a minor celebrity, and as such we'd expect a brief article. Besides, Good Article criteria focus on breadth rather than depth, per criterion 3; that's one of the major differences between GA and FA. Majoreditor (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. The sources are not great, but they are not generally supporting controversial statements. Relative to this version, I've resourced [2] and [3] to [1] and [7] to [6]. [8] is primary, and is partly backed up by a secondary; [9] is also primary, and I've clarified this, and supplemented it with [1]. I've supplemented [13] with the Internet Movie Database, and removed the likely-to-be-challenged material supported by [14]. I've fixed the weblink to [17]: this is again primary source material. Note [11] and [15] are also primary source material dressed up with weblinks to unreliable-looking sources. I've merged them, so it is clear that the weblinks are not the source: the primary material is, just as it would be in a plot summary.

I agree that the article only just covers the bases, but it covers them just enough for broadness in my view. Expanding the article further would involve dragging the barrel of borderline source material, and would do readers no service. Geometry guy 19:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action. The GAR neither endorsed the fail, nor concluded that it was inappropriate. Proposals to clarify WP:WIAGA or WP:RGA can be taken up on the corresponding talk page. Geometry guy 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team was failed for WP:WIAGA criteria # 5. It was deemed unstable. However, WP:WIAGA, which reads "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute," only involves dispute over editorial content.

It is common to extend this rational to an event that occurs over the course of a time period significantly shorter than a typical GA review backlog of three or four weeks. An event such as a 2008 World Series article where the event occurs so fast relative to the WP:GAN process that is often excluded by such criteria. In these cases it is felt that by the nature of the event its nominated content must be so different from its evaluated content that it is impossible to determine whether disagreements over editorial content have arisen. Events that unfold over the course of months are not excludable for this reason. Thus we have passed articles with {{Current election}} (such as Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain and when Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) passed (through a GAR much like this one) there were a total of five WP:GAs with {{Future building}}.

A well-concieved college basketball article in most cases begins sometime soon after Midnight Madness (basketball) in mid-October and continues until the end of the season in early April. It is possible for a college basketball article to begin to be encyclopedic a full year before the team plays (e.g., 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team) by reporting on blue chip verbal committments and letter of intent signings. Thus a college basketball team article should unfold over the course of at a minimum of five months and may unfold over the course of twenty or twenty-five months.

The article was failed for a content dispute that does not exist. There is no content dispute and it is quite easy to evaluate whether one exists at this slowly evolving article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I have asked for clarification on this issue in the past, I was told that the distinction is with articles about events with a definite endpoint (eg. presidential campaigns, band tours, etc.). Therefore, a few months ago, "John McCain" could have been a GA, but "John McCain 2008 presidential campaign" could not. Likewise, "Michigan Wolverines" is eligible for GA status, but an article about the future, like this one, is not. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this at WP:WIAGA, if it is not it should be for clarity on the stability issue. If people do not feel this type of clarification should be added to the stability criterion, then I continue to object. Either we feel the state criteria does not convey the spirit of the law or we are misunderstanding the spirit of the law. We need some consensus on what WIAGA#5 shoud read like to evaluate this article. I have no problem with your comment. It may be for the good of the project to have such a rule, but it should be stated at WIAGA. Otherwise, my article should be passed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an important test case. I think one can identify three issues related to stability.
1. Is this article currently unstable, i.e., changing in such a way that it does not represent good article quality?
2. Is it practical to review this article now?
3. Is their any point in assigning GA status to the article if change considerably in the near future?

Point 1 and some of 2 are largely what criterion 5 covers. However, WP:WIAGA links to reviewing good articles for more information, and the latter provides a more pragmatic perspective on point 2 and addresses issues related to point 3.

Concerning this article, I don't think there is a problem with point 1. Concerning point 2, here is the diff for the review period 22-29 November. Is this incremental improvement, or is too much new information being added to make a review practical? Supposing it is practical, we are left with point 3. If the article is basically GA quality now, can we assume in good faith that new information will lead to incremental improvement, secure in the knowledge that the article can be delisted if it deteriorates? Or do we say, no, this kind of article cannot be a GA yet because of its very nature? If so, what is the definition of "very nature"?

It is interesting to note that the FAs of Obama and McCain were featured on the main page at the very moment when, from the point of view of new information, they were maximally unstable: election day! However, they both remain articles of extremely high quality. Geometry guy 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the decision and the reasons for the quick-fail. The article is bound to change day-by-day, it is vastly incomplete and has a definite endpoint in the future, at which point the article will be in much more finished and polished state. The article is largely in a state of flux from now until the end of the season. While, the above comparisons of Obama and McCain have some similarities, at least both had large pasts previous to their day on the main page. But to me, listing this page now would be akin to listing a Super Bowl final article or NBA finals article one week prior to the game. It is obviously going to change hugely between now and the end of the season - the difference with Obama is that large parts of Obama will barely change.

As a result, I would say the article fails on criteria 3 and 5, and a combination there of. It is not broad in its coverage, because the very subject as well as the article is currently unfolding, and so its stability can also be questioned. I don't see why the article cannot be simply be nominated once the season is over and then a reviewer can review it based on the text before him/her, rather than text which might appear in the future. Peanut4 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you raised criterion 3 (broadness), because I think this is a much better way to address articles and issues like this. Geometry guy 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. we are now getting into some slick crossboarding where a lot of ideas are expressed and people agree, but it is not clear what they are agreeing to. Is there some agreement that either 3a or 3b is grounds for failing. In this case the reviewer made no such commentary. We are here to address 5. Of course, we should consider 3 if you can tell me whether you think the article is in violation of 3a or 3b, which I do not think it is excepting for not including WP:CRYSTALL content. Content-wise the article will continue to change incrementally since the team plays about twice a week. No disagreement here. The question is what part of WIAGA does this violate? If you want to fail it for a common perception that is not part of WIAGA, such as an event having a definite endpoint, then lets come to an agreement that events should have a definite endpoint to be viewed as high quality and fix WIAGA. A reasonably high quality article can be written that broadly addresses a possible elements without the article having a definite endpoint. The review essentially fails the article for not describing something that may or may not happen. If the team goes 6–12 in conference and is sitting home for the post season, there is nothing important to add to the article. The only important content additions could possibly occur next March.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to play devil's advocate. But when you nominated the article you said "unsure of eligibility". You were clearly unsure whether you should nominate it or not. What were the reasons for your apprehension at the time? Peanut4 (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too lazy to look at WP:WIAGA without motivation to do so like I have now;
Unsure whether people might pose random criteria like the "definite endpoint" rule that are no where to be found;
unsure whether random arguments not listed at WIAGA carry weight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed you to Reviewing good articles, which is where this "random" argument comes from. You raise an interesting issue, but don't push it with rhetoric and wikilawyering. Geometry guy 09:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but my argument isn't "random". I fail to see how this can pass the "broadness" aspect of WP:WIAGA. Peanut4 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What aspects of the topic have not been covered?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't describe the full season. It's like reviewing a half-finished painting. I feel the article is premature. To be honest, I think the criteria ought to be changed to specify that such articles which (are ongoing and) have a definitive endpoint shouldn't be nominated until that endpoint is reached. Peanut4 (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the criteria need to be changed. If there is not agreement that this change is appropriate, then your objection is not valid. What I am saying is that in terms of what has happened the article is broad. In terms of the future there is likely omited encyclopedic content. However, the season could be a dud with nothing more to report. Who knows? Either lets agree that the criteria need to be changed or say that the article is broad based on what has occurred. That is my point. You continue to complain about me not writing about things in the future that may or may not be encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is broad as regards what has happened. Just that the subject title itself refers to more than what has already happened, so the article is not broad in context to the title. Secondly, I can't see anywhere where I've complained about what you might write in the future. Simply, there will be more to write, yet a reviewer right now does not know what you will write. Peanut4 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) The fundamental concept behind editing on Wikipedia is consensus. Guidelines exist to reflect (and hence inform) consensus but do not determine it. The issue about titles is another good point. If the title were "2008-09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team up to 2 Devember 2008" then the article would surely be broad (but probably not notable!). Is it worth adding a footnote to the broadness criterion at WP:WIAGA to reflect this issue? Geometry guy 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anything needs to be added at WP:WIAGA. Doesnt' the quick-fail criteria, namely item 5, already cover this? Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:BLP or ongoing business entity article will have more to write and the title need not reflect that fact. There is nothing in 5 that would cause this article to fail. The fact that more will occur does not mean that anything significant will need to be written. Like I said the team could lose a lot of games not make the tournament and then all that would need to be written is that the season took a turn for the worse when they lost 15 of their last 20 games. If all that were missing from a season article is a sentence explaining that they lost 15 of their last 20 games nothing significant is missing. We do not know if anything encyclopedic will occur during the rest of the season and it is presumptuous to assume so. The article is properly titled However, the issue is whether this article fails #5 according to the criteria. Articles that change from day to day for reasons other than content dispute are eligible for nomination under the current rules. If there is consensus that articles should be failed for reasons not in the rules the rules should be amended to refect this consensus. If there is no such consensus, the article should not be failed. The issue here is whether there is consensus to fail articles for foreseeble changes in content that are not disputed. Is there consensus for decisions of this sort.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about quick-fail criteria number 5, not WP:WIAGA criteria number 5. Peanut4 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this article were in a vacuum, standing alone, I'd be more than happy to pass it since I know you're a conscientious editor and will keep the article updated. But I'm afraid that could set a bad precedent for others to follow. In addition, I asked myself the question: "Does this represent some of Wikipedia's best work right now?" and the answer was no, simply because it hasn't been written yet. I know you'll have no problems getting it passed once the season is over -- heck, I'd love to be the one to review it when that comes to pass -- but I disagree with doing it now, before the subject of the article is developed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe that Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article #5 applies unless you consider the Wolverines season to be a rapidly unfolding current event. That criteria does give us guidance about the endpoint and may be intended for articles like this. However, their season is hardly a rapidly unfolding event. If I went five days without editing the article It would barely be considered deficient. A rapidly unfolding event is something like Presidential transition of Barack Obama, which has a daily newsconference of must include information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Rapidly unfolding means over a period of weeks-months, not only days. However, I really think it is the broadness which is the main problem. As JKBrooks85 puts it, the article has not been written yet! This impacts on other criteria: e.g., the article is very listy, because there isn't enough meat for overview, analysis, and good prose. Geometry guy 18:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not so convinced that rapidly unfolding could mean something like the 2008-09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season. I don't think of something as rapidly unfolding when over a four day period nothing encyclopedic happens. How many days do you think this article could go before a {{update}} tag would be needed? I do concede that there is probably a consensus that an article like this is suppose to be excluded. Nothing at WP:WIAGA would support such a finding. 5 at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles gives weak support, but I am not so pleased with the current wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      And what about broadness? Geometry guy 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  PS. I'm curious that 2007-08 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team does not exist (nor does any prior season). Why not? Surely it is quite important to this article how the team did last year, but without an article to refer to, it is hard to write about it in summary style.
  - Only about 25% of the Division I teams had articles for 2007-08. Michigan was not one of them. Like anything on WP getting people to write historical stuff is not so easy to do. If the team had had a good year last year I might have written the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you're not happy with the wording "rapidly unfolding". If that was in an article, it would be deleted as POV. To be honest, I don't know what rapidly unfolding is supposed to refer to. I would simply say "unfolding" would suffice, since the article is likely to change until the current event is over. Peanut4 (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is certain to change significantly even over the course of a typical hold period (1-2 weeks) would count as "rapidly" unfolding to me. The idea that it can be simply delisted if it doesn't get continuous upkeep would damage the quality of GAs in the longrun, because it simply doesn't happen. There are very few GAs that passed more than a year ago that shouldn't be tagged with something, and they are not unfolding events. It is not concievable that any unfolding event passing GA will get a prompt GAR once the event finishes. I agree with waiting until the seasons end.Yobmod (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can agree with that interpretation of rapidly unfolding. I still think WIAGA should have some relevant policy included though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Task Force Report, Chaffin et al. p. 77

[tfr77-1] Task Force Report, Chaffin et al. p. 77

[1]