Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 17

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 18)

Good article review (archive)

(Page 16) →

To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves disputes which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.

Archived Disussions

Disneyland Railroad

Result: 6 to 0, delist

Warned by me on the article's talk page regarding lack of inline citations in December 2006. Also has a trivia section. Delist. LuciferMorgan 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Way undercited. ShadowHalo 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom - needs references, assimilation of triva into main article and edits for style/possible copyvio. LordHarris 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Some great pictures, but the trivia section has to go along with many inline citations needed to be added. Remove from GA for now. Hopefully it is renominated again later. --Nehrams2020 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist What's with all these train articles in bad shape? :| M3tal H3ad 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Contains trivia list and another listy section right before that. Incorrect use of bolding, weak lead, doesn't meet WP:LEAD, not a good stand alone summary. Way under referenced as stated above. IvoShandor 08:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne (wine region)

Result: 2 to 0, keep

The objection I have to this article is that most of the information contained therin more properly belongs in a different article, that of Champagne (province). The wine region article should be delisted, split and merged into the province article, and renamed something like "Wine making in Champagne", then each article could be renominated for GA as appropriate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wine making in Champagne would not be an appropriate title since the wine history of the region is a vital component to terroir of the region. I'm not sure how familiar Jayron is with wine but there is much more to the creation of wine then just "wine making" with the people, places and history each adding profound elements that make wine like Champagne truly different from any other sparkling wine. For reference, similar articles along this line would be Napa Valley (wine) and Languedoc wine.To that extent I do think Champagne (wine region) is the most appropriate title and place for this information. After looking over Dr. Cash's comment, I agreed with him that an article titled Champagne (province) should include more details on "the government and politics, demographics of the population, transportation, economy, sports team" etc like an article on a US state like Rhode Island or another French province like Lorraine (region). As the majority contributor to the wine related history and info, I agreed with him that the wine related history and info overwhelmed the provincial article so I went ahead and split the two and renominated the wine region to be evaluated on its own merit. I hope this clarifies things for you. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an FYI, if sections such as the "Military history" are what caught your eye as maybe belonging better in Champagne (province), I will direct your attention to the citation references at the bottom. They are all from wine books since those elements of Champagne history has had a profound affect on the wine industry in that region. Every item in the Champagne (wine region) article is tied back into its influence on the wine. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to bring these concerns to light in my initial GA review, because the article was initially nominated as Champagne, and dealt solely with the wine-making aspects and nothing about the political, geographical, and cultural aspects of the province. The article was then split and renominated, as Champagne (wine region), and I still have some doubts about GA status, but the article was passed by Sandstein before I could do anything, and I decided not to challenge at the time. Dr. Cash 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, everything in the article is specific and relevant to the wine region and wine. Is there another area that I should look at or improve to take care of these doubts? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now: Weak lead, doesn't conform to WP:LEAD and includes one sentence paragraph. Some of the information in the History section is probably a bit too detailed for an article about the wine region. Is there a difference between the wine region and the whole of the province, that should be made explicitly clear. IvoShandor 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments IvoShandor. I worked on the lead to address some of your concerns. As for the history section, if you can point me in the right direction I'll see what I can do. The largest sub section is the "Rivalry with Burgundy" which is only relevant to an article about the wine region and wouldn't have a place in any other article. The "Military Conflict" is by far the smallest sub-section and gives context to the history of the area and the blood that is in soil. The only references in the "Military conflict" section come from wine books because they are pertinent to understanding the terroir. Is there something that you would recommend? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blood that is in the soil? Anyway, is there a difference between the wine region and the province? I will take another look at the article and come back with specifics. IvoShandor 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh, pardon the literary device. :p But that is one aspect of the terroir that is often talked about in regard to the Champagne region. The wine from the area is so different from wines from other areas no matter how finely detailed that a wine producer would try to imitate the condition of the area and the wine making techniques. That innate difference is attributed to the "sense of place" that the Champagne region has and Champenois do talk about the blood that in their soil due to all the battles and conflicts that the area has saw. Terroir is fascinating in that regard. If you are an avid reader (or just the curious sort) a book you may want to consider is James Wilson Terroir. Even if you're not into wine, it's a pretty good read. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence in this article catches my eye, "From the key market of Paris to the palace of Louis XIV of France at Versailles, proponents of Champagne and Burgundy would spar to get the upper hand.". This wasn't literally fighting, was it? Seems a bit unusual way to word it, its not very direct unless they're literally fighting. Homestarmy 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well structured, reasonably well written, and broad in its coverage. The sections that the proposer says should be merged into the article for the modern day province are at least tangentially related to the topic at hand. I rather like the way those relationships are defined in the article. Intro's good after rewrite. Only concern is that I'm still not clear after reading the article if the Champagne (wine region) and the province of Champagne are geographically the same. Could use just a touch of work to clear up that point, as could Champagne (province). MrZaius^talk 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a few awkward sentences here and there, but overall it is readable and thorough enough for GA. I was also left wondering if the wine region is the same as the province. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was mention later in the article but I moved it up to the Lead to try and clarify things. Hopefully that helps. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Cross

Result: 6 to 0, delist

Many sections have either none or too few inline citations, especially for an article this length with so many assertions of fact, the few citation needed tags do not represent the number of citations needed here. In addition the structure is poor at best and confusing at worst. The Awards section is poorly composed, consisting of many short and once sentence paragraphs, also citation lacking. Three small sections, theft, annuity and forfeit are too stubby to be their own sections and would better be served by a blanket history section. The last part of the article is a list which should either be merged elsewhere, moved to its own page and summed up in the article or deleted. This is at a first look and if its not convincing enough I will delve furtherIvoShandor 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Other section is too ambiguously titled to be useful. Just in case it wasn't obvious, Delist. IvoShandor 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nomination concerns. LuciferMorgan 09:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom LordHarris 10:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are valid concerns, I'll see if I can do anything to remedy the situation. --Xdamr^talk 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, most of us here are willing to change our opinions if conditions merit such an action. IvoShandor 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a note on the talk page, but there doesn't seem to be too much of a rush from other editors to get things done. I shan't be able to do too much for the next week or so unfortunately. --Xdamr^talk 00:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. Not enough done in four days. andreasegde 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, Not enough of the article appears to be referenced, while it could be argued that the awards section might possibly be referenced by one of those broad looking references at the bottom, several other sections besides that don't seem to be referenced either. Homestarmy 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - per the nominator. The Hippie 20:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Illinois Observatory

Result: 6 to 0, Keep

This was one of my first GAs, it was passed by Badlydrawnjeff without a review, though he said he reviewed it and would post comments eventually. I wonder if it is up to GA, if you vote delist, please provide a rationale as I will attempt to fix any and all concerns raised during the review. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: per nom. IvoShandor 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problems, and although there's only six refs, all of them are highly reliable and inline cited clearly. Might want to wikilink that weird term in the intro about the main development this observatory helped with, that astronomical photowhatsit thing. Homestarmy 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinked. Whosawhatsit. IvoShandor 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fine article, meets all criteria. The refs should probably all have retrieval dates, but that is a small issue, and not worth delisting now. Just fix that. Looks fine to me. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References now properly formatted. IvoShandor 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LordHarris 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fine article. high credibility of references and proper use of inline citations is appreciated. as an aside, there may be a list of National Historic Landmarks or the like for illinois that could be linked into the article. not just a category, but a list. see Chicago Landmark for an example of what some ChiWikiProj members are creating. of course, the quality of this article merits having a mention in the primary UofI article, too. ChicagoPimp 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why doubt your abilities? This is a VERY well written article. I have seen other GAs that couldn't even hold a candle to this.--Kranar drogin 04:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Quadzilla99 06:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Railroad

Result: 7 to 0, Delist

Warned by me in December 2006 regarding lack of citations on article's talk page. Delist. LuciferMorgan 14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delist - only a single reference and no inline citations. ChicagoPimp 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - per ChicagoPimp. There are more external links than there are inline citations... The Hippie 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist per above. Teemu08 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that first image have a Fair Use rationale? All I see is the copyright template, with an ominous TfD hanging over it apparently, isn't there supposed to be a separate rationale when there's a template like that? If so, Speedy Delist for the Fair Use violation. Homestarmy 13:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist per above. LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist but I don't think it should be speediedBalloonman 17:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Chief

Speedy Delisted 4-0

Delist - the article has multiple sections that read as lists rather than prose, no inline citations, and a trivia section. ChicagoPimp 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, the lists have even more problems than just being too numerous, they go into far, far too much detail. Also, without internal citations, there's no way for an outside observer to have any idea how much of the article is referenced and how much was just added on with no reference at all. Homestarmy 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Lead too long. Article too listy. No inline citations. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELISTED - Upon further review of the article's talk page and history I realized that this article was never reviewed. The creator of the article tagged it himself. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 19:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist LuciferMorgan 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALCO FA

Delist 6-0

Has zero citations and is stubby in places. Delist. LuciferMorgan 01:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. LordHarris 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: per nom. What are all those ridiculous templates in the middle of the article for? IvoShandor 16:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - those "ridiculous templates" are the lists of purchasers of this model of locomotive by model subclass. They were originally included in plain tables but the GA nomination was held until they were wrapped in the show/hide blocks that you see there now. Slambo (Speak) 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now I see the show/hide link, can you change their color, that was too hard to see, they didn't seem to do anything that's why I called them ridiculous, no offense intended, they're actually kind of neat. IvoShandor 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought might be the problem as it seemed to me to be a bit dark on dark to begin with. As I remember, the background color in those cells used to be a lighter color. I'll see about rectifying at least that much shortly... Slambo (Speak) 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see them now btw. IvoShandor 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. andreasegde 12:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist need those references, references, references. and then some more references. ChicagoPimp 03:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Needs more citations. The Hippie 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Fuller (football player)

Keep, 4-0

I'm the main contributor to this article; I nominated and it passed two weeks ago. However, I just noticed while browsing around that the user who passed it is a confirmed sockpuppet (see the discussion on GA/R talk page). So I thought it should put it up for review just to be safe. The two notes I'd like to make is that although the article is short it's comprehensive—the player did not have an article until a month ago and the Houston Chronicle's extensive online archives (which I've searched through thoroughly) don't really have much to add to the article (other than brief mentions like Fuller recorded two sacks, Fuller is expected to make the Pro Bowl, Fuller is looking forward to the season etc.). Also there are no pics available for the article on flickr or otherwise, as you can see here, I'm good at finding free pics so if there were some I'd have found them. Quadzilla99 10:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The review is here. Quadzilla99 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I added a stats table to fill the article a little more. Quadzilla99 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the exact kind of article GA was intended for. It is well written, broad, and well referenced. I see no reason not to keep it. On fix, which I made myself, was to change NFL career to Pro Career. Otherwise, it looks fine. GAs cannot be held up for lack of pics, and it looks NPOV and stable enough. I say keep.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral (for now)~~: A few comments follow.
I would say it is worth mentioning that he is tied for the 20th spot on the all time sack leaders list.

Done, I put it down by his stats table.

Any hall of fame consideration here? What are his chances, surely someone must have written something about that.

No, the Hall of Fame is tough in football. Fuller made four Pro Bowls so he has no chance, Harry Carson made nine Pro Bowls and he wasn't elected until his thirteenth or fourteenth try.

How did his stats compare with other players? Was he ever amongst league leaders in key statistics for defensive players?

If you're absolutely sure . . . IvoShandor 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some info. Most of the best sites (databasefootball, pro-football-reference.com, NFL.com etc.) don't keep lists of season sack leaders.

Actually, the best stat site, JT-SW, does keep this sort of information. this page lists the sack leaders for 1990. Fuller is way down on the list for that year. This page here lists stats by year for any stat that was officially kept by the NFL. Fuller played his entire career in the "sacks" era (post-1982) so we should be able to extrapolate that information for any year of his career. I am surprised more football articles here DON'T use JT-SW for their football stats; other sites like Pro-Football-Reference only list offensive skill positions and are sketchy otherwise, JT-SW has every player to appear in a game since 1920.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is post '96 the only years with contract info available? Because as is it kind of reads like, "this guy got a big contract and then didn't perform," mostly due to the reast of the sentence.

After the 1996 season Fuller signed a two year $5.6 million dollar contract with the San Diego Chargers, while there his production steeply declined.

That's the sentence I singled out above, it seems to imply some sort of connection or seems to be trying to make a point of some sort.

I definitely didn't mean to imply that. I added a note about an earlier contract he signed. Now it should just appear as though I'm mentioning that contract to be consistent. I'll see if I can find some more info, he was never a highly publicized player for whatever reason. He seems to have played in several players shadows. Like I said he didn't have an article until a month ago. He replaced Reggie White in Philadelphia and followed this guy (the one in the pic) as a pass rusher at UNC so that probably didn't help either.

Cool, I am sure you didn't. IvoShandor 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know anything about his other college seasons at all? Any bowl game appearances?

Not really in terms of individual accomplishments. As I mentioned there's not much info on him I can find. I mentioned that the team made three bowl games.

This site (look down towards bottom) lists UNC's single season sack and tackle leaders. Fuller features prominently on the list. Also, this site refers to Fullers induction into the Virgina Sports Hall of Fame, and has some good superlatives about his college and pro career. this site anounces his placement on the 50th anniversary ACC team. Those should help some.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for all the sources. I already had the Virginia Sports Hall of Fame one I think I mentioned all the relevant stuff from in there (could be wrong). I'll try to add some info in the next few days. I'm impressed you found that stuff so easily I was struggling to find anything. Quadzilla99 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cool. Don't forget the JT-SW links I have above. Honestly, JT-SW is the best football stats site out there. I use it for all of my football articles.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things are mentioned in the lead but nowhere else in the main body of the text, as the lead should be a summary of the article they should appear elsewhere as well.

His All American honors
His position (This is in the infobox which I guess is probably ok.)

Comment His All-America honors are mentioned in the college section, as is the fact that he was a defensive lineman I could be more specific I guess. Quadzilla99 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read right over it, twice. Sorry, I do that sometimes when I am in a hurry. IvoShandor 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty much fine other than that, some of the above should definitely be addressed I think. IvoShandor 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see nowhere where it violates WIAGA, so it looks pretty good to me. If substnace is the problem I'll add some.--Wizardman 02:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Responses to IvoShandor and updates to article are sufficient. Pls do add pics. ChicagoPimp 03:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Struck neutral above. Everything looks good on this end, my comments are addressed or going to be, looks like a GA to me. IvoShandor 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added some info, I'll look it over again in the next few days, see if I can add some more. Quadzilla99 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington streetcars

No consensus Keep=3, delist=4

Warned by me on the article's talk page in December 2006 regarding ~~lack of citations etc.~~ Delist. LuciferMorgan 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be delisted as the article is too listy. LuciferMorgan 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Also has several "sections" which are just links to main articles on the subjects with no summary of the contents of the main articles. Quadzilla99 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist Teemu08 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, nice to see such improvements of a GA/R article. Teemu08 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delist~~: per four month warning. The article is also badly structured, listy in places, and the aforementioned stub sections aren't helpful either. IvoShandor 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on a complete re-write. I'm not quite done, but I'm replacing the present version with what I have now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranor (talk • contribs)
Keep Following Cranor's work, the argument listed against in the nom is now addressed with 63 footnote numbers, and many of them are cited multiple times (one is even cited more than 30 times). Slambo (Speak) 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The massive improvements make it hard for me to see anything that stands out against GA status in this article. Homestarmy 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~: Can't see going from Speedy Delist to Keep, the article is still listy, and not just in the lists, there are so many section breaks and bolded words I lose track of what the article is about. IvoShandor 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Yea it's well referenced but let's start with the problems.
- The article doesn't mention the title of the article - Washington, D.C. streetcars should be de-linked and bolded.

Done Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The lead is way too small for an article this size
- Table of contents is too big
- I see refs before punctuation, refs with spaces
- Dates are'nt formatted correctly - July 13, 1868 should be July 13, 1868

Done Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Only text in the lead should be bolded, there's text in almost every section bolded
- About 20 external jumps
- Article contains lots of one sentence paragraphs
- External links section should be at the end of the article

Done Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The See Also section comes before notes

Done Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Yea, this article in no-way should ever become a good article unless something is done. M3tal H3ad 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delist Solid article. I struck my above comment and changed to weak, still needs a little work. I just did some significant work on it to help out and checked off some of the above reviewers cocnerns. Metal Head was correct in most of his assessments, although I disagree with some. I would think it's alright to have portions of the title linked sometimes see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, so you don't have to be to repetitive and mention them again in the next sentence, I did fix that though anyway (I know what the MoS says no need to repeat it). Never had a problem with large TOC's, I went through and fixed the dates in the text (not in the references due to time/interest level), I think redirects are often bolded and everything bolded is in fact a redirect, although the redirects should go to the exact section and not to the top of the article, fixed the layout issues (although I was forced to tag the link farm of an EL section), the main problem remaining for me is the external jumps those really need to go. Quadzilla99 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work but i still stand by my decision. This "Paragraph" 'Colorado Avenue Terminal on 14th Street, now a Metrobus stop' has no full-stop, as does 'The Median on Penn, built in 1903 [3]' And these sentences don't make much sense

- Public transportation began in Washington, D.C. almost as soon as the city was founded. When was this?
- Why is something so simple like 'day' wikilinked
- but service ended soon after it began. Why did it end?
- After the Herdic Company went under, awkward use of "went under" what about bankrupt or disbanded, whatever happened
- Much of the article reads like "Went along 10th street and U, but changed to U and 11 street soon after. When the new company came in it went to 13th street etc etc. I'm not sure what you mean by the title, but the example you provided had the title of the game bolded, this didn't. M3tal H3ad 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The game is in effect the title portion of that article. It still needs work as I said change the external jumps to ref format and I'll support. Quadzilla99 13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delist however, rework could bring this to GA. article has good breadth and depth of content, but needs widespread effort. prose is listy and rambling in places, excessive section breaks, bolded words, and general formatting problems occur throughout. top suggestion: you may want to consider creating stub articles for sections of low notability, and then place a see also section header/footer on the section. this would improve readability, particuarly for sections of individual companies or operations. single bullet lines in cars and barnshops needs complete rework, or creation of a stub article, or a list. ChicagoPimp 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Struck neutral above, delist per Quadzilla, M3tal H3ad and Chicago Pimp. IvoShandor 12:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

Status quo (keep as a fail): 4-1

This article has been listed as a GA candidate for a month. Today, an editor failed the article without a review. Their reason was that more information will become available at some point in the future, so they failed the article.

The GA criteria states

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

This article meets that criteria because it is stable.

The idea that more information will become available in the future is not a reason to fail it now. If the article makes GA now and then becomes unstable later, it can be delisted later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is improper to fail this article on the basis of something that might happen in the future.

As of today, the article is informative, and I think it passes all the GA criteria. I ask that the article be given its GA review based upon what the article is today and what is known today about the topic. Johntex\^talk 16:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the editor who failed this. I hesitated, because as Johntex says the GA criteria do not make it absolutely clear that the reason I gave for failing it was legitimate. I was also influenced by this comment of Raul654's, on FAC talk, indicating what the original FA criterion of stability was intended to govern. Of course he's talking about FAC, but the concern seems to arise for GA too.

I'm not going to vote to support or reverse my fail; either outcome seems reasonable. However, I'd also like to see discussion of the GA stability criterion and what the boundaries are. Raul654 made it clear that he judges the Virginia Tech massacre article to be unstable. What counts as unstable for GA? Mike Christie (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi Mike, thank you very much for your note. As you say, it will be good to talk this out a little and see what the consensus is.

I am of the opinion that if an article is stable today but might change in the future, that we should review it on the basis of what it is today. Otherwise, we may as well delist Mars and Pluto and for that matter we may as well take away FA from Solar System. We will undoubtably learn more about these topics in the future and in fact we have probes at or on the way to Mars and Pluto right now. I admit this is not a perfect analogy, but I do think it helps to illustrate what an article should be judged for what it is today, and for what is happening to the article today.

I think the "stability" criteria is more about whether the article is changing too fast for the GA reviewer to decide what version to review, and whether (once reviewed) the article will just immediately change to fall out of GA standard. That is not likely to happen here for several months at a minimum.

In the best case, GA standards will be maintained in this article through the whole season. It really only takes one or two well-written updates a week. At worst case, the article could be delisted if/when it no longer makes the criteria.

Anyway, thanks for your note and your opinion. I don't take it personally that you failed it, and I am glad you don't take it personally that I asked for a review. Johntex\^talk 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi John, no hard feelings I hope. I am on the fence about these types of articles. It is hard to say they will be stable when off-season develops are as frequent as they are in football. I think I am going to remain neutral on this one. I don't think the reviewer was totally wrong, this is kind of a gray area. We had a similar discussion concerning Spore, an unreleased video game, I believe its failure was endorsed. IvoShandor 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on stability. A science article (or any academic type article) isn't unstable because of new discoveries, mainly because in the academic world, new discoveries don't just flood the publications. They are carefully reviewed as opposed to being released at a rate that someone documenting the topic and reviewing said documentation for certain criteria wouldn't be able to keep up with it. With Spore, above that was the case, it couldn't be kept up with because there was ever changing speculation about the release date. With an article about a future football season, its hard to say. They have a spring game of some sort, certainly, when do they start practice? July? What happens before that? Camps? Something to be sure. Like I say this is hard to judge but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibilities that an article mostly about a topic that hasn't really taken place or come together yet could be considered unstable. IvoShandor 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the spring practices and spring scrimmage is done. Nothing happens during the summer unless some unexpected event happens. Practices resume in August. Johntex\^talk 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse fail At issue here is the problem that the article is largely incomplete. It's not like 1 or 2 changes are expected in the future, as new information arises. The 2007 season has not even been played yet. This article can ONLY contain speculation and very little else. Give it 9 months. Wikipedia is in no rush. Look, the Longhorns have played HOW many seasons? If it is THAT important to the nom to get a Longhorn article to GA status, work on improving one for which the information IS complete. Looking at GA and FA, there are no other Longhorn season articles that have been elevated. Why not work on the 2006 season or any other? Give this one time, and in January, when the season is done, renominate it to GA status.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the article contains NO speculation. The article contains only known, published, verifiable information about the scheduled games and historical information about these teams involved; such as their starting rankigns. Johntex\^talk 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail Ordinarily, i'd probably support this kind of article because changes would likely come incrementally as the season progresses, however, in this case, the actual team itself isn't even known, since there's no roster. If the roster was extant, (Even just the names of the players, positions I could understand not being known yet until very close to game time) then I think it would be compleate enough to count as sufficiently broad, but otherwise, well, its not really your fault, but it just doesn't seem to cover everything that an article on a sports team should cover. Get that roster and reference it to the level of the rest of the article, and i'd support this for GA status, even if the season is upcoming. Homestarmy 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The roster is an interesting point. It is generally released very near to the start of the season so I do have to wait a bit on that. Johntex\^talk 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like it noted on record that whatever the FAC director says in no way influences GA. Is he the GA director? No he is not. So please don't go quoting that person as if it holds extra weight to the argument. Furthermore, comparing this article to Virginia Tech Massacre is the dullest thing I've heard. Having said that, I think the article should be GAC'd after the season ends. LuciferMorgan 12:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Fail - per comments above, this article is intended to provide coverage of future events, so "completeness" rather than "stability" is an issue. however, the historical content is strong, the prose is decent, and references abound - which provides the article an excellent base from which to expand. this article should receive substantial GA support at the end of the season. if GA before the season is the goal, i would support the article with the addition of (1) a well referenced roster list, (2) a section about any possible records that could be broken this season, and (3a) thorough copy editing to modify american sports related terms such as "face off" to "compete" and (3b) formalize phrases such as "up I-35" to "north on I-35". ChicagoPimp 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics Articles

Speedy keep per WP:SNOW

After sweeping the maththematics section I have concluded that the following articles should be delisted either due to lack of references or having a large amount of jargon.

Any further comments or objections are welcome. Tarret 01:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Procedure has not been followed here. In particular (1) specific problems with these articles have not been raised, and (2) comments requesting improvement for specific problems have not been left on the page's discussion pages (at least for the more than one of these pages on my own watch list). —David Eppstein 02:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be more specific. For each article, say what the problem is and give some examples illustrating the problem. Also, follow standard procedure (see top of this page) so that the editors of the pages are made aware of your complaint. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Not sure why I didn't get an edit conflict, but I hadn't read David's comment when writing my comment, which is why it seems I'm just repeating what he says. In my comment, you refers to Tarret. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all for procedural reasons and archive this discussion. If objections exist about these articles, they should be individually nominated, with specific objections for each. "I don't understand them" is not an actionable objection.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all - I completely agree with Jayron32. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 06:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all per above. Quadzilla99 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think nominating a load in one review makes things confusing. Could we nominate them individually over time maybe? LuciferMorgan 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Jayron32 - if review is required, each article should be individually nominated. Also, nominator does not seem to have mentioned this nomination on any of the articles' talk pages. Gandalf61 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Devil May Cry

Dead discussion. No clear consensus to take any action

First of all as the lead says, this article is a list which is not accepted at GA. This list is also to in-universe and therefore fails WP:WAF. Tarret 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few things from the reviewer to counter those points:
- I removed the outdated "list" sentence. It's not a list, and Wikipedia editors need to understand that articles with numerous sections aren't lists like "List of birds".
- This article is not completely from an in-universe perspective. I forced the writers to add a section on concept and creation before I'd pass the article. Second, many subsections contain out of universe information, such as voice actors and other related development information. Third, the lead clearly establishes the topic as fiction and introduces the characters and their designer. Fourth, the section often cites the title of each game in regard to summarizing plot points, instead of ingoring where it came from. As someone who has helped promote the concept and craft it, I can say with certainty that out of universe does not mean saying the word "fictional" every sentence; it means finding the most real-life material available for a topic and covering it in addition to the in-universe points.
- Although I'd prefer to see more details about cultural impact, the sources have been reaped enough to comply with the MoS subcriterion. If this were going for FA (which I don't recommend, given the limitations), I'd expect to see (a lot more) real-world information, better prose, and complete merges; however, this is GA level, and there is a difference.

— Deckill er 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a list, the header just stayed there, now it's a profile pages for secondary characters. Second the article isn't in-universe, it always refers to the characters as such by addin lines such as "In Devil May Cry mythology...". -凶 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well the article looks okay, it has issues though starting with the opening sentence. The title wasn't bolded or wikilinked (fixed), and "set in the modern day" is just awkward. Even though I'm not going to vote as I don't really know the subject and did not read the whole thing, I looked it over enough to pick up a few points:
"As the series progresses it is eventualy revealed that" eventually is redundant.
I'm not an expert in wrting fictional entries but, when talking about voicing of the characters it might be wise to say "the character is voiced by [x]" instead of "Dante is voiced by [x]" or "she is voiced by" on occasion, this will help with the perspective and it also makes it more formal.
A lot of people don't like IMDb as a ref.
I don't know anything about Video games so maybe a little background about at least what years the games range from. Also would be a good way to expand to the lead, "Since 1999, there have been five games in the series..." etc.
"Ref 16 is blank." Quadzilla99 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see an anon fixed most of these, thanks whoever you are. Quadzilla99 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get a lot of unnecessary white space between character sections, this should be addressed, and the images reformatted. IvoShandor 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T. D. Judah

Result: 6 to 0, delist

Warned by me in December 2006 on the article's talk page regarding lack of inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. ChicagoPimp 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Doesn't seem to meet the broad requirement either. --Nehrams2020 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Practically a stub; an uncited one at that. Quadzilla99 06:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as fast as humanly possible. Teemu08 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust

Result: Keep=4, delist=4, however the article was ultimately delisted for plagarism and stability problems

This article was delisted by Alexsanderson83 with the accompanying edit summary: removed 'The Holocaust' as article does not address Ownership of the Holocaust. I found this insuffcient, notified the user, reverted the changes and listed the article here. I have invited Alex to explain why this article should be delisted here. IvoShandor 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails to address a key issue. Ownership of the Holocaust. The article in its present form does not address this issue at all. This fact means it to be in my opinion B Class with need of a major overhaul. It would be a good article to be featured were it brought up to standard due to the subject matter.

The article intimates the Holocaust to be a mainly Jewish event. Both the cultural and historical understanding can differ from this position. The article fails to address the two two key positions on the subject, deciding it to be a Jewish tradegy and acknowledging that others died. Motive versus mechanics argument not even addressed. Alexsanderson83 12:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Londo06 had repeatedly made this claim on the talk page but when asked to provide sources, has failed to give any evidence whatever for a scholarly debate on Ownership (apparently it has to have a capital O). User:Alexsanderson83 has not contributed to this debate, nor has he sought to add anything relevant. We need evidence that "Ownership" is a real issue of debate before adding it. Instant deletion from GA staus on a whim of a single editor is surely not acceptable. Paul B 13:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't know what you mean by ownership, that is definitely not the right terminology. Secondly the whole second paragraph of the lead is devoted to what you claim to be absent, Alex's assertions are requiring the citations from what I can see. IvoShandor 13:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ownership is the academic term referring to which mutually exclusive understanding of the term 'The Holocaust' to which one is referring. The motive to kill, or the executions themselves in simple terms. Alexsanderson83 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just finished reading the talk page. I was unfamiliar with the term, what a bizarre choice of word. IvoShandor 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Debate over whether or not to include one concept (still somewhat poorly defined in the Talk page) does not negate the fact that the article is stable, neutral, well written, broad based, etc. I don't see how the aforementioned concept keeps this article from meeting good article criteria, especially given the content that IvoShandor pointed out. MrZaius^talk 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The second paragraph is there, but the assertion that 'The Holocaust' is ... the killing of approximately six million European Jews. This is offensive to many. The article not fully addressing that it is understood by many throughout the world both academically and culturally as the murders by the Nazis in the camps. (I don't include the likes of Iranian Presidents and other anti-semites). Following the opening up of Soviet files and British declassification of files, it is believed that the mechanics over the motives is the most prevalently held position in the academic community. Alexsanderson83 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not by others. Personally, I lean towards a more inclusive definition, but, again, where does the article fall short under WP:WIAGA? MrZaius^talk 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This really sounds like a content dispute more than any reason it doesn't meet the GA criteria, GAs are not FAs and not subject to the stringent requirements there. The article does indeed consistently talk about other groups who were murdered. That is suffcient for GA, IMO. IvoShandor 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexandserson83 repeats almost word-for-word Londo06's bizarre assertions that this mysterious Ownership debate has emerged "following the opening up of Soviet files and British declassification of files". I fail to see the relevance of these uspecified files, which has never been explained by Londo06. I suspect sockpuppetry. Paul B 13:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it would be more like the facts being out there in the real world. Themes being discussed by academics and social commentators alike. The ownership theme is perhaps the major debate of the recent past. I would suggest reading works by the likes of Laurence Rees on Auschwitz. Also accept that the Soviet Union is gone and that files allowed much work on the Nazi atrocities to be done and that the British declassify information in line with the law. This is common knowledge.Alexsanderson83 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intricate details of specific 60 year old government documents of the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom are hardly "common knowledge". Give links to the papers and explanations of why they make the current two paragraph def invalid on the article's talk page, not here. The article does include fairly extensive coverage of non-Jews killed during the Holocaust. That it lacks it in the opening sentence is not grounds for removing it from the Good Article list. MrZaius^talk 13:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the copyrighted images need fair use rationales or more detailed ones. --Nehrams2020 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a small, fringe issue and its lack of inclusion does NOT make this delistable. If the person who is argueing that the information should be included, and they have references, they are invited to be bold and add it themselves. However, this small, fringe, accademic issue does not seem to make the article not a Good Article. There is nothing wrong with the article as-is. Keep it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review needed The issue of where people were killed is an issue. If you were killed in camp, not being Jewish you are included, but are deemed a 2nd class victim. If you are a Jew killed outside the camps then there are people who say that murder is part of the Holocaust. And a Communist under the same circumstances is not.

- I thought this was the only argument about the Holocaust. Is it the Final Solution or the Holocaust. The article seems to be confusing the two. Could be me, I am neither Jewish or a Professor, but to me THE Holocaust was the organised killings in the camps. 90.192.37.69 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hamilton: Keep the politicians out of Holocaust Day Don't know if I'm allowed to include this on this page. 90.192.37.69 19:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Second class victim? Okay this discussion needs to relate to the GA review, not semantics or content disputes, this isn't a peer review process. We are here to decide if this article meets the GA criteria, no one yet has given any reason that it doesn't, please try to stay on topic. IvoShandor 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments for keep and I think its still at GA - references seem ok. Though the article could do with a trim. Needs a good editor and a pair of scissors... LordHarris 00:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep per above--Sefringle 06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all of the reasons above. Meanwhile I think this article is in need of a Peer Review. I think it can be built up to a featured article. --Valley2city^₪‽ 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've delisted this article for a number of reasons, mostly because of very poor writing, but also because a large section of it had been plagiarized from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The editor who did that has made another 90 edits, so far unidentified, so there may be other plagiarism in it. It certainly shouldn't have GA status at the moment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Increadibly unstable, and this is just the diff for like a day: [1]. Going back several other days I see an increadibly long list of edits by SlimVirgin, but I think this one diff speaks for itself, no need to look farther into it. Homestarmy 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Way too many images for a good article--Sefringle 06:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Simms

Nomination for delisting: This article has several issues. Unsourced claims, wikification does not meat MOS standards, grammar wrong in places, single image is not a good one. Article does not appear to have been reviewed, only tag updated with oldid. LaraLove ^Talk/_Contribs 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delist The lack of review is disturbing, but I find this one has only a few issues. The image is actually accompanying a critical analysis of the event (though the event probably doesn't deserve that level of coverage in this article, as excessively trivial). The ONLY fact I see uncited is the Senate Race information, which should obviously be referenced if kept. It could use to be expanded some with info on his college career. I don't see any rampant grammar errors, but I am not that great of a grammarian. It is delistable, but also easily fixable. If it remains unfixed, than a delist is definately in order. Also, LaraLove, you need to leave a note on the talk page of the article with specific reasons (i.e. what needs fixing to avoid a delisting) AND a link to GA/R so that the article's custodians will know about this discussion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay first off I was the one who did the work on the article and nominated it, I was surprised that it got such a quick and cursory passing, so I don't really have a problem with it being here. More importantly however, Lara learn how to do things here; when you put an article on GA/R you must leave a note on the article's talk page. Also, it meets all MoS standards, please point out grammatical errors, and images are not a requirement for GA if they are not available. This is the reviewer btw:[2] and although you should leave a review when passing it's not technically required. Quadzilla99 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies on not bringing it to the talk page, but please assume good faith. It was my intention to do so. I left a message with the reviewer and started a list of issues on the article talk page when I was pulled away from the computer for the evening. The issues are not great, but I feel like it should have been reviewed with notes and put on hold. Maybe I take this process too seriously and give too thorough reviews, but I feel it's important that GAs be as good as they possibly can be... and to accomplish that, I feel GA reviews need to be as good as the reviewer can give. I'll complete the list on the talk page and submit it shortly. LaraLove ^Talk/_Contribs 06:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update Okay I added some info on his college career. Quadzilla99 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I removed the info on the Senate race as I couldn't find any sources for it. I'll expand the article some more tomorrow. Quadzilla99 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay I addressed the concerns Lara had, except for one, on the article's talk page. Quadzilla99 10:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there's a few instances of language I see that aren't necessarily as neutral as they could be, some of it may be debateable, and the article certainly has the citations to back itself up for the most part. Somebody might of not passed it at first in the proper manner, but I don't think it matters much now that its here and whatever problems it had seem to of been taken care of anyway. Homestarmy 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues Resolved: I reviewed the article and left a detailed list of needed corrections. Quadzilla immediately made all necessary corrections and has brought the article up to GA standards. --LaraLove ^Talk/_Contribs 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merrimack River

Result: Delist by a vote of 10-0 Though only on page for 2 days, WP:SNOW applies.

Nominate for delisting per the following problems:

Criteria 2: Insufficient referencing. This article makes many claims, which are not linked directly to the source of those claims via inline citations. There are very few references at ALL.
Criteria 3: Insufficiently broad. Many aspects of the Merrimack River are missing, such as history as an industrial center, ecology, tributaries. It needs some expanding before it achieves this aspect of GA.

The article should be delisted for the above reasons.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delist - per above. I do think it's a good quality article. I think there may be potential to discuss the issues with the current/main article editor(s) and resolve the issues, however, it was mentioned in the GA review that there needed to be more inline citations. This is why I don't promote articles until they already have them in place. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - few references and needs significant expansion under Criteria 3 noted above. ChicagoPimp 12:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Article had plenty of time since last review to add the inline citations. Delist for now, hopefully they can renominate in the future once issues are taken care of. --Nehrams2020 07:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per all above. Quadzilla99 10:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Aminz 10:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: per nom, badly underreferenced. IvoShandor 20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist History and Etymology appear compleatly unreferenced. Homestarmy 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)

Result: 5 to 1, delist

Many were impressed with the article. The article cites 29 references and an editor failed it becuase of two or 3 minor problems. The editor treated the review like a WP:FAC. The article also has a map and a coulple of images.

Note to reviewers: read my comments on the talk page before commenting. --NE2 22:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that should be said if the article were nom for FA status. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail. The first criteria for a good article is that it be well written with correct grammar. Combined with some possible factual inaccuracies, this article isn't quite up to snuff. IMHO, a better course of action would have been to place the nomination on hold instead of outright failure, but there's nothing stopping the article from being fixed and renominated later. -- NORTH ^talk 22:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse fail.As I agree the article does not meet GA. However I agree with NorthEnglish above - the articles failings may have been fixed within seven days and placing the article on hold would havebeen a better action.LordHarris 10:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh fine keep the fail, next time please help me out with the peer review instead of failing it like that. One person provided an advice for me and it had nothing to do with what NE2 mentioned at the peer review. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the fail. I agree with the assessment that the grammar needs a major overhaul. This is a pretty good article (no pun intended) and is on the path to become a Good Article(TM) but there are some glaring problems which need to be fixed before it can pass a GAC. Someone needs to copyedit the article and then, when they have fixed the other issues that have been covered by my colleagues above, resubmit for a GAC. Best, --Valley2city^₪‽ 17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse fail. Grammar needs a major overhaul, all citation needed tags need to be resolved, all redline links need to have stubs created. ChicagoPimp 17:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse fail As a roadgeek myself, I would like to see this article GA-worthy, but it isn't there yet. While GA does not demand brilliant prose, it does demand a well written article, which is free from gramatical issues, and this article is rife with numerous gramatical errors, mostly run-on sentances. Also, it should be noted that despite its level of referencing, which is extensive, there are still unresolved {{fact}} tags that need fixing.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros.

Result: 5-1 in favor of delisting, which is the status quo

Passed by admins, but then came under attack by another. Many issues were adressed and sections added and referanced. Review and relist Quatreryukami 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delisting This article has not substantially changed since it was delisted. There are also a full list of fixes listed on the talk page that have not been addressed. Please renominate it at WP:GAC for a full formal review when the fixes have been addressed. It should be noted the one that passed the article, nor the one who delisted it were admins. Not that that matters, but admins are not involved in this process, at least insofar as this process is not part of their admin duties. We're all just regular editors here.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delisting I'm the one who delisted it, and rightly so. There are 4 failed criteira in this article (there are 6 criteria in total). It is not "well written" because it fails Wikipedia:Embedded list. It is not "verifiable" because there is 1 reference in the gameplay section, and no references in the character and stage sections. It is not "broad in its coverage" because the development section is tiny, and the reception section is too small. Lastly, Image:N64_Super_Smash_Bros.jpg does not have a source. I could go in-depth, but these are simply examples of the failed criteria. --Teggles 04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:N64_Super_Smash_Bros.jpgwas created via emulator, I think, based on the edit summary and the userpage of the author.--Clyde (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main image needs a license, it seems to have disappeared. --Nehrams2020 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delisting Article is too listy. LuciferMorgan 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. Quadzilla99 20:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the one who dropped a bunch of suggestions before the delisting happened, but had no plans to delist it. Since the consensus is to remove the article as a GA, I will not fight it, at least while there are outstanding issues.--Clyde (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ARG! While there only may be one ref in gameplay section, there are multiple other references. And OBVIOUSLY there were NOT four failed criteria! Look at the original nom. Most of the gripes have been adressed. BUT As the all powerful consensus rules, don't matter my opinion anyway, as I nomed it.

My deletion endorsement on this page explains how and why you failed four criteria, so "obviously" there were... I'm having difficulties understanding your logic. --Teggles 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, returning to my usual civility, I will adress the issue in the gameplay section ASAP. Quatreryukami 02:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raëlian Church

Result: 1-1 = no consensus. Maintain status quo (fail)

The Raëlian Church article has failed Good Article nomination twice in two days before and after the following edits have been made to the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&diff=127161806&oldid=126448977

They were done in good faith and the intention was to address the specifics of the failed nomination:

Second Failed Nomination

Talk:Raëlian_Church#Failed_GA_Review

Well written:The reality is the prose is clunky, like it was translated from some other language using a bot and dropped here. (Examples:"According to the History of Raëlism, in December 13, 1973 began the upbringing for what would become the Raëlian Church," and "Starting from that year, the International Raelian Movement was spreading the word about the contents in the first two Raëlian books concerning what they believe to be a restoration of meaning of biblical text, an update on the future of the Christian Church,[1] and the philosophy and directives Yahweh Elohim taught Rael in second set of CE-5 encounters," and "Each day begins with a meditation mainly at around 9:00 A.m. local time," and "Raelians have typed multiple tort claims concerning extortion, breach of contract, replevin, conversion, gross negligence, false light invasion of privacy, defamation, and tortuous interference in business affairs.") A major rewrite is required here.

Sources: The sources are still largely from the church itself or dubious. (Example: "In March 27, 2000, Motorsport.com stated that Raelian membership was 50,000.")

Neutral: It continues to maintain a tone of approval for the church (POV) and downplays criticism of the church. Yes, it does use the word "cult," but it reads like a defense of the church, not an encyclopedia. Also, the pedantic description of some aspects is not appropriate. (Examples: "As a rule, first-time seminarists, students, and people under the age of 25 are exempted from paying the basic seminar fee, which is responsible for covering the costs of running the Raëlian seminars. Only people who are returning or are of age are required to cover these costs," and "These Raëlian gatherings have over time taken place in areas such as hotels in Japan, Europe, and Thailand, gardens in Canada, hotels and deserts of Nevada, campgrounds in Oceania, and meeting halls in Africa.")
For these reasons, I am confidently failing this article for a second time. You may seek a review of this decision if you disagree. Argos'Dad 04:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Several sources by the Raelian Movement have been removed, including those from the "Size" section. The sentences pointed out under "Well Written:" which were not in the lead have been removed as well. As for the lead, it has been made more concise, simple English, though I admit, perhaps not simple enough. The sentences under "Neutral:" were removed rather than reworded. For these reasons and their associated edits, I request a review of this article and the second failed nomination.Kmarinas86 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Fail Looking over the article I can see several examples; references and prose that needs work. Looking at the second review I agree with ArgosDad for his reasons on failing the article. However on the third fail I do acknowledge that perhaps ArgosDad should outline all of his continued reasons for failing the article rather than suggesting a peer review as an alternative. However despite this I believe the article is not GA and requires a series of edits to improve. I will now discuss some points here.

In line with ArgosDads comments there are several sections where the prose is chunky and does not flow. These need to be rewritten:

Raëlian Angels are a group of women around the world who call for femininity[22] and refinement for all of humanity. Raëlians believe that people must grow beyond today's pscyhological imbalances. They believe that the balancing minds of the world are more feminine, and that these feminine qualities are essential to avoiding hostile agression, with the Raëlian Angels serving a primary role in the movement's femininity