Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

; Archives
	Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6

Shortcut

[[:|WP:GA/D
WP:GA/R]]

Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to list high quality articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and anyone can review nominations, passing them if they meet the good article criteria or leaving reasons for the failure. Articles may be delisted if a later reviewer feels they do not meet the criteria. Where editors disagree with a failed nomination or a delisting, discussions to find consensus on given articles' status take place here.

If you believe an article should be delisted

If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it:

Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet.
If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
If you can't fix it, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.
Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles.

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below.

If you believe an article should be listed

If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away.

Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page.
If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be re-listed as a Good Article.

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

Harry Potter

The sourcing of a lot of things in this article (other than the news stuff) is based on fan sites. This is acceptable, I guess if nothing else is available, but over the past few years a lot of serious scholarly papers have been written about the cultural and literary impact of Harry Potter. For instance, this is a good compilation of scholarly articles on the Harry Potter phenomenon, and a Google Scholar search turns up many more. Hence, this article fails WP:RS, and thus Good Article criteria 2c. Borisblue 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homophony

This article was failed because a subscription is required to view its source, but the source, the Grove Dictionary of Music, is widely regarded to be the premier encyclopedia of music, and is accepted as a source in Wikipedia (see Template:GroveOnline). Anyone with access to a decent library can verify the source if they desire. Thus, I am requesting that the article be passed as a GA. -- Ci e lomobile ^minor7♭5 05:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't check this page first. I did the speedy failing because looking to the online subscription. It seems reliable but requires a certain access, which I didn't know at the beginning that it is an online encyclopaedia. I've put this article back to its nomination place, for further normal GA review. So I can consider this case is closed? ;-) — Indon (reply) — 07:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderstorm

In my opinion this article fails WP:WIAGA criteria 3a (it addresses all major aspects of the topic). Alot more could be added about the topic such as how they are detected and possibly a section on how thunder storms affet cities and people. Would anyone else agree? --Tarret 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it does appear to be missing important aspects like the one's you point out, unless of course its trying to say the only way we detect them is when storm chasers go after them in the midwest....(which is wrong). Homestarmy 01:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Machine

I was just browsing GA page, and found this article. I'd like to ask whether future event/product can be categorized as GA. I think it does not conform with criterion (2). I want others' opinion before taking any action. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article on a future product, true. But it's an article on a future product whose concept has garnered immense interest in the educational and media sectors. It's the concept that's notable, not the product. --tjstrf 10:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how can we verify this paragraph in the Technology section? "2B1 will be a Linux-based, full-color, full-screen laptop. It will initially have a flat LCD screen, but in later generations may use electronic paper such as e-ink. The laptop will be rugged, use innovative power (possibly a pedal), be Wi-Fi- and VoIP-enabled and a touch screen (including a separate writing pad)." Every statements are in future tense. And what if the future product is canceled? Will it still stand for a WP article? — Indon (reply) — 10:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could ask the authors to concentrate on the concept and its history, rather than the final product. I am bit surprised that not much mention is made of MIT Media Lab who, as I understand, are quite involved with the project. The final target specification of the laptop should be in the article and not in the lead section and in any case the description of the product should not use vague marketing words ("rugged", "innovative"). It should cite a source for the target specification, of course. Having said all that, there are other problems with the article's style such as too many bulleted lists, WP:WEASEL words, etc.. It is not GA material, IMO. RelHistBuff 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is delisted. — Indon (reply) — 12:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technomancer Press

Is this article up to our standards? I think it is a borderline case, with few references, a heavy focus on products rather than the company and a comparitively long discussion of the company's criticism of the D20 system. All the recent discussion about quality made me decide to err on the side of caution and list it for review. Cedars 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one reviewing the article. I know what you mean but after having looked around a bit (Internet, books & Games manual), I agree with the editor that the article can't really have more material in there (the publisher only started in 2005). All that was added before and all that the editor and I talked about adding was superfluous or non-notable for the article's broadness. I think that for now, it might not meet brilliant prose (it isn't required anyway), but it is still decent. It reminds me of the planetoid articles. Lincher 01:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me its mainly an advertisement for the various products. I also wouldn't say that its "broad in its coverage", it has a history section that can be expanded alot. Tarret 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know such a subject? If so, lead me to references, I will bring the article up to par. I have searched for such references but haven't found any. Lincher 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added in the history department. Lincher 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look ok now? Lincher 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the expanded History section. Is there anything that can be done to flesh out the Business Model section? Agne 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkern

The person who said the GA failed did not note that the generic sentences were there to bring it to GA standards, not to be generic. Such is required for articles under WP:FICT at GA or FA status. All of WP:PCP's good articles have such sentences...if this were to be a GA, it could. I could be bold from there and take out the gameguidecruft and do copyediting as well. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one failing it. If you have any concerns, please modify the article as you see fits and request a re-review on my talk page, which I will gladly do. I just thought that the amount of work required was too much for the on hold process, if it isn't, please notify me on my talk page and I will re-review, maybe pass the article if it now meets the requirements. Lincher 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed : GA passed after work done by editors. Lincher 11:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German language

At the moment, the page is protected due to an edit war. There is a disagreement about the inclusion of references to Dutch and the mutual intelligibility of both languages. A review of non-partisans might be a good thing. --LucVerhelst 11:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, it doesn't appear to have any references at all except for one thing at the top....? Homestarmy 12:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have been more clear. The page got protected at a point in the discussion when the disputed paragraphs were removed. I'm afraid that when the protection will be lifted, the edit war will start over. Please look at the talk page and the history of the page. --LucVerhelst 12:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of references and proper citation is more than enough to remove it from GA status, but there are other problems as well:

The tables of English cognates are overly tedious and should reduced to a few examples at most and moved out into other sections. Suggestions are "Grammar", "Vocabulary/Lexicon" or "Classification".
"Lexicon" (I really prefer the simpler and less peacock-ish "Vocabulary" as a title) should be be moved out into its own section.
"Official status" has been placed under "Classification...", though it actually belongs under "Geographic distribution".
"Phonology" (again, "Sounds" is so much user-friendlier) has a rather obvious tilt towards orthography and spelling-is-pronunciation-explanations. German phonology has plenty of material (and references) that could be summarized and included in the main article.
The section "Names for German in other languages" is questionable as a trivia section. It has more to do with ethnicity than the language itself, and since it's really just an etymology section it contains information that is far more relevant to Germans or any corresponding Wiktionary article(s).
Gratuitous bolding and one-or-two-sentence paragraphs are too abundant and the lead is anything but satisfactory.
While sound samples may be more of an FA requirement, it's very odd that out of the hundreds of German language sound samples, only the one for "Deutsch" is used. There ought to be more than enough native German contributors with mics that could record at least a set of minimal pairs for all the phonemes of Standard German.
As with any language article, the "Common phrase" section of tourist phrases really doesn't add much. It should be removed or replaced with a sample of good German literature.

If the article is to keep its GA status I believe that most of these issues should be addressed.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give us some time, there are a few stubborn people (least of all me) who need to work this out so that the edit war does not restart.

Ameise -- chat 17:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by letting the Dutch issue simply rest for a while and addressing the concerns above that are related to article structure. There's no POV involved in those.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much time would the page editor's need to take care of some of the GA concerns? Agne 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting

This is a good article? It used to start out with a giant image add for Apple?!?! Plus it contained alot of obviously speculative, irrelevant information.

Talk/Discussion page under Major Cleanup Section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Podcasting#Major_Cleanup:__This_really_needs_a_fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testerer (talk • contribs)

My initial concern is the lack of in-line reference and the inclusion of rhetorical questions "Does Apple own the pod? Could podcasting, podcasts, and anything with the word "Pod" in the name become the property of Apple computers?" . I'm also don't think it covers the "broad coverage" bit. In looking through the talk page archives and history, I don't see where it was really reviewed. I would support de-listing it. Agne 17:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was promoted 12th December 2005 during the slap-on-the-GA-template days. There seems to be a major problem with stability so even just on that criterion alone, the article should be delisted. RelHistBuff 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volkstaat

First time request for a review of this article for possible listing as a Good Article. -Gemsbok1 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see this article already in the candidate list. Now, just wait and be patient for earlier candidates to be reviewed first ;-). Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The objections raised by the first reviewer were dealt with. I hereby request another review, by a reviewer other than Deon Steyn for an independent third party review. Thank you. -Gemsbok1 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA review is to discuss delistings, fails, and current GA's that people disagree with, not to get brand new reviews, just re-nominate the article again. Homestarmy 16:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been renominated. --165.165.169.167 08:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case is closed. I left a review on the talk page with suggestions for improvements. RelHistBuff 07:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami (Bleach)

Would anyone agree that this article is too "in-universe" to be a GA. --Tarret 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, it doesn't even feel like the article even tries to enter the real universe. Homestarmy 00:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would fail it, as it too in-comic perspective. Not an encyclopedia article. It's a bit strange as the article is reviewed to have a neutral view by the reviewer. The article should have a history, development and other out-of-comic information. I think it should be delisted as GA. — Indon (reply) — 07:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-list. The "in-universe"-ish is made even more clear by the fact that the only source of reference is the manga book itself. There has to be a broader scope. Agne 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone offer any suggestions on how to make the article less in-universe? I am one of the chief contributors to the article and wish to improve it so that it easily passes as a good article. However, as it stands now, the article is inherently in-universe because it's mainly a combination of the Bleach (manga) (the universe) and Shinigami (the subject) articles, which, combined, make it extremely difficult to come up with anything 'out of universe' (if anything did come up, it would likely go into one of the linked articles). I don't think this fact should warrant an impossibility for the article to be considered a GA. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main guideline about it is here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). That might give you some advice on how to correct the problem. Also, many of the Pokemon articles are good examples of compliant GA's. Homestarmy 21:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the Shinigami (Bleach) article is a combination of a fictional work (Bleach) with a fictional race (shinigami), therefore the article must be related to both shinigami and Bleach. In other words, you can't have an 'in other media' section or 'mythological significance' or any of those things, because then it wouldn't be Bleach-related and therefore would only work for the shinigami article. MOS:Writing about fiction doesn't suggest anything to solve cases like this, that is why I asked here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with Yn here. You will have a very hard time writing an out-of-universe perspective on this subject. You cannot write about the subject of Shinigami as a whole, because that goes in a different article, Shinigami. You can't really write about similarities to portrayals of shinigami in other media either, because that would be a WP:NOR violation. To compound matters further, most of the source material is still only in Japanese. The MOS's out of universe perspective guidelines really don't give any suggestions on what to do, and only vague ones on what NOT to do.

Actually, the Pokemon GA's you just pointed me to are interesting in that they read like a combination of in-universe and game guide/FAQ. --tjstrf 09:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard time or not, other articles manage to pull it off, and besides, why do you want this article listed as a GA if most of the source material isn't even translated? That seems like jumping the gun. Homestarmy 03:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation-evolution controversy

This should be reviewed as it clearly has a bias towards those on the side of creationism. It belittles the beliefs of the scientific majority regarding evolution. Much of what is written there has obviously been written by fire and brimstone christians. 202.164.195.56 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Mike 1:15PM 15 September[reply]

I have to say I find this attitude a bit odd given that most of the complaints about the article seem to be that it favors evolution too much (and many of the common editors are what one user accused of being a "scientistic cabal"). Do you have a specific example problem? JoshuaZ 13:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree Joshua, just giving it a cursory reading, it seems to have pretty much the same attitude all of the creationism-related articles have, "There is no dispute about evolution, and ID'ers are basically lying about this." Homestarmy 13:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that article is distinctly on the evolutionist bent--and just a hair close to tipping NPOV because of it. What concerns me the most is the vast majority of the references seem to come from the "Pro-Evolution/anti-creationism" sentiment. I'm also not the biggest fan of the length. I'd be curious if we can get some valid content forks with section 4 : "Noteworthy participants in the controversy" and taking info from various parts into a History of the Creation-evolution controversy. Agne 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "evolutionist bent" comment seems to fly in the face of the archived discussions. If you have specific criticisms of the content please list them. The fact that creationists are generally less verified and represent original research in many of their rants against scientific consensus means that the notion of a "level playing field" is a misnomer. This isn't a political debate, it's a controversy about settled science. --ScienceApologist 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "it" is neither a controversy over a settled science nor a political debate, "it" is an encyclopedia article, so the standard isn't to just stick with whatever the awe-insipiring scientific consensus states. Of course, the article doesn't really go quite that far, I think its still fine anyway. Homestarmy 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a good article. Seems balanced to me. Bear in mind that the WP:NPOV calls for articles that deal with pseudoscience to "describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." This article does a fair job of that. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be a good article. Despite an effort at the end to contextualise the debate within a global context, the fact remains that this is an overwhelmingly US-based controversy. I raised this objection earlier at FA level and it has not yet been resolved. It is not that the topic needs to be expanded to discuss other countries - the article itself makes it abundantly clear that elsewhere in the developed world evolutionary theory is not a matter of contentious public debate. Rather, the article needs to explain why this debate is happening in the US - what about American society is it that allows this controversy even to exist. For those of us in the rest of the world, THAT is the most interesting aspect of this debate. The painful process of providing an NPOV overview of the actual controversy is fine, but the larger point is completely elided and this comes across as a parochial US-centric discussion that accepts the terms of its own argument without reference to the fact that at a global level, the controversy is aberrant. Eusebeus 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of an article promoted before the current nomination/review process. Aside from many other problems, it is clear that it is not stable. Most of the reverts are not triggered by a response to vandalism, but due to real differences between authors. That criterion alone should be enough to delist the article. RelHistBuff 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is largley because there has been very little discussion in WP:RS sources about why it is so prevalent in the US other than to note that the US is more religious than most developed countries. I have more opinions about why it is an issue in the US but that would be OR. It is a bit unreasonable to criticize an article for not extensively addressing something which hasn't been dealt with in many sources (and even more so, when other critiques seem to be directed at the article being too long). JoshuaZ 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (And note that if you can find any good sources that discuss why it is so US centric in detail, I'd be happy to see them and add them to the article). JoshuaZ 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've delisted the article with a review left on on the article's talk page Agne 03:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this, I compared the diffs from before I left on a trip to the version today, and besides an addition of a particular court case thing, nothing much had been drastically altered. Plus, there really ought to be at least a simple majority in favor of something for articles like this, the conversations tend to get....complicated Homestarmy 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read this discussion for the first time, I do not see a stable consensus for de-listing this article, but instead an ongoing debate about delisting. This de-listing appeared to be premature, so I reverted the de-listing pending a clarification on the actual status of this discussion. ... Kenosis 04:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just precedent so far has been that anyone has the power to immedietly delist articles until a review actually finishes with a clear consensus/supermajority/what-have-you, helps make it easier to take care of the list and whatnot, occasionally, people will come here when their favorite article was delisted (even when it was pretty bad), and letting people delist things immedietly I think gives the system a good bit more flexability. Homestarmy 04:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a matter of just one guideline (where a subjective view could be at play), I concede that consenus among GA reviewers should be acheived prior to de-listing. However, out of the 6 GA criterias the article had issues in all 6 include 3 precise issues brought up by 3 different individuals (not counting myself) above-POV by original poster, US centric by Eusebeus and stability by RelHistBuff. I don't think my de-listing was unilateral in the slightest and I give very precise and detailed reasonings in all 6 of the categories. While an individual may disagree with my assessment in one or two, I highly doubt that one could interpret the above as consensus that the article passes all 6 of the criteria to merit being a good article. Agne 04:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stability provision is laughably flawed and broken. Has anyone who actually edits on controversial topics actually thought it through prior to codifying it? Because a stability provision is completely unworkable on contentious topics like creationism because the pov-pushers these articles attract always raise bad faith objections with the intent of discrediting any fair and factual treatment of the topic that does not favor their pov with special treatment. Any provision that fails to take into account pov-motivated objections is fatally flawed; this why you never see creationism related article make FA, and seldom see political or religious topics there as well. Until the GA participants put their GA criteria in order with provisions that take into account real-world misuses and abuses of their process, there's no reason why previously qualified articles should suffer. Either fix this obvious issue or risk becoming irrelevant to a large segment of WP articles - those on perennially controversial issues. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh Agne, the intial poster thought that there was POV problem in the other direction. I don't think that poster counts in this context...JoshuaZ 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It like seeing symptoms of heart attack but it actually being a stroke. There is the perception that something is not quite right but the initial diagnosis was incorrect. POV is not NPOV regardless of which side it is tilted. Agne 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no it isn't. The point was in reference to the claim that issues were raised by 3 different editors and that one of them other than you had a POV issue. The POV opinion was in fact in the exact opposite direction of where any problem might have existed so it is unreasonable in the extreme to claim that that somehow should go to the general issue supporting the removal (and in any event, the user in question was an anon with almost no edits and seemingly no knowledge of general Wiki policies). I don't mind the delisting so much because it will presumably just have most of the issues fixed and then quickly relisted but these sorts of gaps in logic and total capriciousness of the GA system is a big reason it creates so much rancor. JoshuaZ 04:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the rancor seems to be in relation to articles in the science/math realm. The clear matter is the absence of NPOV in several areas and how it relates to GA criteria #4. If the article doesn't pass that criteria because of POV (in ANY direction) then it doesn't pass the criteria. But again this is only one criteria of the entire 6 that there is issues with. I wholeheartedly welcome and encourage renomination with the hopeful outcome of re-listing. In the end, that is the desire goal of everyone wanting to have good quality articles in Wikipedia. Agne 04:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me you're applying the NPOV policy incorrectly when it comes to pseudoscience; please read WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience paying particular attention to the bolded part. If this is the sum of your objections, then it's de-listing is baseless and I'll restore it. Though I seldom participate at that article, it is clear that by any reasonable reading of the GA criteria this article is a strong 'meets,' not an easy task on such a contentious subject and a constant POV and troll magnet. It has stood in GA status for some time, and your justifications for removal here appear flawed, based on your interpretation of NPOV and an singular application of the GA criteria. I'll be restoring GA status unless you have a better justification than a flawed application of NPOV. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, many of the things Agne pointed out didn't have anything to do with the "science" part of it at all..... Homestarmy 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agne clearly says "seems to be in relation to articles in the science/math realm." WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience clearly states: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." That means that Agne's issues over NPOV are baseless, as is it's delisting. I'll be re-listing it unless Agne comes up with a better justification for delisting. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC

Um that ""seems to be in relation to articles in the science/math realm." is related to the comment about "Rancor with GA" that has to do with the conflict that science/math editors have had in general with the GA process (most recently with in-line citations). It has nothing to do with science or psuedoscience or a particular NPOV application to the subjects. Agne 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is one of the 6 criteria that the article had issues in-so this is far from a singular application of one of the criteria. Plus, I provided clear example of what I consider POV (some of which have already been corrected by Josh). If you could show how those examples are not POV, I would appreciate it. Secondly, as GA continues to grow it is a natural progression for its standards and quality expectations to increase as well. This is not isolated to GA as Jimbo and the Wikipedia Foundation are encouraging a more focused concentration on quality over quantity across the board. We are simply responding to that strive for higher quality. As GA reviewers, we will be glad to work with the article's editors in improving the quality of the article. Instead of simply listing the criteria with a FAIL next to it, I attempted to give a thorough and indepth review with precise areas that could use editor's attention. The goal is to have the end product be a better article then it was before. Tolerating the status quo because "It has stood in GA status for some time" doesn't really help anyone--much less the article. Agne 18:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the GA reviewers an established, knowledgable group of credible and qualified reviewers, or are you simply referring to the comments for community members seen here? Because is it's the latter, I'm impressed with the depth and breadth of knowledge when it comes to our NPOV policy or how to deal with bad faith objections. FeloniousMonk 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A GA reviewer can be anyone really. But some of the more frequent or "established" reviewers are also members of the Good articles project. As an editor who has not edited any of the creation/evolution page (and who is actually an evolutionist herself), I am curious for a clarification as to what you deem are bad faith objections? My agenda is for higher quality articles to be attached to a GA tag, nothing more then and nothing less. Agne 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of a bad faith objection is this one at the FA page for ID: [1] In fact, that FA attempt was scuttled by what is widely recognized as bad faith gaming of the system to discredit the article for ideological reasons. What makes them clearly bad faith is the fact that so many clearly do not understand the actual NPOV policy or rest on misrepresentaions of it. This is a recognized flaw in the FA process, and one that has FA irrelevant for most articles on contentious topics. GA runs the same risk for similar reasons. Discussion has taken place here for a work around for that for a particularly contentious article: [[2]] I'm a semi-regular at GA review and I always carefully scrutinize the reasoning behind each GA status challenge I respond to and it's bringer's understanding policy. I don't remember calling into question your motives, only your understanding the NPOV policy and how it relates to science v. pseudoscienc articles like the one we're discussing. FeloniousMonk 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to delve into this discussion, but this seems to be a discussion about the article and not about its GA status. If the article is unstable and/or there are doubts about its POV at the moment, it's enough for it not to be considered a GA candidate. Please continue to discuss the article in its talk page and close this review. Bravada, talk - 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion about listing this article as a GA, but about its keeping its long-held status, and of whether it has continued to be a good article or whether it should be de-listed. ... Kenosis 22:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews normally continue until the discussion has died off for a week or so, and so far, we seem to have around 5 to keep as a GA and 3 opposed in an active discussion, i'd hardly call this a resolved dispute. Homestarmy 21:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should not be listed, not because it may have slight POV issues, but because it is a current dispute and information will change as circumstances also change. -- Ci e lomobile ^minor7♭5 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Lefebvre

This is currently listed as a good article, but the footnote style is a serious liability. They are in a very non-standard format (this is the only article I have seen on Wikipedia to extensively quote each source in the footnotes.) In addition, some of the sources are excessively repeated, resulting in footnotes on nearly every sentence, making the article much harder to read. dryguy 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources seem to come from speeches, and I suspect there isn't an easier way to use those citations. They can use the <ref=soandso> thing to get around re-quoting everything, but I don't see it as mandatory in the GA rules, it'd just be an improvement you'd probably need to make for FA. Homestarmy 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that we ask for footnotes/inline citations, the way it is rendered is really unimportant unless it clashes with the structure of the text. Lincher 15:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me. Admittedly, having the quote for each source seems like overkill, but the fact that the authors put that extra effort doesn't detract from the article. RelHistBuff 10:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there should be encouragement for more tact in the footnote style in order to limit the repeats. It doesn't merit de-listing though. Agne 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]