User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Hi again SilkTork

See my comments on the talk page for George Washington. Thanks! Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrel J. Vandeveld about sixteen months ago.

Several aspects of this {{afd}} have continued to disturb me. I spent several hours this morning putting Vandeveld's affadavit up on wikisource:Exhibit B: I, Darrel Vandeveld, hereby declare as follows.

The contributbutor who made this nomination didn't offer me a good faith heads-up. This disturbs me because the wikipedia aims to arrive at decisions through discussion and consensus. IMO nominators who choose not to offer those good faith heads-ups are dangerously subverting the wikipedia's goal of arriving at decisions through discussion and consensus. IMO we haven't arrived at a real consensus when there wasn't a real discussion. And IMO we haven't had a real discussion when someone takes steps to make sure the views of those they disagree with aren't represented.

I am not familiar with this particular nominator, at least not under their current wiki-id, and I don't mean to imply bad faith on their part. But something went seriously wrong here. I certainly would have done my best to make a strong case that Vandeveld was not a blp1e if the nominator had fulfilled their obligations.

For the record I can see the logic behind merging the articles on Robert Preston (military lawyer), John Carr (military lawyer) and Carrie Wolf -- because these three officers cases had a lot in common. They requested reassignment quietly. They didn't want to draw attention to their reassignments. They all resigned at the same time for the same reason. We learned of their reassignments a year after it occurred when secret memos were leaked. News articles don't return to them.

Borch's case is very different than all the others. Additionally, he is not a blp1e. In the interests of brevity I won't explain why here.

The cases of Couch, Morris Davis and Vandeveld are all different from the first three officers, and they are different from one another. Further all three officers have received substantial press coverage in their own right.

I believe someone (you?) argued for merging Couch, Davis and Borch into the article. They weren't merged. I strongly feel that because Vandeveld was never a blp1e as the nominator claimed, and he continues to receive coverage independent of the "1e", his article should be unmerged.

As the closing administrator I request your input please. I request your opinion on what you feel would be necessary for you to agree to reverse your conclusion of this {{afd}}.

As to what to do with the rump of the article, if the Vandeveld section is unmerged, I'd welcome your input on that. Briefly:

1. I don't think it is necessary for Preston, Carr and Wolf to have separate sections. And those sections contain redundant elements. As I noted above their circumstances are similar, so they could all be covered both more clearly and more briefly in a unified section.
2. If Preston, Carr and Wolf are covered in a unified section, should there be a narrowly focused article entitled something like Resignations from the Guantanamo military commission of July 2004.
3. If Preston, Carr and Wolf are described in a narrowly focused article, as I described above, does it make sense to retain the current article? If so I suggest it should have brief sections introducing Borch, Couch, Davis and Vandeveld, and a brief section introducing the article on the resignation of the three officers in July 2004. Maybe something like

   "Morris Davis was the third Chief Prosecutor of the Office of Military Commissions from late 2005 to late 2007. He resigned after a bitter public authority conflict with his boss Brigadier Thomas Hartmann over how to choose who should be charged, and when and if charges should be laid against suspects in cases that would rely on secret evidence derived from torture. A military court adjudicated the dispute, and backed Hartmann. Davis then resigned from the Office of military commission and retired from military service within the year. Since then he has been a vocal critic of the military commission system."

Penultimately, if you are wondering why I didn't rely on my watchlist to tell me the article had been nominated for deletion, my watchlist stopped being useful when it got over 10,000 articles on it. When my watchlist had 5-10000 articles on it I could only budget time to check it once a day. When it got to be over 10000 articles on it it took longer to check my watchlist than I was able to budget for my day's wikipedia efforts.

Finally, if you were wondering how the initial separate articles on Preston, Carr and Wolf came to be written, when it would be hard to defend them on blp1e grounds -- it's simple -- they were written long before there was a blp1e policy.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your concerns. It is unfortunate that you were not notified of the AfD - while it is not required that you be notified, it is generally considered polite. Having looked at your argument above, it wouldn't have made any difference to my close, I would still have closed as merge, as that was the consensus of the discussion. Your argument as I understand it, is that "Borch's case is very different" (I assume you mean Vandeveld), though you don't clarify why you think that. It appeared to me then, and still does today, that Vandeveld is (in the words of the the article) "notable for asking to resign from his appointment as a prosecutor before a Guantanamo military commission." He is notable for that event, and the List of resignations from the Guantanamo military commission article contains details of those people who are notable for that event. All the information that was contained in the Darrel J. Vandeveld article is still here on Wikipedia for people to consult - it has simply been moved, according to our guidelines, to a page where it can be read in context. The intention being to give the general reader more information rather than less. I am not clear on why you wish to move the material to a stand alone page at this stage, as nothing has changed, though I fully agree that List of resignations from the Guantanamo military commission could do with improving and removing redundancy. I suggest that you work on the article along the lines that you indicate. If, in the process of working on it, you build up enough information on Vandeveld that makes a stand alone article viable in terms of amount of reliably sourced encyclopaedic material supporting an independent notability, then splitting it out into a stand alone would become viable, and I would be willing to advise you at that stage on the suitability of the article for splitting out. You do need to build the content first - I couldn't support simply restoring an article that was moved following an AfD unless there has been sufficient changes to the article. Doing that would simply mean the article could be speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Speedy#G4.

As for you finding it hard to keep track of so many pages on your watchlist, then mightn't it make sense to reduce the number of items on your list? I have very few items on my list - just those areas in which I am currently engaged - a few discussions, GA Reviews, a page or article where there may be a dispute happening, a talkpage where I have proposed something. Once matters have moved on, I unwatch. I find watching 20 pages is more than enough, and keep it below that amount! SilkTork *^YES! 22:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Portsmouth for GA?

Hey SilkTork,

I know it may be some time since I nominated Portsmouth for GA, but at the moment I have noticed that we both intend on coming back to it and building it to GA Status. This is fine, I also want to build it back up to GA as well! My first nomination for Portsmouth went better than the others I have nominated. And I know I didn't get a chance to say thanks for helping me nomiate articles but I'm sure when I find another article I'll be sure to ask for help. I haven't found any yet, although the Aldermaston article looks particularly good for nominating.

So I'm just saying that whenever you're ready to rebuild Portsmouth back to GA Status, I'm ready when you are! Jaguar (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's on my to do list. I have Covent Garden and Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China currently waiting for review, and Brewing is my next target. After that, it could well be Portsmouth! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MalibuRum.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MalibuRum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

knock knock! Talk:Agnes Mowinckel/GA1

• Hey. I haven't done a GA review in a while. If you have a little free time, would you mind taking a look at Talk:Agnes Mowinckel/GA1 and see if I was too critical, left anything out, etc.? many thanks... • Ling.Nut 13:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I broadly agree with what you have written about the article, and that it isn't a Good Article as it stands, though we are encouraged to not fail articles immediately - see Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article. The general aim of the GA process is to improve the quality of articles, and we achieve that both by editing an article to GA standards, and also by motivating editors to work toward GA standards. By putting an article on hold for seven days it gives the nominator an opportunity to improve the article - even if the article does not meet the appropriate standard after a hold, it is likely to have been improved somewhat, and the nominator has had a chance to make the improvements so doesn't feel so discouraged.

The WP:Lead doesn't appear complete enough to stand alone as an overall summary of her life and career.

I don't assume good faith as regards sources, and will not pass an article until I have seen and checked at least one source. This can mean waiting for a book to be ordered from my local library or from Amazon, if there are no online sources. Until I have seen and checked sources I don't pass Original Research either, as what is said in the article may be an editor's development of what the sources say.

Broad coverage is always tricky, and that generally needs some background reading to get an impression that nothing significant has been left out - though on some minor topics (such as this one), especially if the article appears well rounded, and is written by an experienced GA editor, and the sources are hard to track down, I may make a judgement based on lack of evidence to the contrary that the article is broad enough.

I like to make clear the difference between GA criteria, and general editing comments. I agree that more images would be helpful to the reader, and would make that comment myself, though would say that it isn't a GA requirement - just part of the ongoing development of the article. The image meets requirements as the date of the image is implicitly cited in the article to Gjesdahl's Centralteatrets historie, so that is acceptable.

What is interesting is that the Norwegian entry is a stub.

There are some English language sources which can be used in the article to quickly establish that she is one of one of Norway's leading actresses.

It's tricky that most of the information comes from non-English sources, and there is unclear translation. The English sources do say she was an important theatre director - though the article uses the terms producer and stage instructor. That needs clarifying.

I would put the article on hold for seven days to allow the lead to be built up, and for some copyediting and clarification to take place, and for me to check sources. If there was not sufficient improvement after seven days I would consider how much I could do myself, and if I couldn't do anything significant then I would fail it. As in this case most of the sources are non-English I would not get involved beyond perhaps adding an English source here or there. If there were signs of improvement I would extend the hold for another seven days. I would give the nominator and significant contributors as much reasonable chance to improve the article as possible, and would get involved myself if I could.

In this case, as you have already closed the review you might consider asking the nominator if they feel they could improve the article in seven days and see how they respond. If the nominator feels they have done as much as they can with the article, so be it; but if they'd like a go, then you could undo your close and put it on hold for seven days to see what happens. SilkTork *^YES! 00:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks!
• I would never AGF regarding sources at FAC, but at GA... though perhaps you are right.
• I'll nudge the nominator. Tks! • Ling.Nut 01:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing without ref templates

I think that you have mentioned somewhere that, like me, you find it tiresome to edit an article with a lot of reference templates. This script - User:PleaseStand/References segregator - allows you to separate the templates from the text. I've just installed it and it's wonderful! SilkTork *^YES! 08:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is very interesting, thank you! I just tried it on Intelligent design, which I can't read in edit mode with 248 citation templates, 25 in the lead alone (vertical ones). With this I could definitely copy edit it. I notice it doesn't seem to work in section editing, I suppose because it needs to be able to retrieve the refs from the rest of the page. But it's going to be a great help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It made me wonder if cite templates could be coded to place all the template information at the bottom of the page, leaving just a place-holder in the main body - much as this script does it. If all the cite templates were in one place it would help with editing and updating them as well. I sometimes find a cite is incorrect with an author's name or some other detail, and it can be quite an effort to track that cite template down in the main text. SilkTork *^YES! 09:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've actually seen that done before, and it works well. Editing with <ref></ref> will always be a pain until we have some sort of WYSIWYG editing interface. Thanks for the suggestion - I'll certainly try it out. AT least it should make the edit mode less tiring to the eyes. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And this - importScript('User:Dr_pda/editrefs.js'); - allows cite templates to be isolated so they can be directly edited. All the coding is there - it just needs to be brought together in one useful whole. SilkTork *^YES! 09:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you closed Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

hardly any of car articles has such lead section. You should then tag most of them --Typ932 ^T·C 11:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to only tag articles which I read. I've just bought a 156 and thought I'd read something about the marque. I am spending a little time working on the article, as there is some useful information in there, and it just needs tidying up a little. As I am working on it I am seeing there there is more work needed, especially in the area of referencing and prose, however, it does contain the basis for development. SilkTork *^YES! 11:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo

Seems you also messed all image placements in that article by adding tags and moving sections, could you try fix them to right places... --Typ932 ^T·C 11:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean. Messed up what? SilkTork *^YES! 11:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Racing Brian Redman picture is out of place, also the badge evolution is out of right section now, you should always look what your edits affect to the article layout. Half of the article looks horrible now , I think we need to reduce more pictures to get it right now --Typ932 ^T·C 12:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I reduced images, now it seems to be quite ok. --Typ932 ^T·C 12:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you now find it acceptable. I wonder if it was your browser that was causing problems as the two badge images have distorted the Badge and Racing history sections since at least the start of this year, and I don't see that my editing made the situation worse or better. It is advised that images are not forced - WP:ImageSize - as different users use different browsers, and size forcing impacts on the article layout. SilkTork *^YES! 08:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya

Hi SilkTork, thanks for your review, it did seem more promising than the last, however, these issues are beyond my or your individual help despite what sources we may have. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 04:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about deletion of List of United States soccer players playing abroad

Hi SilkTork,

I noticed you deleted this page. After reviewing the comments on the discussion of the Salvadoran list, I understand that there are reasonable arguments against the existence of this list as a Wikipedia article. However, I felt, and saw other people who agreed, that the American list was kept sufficiently up to date to be meritorious of Wikipedia. I had bookmarked it and found it to be a useful reference. Seeing that I cannot get this information anywhere else, wouldn't it be beneficial to allow the page to remain? I understand that it's important not to create a systemic bias, but how can the removal of useful, up-to-date, information be said to better Wikipedia? Jss367 (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the discussion that the information is available as a category - Category:American expatriate soccer players. How accurate that category is I have no idea, though you could try looking there for the information you want. Lists are awkward as we don't have as clear a guidance on the inclusion criteria for lists as we do for articles. There is a tendency to accept a list as long as it is seen to be useful to the general reader, and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates gives some useful advice. People may feel that a list is not useful when it is poorly sourced and poorly maintained and could be misleading to the general reader, and there is an indication that ongoing maintenance would be an issue. This was the case with the lists of soccer players playing abroad. Where we have no direct and clear guideline on when to keep such lists, the decision comes down to consensus in the discussion - and consensus was clear that these lists were more problematic than they were worth. You are free, of course, to recreate the lists - Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#If_you_disagree_with_the_consensus gives some advice on recreating a deleted article. If you simply recreate the lists as they were at the time of deletion, they will be speedy deleted under Wikipedia:Speedy#G4, so you would need to source all the information. That means by each player listed you would need to put a link to a reliable source giving details of the player playing abroad. And you would need to ensure the information was up to date. If you wish to do this, then I could Wikipedia:Userfy the article for you. This would mean that I would undelete it and put it in your userspace for a limited period of time (say one month), to allow you to work on it. If after a month little or no work had been done, I would delete it again, but if there were signs of progress we could discuss you keeping it for a while longer. And if you had managed to fully source the list we could discuss returning it to mainspace and having another AfD to see if the consensus was now to keep it. Let me know if you wish me to userfy the list(s) for you. SilkTork *^YES! 08:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Research about virtual communities

I am doing a research about virtual communities for my doctorate. I would like to study how the members define norms for the community. I would appreciate your contribution for my research. If I agree to participate, I will send you the questions. Jmbbmj (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Send me an email with your details, and we can discuss things further. SilkTork *^YES! 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Diego's Hair Salon/GA1

Hi Ryderofpelham123, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your willingness to get involved in Good Article reviews. I agree with your general view that Diego's Hair Salon is a rather small article on a rather small topic - however it's not part of the GA criteria to assess notability, so we don't fail articles on that basis. We have criteria which we apply - Wikipedia:Good article criteria - and it's useful to contributors to articles nominated for GA to go through the criteria on the review page, indicating where the article meets the criteria, and where it doesn't so the contributors know what work is needed. It is also usual for reviewers to then put the review on hold to allow contributors to do the work needed to meet the criteria. Would you like me to assist you with going through the criteria on that article? SilkTork *^YES! 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome and advice. I appreciate you asking me about my decision before attempting to make a change. I didn't realize that you could not fail an article based on notability. In any event, I revisited the article and have come to the conclusion that it is still too short and there is not enough detail to warrant a good article approval. Also, it is rated start - class (not even B). In my experience (which is very little), I have only put a nomination on hold if the article seems easily fixable. At best, this article needs a major expansion. Let me know if you feel differently. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth going through the GA criteria together on that article. That will give you a feel for the process, and provide valuable feedback for the contributors. I'll put up a checklist on the review page. I'll give my comments, and put up a second checklist for you to put up your comments.

If anyone feels an article is not notable they can put it up for discussion at WP:AfD, or suggest WP:Merging it into a parent article - which in this case would be Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.. Having looked at the parent article I note that the Hair Salon is not mentioned. My personal feeling is that Diego's Hair Salon would be more appropriate as a section in Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C. than as a standalone article. It is appropriate to make additional comments and suggestions during a GA review, and I would make that comment. It is possible that an article could be a Good Article and still be put up for deletion or merger at AfD as the GA process doesn't measure notability. The GA process measures if the article is verifiable and is well written and complies with certain basic style and policy issues. Notability is a separate assessment. SilkTork *^YES! 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm here. I am going to reassess my review, but I did take a look at the criteria when I did my initial review, and the article did not seem to meet the criteria necessary. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the M.I.A. article

Hi. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and wanted to help out with reviewing music articles for GA status, since there seems to be quite a backlog. Unfortunately, I quickly arrived at an impasse with one of the editors of the page. Since you seem to be very experienced and good at this I was wondering if you could have a look--and also give me some advice on how to do this better!

The editor has worked really hard and I would like for the article to be rated GA. Your input/advice would be very much appreciated.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA rubric shows that you have given the process a great deal of thought and you are focussing on the GA criteria which new reviewers don't always do. And I like that you have explained in terms appropriate to the subject the nature of "Broad coverage" and "Neutral". Music bio topics do tend toward hyperbole, and that can be difficult to address, especially when the most popular sources, such as Allmusic.com, and "official" biographies, use such hyperbole. If enough reliable sources use hyperbole, then unfortunately, it becomes appropriate to include it; and I note that you are aware of that.

You are willing to enter into discussion with nominators/contributors - and that is important, as sometimes (usually?) a review is a collaborative affair, and is a matter of discussion, interpretation and negotiation. The reviewer develops an independent overview of the article, and that independence is important. It should be the reviewer's decision if the article has met GA criteria - though it is appropriate to enter into discussion on areas of uncertainty, and a nominator can challenge or ask for an explanation of the reviewer's views. However, if the reviewer has in good faith reached a decision about "broad coverage", and has explained that decision with reference to the GA criteria and Wikipedia guidelines, then it is fully appropriate for a reviewer to close a review as fail if the issue is not being addressed. If the nominator disagrees they can take the matter to WP:GAR or even relist the article. Failing a GAN is not the end of the matter! You as reviewer feel the article doesn't meet the criteria - the nominator disagrees and doesn't wish to address your concerns. You have a choice of addressing the concerns yourself or closing as a fail. While a reviewer is encouraged to fix small matters in an article, they are not expected to - and if fixing the matter is going to lead to a conflict, it is sometimes better to back off.

I haven't read all the sources or the article in detail - though I have got the impression that the Hirschberg article is a significant item, and has been commented upon by other reliable sources, and so some mention of that article would be appropriate, which would include reference to the content of that article. How much weight should be given to it, I don't know - but I would leave that judgement up to you, as you have looked into the matter closely enough.

What do you feel needs to be done to make the article match GA criteria? SilkTork *^YES! 10:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with User:Dilip rajeev

Hi SilkTork sorry to disturb you but since you did quite a bit of work with User:Dilip rajeev I thought I should come here and ask you for advice. This is about the discussion between me and him on Talk:Shen Yun Performing Arts at the very bottom. It started well and he seemed a lot more civil than the last time I dealt with him but things have kind of turned sour as I applied more pressure on him. I don't mind the insinuations but it's frustrating when he consistently ignored my rebuttals and questions while simply reiterating his starting premise, dragging the discussion out and stagnating it. Do you have any advice on what to do in this kind of situation? Any comments on my part are also welcome. Thanks for your time. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice and offer. I think I am starting to get comfortable, but will need help. By the way, are you an admin or officer of some sort? Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin. I also have some experience of writing and reviewing Good Articles. And I know that working in a new area of Wikipedia is easier when someone is prepared to help rather than criticise. Like many users I've now and again encountered some sharp remarks when not doing things in the normal manner in some aspect of Wikipedia, and I didn't find that at all helpful! New users get snapped at quite a lot, yet we were all new users at some point. Pick an article from WP:GAN, and we can go through it together, and discuss any points where we disagree. SilkTork *^YES! 08:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Kilgour-Matas report

A GA Review of Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China is taking place, and the question of splitting out the section Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China#Falun Gong allegations: 2006 into a standalone article has been raised. This will be a controversial move as there are people who have objected to the allegation and corresponding report being a standalone article, and have insisted on merging it back into Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China. I support the content being moved into a standalone article, with a summary left behind, as currently this one allegation dominates the article. Added to which the allegation and the report have gained enough media attention to meet notability guidelines. My proposal is to create the article Kilgour-Matas report, leaving a summary behind, and to immediately open a discussion on WP:AfD regarding the notability of the topic. The version I would use is this one, and to update it with pertinent amendments made to Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China, using the images that are in that article. Your comments, suggestions, and involvement in this is welcomed and encouraged. SilkTork *^YES! 14:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message. I would have to once again look at the available sources covering those report before deciding whether I would support a stand-alone article. The Organ transplantation in China article was already seriously unbalanced by the FLG allegations and the K&M reports, I feel there the NPOV problem with the suggested version is magnified ten-fold. The principal problem is over-reliance upon and over-use of the report itself, a self-published source. The section which describes the different strands of evidence are excessively verbose and not summarised. In fact, I feel it should be kept to the same brevity we would expect from the plot synopsis of any film or book. It can be supplemented by the reactions reported in the press. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. I looked over User:SilkTork/Kilgour-Matas report after posting to you and the others, and I must confess I was rather daunted by what I saw. There is actually a fair amount of work to be done. I had remembered it somewhat differently. I thought I had transferred the content over to Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China at some point, but I must have been thinking of something else. SilkTork *^YES! 18:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, long time no read. What is the current status with regard to creating the standalone article? --JN466 16:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is being discussed. Having looked at User:SilkTork/Kilgour-Matas report, I feel that a period of tidying that up would be needed before it could be moved into mainspace. I have a couple of GA reviews I have been dragging my heels on that I need to finish off before doing any work on it. SilkTork *^YES! 10:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Covent Garden

The article Covent Garden you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Covent Garden/GA1 for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bleach (album)

Most of your concerns raised on Bleach's GA review were fixed. Can you see if the article can pass now? igordebraga ≠ 23:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)