Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 60

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 61)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 59) →

Billion Dollar Babies

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

Result: Delisted because the pointed issues were not resolved.--Retrohead (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article should feature more information on the background and recording of the album. The album's influence on rock music is also omitted, and judging by its importance, it should be researched. The references could use some formatting, especially the Allmusic refs. Summa summarum, my two main worries are comprehensiveness and formatting.--Retrohead (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• We can start with the commercial section and it definitely needs an upgrade, especially the charts. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sleep hygiene

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

Result: No clear consensus for delisting. Trusting in Sandy's comment that content has improved. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not Good Article level work in my view. See discussion Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Good_Articles_for_Grades. I started cleaning it up and SandyGeorgia did more. There are several places where writing still needs work (vague generalizations in lead); there are several sourcing issues; It is still new (can't call it stable yet. Please re-review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been working collaboratively with other wikipedia editors and reviewers for three weeks on this article, and will continue to be very responsive to feedback. I believe in providing readers with informative, broad, neutral, and well-researched coverage of any topic, and it is my priority to accomplish this with the current sleep hygiene article. I hope that we can work together to facilitate article improvement, instead of removing the good article status. Thank you. leslierrn (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, (1) I spent 8 hours today on the page responding to feedback. I did this to try to address reviewers concerns, although I did not realize that SandyGeorgia and Jytdog believed the GA status to be a fluke. I understand the situation, although I am of course disappointed by the way everything was dealt with. In defense of other PhD students, I think we are definitely capable of contributing meaningfully to wikipedia, and any messiness is not done out of carelessness. Constructive feedback can really help us improve our articles. If there is a way of salvaging content that took days to write, that would seem preferable to simply deleting sections. (2) There was also a lot of talk about my course's goal with this final project. To clarify, our grades were not at all dependent on achieving GA. I have been teaching sleep hygiene for years, so I thought that my content might be worth at least trying for GA - that's the reason I submitted. Also, our professor had great intentions with this final project. The point was to help translate scientific knowledge to a broader audience - I believe that getting students with expertise involved with Wikipedia is a great way to expand the available topics. I hope everyone can also see the value in that, even if they believe that the content it not perfect quality. I will let the wikipedia process take over from here. Leslierrn (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Leslierrn. I have not had time in the last 24 hours to follow your edits, but I will do so as soon as possible (within one or two days). Your continued dedication to the article is admirable, and I'm sorry you were shortchanged on your earlier GA review. Please know that this process is slower, and it is unlikely that the article will lose GA status without a chance for continued improvement: you should get here at GAR the review that you should have gotten the first time around-- one which will allow you to improve as a Wikipedia editor, and hopefully encourage you to stay on board for the long-term! You've done a good job in here, but together we should be able to improve the article up to GA status. I will weigh in as soon as I can on article talk and your user talk. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, Thanks for clarifying the intended purposed of GAR. All of the talk boards seemed to indicate that the belief was that this article should never have been GA, and that we should be re-considering supporting student contributors. I would love for this to be a learning opportunity and get more feedback. Looking forward to seeing the article improve through this collaboration. Leslierrn (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Leslierrn, while the article may have been prematurely listed as a Good Article, that is not an uncommon occurrence in the World of Wikipedia. There is time in this deliberative phase to make sure the article meets GA standards, and you're headed in the right direction! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A few additional comments

• Could use a consistent referencing style such as the one explained here WP:MEDHOW. Sometimes cite templates are used and sometimes not
• Language should be adjusted per the advice provided here WP:MEDMOS

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, a consistent referencing style is not part of WP:WIAGA (it is a requirement for WP:WIAFA). For a GA-level article, IMO the citations are fine. Also, even at the FA-level, the requirement for consistent citations has to do with how the citation renders in the article (they all have to look the same), which is unrelated to the method used to generate the citations (it is possible to have partial citation templates and partial manual citations that "render" the same final result). I have a few nitpicks left on the talk page (the college student section could use better, secondary sourcing, as could the mention of instruments for measuring sleep hygiene, but other than that, I think we've worked through many of the issues.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jbmurray:, now that many of the issues have been worked out, I'm wondering if you might have a look vis-a-vis GA status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can do this later today. I have to say that I'm not really on top of sourcing policy for medical articles, but I can comment on other issues. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing per MEDRS is within striking range now. The paragraph on college students is sourced to a primary study, and could be better sourced, but I doubt any of that content is debateable. And on the Assessment section, a couple of those are primary sources, and it would be ideal to have secondary reviews attesting to the validity of those measurement instruments, but I likewise doubt those are controversial. So, I don't know how those caveats relate to the GA criteria ... will leave it to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: The assessment section has a new source that reviewed the first three instruments, and replicated use of one of them in a new sample. The primary sources have now been deleted. In general, these three sleep assessment tools are cited in about a dozen sleep medicine textbooks, and are indeed non-controversial. The content on the college student paragraph has been supported by a number of other subsequent research studies (by those study authors, and new authors), but as it is relatively newer research, a review has not been written. So the findings have been replicated, by the other sources I could cite would still be primary sources. I hope that helps! Leslierrn (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

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

Result: No consensus for promotion. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Having previously brought 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2011–12 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, and 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team through the WP:GAN process, I am a bit surprised at the amount of difficulty I have had with the 2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team nomination. The reviewer Biblioworm seems to be a novice reviewer or at least unfamiliar with reviews in this subject area. He initially failed the nomination, but after TheQ Editor prompted him to put the article on hold he did. After I addressed a long list of concerns, he added several more and stated that he sought a 2nd opinion. After 3 weeks of waiting for a 2nd opinion that never came, he failed the nomination. After his second decision to fail the article another editor (Ritchie333) chimed in that he should have been more patient in regards to the 2nd opinion. On December 8, Biblioworm mentioned that he would hunt down an experienced GAN reviewer, but he hasn't. Both outside editors (TheQ Editor and Ritchie333) gave unsolicited opinions that the fail was a bit rash. I have had hundreds of GA nominations pass and dozens fail. I have never had two unsolicited opinions that a failed nomination was rash. As a result, I am seeking a community assessment of whether the fail was a rash decision.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have asked for a second opinion from an experienced reviewer here. --Biblioworm 15:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have left a note there pointing here. P.S. I didn't mean that you hadn't tried to hunt down one, you just have not actually hunted one down yet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• N.B. the page has received a visit from the WP:GOCE member Miniapolis, which has resulted in this significant change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

QI

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

Result: Delisted. Clear concerns and no opposition. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

After recently making comments on the article's talk page and making some big changes myself, I feel that the article doesn't meet the GA criteria. I have listed some points for improvement on the talk page: specifically referring to the GA criteria, I think the article fails to meet:

• 2b — Inline citations: I have added lots of {{citation needed}} templates for unsourced material.
• 2c — Original research: Lots of little sentences like although greater attempts have been made to do so since series D (example from #Episodes) that are unsourced sound to me like they've been written based on a contributor's personal opinion.
• 3a — Broad: I think the Reception section should be expanded, although this probably isn't as important an issue as the others listed here.
• 3b — Focused: I don't want to delete a massive section without consensus, but I don't think much (if any) of the Guest appearances section is necessary — especially the number of wins per player. I have searched for references to see if any particularly notable people deserve mentions, but even Daniel Radcliffe and David Tennant's appearances don't seem to have been mentioned by any reliable sources. (Also, sections Mistakes and corrections and Episodes might be too detailed, the latter potentially containing fancruft about the audience.)

I would also like some of my changes to be looked over — I have added a whole new Controversy section, that no-one else has touched. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 20:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No opposition. Obvious citation and original research issues. Delisted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has a problem with original research/verifiability (see 2c): although many of the {{cn}} tags in there were added by myself, a decent number weren't and all of them need addressing anyway. References are thorough in a couple of sections (like "Genre"), but sparse for most of the article. For instance, the long analytical "Recurring themes and concepts" section has only 4 sources, 3 of which are just sources to the books next to quotes taken out of them. I'm sure it would be a great piece of writing on a fansite or forum, but is not referenced.

There also seems to be an issue with images (6a), although I'm not an expert in this area: while the book set picture of the English version is fair use, as I would expect, File:Série de livres Les désastreuses aventures des orphelins Baudelaire.JPG and File:Řada nešťastných příhod.jpg (the French and Czech translations) are from Commons.

The sales subsection could perhaps do with some expansion — I know, for instance, that not all of those 41 language editions will have printed the whole 13-book series of ASOUE (and very few supplementary works like TBL or TUA or Horseradish). Are there reliable sources somewhere that go into more detail? If not, the subsection is far too small (one sentence!) to be left on its own, and should be incorporated into some other part of "Reception". (The main section "Genre" might also have the same problem.)

I'm sure I've neglected to mention many issues the article has, but just the referencing issue means it fails GA criteria. The article hasn't been reviewed since 2007 (and I would say it should have been delisted then): it definitely doesn't meet the criteria now. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 12:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Blues for the Red Sun

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

Result: No consensus for delisting. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Similar issues as Billion Dollar Babies—nothing on the background and recording, lead not summarizing the entire content, audio should feature explanation what it showcases, etc.--Retrohead (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Oscar (fish)

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

Result: Obvious issues, no opposition. Delisted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reason: This article is no more a good one. It is full of cn tag and one of the sections does not follow MOS. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 10:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

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

Result: Consensus for delisting. Forged sources may also be a concern. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The prose in this article is really quite horrible, and I don't believe this passes criterion 1 of GACR. On top of poor grammar throughout, the article also suffers from overquotation, raising copyright issues. The problems are large-scale and article-wide. Examples include, but are not limited to (as of this writing):

• Initially planned solely as a deluxe reissue of The Fame, it was later decided that the release's eight new tracks would also be released as a standalone EP in some territories, as Gaga thought the re-release was too expensive and that the albums were each conceptually different, describing them as yin and yang. – VERY long sentence.
• The cover artwork was done by Hedi Slimane – "done"? Very vague language is not encyclopedic.
• The artwork was originally declined by her record company, however, Gaga convinced them to go through with it – "go through" is informal, unencyclopedic language.
• "Dance in the Dark" was only released as a single in select territories, but received ... and receiving ... – grammatically incorrect
• It was nominated in a total of six categories at the 53rd Annual Grammy Awards including Gaga's second consecutive Album of the Year nomination, ultimately winning for Best Pop Vocal Album. – poorly written sentence
• According to her, she felt a dichotomy within herself – very poorly written sentence

I'm not super familiar with the reassessment process, so I have opened this as a community reassessment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that Legolas2186, who was the main contributor at the time this was listed as a GA, has been indefinitely blocked for outstanding falsification of sources (see here). Thus, GACR #2 is also potentially an issue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delist in addition to the above concerns, this goes into excessive detail about performances, and some refs aren't correctly formatted. This really needs a copyedit and is not up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• DelistNeutral for now. Its too much of a hassle to go through an old article with numerous errors as Snuggums pointed out. But I will take a shot first with referencing. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Type 94 Nambu pistol

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

Result: It looks like Molestash has taken steps to improve the article following these concerns. No instant instant fail issue and closed as no consensus for delisting. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is not currently GA material. First, there's a glaring date conflict was fixed. Second, the article has a fairly heavy POV slant and appears to be making a judgement call regarding whether this weapon was well-designed or not. Encyclopedic articles aren't supposed to do that. Third, the lede itself makes a number of POV claims that the gun is poorly designed and none of them are sourced; while they are in the body, they are still heavily slanted and POV. Fourth, the writing itself contains a great deal of passive voice... things like "it is considered to be"... considered by whom? Passive voice is generally a sign of weak writing and an article that contains a lot of it is not GA material. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If it is highly sourced as a weapon of poor quality and design how is not to be presented as such? Do you want authors and experts quoted as calling it a poor weapon or removal of statements about quality overall?--Molestash (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Two points:

* Which of the cited sources specifically refer to it as poor design and bad quality? I know there are lots of gun boards and fan pages out there that like to make it out to be "the worst gun evaaarrr", but I think a lot of that is hyperbole and even racism, to some degree. Gun culture can be very cliquish, and I'm speaking as someone who is a part of it. I actually own a Type 94, it's not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. BUT;

* The sources in the article are good ones, so if that's where you've pulled this from I think it's more a matter of graceful writing than sourcing. Something along the lines of "Japanese weapons experts typically refer to the design of the Type 94 as overly complex and in some cases, dangerous". I would also make note of the fact that the decline in fit and finish/build quality over time had much to do with Japan's factories being destroyed and the need to crank out guns more quickly (all of the Axis countries and the USSR had the same issues with late war guns being more crude and sometimes poorly made). Additionally, the issue with the seer bar is present on the Luger, although it's protected more elegantly, it would be nice to mention this. I'm having some issues with Wikipedia, not sure if it's my internet or the site is just slow, going to log out for now. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Derby & Brown along with Kinard take a two fold approach. They've come to the conclusion that complaints Western shooter make about the gun being too small and awkward to hold and fire are baseless because the weapons were made for the 5'4" Japanese soldier not the average Western Soldier 5'11" and taller. Derby & Brown do however take an engineering approach and detail how the firing pin is weak and easy to break. The ability to shoot the pistol from the sear bars with just your hand is covered by all authors I have used/read (hence the picture and it's own paragraph). The inclusion of the sear bar problem in the luger, which I am unfamiliar with, would lose focus from the article. The Type 94 to my knowledge did not borrow design features from the Luger directly. When writing an article about pistols I feel you need to tread a light line about getting too technical and thus don't pound why something is a design flaw, just weapon authors indicate it as such. The decline very much has to do with the rush completion of the pistols and shortages in supply but they show the decline in production quality probably best of all weapons of WWII. You have to remember the Japanese were getting ready to fight the allies using makeshift spears and original matchlock rifles to defend the home islands. They didn't have the stockpiles the Germans acquired and only started having a modern army 80 years earlier. The military industrial complex was also the weakest in Japan with natural resource scarce on the home islands and Japan cut from their factories in Manchuria and Korea. I have the same personal interest in early Japanese firearms and would agree that Westerners tend to be hostile towards Japanese weapons out of pseudo nationalism. --Molestash (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you on expanding somewhat on the specifics engineering and design flaws. If I were a casual reader or someone with an interest in old firearms who happened to read the article, I would want to know why the authors say the gun has engineering and design shortcomings. Readers should be able to come to this article and get all of the best ideas from the works cited. In addition to tightening up the prose I'm also thinking of ways to actually expand the article, somewhat. One thing you might consider is posting a request at the League of Copyeditors to have the article reviewed by someone who is an experienced (and perhaps trained) editor rather than a writer who is into firearms. I wonder if the League are still around, it has been years since I checked. Even the best writers have editors who clean up and tighten their writing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, they are still around. Worth a look! The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

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

Result: Closing as delisted. IsThisUseful, you're complaints about comprehensiveness and relying on one source have been refuted. Keep in mind GA 3a is not on the same level as a featured article's comprehensiveness; I'm assuming the main points have already been touched. However the article is delisted by the points brought on by AnotherClown. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this article is important - the Spanish Civil War - a subject which has been researched by a wide range of academics of varying nationalities. Bonafide copy editors, with the best of intentions, have attempted to extend the article in order to give it a similar length to the very well writen good article in Spanish Wiki. Unfortunately as a result of maintaining the unusually narrow range of sources, the article now appears as though it is the paraphrasing of one main source, Thomas, whose book was written in 1960, though re-published more recently. This article was previously subjected to community assessment for doubtful quality and the view that the article was not of good article class was unanimous on both occaisions. There was not one single view that the article was of good article class. I cannot see that a topic of such importance can have good article status when it relies to such an extent on one source which is out of date. I recommend that this article good article status be withdrawn until it can reflect a similarly broad range of sources as the Spanish wiki article. Translation from Spanish to English has been suggested and a notice has been posted on the Spanish article last year. Similarly the the English article has been tagged for improvement by could also be considered. An editor who has a fascination with war articles has unilaterally promoted the article to good article, though previous discussion indicated that although there were a small number of participants in the discussion, the view was unanaimous.Isthisuseful (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Also, I put the article forward for editing in order to bring it up to good article class. An experienced editor took on this task but found the number of sources far too limited and agreed that the article was paraphrasing Thomas. For information the discussion about the article's status took place twice by way of RFC and to be doubly sure that this article is not being unfairly demoted from good article category I will post a further RFC.

A machine translation of the Spanish article is already superior to the current version in English. A page for translation has been created and is being progresssed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisuseful (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 March 2015

• Comment: G'day, you state that the article was previously subjected to community assessment for doubtful quality and the view was that it was not of good article class. Can you please provide a link to this discussion? The last community GAR that I can find is this one: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Spanish Civil War/1 from August 2013, where it seems the vote was in favour of keeping. Likewise, could you please specifically state which GA criteria you believe that the article fails? I had a quick look, and from what I can see there appears to be a reasonable number of citations to authors other than just Thomas, for instance Beevor, Alpert, Preston, Jackson, Bieter, Howson, Westwell, Payne, Santos, etc. So at least from my superficial look it appears like the article uses a reasonably broad range of sources (I'm not an expert on the topic, though, but at least from a lay perspective it seems ok to me). Which source from the Spanish article do you think should be added? Finally, please do not cast aspersions about other editors' motives, as it is not conducive to creating a collaborative editing environment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

→I am sorry that your friend is upset that I have put the article which he promoted to good article forward for community assessment. My understanding is that page is to discuss the merit of the article rather than whether I have done the right thing by asking for community reassessment. I have put my comments on my talk page and I'm happy to have that discussion there. Isthisuseful (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Good Article Criteria:

Well-written:

the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

Verifiable with no original research:[3]

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4]

all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] and

it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8]

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[9]

• Reasoning that Good Article Criteria are not met:

Above are the good article criteria as requested. The article reflects an Anglo-Centric view of the Spanish Civil War at time of British raprochment with the dictatorship in Spain in the 1950s & 1960s. This view, which is the view in the two source books which are the primary source of the article, was accepted in Britain in the 1960s but it is no longer current. The article paraphrases Thomas and presents the Spanish Civil war in terms military battles and particular artists that were notable at the time. This creates a very oddly shaped article which is lacking in historical analysis and perspective, in particular the historical causes of the Spanish Civil War, something which is fundamental to historical understanding, are almost ignored. The majority of historical reasearch into the Spanish Civil War has taken place much more recently that the 1960s and 1970s when the dictatorship was still in place. This makes the article out of date and unsuitable for good article status. Isthisuseful (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, so to clarify, could you please confirm that you are saying that you believe this article does not pass the "broad in its coverage" and the "neutral" criteria? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time with the repeated assertions that the current article is largely based on Thomas' 1961 book: there are a mere 20 cites to the 1961 book, out of 264 book cites in the whole article. The general assertion that the sources are outdated doesn't seem to hold water either: a quick analysis of the book cites shows that 14% are pre-1990 and 86% post-1990 (by comparison, the Spanish article is 5% pre-1990 and 95% post-1990). I certainly don't see (1) an over-dependence on Thomas 1961 (in fact the Spanish article cites it 11 times), nor (2) a preponderance of aged sources. Can we drop the 'based on Thomas' and 'outdated sources' arguments which don't seem supported by the facts, and instead focus on the quality of the sources and any deficiencies in the content of the article, please? Maralia (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: @Isthisuseful: - you state: "the historical causes of the Spanish Civil War, something which is fundamental to historical understanding, are almost ignored..." The article has a background section which at approx. 800 words is admittedly fairly short; however, it appears summarise what is obviously a fairly broad topic, with more details available in the main article at Background of the Spanish Civil War (4,800 words and currently an GA/A class article). Given the length of the main article (already 130 kb) it seems appropriate to me that it would use summary style in this fashion. However, I am not an expert on this topic so I'm unsure if it is a good summary or not. Perhaps you might explain what is missing from this section that you feel is relevant? Equally, as you seem to be fairly knowledgeable on the topic, might it not just be easier and more productive for you to amend the article yourself and add the information you believe is missing (respecting of course the need to provide references per WP:V and in keeping with WP:UNDUE) rather than continually open GARs? Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Further to my last - while I disagree with many of the criticisms levelled at the article by the nominator (specifically coverage), and I agree with Maralia's points IRT sourcing, I do feel that there are a few issues with this article that do require rectification for it to retain its GA status, specifically:

• References - there is quite a large amount of unreferenced text (most of which seems to have recently been tagged by an IP). I've gone through and added citations where I could find them, and this has resulted in some rewording to fit the sources I have available; however, five "citation needed" tags remain and these will need to resolved IOT meet criteria 2b;
• In addition there are a number of inconsistencies evident in referencing style, as well as a few citations which are unclear (e.g. "Thomas. p. 628") which lacks the year of the work therefore making it unclear which long citation it corresponds with (if any); and
• There are some obvious MOS issues, specifically to do with overlinking per WP:REPEATLINK.

• There may be other issues but this is just what I have noticed so far. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be many editors around at the moment that are interested in working on this article I will continue to attempt to work through some of these issues myself, although if others are interested I would welcome their assistance. Unfortunately due to the limited sources I have available to me I would say it is likely I will not able to find all the citations necessary in particular, so unless these are added by someone else this article may indeed need to be delisted. Anotherclown (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that the Spanish version is much more complete, still as of today in November 2018. One of the main areas of concern to me was the lack of assessment of the consequences of the War. I have added a small section dedicated to some of these topics, adding more recent sources from both Spain and the United States. However, I feel the page needs much time and energy put into it to completely change its structure and content. Sections such as "evacuation of children" and "death toll" can surely be incorporated into other broader topics. The current page is very confusing. KGLAP (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

One Piece

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

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no improvements, and no opposition. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've read the article, and found that there are several Citation needed tags in several paragraphs. As well as that, I believe there are some paragraphs that are quite messy in appearance. With those flaws, I'm starting to question the article's GA status. Railer-man (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The article has the one major issue as far as I can see. the other issue present are Pages with citations lacking titles but that along with the paragraphs are cleanup work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have counted nine "citation needed" tags and two missing title citations. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles Bertram

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

Result: No consensus for listing. While the quick failing GA was inappropriate, a community GAR isn't the best way to overturn that ruling since it requires a group of interested editors to begin with. My quick review notes that the prose needs to be improved on. Lots of the wording suggests Original Research in places, and these "double" quotation marks are just not advisable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There may be some issues with the article, but the one cited by the reviewer who came through and gave a speedy close is not remotely in good faith. Requesting reopening of the review and less disinterested reviewer with an interest in actually improving the page to the point where it is a GA, rather than simply closing it out to fulfill some DYK-style quota. — LlywelynII 14:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ideasthesia

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

Result: While there is a lack of clear consensus here, the discussion of neutrality at Template:Did you know nominations/Ideasthesia and the lack of keep responses here will serve as reason for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The article was elevated to GA status in January 2015, the primary contributor to this article Dankonikolic nominated this article for DYK ( Template:Did you know nominations/Ideasthesia ), where issues not addressed in the GA Review by Jaguar were brought up and and discussed by Carlojoseph14, Victuallers, BlueMoonset, EEng, Crisco_1492, myself, and more specifically by U3964057, who brought up the WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY issues. Due to these unresolved issues Allen3 did not pass the nomination. Therefore, as these issues effect Criteria #2 & Criteria #4 of WP:GACR, I am opening up this article to community reassessment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Responding to ping. On a very superficial evaluation, this seems way too much of a pet neologism. I summon DGG who I believe will have a good handle on evaluating uptake beyond the term's originator. EEng (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't my academic field. All I can do is look at Google Scholar, and count. (I suppose you could say that looking at such indexes and counting is one of my academic specialties, more pompously known as bibliometrics!) The listing for ideaesthesia shows only 27 uses in all of the scientific literature, and all of them in articles that rather few people have cited. There's an alternate spelling, and the [ideasthesia listing for "ideasthesia"] shows even fewer. And one of them says they got the term from the WP article! Looking at theGScholar results for Danko Nikolić, he has some very highly cited papers, but none of them are on this. There's enough to make this more than FRINGE, or subject to deletion as a neologism, but the article gives the mistaken impression that it's a widely-used term. To say "However, most phenomena that have inadvertently been linked to synesthesia, in fact are induced by the semantic representations i.e., the meaning, of the stimulus[2][3][4][5][6] rather than by its sensory properties, as would be implied by the term synesthesia" is not really justified. It should read, "According to some workers [2][3][4][5][6], most phenomena.... " The general statement can only be used when its accepted as such by major secondary quality review articles or standard textbooks, unrelated to the originators. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I have been mentioned as a protagonist in this but am not sure that I have much more to add on top of what has already been said. I think I would only reiterate the comments that I made here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made the change proposed by DGG. Please do not destroy the page on ideasthesia. This would be quite a loss. I am willing to improve it to whatever degree you may find necessary. (Danko (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

right now the only question is the article's status as a Good Article. Given DGG's analysis above the article seems safe for the moment against deletion on WP:Notability grounds, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposes having a debate on that. If such a debate does commence, than please, Dankonikolic, please don't take it personally. This happens a lot with new concepts and it's the way Wikipedia works -- must work -- for a lot of reasons. The best thing you can do is to get together as many indpendent sources citing and discussing this concept. I would recommend your listing them on the article's talk page, and explaining how it would be used in the article. Given that this is your new concept, people will be very on-guard about potential WP:Conflict of interest, so discussing things first will be best. Having said that, there won't be many people watching the page so you may get little response. Be very, very patient, and do not recruit colleagues to become editors to support you in this -- that will be very obvious and will lead to trouble so fast you won't believe it. Let it develop naturally over time -- and that may mean years. To be honest, the best thing for you may be to concentrate on your research and publishing in the usual journals, and forget about Wikipedia. Sooner or later some enthusiastic graduate student will start developing the article, and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Good luck! EEng (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus for delisting, am I correct?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad you replied. I'm the one doing the GAR communities for the past few months and intend to close this as no consensus for delisting. The main issues have been notability challenges and no one has outright said "This fails GA 2c" or the sorts. If there is something clearer, I could give it a different closing next week or so. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As I stated in the initial statement of opening this GA reassessment, it could be argued that it is not neutral due to conflict of interest of the primary editor of this article, in that the primary editor is also the author or co-author of a significant number of the reliable sources used in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I need to clarify myself. I meant a clearer consensus to delist or keep on this page, aside from just the nominator. After a bit of thought, I'll take the DYK discussion and use it as a consensus for delisting. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Post-close comment: I believe the close (as delist) was appropriate. EEng (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Shimabara Rebellion

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

Result: Delisted. Legitmate concerns, no opposition or improvements made. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is missing citations in several places.

Three Days Grace

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

Result: Closing as delisted. Legitimate concerns, no improvements and no opposition. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe this article should be listed as a GA anymore. Promoted over five years ago, I believe this article's prose and organization has decayed over time and the standards for GA were lower back then. Plus, looking at the GA review, it was glazed over and passed pretty quick. There are way too many {{citation needed}}s for a good article, and some bare sentences that are neither tagged or referenced. These issues haven't been addressed in quite a while, so I would like to nominate this for a community reassessment. Thanks, Jacedc (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Jevons paradox

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

Result: Procedurally closed: none of the four steps in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment have been followed. Feel free to re-submit, but first follow steps #2-#4. (I believe #1 is now redundant but you may feel the need to follow that as well.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This article has more than half of it dedicated to the dispute of the potentially incorrect application of Jevons Paradox to energy efficiency (specifically fuel consumption), as though one or more individuals did not like what the paradox entails, and therefore dedicated more than half of the article to debunking/criticizing the application of the Jevons Paradox. The article subsequently gives substantial undue weight towards this argument, and also violates the NPOV guidelines. It is for these reasons why I do not believe Jevons Paradox can be listed as a good article, at least until these problems are addressed and corrected.

Temeku (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tomandjerry211

Delist per above and more

Issues with 1a and 1b

• Citations in the lead are unecessary per WP:LEADCITE
• Incosistency: "100 percent" and "100%".

Issues with 2a, 2b, and 2c

• Several paragraphs lack citations
• Possible OR due to the lack of cites
• Several Unreliable sources

Issues with 4

Per above. Needs a lot of work to keep as a GA.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Lawrence Khoo

I just noticed this request for reassessment. This nomination has violated guidelines for reassessment, as there has been no talk page notice, no discussion on the talk page about problems or suggestions for improvements, and no notification of major contributors. I saw this article to GA status and will work to retain GA. Looking through GA requirements, I would note that it still meets all criteria for GA.

Responding to Tomandjerry211's issues:

Issues with 1a and 1b

• Citations in the lead are unecessary per WP:LEADCITE
  • Citations are permitted if statements have been challenged in the past. WP:LEADCITE says "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." They are there because of previous disputes, I will gladly remove them if it's an issue.
• Incosistency: "100 percent" and "100%".
  • Fixed

Issues with 2a, 2b, and 2c

• Several paragraphs lack citations
  • Incorrect. All major paragraphs are cited.
• Possible OR due to the lack of cites
  • Incorrect. All major paragraphs are cited.
• Several Unreliable sources
  • Incorrect. Most citations are to refereed journals, looking through the list of references, I cannot see a single source that can be deemed 'unreliable'.

Issues with 4

• Per above.
  • Kindly elaborate. There is no 'one' view being pushed. The article reflects the current literature on Jevons paradox, and walks a fine line between the "Jevons paradox dooms us" camp and the "Jevons paradox is bunk" camp.

LK (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Temeku

Also:

• Introduction is too long; four paragraphs relative to the article as a whole. Longer than any section after it. The paragraph beginning with "The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation may be futile, (...)" should be reworded (and shortened) or removed completely. Gives unnecessary emphasis on Energy Conservation Policy section.
• Energy Conservation Policy section is larger than all other sections. Needs to be reduced to a more appropriate length, such as that of the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate section above it.

Temeku (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Issues about weight in the lead have been addressed. Rather than repeat myself here, I would direct interested editors to the talk page of the article. LK (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Closed as no consensus DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article has not been consistently updated since being listed as a GA. As a result, much of the data in the article is out-of-date, relying on the 2001 rather than the 2011 census, for example. There are also unsourced statements in the article and numerous grammatical errors. I have tried to find editors who will work with me to update the article, but no one has responded to my comments on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above, the article is now subject to some edit warring over the article title and the selection of images of notable people included in the infobox. I have suggested that the edit warriors could better direct their efforts towards improving the article content. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I intend to close this as no consensus next week. If you want a different ruling, see if you can get other participants. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

With no offence intended to you, DragonZero, it would kind of suck for this to be closed without anyone even offering a view, especially when there are clear issues with the article. Do you have any suggestions for where I could get other participants from? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried the parent projects. And it's been months, who else is going to come? As far as I know, I'm the only one closing community GARs for the past year or so. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just posted reminders about this at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for Bangladesh-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Hopefully that will attract some participants. Sorry to hear that you've been the only one dealing with these cases, DragonZero - it's not really fair for it all to fall on one person. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

DragonZero, there's been no response to my requests, so I guess this will have to be closed as no consensus. Just to check though, does the fact that I nominated this for community reassessment prevent me from providing that reassessment? I'd be quite happy to go through the whole article and assess it against the criteria, but I'm not sure if that is allowed. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It's fine if you open up an individual assessment. It's not in bad faith since you aren't redoing this due to a consensus against you. A consensus was never formed since there was no participant to begin with. Just make sure your reasons are clear against the GA criteria since it will probably be closed as delist due to the lack of response. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Just to be clear, should I wait for this reassessment to be closed, and then open a new, individual, reassessment page (as opposed to posting my reassessment here)? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You have to wait for this to close, which I just did.

DragonZero, would you be able to update Talk:British Bangladeshi to reflect the closure? I tried to do it myself but couldn't get it to work. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Boeing 787 Dreamliner

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

Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The short review for this article which was done by AlanZhu314159265358979 (who has made just 28 mainspace edits) misses a number of errors, including some dead links, and as noted here by BlueMoonset, a number of prose errors. The article deserves a much more thorough review. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from BlueMoonset

It's clear that a great deal of work has gone into this article, and it deserved its B-class rating. The GA requirements are quite specific, however, and at the moment it does not meet some of these requirements, and therefore should not have been promoted.

I do not have time to do a thorough review, but there are clear issues with the first GA criterion, "Well-written". In particular, I've found a number of places where the "prose is clear and concise" and "spelling and grammar are correct" requirements are not met, and some significant departures from the manual of style with regard to the lead section.

1a. prose and grammar

Some examples of problematic sentences or phrases:

• Manufacturing and suppliers subsection: "The 787 project became less lucrative than expected for some subcontractors. Finmeccanica had a total loss of €750 million on the project by 2013." This does not accurately reflect the source, which talks about Finmeccanica taking a writedown of that much, but does not specify when the writedown occurred, nor talk about any previous losses or whether profits had been booked earlier.
• Pre-flight ground testing subsection: "As a result, some airlines reportedly delayed deliveries of 787s in order to take later planes that may be closer to the original estimates."
• Flight text program subsection, end of sixth paragraph: "Following this incident, Boeing suspended flight testing on November 10, 2010, ground testing continued." Missing word(s) and/or punctuation problem.
• Service entry and early operations subsection, paragraph 5: "Early operators discovered that if the APS5000 APU was shut down with the inlet door closed, heat continued to build up in the tail compartment and cause the rotor shaft to bow. It could take up to 2 hours for the shaft to straighten again. This was particularly acute on short haul flights as there was insufficient time to allow the unit to cool before a restart was needed." There is no explanation of what an "APU" is in the article, "cause" has grammatical problems, and "particularly acute" could have be referring to the heat, the shaft bowing, the shaft straightening out, or the time this last would take. The entire paragraph could be more clear.
• Operational problems section: "After these incidents, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board subsequently opened a safety probe." Using both "After" and "subsequently" is redundant, and I think the "Later" starting the next sentence probably is as well. Also, a couple of paragraphs later, there's a tense issue with "Japan's transport ministry has also launched an investigation." This was in January 2013; "has also launched" is only correct if the investigation is still ongoing 27 months later. Is it?
• Battery problems section, final sentence: "The NTSB has criticized FAA, Boeing and battery manufacturer for the faults, as well as the flight data recorder." They criticized the flight data recorder for the battery problems? This sentence is very unclear, and "Boeing and battery manufacturer" is also problematic.
• There are also a number of places where the full date does not have a comma or other punctuation after the year; these should all be fixed, starting with "July 8, 2007" in the second paragraph of the intro.

1b. lead section

A number of non-trivial facts in the intro are nowhere to be found in the article, which is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. These include:

• First paragraph: "most fuel-efficient"; "world's first major airliner to use composite materials as the primary material in the construction of its airframe"; "a four-panel windshield"; "a smoother nose contour"; and the entire "common type rating" sentence.
• Second paragraph: the entire third and fourth sentences, from "At this time there were 677 aircraft on order" to the end of the paragraph.

All of these "Well-written" issues need to be addressed. If they aren't in a reasonable time period, probably the best thing to do would be to delist it; it can be renominated for GA once they have been—I'd recommend asking GOCE to check it, and maybe even request a peer review—and with any luck will get a thorough and competent review. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The "At this time" sentence follows a sentence with a date. This should be clear if read together. The extensive use of composites is stated and cited in the "Design phase" sub section and implied in the Design section later. I'll try to clarify and cite these better. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Fnlayson, I'm glad that someone's willing to take this on. Thanks. The point about "At this time" is that these are facts in the intro that are not in the rest of the article, a clear violation of WP:LEAD; Good Articles must adhere to the lead section guidelines. The problem is not what that time was—this is not a clarity issue, but a GA requirement issue. Thanks for the impending composites clarification; the key here is the "first...to use composite materials as the primary material" statement, which would need sourcing to back up the "first" part as well as the "primary" part, though I seem to recall that "primary" was covered already. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I understand the Lead & cite issues. I was trying to address the well-written issues you mentioned above and in earlier sections of this review. But I see your point now and will work on it... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Result

It's been well over a month, and every single one of the 1a. issues remain unaddressed. With such clear prose issues, there's only one possible conclusion to this reassessment, and indeed, if this had been a non-group one, I'd be closing it as such today:

• Delist. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Jainism

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

Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think lot of problems have crept into this article since it was last reviewed. The position and placement of images seems quite messy now. The prose is also not clear. Sections such as Gunasthanas and Reception are not explained clearly. Also, there is undue weight given to the "Indus valley civilization" theory, which I do not think is a consensus among historians. I would like community opinion and review on whether this article still meets the Good Article criteria? Rahul (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the prose not being as clear, especially in later sections. I tried to clean up the Gunasthanas section and re-arranged some of the images to fit better with the text. The positive and negative criticism headings on the Reception section help. doctorrads (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (EST)

Delist per above.

• 1a: not fixed
• 1b: not fixed
• 2a: not fixed
• 2b: not fixed
• 2c: not fixed
• 3a:Y
• 3b:Y
• 4: not fixed
• 5:Y
• 6a:Y
• 6b: not fixed
• 7:Fails most GA criteriaTomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to revert the page to an earlier version? --Rahul (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please Elaborate

At least highlight the sections that you think contain issues. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 20:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Alba

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Going through the article, I had removed 12 unreliable sources, most of them were from IMDb. Ref #14 isn't even a complete reference and there are 3 dead links. In the references, some names are wikilinked and others aren't, not consistent and some references are just the url and since this is a GA, all references need to be filled in completely. Some publishers are italicized when they shouldn't be and works aren't italicized when they should be. And the lead needs serious work, I don't consider that up to GA standards. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delist per above, and how the article has no commentary from critics on her roles or quotes from Alba herself. It could also help to have director's commentary on films (see Mila Kunis as a good example). Some references like "Buzzsugar" and "Starpulse" aren't even reliable while dead links need to be checked. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Rape during the Rwandan Genocide

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

Result: Paraphasing issue not addressed, closing as delisted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This was passed as GA in mid-2014, with reviewers giving particular emphasis to what they thought was "very good" sourcing. However, I recently found no fewer than four quite serious issues of source misrepresentation in the article (explained in several sections on talk [2]), all of which were already present when the article was promoted. As these evidently slipped through the previous review, I believe the entire article is in need of systematic scrutiny. The most pressing need is, I believe, to check for remaining issues of overly WP:close paraphrasing, which from a cursory check appears to be pervasive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Birdman (film)

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

Result: Concerns about the interpretation of source material is legitimate. Closing as delisted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

During this DYK nomination it was raised that some sources didn't match the text used in the article. In addition it was raised that the original GA nomination may have not been as thorough as it should of been. A reassessment by experienced GA reviewers is required.Blethering Scot 11:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Original GA reviewer here. I didn't really figure in that some of the content might've been original research or incorrect/misinterpreted info. For that I apologize. RAP (talk) 13:02 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I should ask TonyTheTiger to review the reassessment of the article if he has that much time. He is good and helped reviewing my nomination of Dallas Buyers Club. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have become a very inactive reviewer since I have begun using a lot of my free time to Uber.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it fair to say that anyone who is researching a topic will have come across conflicting sources at some stage, and Birdman is no different. When I was writing the production section, I had originally thought that filming at the St. James Theatre lasted a month - it is what these [1] [2] sources seem to suggest. But note that in the first source, in the actual interview the timing around booking the St. James Theatre isn't discussed, while in the second, it isn't clear if the "Shooting took place over 30 days" is referring to all shooting in NY or just the shooting in the St. James.

The source I used in the article was this one, [3] since in this, a whole paragraph is dedicated to the timing issue, and the author talked to the director about it. Although there isn't a direct quote from Iñárritu saying the filming took two weeks, we can presume he told the interviewer this fact and then she included it in the paragraph. Also, by examining the sighting details on this page [4] we can see that from Apr 29 to May 3rd, the crew was spotted at 44th/45th St and 8th Ave - around the location of St. James Theatre.

We also see that from May 7th - 10th, the crew was seen at St. James Theatre.

But, on May 13th, the crew was seen at 47th St and 8th/9th Ave in NYC - near the location of The Rum House - see the figure near the bottom of the page here, for example - and for a few weeks after this the crew is sighted and locations different from the St. James.

From this it's fair to say that from Apr 29 - May 10 filming occurred at St. James. If we also assume that if there was filming at the St. James before this time, the crew would have be seen, (which I think is a fair assumption), it follows from the absence of previous sighting on the OLV page that filming at the St. James lasted two weeks.

This matches the New York magazine source. I suspected the NY magazine source was more reliable to begin with anyway, (for the reasons mentioned above) but the sightings for me confirmed it.

As for the original nomination, I think that the Release section is too sparse, the Production section incomplete, (there is still no post-production subsection, but I do plan to write this next) and there is no Themes section. Because of this I consider it to fail the "Broad in its coverage" GA criteria. Neuroxic (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

the issue isn't just conflict of sources, it's interpretation of sources. The Skype sentence for example is clearly a step further than the source states. All the sources need checked to verify what they are supporting.Blethering Scot 11:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Chef (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • (film)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I look at this article and cannot help but wonder how it achieved GA status. There's really not that much in way of production details, the pictures are overlapping into other sections, making it look messy, certain sentences are at best trivia, etc. When compared to other GA articles like Lone Survivor, Pacific Rim, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and so on, Chef by no means meets the same amount of content and quality they do. Rusted AutoParts 18:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment not sure about this one. Meets all criteria but sure can be improved a bit.

• 1a:yes
• 1b:y
  • Several MoS issues
• 2a:y
• 2by
  • Only consists of Primary sources
• 2c:y
• 3a:y
  • I'm not sure about this
• 3b=y
• 4=y
• 5=y
• 6=y
• 7=neutral

I think it's good to Keep, but shouldn't be nominated for FAC.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

While the article can definitely be improved, I don't think it necessarily fails any of the GA criteria. While a number of MOS issues are present, 1b only specifies 5 MOS guidelines, Lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, and this article seems to satisfy those five. While there are some primary sources, it looks like there are a good number of secondary sources and critique: they have the LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, and USA Today. Likewise, Primary sources aren't forbidden, just to be used with care, and I don't see any uses that are red flags. While it's coverage is not comprehensive, it definitely touches on the main aspects of a film: it's plot, cast, production, and reception.

While it's far from FA quality, and far from some of the better GAs, it doesn't seem to fail the GA criteria.Wugapodes (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Shaun Goater

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

Result: Closing as no consensus. While it may or may not be comprehensive compared to the articles listed by the nominator, it appears to satisfy 3a and addresses the main points. Without further participants, this discussion has went no where in this regard. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering he has played football for over 20 years, the coverage is brief. Sentences such as "The Goat" (also a city fan) currently has his very own column entitled "Read the Goat" in the official Manchester City program where he talks all things City. read like they are out of a fan magazine or blog. The sections international career and personal life don't have enough info but this isn't a fatal error. There are articles, such as David Bridges and Andre Boucaud, that have small sections but do make up for this because of their highly comprehensive coverage on their football career. This article lacks that coverage. Spiderone 10:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Further point: short lead section. One-sentence section "In 2008, Goater left Bermuda Hogges.[27]" and no further updates after that—a spell at the North Village Rams is not mentioned in the article body! The statistic section "International goals" lists far from all his 32 international goals. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As by far the major contributor to this article in terms of both edits and proportion of material, I am disappointed not to have been notified about this. It is only by chance that I have discovered it. This article went through the GA process (gulp) nine years ago. It is fair to say standards have changed since I took it through GA; its probably the case that some articles that went to FAC in that era would be borderline for GA now. The passages objected to above look to be the result of drive-by editing and other such atrophy, and shouldn't take me too long to sort out. Increasing comprehensiveness to modern day GA levels will be more challenging. I barely edit here any more, but I will see what I can find. Personal life and International career will be particularly difficult. Little of Goater's personal life is public knowledge, even his autobiography doesn't have much beyond the basics. Pre-web era information on the Bermudian national team is practically non-existent; the island only has a population of 60,000 and its football team has never achieved anything of note. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Stevia

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

Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Horrible. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering: It appears to be listed as GA but has no GA icon? Was there an error? I guess no harm done considering the shape atm, but it should still be looked into. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The GA icon was removed in this edit, apparently by mistake. I have restored it. This is not a commentary on the current status of the article, but just that it was made a GA and should retain that icon unless delisted. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Delist Loads of issues. Some are listed below:

• Firstly, some of the text doesn't even have refs?
• Secondly, I'm thinking parts of this aren't complying with the parts of the MOS that it states in the Good article criteria
  • The article has too many lists
  • The citations in the lead are unecessary
• I thinking some of the refs could be expanded or maybe some more reliable offline ones? I'll nitpick a few.
  • Please add the author of the New York Times.
  • One the refs lacks a title.
  • Last ref could be expanded

If these are fixed I will vote keep. Thanks,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is the last reviewed version: June 2009 In April 2014, in the edit BlueMoonset links to, it was split into Stevia (sweetener) and Stevia rebaudiana (plant) and Stevia (genus). This sweetener article has attracted edits which have degraded the content in terms of organization and poor or no citations. maclean (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin

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

Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I was editing this article today and noticed very massive POV source distortion in the lede[3], the sort of which should have been caught in the Good Article review. The lede implied that retail transactions had become a significant use of Bitcoin, and used one sentence from a source that was mostly critical of the use of bitcoin to imply it was popular amongst retailers. The previous GAR was very brief and lacked in thoroughness. An editor other than the reviewer also raised concerns about the article.

I'm asking for a community review, because I am not well versed enough in the relevant literature to analyze what parts of the article are neutral. However the extremely poor use of the sources in the lede, make me suspect that the article may have other serious issues.Bosstopher (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: Thanks for bringing this to GAR—I've been planning on doing so. I initially voiced concern at the GA review where it passed, but my comments weren't really taken into account in my opinion. I love Bitcoin and I'd love for this to be a GA, but right now it shouldn't be. I needs a lot more work.-Newyorkadam (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Newyorkadam is incorrect, as his suggestions were all being followed, as far as they were constructive, ie specific enough to be actionable. He made a number of points that were notes to himself (I cant believe..., I wish..., I´d like to ..., etc). In all fairness, I d appreciate if he contributed to the article or weighed in when editing gets difficult. I´´ve seen him turn up for GA reviews only. (Correct me if i am wrong.)--Wuerzele (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I haven't been very active recently, and the reason I've mainly worked on GA reviews is because I nominated those a few months ago and they are being reviewed now. Me not editing Bitcoin actively does not mean that I don't have the ability to point out issues in the article. I do plan on working on it this summer, however. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Comment: The above rationale for community reassessment is spurious. It is unclear

• which sources in the lede supposedly are "extremely poorly used"
• which single sentence has "very massive POV source distortion" and
• how the requester arrived at the general conclusion of "extremely poor use" of sources in all of the lede

As verbose and emotional those accusations appear, so do they lack in substance. I suggest to confine discussion of a single issue to the talk page. This is what appears to be happening, as within 5 days only the editor that Bosstopher mentioned in his post responded. I consider reassessment of a long and complicated article based on a single sentence and spurious rationale inappropriate.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkadam for letting me know. I was the one who nominated this article. Can you show me or tell me where thr massive POV is? Sorry if there is any incorrectly spelled words as I am typing this on my Wii U. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 22:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I heavily dispute the idea that this is a spurious nomination. The article passed GAN with a review that is shorter than some DYK reviews. While I've only noticed problems in one section of the lede, the problems are so huge that it makes me skeptical of the idea that the rest of the article was properly scrutinised. Also note how Newyorkadam claims his concerns have not all been properly adressed, and the large number of concerns that were raised during the original GAN which were not commented on in the second GAN. As for the POV issues let me go through the paragraph in question (as it appeared before i nominated the article)[4] clause by clause to show why I take such serious issue with it:

1. "Bitcoin as a form of payment for products and services has grown"

   The source used[5] never explicitly states this only noting that use of BitPay by merchants has grown. Overall retail use of bitcoin is not addressed in the source. The idea that retail use of bitcoin is growing is also disputed by this MIT technology review source[6] (used later in the paragraph) claiming that there was no growth in 2014. It's also the case that noting retail use "has grown" is very vague and vacuous. Was it a small growth? A big growth? Did it grow as a proportion of bitcoin usage? Did it grow in scale with other uses of bitcoin? Was its growth less than the growth of bitcoin hoarding? "Has grown" could have any of these meanings.

2. "and merchants have an incentive to accept it because fees are lower than the 2–3% typically imposed by credit card processors"

   The article this is sourced from for the most part focuses bitcoin's lack of success in the retail sector. It notes that interest in bitcoin is mostly due to "its popularity in the black market, and for its wildly gyrating valuation." While it notes entrepreneurs who are trying to popularise retail use of bitcoin, it also details obstacles that are in their paths (legal status of the currency, massive fluctuations in value). It is selective usage of a source, to only use the positive things the source says about bitcoin (low transfer fee incentive) and ignore all the things it notes as obstacles in the path of its retail usage.

3. "Unlike credit cards, any fees are paid by the purchaser, not the vendor."

   Slightly misleading. As noted later in the article transaction fees for the purchaser are optional. While this is not contradicted here, due to the usage of the phrase "any fees," the vagueness could be read to imply that all transactions require transfer fees from the purchaser.

4. "The European Banking Authority[29] and other sources[13]:11 have warned that bitcoin users are not protected by refund rights or chargebacks."

   Seems ok.

5. "Despite a big increase in the number of merchants accepting bitcoin, the cryptocurrency doesn’t have much momentum in retail transactions"

   Sentence pushes a POV. The mention of the big increase in merchants, downplays bitcoins lack of success in the retail sector that the source used notes.[7] The source details how a very small proportion of bitcoin is used in legitimate retail transactions, and none of the other sources used in the paragraph argue anything to the contrary. However if someone were to read the lede they would come under the impression that legal retail use of bitcoin is a booming and successful sector. The lede doesn't even mention the hoarding of bitcoin and its use in speculation, which is mentioned as prominent use in a lot of sources.

This is a bad, bad paragraph. Bad is the opposite of good. This is supposed to be a good article. For this reason when I noticed how poor this paragraph was it raised alarm bells. I read the GA Review that passed the article, and noticed it was incredibly brief, and left concerns unaddressed. I then looked at the first (failed) GA Review and noticed it was much longer and showed that others had a lot of concerns with the article in question. I am no bitcoin or tech expert, so I am not well equipped to examine every nook and cranny of the article in detail. This is why I nominated the article for community review instead of reviewing it myself. After looking through what I did, I felt it perfectly reasonable and not spurious in the slightest, to ensure that this is article was reassessed. Bosstopher (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In making the 5 points above Bosstopher does not show that there is "massive POV source distortion", but "slightly misleading", critisizing that growth isnt further qualified (minor at best that could be tweaked) and "seems ok", yet continues with emotional broad range criticism. the continued lack of engagement on this page does not look convincing, that he is justified --Wuerzele (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the overriding issue (I apologise if this is due to my lack of clarity), which is that the lede heavily overplays bitcoins retail usage. The fact that one sentence in the paragraph is not incredibly misleading, like most of the other sentences does not mean there is no issue. Also there are currently 440 articles nominated for GA status which havent been reviewed, and articles which have been up for community reassesment much longer than bitcoin with even less engagement. Bosstopher (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do think we're reaching some common ground here. Whether the lede is simply "slightly misleading" or "massively distorted," it's good to hear that the participants of this discussion agree some change is needed. Fleetham (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the state of referencing and coverage, but the prose is choppy, jumbled, full of footnotes and hard to understand, with lots of technical jargon, making this article's writing C-class at best. I'll have a go at copyediting, but getting the prose to GA or even B-class quality is a long shot. Esquivalience ^t 04:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Voting

Current Votes: 1/3/0 Last updated by Wugapodes at 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Should the article lose its GA status?

Support demotion. Fleetham (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Weak keep Demote as below ʬʬ (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't close yet User: Esquivalience said he wants to have a go at improving the article's prose. I'd prefer to wait and see what they can pull off before closing this. Brustopher (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start copyediting right now, but it's a long shot to bring it up to GA-class quickly. The passed review was literally just:

Demote for now and assess as C-class. If this is renominated again, it should be reviewed by an experienced reviewer. Not trying to disparage anyone, but the reviewer who did the review only had ~2,400 edits at the time. Esquivalience ^t 00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Demote per Esquivalience. Brustopher (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Daytona 500

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

Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am requesting a community reassessment for this article, as I have recently quick-failed every article nominated by this user on the basis that the articles are extremely short of inline citations, and during the Good article review of 2015 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500, the nominator did not seem to sufficiently grasp the problem, leading me to believe that placing those articles on hold would not be an effective process. To avoid any accusations of a grudge against this user, I think a community reassessment would be more appropriate. This article, 2015 Daytona 500, like the others, is exceptionally short of inline citations. Within the body of the article, there are no citations at all in the second paragraph of the "Background" section, in the "Entry list" (although the table does have one), the first three paragraphs of the "Qualifying" section, the first two paragraphs of the "Budweiser Duel" section, two of the three paragraphs describing "Race Two". Within the "Race" section, there are only four inline citations, and they are mostly appear to be backing up specific facts, rather than providing a citation for the whole race summary. All the race statistics, awards, media and post-race standings have no inline citations. The prose itself isn't particularly engaging, but given the serious verifiability concerns, I haven't read it closely enough to offer full comment. Harrias ^talk 09:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the version I reviewed, I am ashamed to say that I overlooked some of what is mentioned above. I'll try to make up for it by providing citations later today. Thank you for keeping an eye out! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking and Zwerg Nase: I'd suggest both of you take a look at 2010 Sylvania 300 (my FA), 2012 Budweiser Shootout (which is, in all likelihood, an FA-to-be in the coming days (thanks @Z105space:!)) and 2006 UAW-Ford 500 (a former FAC of mine that cannot seem to get a reviewer). Those three have been to FAC and back and are, in my opinion, the three best articles WikiProject NASCAR has to offer. They are all better articles because of the FAC process, which can be frustrating, but always gets articles into better shape once the process is complete. One problem that perhaps may not sit well with you, Nascarking, given the amount of work you've put into these articles, is that they may be over-detailed. For example, is it really necessary to give the entry list in a table of its own? Should the Budweiser Duels have that much detail given the fact that they have an article of their own? Additionally, the prose needs to be engaging, not just a bunch of one-liners (such as are seen here) or disjointed sentences. I also don't think all of those headers in the race section are necessary either. And most of all, citations, citations, citations. It's hard to have such a thing as "too many citations." The more, the better, so long as there aren't 17 of them cluttered in the infobox. I hope these suggestions help. Good luck with the article! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I added some refs to the background part. I think it would be best if @Nascarking: took care of the other stuff, since he knows far more about where to find infos than I do... Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviewers please revisit and reach a consensus. I'd rather not close this as no consensus. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Delist for now. Not up to par with the other GAs in the project; however, I firmly believe it can get there. It needs a trim (there are too many odd-ball, unsourced stats that are being tracked) and copyedit. @Nascarking and Zwerg Nase: I suggest you both take a look at my post at above, dated 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC). I never like to be arrogant or to brag, but I truly think modeling this article (and all the others) after 2010 Sylvania 300 would be the best option here. As it is an FA, it is of the highest quality possible and I truly think it can help you in getting this article to the same level. But sometimes, to move forward, you have to take a step back, which is why I'm voting to delist here. Good luck! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@ZappaOMati, Jahn1234567890, The Bushranger, Nascar1996, Cs-wolves, and Doctorindy: If you have an opinion, please feel free to chime in as a consensus needs to be reached. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the extra edits, but pinging the nominator, @Harrias:, is probably a good idea as well. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Delist. After briefly looking through the article, I found some sections, such as Entry list, Qualifying and Media, that have large amounts unsourced information. That alone is enough to disqualify the article from meeting good article criteria. I would recommend reviewing other race reports that have met the criteria before renominating this article (you can find all of them here and here). – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 03:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reluctant delist. With great reluctance, I'm also putting my vote for delisting. Having personally reviewed other GAN's, I can't continue to ignore that an article I've put so much work into is not GA material.--Nascar king 14:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Gabor B. Racz

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

Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Article has serious issues including a lot of promotional language, poor references, and copyright issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any "promotional" language in this BLP. Everything is well sourced, and it doesn't include anything that isn't also included in the BLPs of other accomplished medical professionals, like David Gorski for example. Perhaps the OP would like to contribute in a collaborative manner to help resolve the issues he believes exists considering those same issues exist in the Gorski article as well. In fact, I used that article as a model when writing this one. Atsme^📞📧 17:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Promotional language, poor sourcing, iffy health information, repetitive prose, copyright violations, the lurking suspicion of a COI taint, and - with a flurry of recent edits - the article is now unstable. Couldn't be a clearer case for de-listing, really. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

False accusations of COI may very well result in you being blocked, Alexbrn. I advise you to strike that comment. There is absolutely no COI involved here, and I take offense to your allegations. Atsme^📞📧 06:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Poor sourcing is still an issue. medcn tags requesting MEDRS-compliant sources for medical claims have been removed with no change to the sourcing. Some promotional language has been removed but much remains. The copyright violations found so far appear to have been addressed although the entire article still needs to be checked carefully. This article should be delisted and once it's fixed and stable, resubmitted. Ca2james (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The criteria for delisting due to instability in a GAR is set to two weeks. It's been two days. There is no apparent COI or reasonable suspicion of COI so why don't we drop that stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was the original reviewer of this article. At the time I had some reservations about the way the article was written, seemingly by someone too close to the subject, but after reassurance from the nominator on this, I decided it met the GA criteria. Looking at the article now, I think this still is the case. I do not like, nor do I want to take part in, any behind the scene allegations and recriminations. The article was stable enough before this reassessment was proposed and instability should not therefore be used as a reason to delist it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• No one is doubting your good faith in reviewing this article. It is possible for one to write a promotional article without having a connection to the subject which appears to be what has happened here. Ca2james (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no connection - NONE - and if you accuse of COI one more time this is going to ANI. I very weary of the false allegations and I've you to stop. This is nothing but pure harassment and you may get blocked for it. Atsme^📞📧 20:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I misread and struck my comment. The continuing allegations of promotion are worrisome. Reviewers know what is and isn't promotional. I hardly think an editor with 1700 edits would have better insight than a reviewer who has reviewed and written more articles than you have edits. You're not making a strong case. I've gone through as have a few other editors and removed what might be considered promotional. Listing a reputable doctor's certifications is not promotional, especially a doctor whose been around for a long time and has accumulated quite a few certs and achievements. Excuse but that's what makes him notable. Atsme^📞📧 21:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of words and phrases like "pioneered", "recognized internationally", "devoted" and sentences like "In November 1956, a young Racz and his wife, Enid, fled Budapest with his sister and her husband at a time when hundreds of thousands of Hungarian refugees fled the country in fear of Soviet reprisal, taking nothing but the clothes on their backs." and "His techniques ... have been described in numerous books and published journal articles." read as promotional, especially since there is a lack of independent sources confirming these characterizations.

I don't understand why you're focusing on my edit count. I know I still have lots to learn, but recognising promotional language and seeing problems doesn't require thousands of edits. Ca2james (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Read your comments and criticisms. They explain why. Words like "pioneered" and "recognized internationally" are facts, not promotion. When writing prose, it needs to be accurate, RS, engaging and when an editor has a subject like Racz to write about, it's easy to be engaging because the facts speak for themselves. I agreed with you regarding the need for MEDRS citations - that's done. I rewrote the list of credentials that you were so concerned over copyvio when there was no reason for it. You want to strip the article of everything that confirms his notability and that is just plain ludicrous. WP articles are not supposed to read like a scientific journal entry which are a long way from engaging readers, say for example an impressionable 15 yr. old with aspirations to be a doctor. --Atsme^📞📧 15:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The words, phrases, and sentences I identified are WP:PEACOCK words which are promotional. If there were independent sources that verified those words then they could be used. One of the "pioneered" uses is sourced to a book without page numbers or chapter identificaton so it can't be verified as independent from the subject. Could you please check the book and cite the chapter and page number supporting the statement? Each chapter has different authors.

Also, prose can be engaging and interesting without using promotional language. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper article or an essay and the facts need to be stated as neutrally as possible, without adding unsupported promotion or drama. A phrase like taking nothing but the clothes on their backs isn't neutral because it's designed to evoke an emotional response. A better wording might be left all their belongings behind or took nothing with them. If I thought my edit would stay I'd make the change but you've reverted most of the edits other editors have made so I'm not going to make it now.

The journal articles you've added don't appear to be review articles, which are available and which should be used instead of these primary sources - so no, those sources aren't MEDRS-compliant. The guideline is malleable but that's no excuse not to use the best possible sources.

I was removing the section on awards not because I thought they didn't belong (although many are professional affiliations, not awards), but because they were a COPYVIO, as I discussed at length on the article Talk page. The appropriate thing to do when a COPYVIO is determined is to rework or remove the material. I needed time to rework it so I removed it; I figured that the article wouldn't suffer too much without that section and that incomplete was better than COPYVIO. You've replaced the section and changed the order of some of the sentences. However, much of the wording is the same as before and so that problem isn't solved either.

tl;dr:This article still has problems. Ca2james (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. You have never reviewed an article and you are disputing the assessment of a long time reviewer who has performed numerous reviews. How many reviews have you been through? Should we believe the assessment of a fairly new editor with 1700 edits, or the assessment of an experienced reviewer and editor who has earned 2 Half-Million Awards for getting 2 articles promoted to FA, and a Million and Qtr Million Awards for getting 2 articles promoted to GA, not counting all the other GAs and FAs. Do you know what I'm referring to and what it involves? WP:CIR Please spend some time reading some GA and FA because there are two editors who have created and collaborated on GAs and FAs who disagree with you. You need to take that into consideration. Atsme^📞📧 05:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The refs do not support the content of the article is an additional problem. The promotional wording remains. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty general statement, Doc. What refs are you referring to and what statement? When I went back and reviewed it, I didn't see it. Are you here to collaborate, or are you acting as a reviewer of the GA reassessement? I realize you challenged the GA promotion, but you are being rather general in your "challenges" and haven't been attempting to fix what are minor sourcing issues. It appears you want citations on almost every single sentence which is unreasonable. Atsme^📞📧 17:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerns are mentioned on the talk page Talk:Gabor_B._Racz#Text_not_supported_by_refs_provided Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to expect that WP:PEACOCK words would be sourced. When sentences are challenged it is reasonable to expect them to be cited to an appropriate RS. If he is truly internationally recognized for something, that can be found in, say, textbooks on that subject rather than a bio on spineuniverse (that was most likely provided by the BLP subject or a member of his staff). Ca2james (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are lots of sources MDs can pay to promote themselves. We should not be using those sources as refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delist Article has ongoing issues with peacock references. Low quality references are present. Had content not supported by references and likely there's more issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose delisting This appears to a retaliatory request which is not being made in GF. It may also be a case of bias (unintentional perhaps). They are calling established facts promotion, which goes beyond ridiculous. When we say "internationally recognized for his work" that is not promotion. He is internationally recognized and the sky is blue - it doesn't require a citation. The man is a founder of the World Pain Institute. These two editors are creating issues that don't exist and it is based on POV. The man is nearing 80 and has accomplished so much in his career that it would be impossible to list all of it. Any of the sources in the article already establish his notability. It is not necessary to cite each individual sentence. Atsme^📞📧 19:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to your perspective. However states like "it doesn't require a citation" sort of contravene WP:V Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

More generalizations with nothing to back it up. We don't source every single sentence in a BLP. This is not a medical article. I provided sources for all of it and they are RS. Your arguments are not substantive. Read your own comments about sources at Kombucha. Atsme^📞📧 19:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We specifically do source every controversial point in a BLP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delist article is WP:PROMO per reviewers instincts as described here, and the medical content is not well handled or sourced, all as described on the Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delist due to promotional content and poor sourcing. Note that author is reverting almost all changes to the article. Ca2james (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can only offer that with the specific participation it would be best to seek an official close. Most everyone here, if not everyone here, has previously had a dispute with Atsme. The situation as it is, I wouldn't call anyone uninvolved.

Atsme, I'd ask you to calm down a moment and consider what's being said. This article is not about Kombucha or Gorski. The English Wikipedia is a very large project with numerous contributors. There are numerous rules and their application can seem to vary wildly but the rules are not hard and fast. The way things have unfolded over the past few I could see you as reasonably annoyed. Let me ask you though if right now your response are because you are annoyed or because you actually disagree.

Everyone else I ask that you consider waiting for a few days before seeking an official close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delistor it makes a farce out of the whole GA system--and--much worse-- will contribute to the general growth of promotionalism in WP by making it appear to newcomers as if it were a model to follow. It's actually a very helpful illustration of what to avoid. The reason why Atsme might be "annoyed" at what has been happening is if she had believed it also, in which case he too is among those who have been confused by bad reviewing and our previous tolerance of promotionalism. The time for tolerating it is over, and we need to make that clear. This should never have been approved as a GA in the first place, her recent changes have made it worse, and his resistance to edits by others gives the appearance of ownership. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing being promoted in the article. I've already worked over the sources. If the arm chair coaches think they can improve them even more, then we're on our way to FA. The man is nearing 80, he earned a Lifetime Achievement Award, he is world renowned, and he has improved the quality of people's lives. Facts are not promotion. The original reviewer didn't fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday. He stands by his original assessment and also noted, "the behind the scenes allegations and recriminations". What is the purpose in delisting this article? It has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. Atsme^📞📧 05:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I will second that the at least a majority of the group of those seeking to delist have had various issues with Atsme in the past. It just doesnt look good. AlbinoFerret 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Many of us have had interactions with a large majority of the editors on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It was more than just simple "interactions" - it was ill-will, some of which dates back to WP:AVDUCK. I have always been cooperative and reasonable about addressing substantive issues and I have done my best to be polite. What is happening here now is over the edge retaliation. Atsme^📞📧 17:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, drama aside, have you reviewed carefully what has been said? Involvement doesn't prevent participation. A uninvolved closer is going to review the facts presented and not personal issues that may have been involved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, why are you saying " If the arm chair coaches think they can improve them even more" when you revert the changes? That's WP:OWNership. If you want this to be kept as GA, it might be wise to stay away from it for a while and let others work on it. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That User Atsme states here that copyright infringement never occured [8] I find very concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep GA status According to everything Cwmhiraeth writes above, especially "The article was stable enough before this reassessment was proposed and instability should not therefore be used as a reason to delist it". Albino is correct too, it doesn't look good. This can be shown by a review of the iVotes in the two or three attempts to delete her "Advocacy Ducks" essay, ano other more recent articles in which she has been active. petrarchan47คุก 19:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

stable, yes: stable, and of low quality. I would have rated it C at the highest. At this point, it's beginning to look like a candidate for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You aren't getting the point, DGG - when an entire section is reverted claiming copyvio (it's a list of credentials from a CV so copyvio is ridiculous to begin with), I accommodated the reason for removal which is why you see: *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabor_B._Racz&diff=670089362&oldid=670075539 (restore and reword passages)] That isn't a revert - that's accommodating the criticism even though I disagree with it. I reworded it;

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabor_B._Racz&diff=670090721&oldid=670089362 (add pubmed citation) - that means I added the citation where the inline template was added;
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabor_B._Racz&diff=670097038&oldid=670090896 (add source) - again, accommodating the criticism, and jumping through hoops held by the armchair critics;
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabor_B._Racz&diff=670102114&oldid=670098510 (fix syntax) - again, accommodating what Doc James pointed out in his list, then you came back and reverted it in error, so it isn't me reverting, it's you.
• DGG removed what he termed as promotionalism What you did was make the prose unreadable and reverted back to the mistake I corrected.
• Example of what's being called promotionalism - "In November 1956, a young Racz and his wife, Enid, fled Budapest with his sister and her husband at a time when hundreds of thousands of Hungarian refugees fled the country in fear of Soviet reprisal, taking nothing but the clothes on their backs." DGG changed that sentence to read, "In November 1956, Racz and his wife, Enid, fled Budapest along with hundreds of thousands of other Hungarians." Oh really? Why did they flee Hungary? Please don't pick my work apart when what you're doing is hacking up this article. I'm not going to go through each and every revert. What's happening here is retaliatory and it began with a false allegation at COIN. BTW - check the ARBCOM emails when you get a chance. Atsme^📞📧 01:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• I just finished adding the last two citations (citation needed & not in source templates). Doc James tweaked the words he felt were peacock - for example, "pioneered" to "developed". I still believe some of the man's credentials should restored. Alex removed that he was a founder of the World Institute of Pain saying it wasn't notable. Sorry, but I disagree. If he was a founder of a neighborhood pain clinic, maybe, but the World Institute of Pain? Atsme^📞📧 03:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• atsmePromotionalism may not be the best word but it's direct. Them fleeing budapest seem is written sensationally and in wikipedia voice specifically. Maybe you could use text attribution to quote Racz specifically about his life story. Care has to be written in how things are written in wikipedia voice. I think that may have been the point that was trying to be made by.. Who called it promotionalism?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The fleeing part is actually toned down. It was an historic event and it should be engaging. For example, In June 1956, a violent uprising by Polish workers in Poznań was put down by the government, with scores of protesters killed and wounded. Responding to popular demand, in October 1956, the government appointed the recently rehabilitated reformist communist Władysław Gomułka as First Secretary of the Polish United Workers' Party, with a mandate to negotiate trade concessions and troop reductions with the Soviet government. After a few tense days of negotiations, on 19 October the Soviets finally gave in to Gomułka's reformist demands. News of the concessions won by the Poles, known as Polish October, emboldened many Hungarians to hope for similar concessions for Hungary and these sentiments contributed significantly to the highly charged political climate that prevailed in Hungary in the second half of October 1956. Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 A featured article, as well it should be. Atsme^📞📧 05:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet occupation of Hungary is well known. There is no denying it. There's alot of interesting history tied to it as well, I'll add. This article should indeed be engaging but not sensational as it is a BLP. BLP places extra emphasis on specific polices and guidelines. Has Racz perhaps discussed this time in his life? What are his words on the subject? Perhaps you could quote him. You will be attributing this information to him and not be speaking in wikipedia voice. That's an option to discuss here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet occupation of Hungary is indeed well known. The subject's role in it was as one of many refugees, and warrants only a mention, and a link to our article, for the benefit of those who want to check what happened then. Elaborating on it here is absurd. It affected his life, the same as for the hundreds of thousands of others, but only the same, not in any noteworthy way for the point of view of any reader here. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

SJP, I cited 3 sources including this one [9], and yes there are quotes that could be used. We're talking about a couple of sentences in the article now. I did not delve that deeply into his personal life or his escape from Hungary but it may be something to consider for expansion to FA promotion. I think we can both agree that BLPs shouldn't be dry and boring. Just the thought of it makes me cringe. FA criteria expects the prose to be engaging or even brilliant. In fact, I've thought about presenting a proposal to WMF to make our BLPs something on the line of the following: [10], or at least offer some options for a "read". It would help people with sight handicaps. It may even engage more children. We want people to read and use the encyclopedia and to trust its accuracy. Think about all the good Bill Nye, the science guy did with his unconventional approach to engaging an audience. Of course, I'm not suggesting anything that extreme, but the old mindset that our writing must be flat and boring is ludicrous. Innovation is at the very core of Wikipedia so it makes sense that we should be innovative as well to attract more readers and editors. Another thought I had was adding closed captioning to some of the videos. I plan to submit such a project to WMF as soon as this craziness is over. Atsme^📞📧 15:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A comparison of the article on some medium-important scientist to Einstein, and used to justify similar detail, makes it evident that the article is intended as puffery; I cannot believe the ed. doesn't realize the relative importance. This happens frequently enough that it needs a name: perhaps we should call the argument Einstein's Law of WP. When people look in an encycopedia, they typically want great detail about the most important subjects. This is the difference between writing an encyclopedia article that fits in anomy the many other articles in an appropriate fashion, and writing a free-standing biography, where one usually does take the opportunity to include everything one can, even if they are just historical events that happened at the same time--because usually there isn;t enough material otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is a head scratcher for sure. I don't know how you came up your summary, DGG, but it doesn't even remotely resemble the point I made or what I was I suggesting. Atsme^📞📧 04:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have abruptly just stopped. Prolly a good idea to seek an official close at this point. Anyone have any further comment?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Public Storage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: Delisted.

This article being passed as GA immediately prompted some heated discussion here and here. I am not myself (as nominator) contesting the article's GA status. On the contrary, it's unfortunate that so much drama occurred as to discourage the GA reviewer from doing future reviews, especially given the backlog. However, it seems obvious given the discussion that the review will require further deliberation and that a single GA reviewer will not satisfy all parties. I apologize that my COI disclosure has made this review more painful than it should be. I have done 30+ GAs with a COI and this kind of thing can unfortunately be common, as @Sportsguy17: can attest to, but good-faith discussion can often overcome such obstacles. CorporateM (Talk) 08:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Article meets all GA criteria, including NPOV. A question from another editor with respect to a few minor grammar issues (e.g. an errant period after "Inc.", etc.) has been resolved. This is a well-composed, compact, nicely sourced article on a relatively meaningless subject. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I pre-reviewed the article before its GAN nomination and resolved all style and grammar issues that I discovered (I believe this is one reason the review went quickly and smoothly). I decided the article met the NPOV requirement expected of any article and agree now that it meets the GA criteria expected of good articles. I examined the sources and found them properly independent, secondary sources and even read the scanned versions the nominator temporarily provided. The "ConsumerWatch: Insurance Issues" source and its topic is still in the article and is not given undue weight; if necessary, another phrase could be added at most. The article's History section that documents how the company grew is notable and is the proper focus of the article. Reading the history of edits and discussion that has taken place on this article makes it clear that the COI nominator is not inflicting any positive spin or minimizing any negative damage and in fact has prevented other COI editors from doing so. If a source that states the size of the corporation is outdated this could be a minor problem and if so this should be resolved if more recent sources exist. Prhartcom (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article was in great shape when I found it which made the review pretty painless and required CorporateM to only agree to one round of edits to earn promotion. Thanks for the advance work you put into it, Prhartcom. LavaBaron (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose GA status at this time. GAs are supposed to be "stable" at the time of review. This article was completely rewritten one day before. Accordingly, it is not a stable article and other interested editors should have the opportunity for careful review of the new content before a rushed GA review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. It's also the first time you've made it. When you were kind enough to come to my Talk page and pound my review as "shockingly inadequate" and threatened me with a flurry of complaints at "venues of [your] choosing" unless I promised not to participate in GA ever again and to rescind my GA determination, it was because of "blatant pro-investor POV." These continually evolving reasons as to why the GA is "shockingly inadequate" is becoming increasingly difficult to track. It's become very clear you don't like PS. Frankly, neither do I since they cost me a $45 deposit once. That's not a valid reason to block the article, or to threaten other editors with ultimatums unless they do as you order them. LavaBaron (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The article clearly does not qualify for GA at this time because of the complete rewrite the day before, LavaBaron, which means that it is not yet stable. Please respond to that point. I am not obligated to mention every problem immediately. I needed a little time to look over the GA criteria. I did not ask you to stop all GA reviews but rather I expect you to complete them cautiously and correctly. You were the first to mention taking this matter to ANI or COIN, while I asked for it to be resolved another way. Then you asked me to stay away from your talk page. It should be clear to uninvolved parties who is being stubborn here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen - I revoked your privileges on my Talk page after you started making threats such as "I most certainly will bring your reviewing to a broader community venue of my choosing" [11] and belittling comments such as "your review ... is shockingly inadequate." [12] Prhartcom and other editors disagree with your assertion this is not GA ready and, while I understand you may feel wronged by an evolving consensus that does not support your opinion, it does not excuse you to heap abuse on me. As I indicated, this is the only reason I chose to revoke your privileges at my Talk page. If you can indicate you are ready to begin addressing me using a civil tone, I will be delighted to restore your privileges on my Talk page. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's not be combative; I never agree with that. Cullen328 has their good faith reasons for speaking out and they may have a good point. Hopefully consensus will decide. If so, and since you and I and Cullen328 have already voiced our opinion, it can do so without our help. Prhartcom (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I again request that you address the substantive point here, LavaBaron. How can an article be considered "stable" when it was completely rewritten the previous day? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen - I again decline your request for reasons previously and exhaustively stated elsewhere. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, Prhartcom; it's not necessary for editors to leave combative notes on each others Talk pages. LavaBaron (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delist: at the moment, the article still has grammar issues: I noted a significant number elsewhere (though the post was deleted), and they still aren't all fixed. There are also statements that are not supported by the referenced sources. Ideally, the article can be brought up to GA level with additional work, but it simply isn't there at the moment, and if the fixes aren't made my "!vote" will remain as it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delist Within the past 72 hours, the article has been completely rewritten once, removing a significant amount of well-referenced critical content. Since then, in other edits, critical content has been removed and restored. Accordingly, the article fails the GA criteria #5 that the article be stable. The reviewer has not yet addressed this issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

For bookkeeping purposes I've struck your first !vote. Typically editors just !vote once per thread. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Needed work

Since I have noted that there are significant issues, this section is to note what still needs fixing, and for the nominator to note what has been addressed.

• Real Estate Limited Partnership Financing subsection:

• "mid-1980s" appears thrice, both with and without the hyphen. It is correct if the hyphen is included.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• paragraph 4, sentence 3: this is not supported by the source, which says "at least 70" and also "Public Storage plans to raise $100 million, which should buy about half of the properties". In other words, they hadn't bought them yet, hadn't even raised the money, and thought it could be used to buy around 35 of them. To say that they did buy 35 of 70 properties is simply not supported in the source; plans in the business world are derailed all the time, or even exceeded; if they'd raised more, they might well have bought more.

 Done Nice catch. Like the item below, I reviewed the source and trimmed the sentence entirely. It only covers potential plans and does not cover it in a way that suggests it was significant. I think I was kind of hesitant to include this in the first place. 35 locations is probably not that significant in the scope of things. CorporateM (Talk) 22:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Recent history subsection: "It had been looking for another opportunity to acquire it ever since." Since they'd last tried in 2005, a 2006 acquisition is hardly "ever since". Please recast; you might want to try a "failed in 2000 and 2005 but succeeded in 2006" approach; I'd frankly expect an article at the GA level to explain why the 2006 bid succeeded when the noted prior attempts failed.

 Done I reviewed the source again and the article-text. I think that sentence was probably uneccessary filler and have trimmed it. The sentence preceeding it already looks good, mentions both failed efforts and why (the other company rejected the offer)CorporateM (Talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Self-storage and other services, final sentence: "especially off freeways and intersections" reads oddly; do you mean adjacent to freeways, or near freeway interchanges? Are they only near intersections of major streets, or near any streets? This could use clarification.

 Done I used "near" CorporateM (Talk) 21:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Corporate structure and operations section, Public Storage is the largest of four publicly traded self-storage REITs. This sentence states this as a current fact ("is"), but the source is from 2008. It either needs to add an "As of 2008," at the beginning, or find a current source to back up the claim.

 Done FYI - There are more recent sources that suggest this is still true, but I haven't seen anything quite Wikipedia-compliant source-wise. For example, this Forbes post confirms there are still 4 and that PS has a "dominant" market cap out of the four, but the post is authored by a "contributor" rather than staff and therefore should not be used. CorporateM (Talk) 21:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

More later when I have time. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Great work, CorporateM, addressing these minor corrections! Sounds like the situation has resolved itself and we can all go back to our regular programming and put this WP:DRAMA behind us. Congrats again on the GA article! LavaBaron (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron, as I said earlier, this was all I had time for today. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop claiming the GA is all set every time someone makes a few fixes, when your lack of thoroughness in the original review is what brought us here in the first place. You have done your review, it has been found wanting—though you refuse to recognize it by calling these "minor corrections" when every single one of them should have been found and addressed during the original review. Each post you make is only prolonging the "drama" by misrepresenting the status of this reassessment, yet more evidence that you do not truly understand the GAN and GAR processes; I strongly recommend that you observe only from this point on, rather than attempting to short-circuit the GAR process by saying it's complete when it is anything but. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset - I acknowledge that you have found my GA review wanting. I acknowledge other editors do not agree with you. It's great we can discuss these things. Once again, I am going to decline your recommendation for me to be quiet and "observe." I wish you the very best. LavaBaron (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) In the original review, it doesn't appear as if any fact checking or searching for other sources was conducted in order to ensure the "neutral" criterion was met i.e. "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each." It's impossible to tell whether an article is properly balanced unless a reviewer has a search for sources themselves to ensure major viewpoints are covered proportionally and checks that sources are reliable. This is particularly true when the editor has disclosed a COI even though I'm confident that CorporateM is acting in good faith. I have concerns about this source which is a careers guide and not likely to be edited to a high standard. It reads like PR to me and is in stark contrast to the USA Today source which says most workers are paid $ 9-10/hr. It's also surprising that the founder being a billionaire [13] [14] [15] and the 50 % profit margin isn't given greater prominence... or that the CEO makes $15 m. The article could also do with more background on self-storage, B. Wayne Hughes and REIT/RELPs (what are they? why did they use them?). There's also no mention of the number of sq feet they have or who their competitors are. While the current version is a vast improvement on the previous versions, but due to these problems I think that it needs delisting. SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I did conduct a very thorough review. My judgment was that "the founder being a billionaire" is no more necessary to include for the Public Storage article to be GA-listed than it was to include for the Pixar article (it wasn't); the same goes for a list of competitors - not only is a list of competitors not necessary to achieve NPOV, it is more uncommon in GA articles than it is common (Pixar, for instance, makes no mention of DreamWorks and yet was passed as GA). As seen in the Pixar comparison, this - and your other criticisms - do not describe "bright lines" that must be met for inclusion, but rather personal preferences you have for this article that are better addressed through routine edits you are free to make at any time, even after the article is GA-passed. (User:SmartSE - sorry if this sounds abrupt or curt, it is not meant to be, I'm typing on a tablet atm and can't afford the pleasantries I'd normally pepper this with.) LavaBaron (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The now-retired founder B. Wayne Hughes probably qualifies for a separate article, but I normally see it as a problem when articles about companies include tangentially relevant biographical information on their executives.[16] The USA Today source and its criticisms are included in the current article, but I just put "close to minimum wage", since surely that number has changed. I'm sure both sources are bias, which is a good reason to include both of them (original research on wages suggests the USA Today article to be highly exaggerated) I'm not sure I understand the comment "REIT/RELPs (what are they? why did they use them?)", because this is all explained in the article. It explains that the founder didn't like bank loans, so he used real estate investments instead; the Corporate Structure section includes a definition of REITs, etc.

Anyways, I keep getting edit-conflicts. I've been trying to just post a thank you to Bluemoon for some great feedback above. If you have more, I am keen to hear it. These were excellent suggestions regarding specific article-text and specific sources, all of which were actionable and corrected. CorporateM (Talk) 22:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, mentioning the net worth of the company's founder, or his favorite golf driver, or the number of cats he has, would be a startling violation of WP:SUMMARY which is a positive criteria for GA and is one reason these trivia bits aren't included in the bulk of other GA articles. Also agreed that BM offered great suggestions for continuing additions to this article after it was correctly promoted to GA status. LavaBaron (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LavaBaron, I'm in awe at your complete inability to see anything wrong with your review, even that it was incomplete, as the evidence mounts that you missed more and more basic GA criteria—this refusal to see any issues at all makes it increasingly clear to me that you have no business working in GA. It was not correctly promoted, and the corrections I've been offering should every one have been called out and addressed in the review process. I'll be posting my recommendation to the GA talk page shortly; the paper trail here and elsewhere is ample demonstration of your blindness here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, as I said in my original post, the idea of a GAR is to come out on the other side with the article truly qualified as a GA. Based on what I've found so far, the GAN review missed significant issues; I'm hoping that the people here will find what remains. I'm not at my best when dealing with NPOV, so I won't be concentrating on that issue, and my time is limited this week, so it may be next week or the week after before I can be satisfied that I've checked what I can. I appreciate your kind words. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your continuing feedback BlueMoonset. At the present time I agree with Prhartcom, that the article was correctly promoted to GA and that I am "quite capable" of reviewing GA nominees. I don't believe simply shouting ever-louder that I "have no business working in GA" - or invoking increasingly savage invectives (I notice I've now gone from "unqualified" to "blind") is a productive use of this forum, however. ANI (or really any other forum than GAR) is probably a better one to pursue this crusade. I hope this note finds you well, BlueMoonset - best, LavaBaron (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly curious whether Prhartcom still truly believes, given the significant issues found and corrected since your listing of the article, ones that CorporateM has described as "actionable", that the original GA review was complete and correct in listing the article. I confess that I'll be quite surprised if so. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see the community decide in either direction, even if it shows that my thoughts were wrong, especially from editors whose opinions I trust, such as yours BlueMoonset. For example I also respect the opinion of SilkTork, who I see agrees with you, so it looks like consensus has decided. The good news is the article will be even better and more accurate than it was. I have no doubt CorporateM will be able to make the necessary improvements. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I am still awaiting a simple answer from LavaBaron explaining how this article meets GA criteria #5 as "stable" in the context of a total rewrite in the last 72 hours. Waiting, and so far, receiving no responsive answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen - as you know, I've already noted your question and patiently provided a response. I apologize you did not find it a satisfactory response. As you continue to pepper this thread with that question, please don't ping me, if you don't mind. I'm burning through GA reviews hot 'n heavy right now and it's a little distracting to have to keep coming back here to retype essentially the same thing over and over. (Speaking of which, we've got a backlog at GA right now - it would be amazing if you could put some of that great energy of yours into hitting some of these.) Thanks so much, Cullen - hope you're having a great evening! LavaBaron (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I must have missed your substantive response, LavaBaron. Please link to it, or cut and paste it here. Any other editor can do the same. All I want is an explanation how this article complies with GA criteria #5. A green check mark is not enough. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment by SilkTork

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• One image is used, which is appropriately tagged.
• There are no images of the facilities. This is not a fail, but I would have thought it possible to obtain such an image, especially as on eof the significant contributors is in contact with the subject of the article. We have images of other self storage units, but it appears not of this one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC) I must have been looking at an older revision, as I see there are now two images in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Images are relevant, appropriately tagged and captioned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Prose is (mostly) clear and concise, though I have some questions. Is it "setup" or "set up"? Is it "Real Estate Limited Partnership Financing" or "Real estate limited partnership financing" as the section header, per MOS:HEADINGS? Same for "Real Estate Investment Trust". Sometimes the conciseness of the text leads to terseness, as in the Recent history section which has an uncomfortable sequence of short sentences. Additionally, the conciseness leads to occasionally teasing statements, such as "Public Storage helped popularize the use of self-storage businesses as a real estate investment vehicle" (how did they achieve that is the question that pops into my mind), and "Poor weather and difficult labor markets outside of California delayed development projects" (ooh! what were these difficult labor markets?). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Is it "incomes" or "income"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done It looks like it should have been "set up" as a verb, rather than "setup" the noun. CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done It's "Real Estate Limited Partnership financing" because RELP appears to be all-caps (based on a quick Google search). CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done copyedited the Recent history section

Will see if the sources have more information on the other two items. CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Query. The opening sentence is: "Public Storage is an international real estate investment trust (REIT) based in Glendale, California that operates self storage warehouses." Why is the REIT structure of the company prioritised over its operation as a self storage warehouse. Also, the opening sentence makes it appear to be a California only company, though by the fourth sentence, we learn that it operates nationally and internationally. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done "based in" was just meant to refer to the location of their headquarters. I changed it to "headquartered"

It's pretty standard for company articles to say in the very first sentence whether it's private, public, a non-profit, or in this case an REIT, as a matter of defining the subject. However, recently a GA reviewer (don't remember who) asked to add a sentence defining what an REIT is (the very last sentence now), which I think could be trimmed to reduce emphasis, since it is wikilinked and explained in the article-text. For now I moved it to the bottom of the paragraph. CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned by this edit, mentioned above by Cullen, as that is article development rather instability; however I am curious about this series of edits in which the same text is removed, replaced, removed and replaced. If this is a potential edit war, the article is unstable, but if there is a legitimate reason, that is fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Silk. That edit was discussed and the editor that originally removed it (Lava) said it was ok to restore when prompted by PRhartcom. I also supported it and I think there is pretty clear consensus for it. You'd have to go diving through mountains of Talk page strings to get the full context, but I don't think it will be a problem. CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• What is essential difference between the sections Self-storage and other services and Corporate structure and operations? They seem to be covering the same area, that is, what it is the company does, and how it does it. But there are also other details contained in those sections which don't appear to belong there, such as the details of property damage incidences, and the auctions. I think I would find it easier to understand if the company operations information were in one section, and the additional information such as the auctions and problems were in another. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you mean. An Operations or Corporate structure section is pretty standard, but it is small so we should consolidate if we can. That being said, creating a dedicated section for problems would be a WP:CRITICISMS issue. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• "he decided to bring the concept back with him to California" or "he brought the concept back"? Is it the decision or the action that we are interested in? If it's the decision, we would want to see details of what he did with the decision, but we then go straight into consequences of the action, so - unless there are details missing - I am assuming what is meant is "he brought the concept back". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• There is no section which is overly detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• I haven't done a full review, but at this stage I have enough queries regarding the article to feel that it would benefit from another review. I don't think the problems are huge, and I understand why it was passed - it is a fairly clear and concise article on a fairly small and self-contained topic, but as the article has been challenged, and it's not striking me as an obviously robust article, I would support a delist. At this point I haven't done any background research into the company, so I can't comment on some of the concerns regarding how neutral it is, or how appropriate it is that the article focuses on the funding of the company rather than its operations, however, I take those concerns onboard as part of my rationale to delist. When there are a number of concerns and queries, and my own reading throws up doubts, I feel the best course of action would be to delist, and for significant contributors to work on addressing concerns raised before renominating, and for the article to then have a robust review, in which the reviewer makes clear they have examined the article against the concerns raied. I don't think there were problems with the first review - it seems fine to me, and I'm not criticising it; it's just that after a challenge, a second review needs to be "obviously" robust in order to reassure observers that all areas of concern have been examined. Delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you so much for your thoughts, SilkTork! Now that the community has seen your uninvolved review, I believe consensus has decided to delist. If anyone wishes me to, I will remove it from GA so that CorporateM can request a new review after making the necessary improvements. The good news is the article will be even better and more accurate than it was. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Prhartcom:!! I agree that a delist and renomination is in order. I have also culled through the items raised by Silktork and addressed them. CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with SilkTork's rationale that there were no "problems with the first review - it seems fine" but, due to the verbosity of the challenges raised, it would be wise to delist. CorporateM, I'll be happy to give it a second "obviously robust" review ASAP, and will bring in a second editor to eliminate any possibility of future questions, and look forward to passing it. Sorry you had to go through this but thanks again for everyone's help! LavaBaron (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron, until this reassessment is concluded by an uninvolved party, whether Keep or Delist, no other review or nomination should be started. It may take a while. And, given the controversy over your original review of this nomination, I think you should allow another editor to be the main reviewer any subsequent GAN and make the final decision whether to list, though of course you'd be welcome to add your thoughts, as is anyone on GA reviews. You still clearly have much to learn about the GA process—you have yet to correctly close any of your reviews (you'll want to review the instructions at WP:GANI before doing any future closes)—and I haven't seen evidence here that you have learned any lessons in improving your reviews from this experience. The fact that SilkTork found so much—everything he flagged is the sort of thing you or any other reviewer should have flagged—you should be taking on board as what else you ought to look for when doing future reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing feedback, BlueMoonset! I'm in alignment with the community consensus expressed by SilkTork's assessment that there were no "problems with the first review - it seems fine" and Prhartcom's comment that my GA-review skills seem "quite capable." I appreciate your passionate disagreement with the consensus and am glad we can express our differences to each other civilly, though I would question whether a single editor's disagreement with consensus - no matter how loudly expressed - could accurately be described as "controversy" but I'm happy to agree to disagree. (P.S. All of my GA reviews have been correctly closed. I'm planning to burn 'n churn several more today so feel free to point-out, using specific examples, any bookkeeping errors if you notice them.) Hope all is well with you. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that none of us are uninvolved enough to objectively carry out a GAN review at this point. I think we can wrap up this reassessment. Cheers all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested closure here that reflects the consensus that there were no "problems with the first review - it seems fine" but that unanimous concurrence was to delist anyway. LavaBaron (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there wasn't only a single editor disagreeing with what really isn't consensus, your argument is moot. Also, maintaining that you have correctly closed all your GA reviews when a simple recheck on your part would show that I had to fix a "successful" close and Nikkimaria had to work on an unsuccessful one; this should be a clue to you that you really need to study the various information pages on how the GAN process works, including the basic mechanics. People are having to clean up after you because you aren't following the established procedures, and that's not good. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset - I've been burning 'n churning GA reviews lately so I don't doubt there may have been minor clerical errors in a minority percentage of them. While seasoned editors like SilkTork, PRhartcom, and others have been making me blush with how vociferously they've been applauding my GA-reviews, I'm sure an editor here or there may have noticed a misplaced comma or decimal point. You do an awesome job keeping everyone's clerical work honest. As I keep blasting through GAs (planning on clearing out the Econ section by EOW - fingers crossed!), I look forward to you keeping up with your awesome proofreading skill-set to keep me honest. Looks like we work well together and it's awesome to have you on Team LavaBaron - keep up the great work! Best - LavaBaron (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Team Fortress 2

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted Clear consensus for such. Wugapodes (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There's two or so different "maintenance" templates (expand section, etc) on this page. It doesn't read that well either, especially the plot and post release sections. I believe it doesn't meet the "well written" section of WP:WIAGA and it doesn't stay on topic (3B). Anarchyte 11:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I added a number of other templates to display several more issues with the article. As it stands, I would pull this from GA, but we can give the editors time to work on the issues. I am positive that they can be fixed quite swiftly. Another issue I found is: Under Final design it says when the game was not announced, but nowhere does it state, when and where is was eventually announced. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delist The article has too many "citation needed" tags and cleanup tags to be in GA shape.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delist Cleanup tags are pretty much a no-go on good articles, this should definitely be demoted. BlookerG ^talk 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delist Every section bar Marketing needs work to meet GA standards. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delist Article arguably meets the quickfail criteria. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delist The cleanup tags say it all. Also, reading through the article, it is not very well-written, and per the nominator, it's not really focused at all. This would meet the quick fail criteria if nominated now. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No Age

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

Result: Consensus stands for delisting. Retrohead (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

Passed GA seven years ago and material since then is here-and-there, without many citations. Lead section is what I would expect from a start-class article. Matters of broadness are also lacking, I get no idea of their style of music, their musical and vocal influences '''tAD''' (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Demote Last section is a mess. Too many small paragraphs. Practically no citations. Certainly not GA worthy and too much to do to simply give someone time to care of it swiftly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Demote Just used Checklinks and I have found that references 2 and 7 are broken and 12 redirects to the homepage. If that wasn't bad enough, some paragraphs aren't even sourced at all. I am also wondering if the image is sufficient enough for this article as well. Nonetheless, we can contact Bobamnertiopsis and see if he can fix this article. Good888 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Klaas-Jan Huntelaar

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted, per discussion. Retrohead (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

This was listed as GA incredibly long ago, and the prose since is erratic, some sections are too short, others (as is usual in football player articles) way too detailed with useless infos (scored a goal here, scored one there). Plese leave your comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Demote. Many issues, some listed below:

• Some facts lack citations (against BLP policy).
• One ref isn't defined.
• Many dead links
• "Schalc" section has too many short paragraphs
• "Ajax" section is too detailed
• Shouldn't his birth be put at the beginning of the article?

• I will vote keep if the comments are addressed. Thanks,--Tomandjerry211 (alt)(talk) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Demote - I certainly can't fix it by myself, to replace those dead Dutch refs and fill in two years of NOTHING in the Schalke section. Ajax section was fine, I just split it up. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger

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

Result: Delisted. Retrohead (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

This article is overly reliant on puffery and flowery language to try and sell a controversial individual. We should state the facts in as encyclopedic a manner as we can and leave the reader to make their own opinions. Chrononem ☎ 15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, you are busy with a campaign to make the article non-neutral. In the way you are reworking it, it will never be good enough for the status Good Article. The Banner talk 00:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not good enough now. It's violation after violation of the manual of style. Puffery, Unsupported attributions, Contentious labels, and Editorializing pervade the entire work, both critiquing and lauding the subject. I've tried to correct some of this but I've met with resistance from one very persistent editor. (At least when I've made changes to neutralize the puffery, removing items that attack the subject seems to be allowed.)

Regardless, It would be better if the community as a whole would recognize that the article needs work and move to correct it. Chrononem ☎ 02:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally haven't read the article yet, but at a glance I can tell the lead is too short. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Right now, this article fails criteria #5: it is not stable. There's quite a bit of POV edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, based in part on what happened when I tried today to make a single edit restoring some balancing content that had been removed from the article without explanation: I was promptly reverted and accused of making 3 reverts with a single edit. At this point the article needs a POV tag and doesn't qualify as a good article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delist The instability seems to be getting worse. This article has problems, and we need to get editors on the same page before we can even think of this being GA again. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The page just had to be fully protected due to the instability. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Small Mercies

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept.--Retrohead (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The article hasn't been updated since it was promoted back in 2007, and honestly, the review wasn't as detailed as it is today. Most of the links are dead, and with all previously said, nominating the article for delisting.--Retrohead (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure what you mean by "with all previously said". Does this phrase relate to some commentary elsewhere or does it merely relate to your previous sentence? Just curious.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This nomination is in the group with four others, all nominated for the same reasons. Check the list at WP:GAR.--Retrohead (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep I've improved the article: added more material, more sources, adjusted its tone (more NPoV), updated content and checked dead links for archive sources where possible.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep With the recent upgrades, extensive referencing, and broad coverage of the subject, this article should remain GA. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep The article appears to satisfactorily address the GA criteria - in the absence of the nominator providing any comments as to specifically why the article should be delisted- it should remain a GA. Dan arndt (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Lomana LuaLua

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

Result: Delisted.--Retrohead (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I hate to do this, for he was one of my favourite players as a child, what with the name and the celebration, but this article is a prime example of an article going downhill after years (promoted 2009). The sections of his club career since then are woefully short, and there is nothing on his season at Rizespor. Even his return to English football at Blackpool is not a good section. Due to the obscurity of the teams he went to later in his career, experts on football in those countries are needed to maintain the GA status. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delist His post-Olympiacos career looks really awful, certainly less qualitative that the preceding sections.--Retrohead (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Disco 2000

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted.--Retrohead (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Requiring demotion because the prose is bellow GA standards, the formatting is not properly done, and the article was left with no attention since its promotion in 2008.--Retrohead (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Could you expand on what is wrong with the prose? How does a lack of attention since 2008 affect the quality of the article given that nothing relevant to the topic has happened since then? --kingboyk (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Borley Rectory

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

Result: Kept.--Retrohead (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Problems with this article have been identified in the fact that it gives equal validity to hearsay ghost story claims. Attempts to fix these problems are met with ownership-y reverts and arguments that ignore the problems in favor of vague suggestions that attempts to fix problems are problematic themselves. It is clear that we cannot fix these WP:FRINGE problems with the current gatekeepers thumbing their noses, so the only solution is to declare that the article is not stable and not neutral and therefore not worthy of "GA" status. jps (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I could also add, I suppose, that I have questions about matters regarding weight and possible omissions. I am led to believe from what I've seen that quite a bit of material, including material about things like one of the Rev. Bull's having threatened to haunt the place, and according to some maybe doing so, the lack of mention of some tests at the site taken after the fire, and maybe a few other things in reference works isn't included at all. And I also find, in unverified nonRS sources on the net, that the local governments might be trying to almost hide Borley in general now, which I find interesting. Right now, not knowing how much content regarding of this topic might be in other articles, I have to say that I have some serious questions whether these and maybe other matters might be "major topics" or at least significant topics which do not seem to be covered in the article as it is. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The only thing which is making this article unstable at the moment is the tag team efforts to elicit change without apparently even taking some time to read any references at all or fully discuss on the article talk page; I can see that John advised that discussion should have been undertaken. Over the next few days, I will attempt to work through references but this may take some time. I am astounded at the haste that is suddenly demanded. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Silly comments about "tag team efforts" do nothing to support your argument or your apparent ownership issues regarding this article. Regardless of what the references say we are still required to phrase information about reputed paranormal events in an appropriately neutral way. This is non-negotiable. I am astounded at your attempts to keep the article phrased in a non-neutral way. Afterwriting (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep GA is not FA. The article currently passes the GA criteria as it is: well-written; verifiable; broad in coverage; and stable. Accusations of ownership levelled against me immediately above are nonsense as my first, and to date only edit to this article was on 4 September. Having now gone through all the references, they are correctly reflected in a neutral manner and do not demonstrate any confirmation bias. I do not feel the two omissions specifically mentioned by John Carter concerning Rev. Bull's threats and the later tests are major; I will, however, attempt to add a sentence or two to cover these over the next couple of days. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep This is utterly ridiculous. Aside from the fact that Eric is one of our most competent article writers who has more experience with GA than virtually everybody here as both an editor and reviewer and knows exactly what is required for GA, these "fringe theory" claims are invalid. Borley Rectory is one of the most widely documented paranormal sites in the world, and it's what most readers will be coming here looking to read. The article is a sufficient summary, and as Sagacious says, GA is not FA, and it meets criteria. An article should reflect what is documented in sources. This isn't notable because of its architecture, it's notable because it is one of the most controversial/widely discussed alleged paranormal sites in the world, and the article reflects what is documented on it, and rightly so. It's hardly surprising people are put off wanting to produce quality work if they have to deal with this sort of nonsense.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the above. "not stable" is no reason to remove the GA (use the flaming talk page or page protect instead), and I'm unconvinced on "non-neutral". The article, as I see it, reflects what the reliable sources say. The supposedly paranormal activity is couched in the relevant terminology (i.e. use of "alleged", "reported", "claimed", etc) which shows we're not stating it as fact, just stating the fact that the sources say it - a crucial and critical difference. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It's ridiculous to claim that this article does not meet the GA criteria simply because a bunch of misguided fringe theory fanatics take objection to it. Eric Corbett 16:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per Dr. Blofeld and some other reasons. If a GA article is not "stable", that does not mean it should be demoted. If it starts getting out of control, I'd recommend page protection or discussion on the talk page. I'm not convinced by the "fringe theory" discussions because the article states what it says in the sources, instead of the article stating that some certain unpublished theory is an established fact.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep This still meets the GA criteria and the article is comprehensive enough considering the number of reliable secondary sources there are. These claims of ownership and fringe theories are invalid here in my eyes. JAGUAR  18:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wyangala

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

Result: There have been no comments for several weeks, but since a couple of users do not believe that any progress has been made in resolving the issues presented, I think delist is the best option. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

According to this SPI, Fvalzano and JSwho may be technically related. That is a problem because Fvalzano's only real contribution to WP was to heavily edit this article, and JSwho's first (and only major) contrib was to GA review this article. Therefore, the review may have been in bad faith. MSJapan (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A further rather superficial review of the article as it relates to the criteria indicates many missing citations, and much citing of sources only at the end of paragraphs, which may mean the paragraphs were lifted verbatim from the sources (which are generally print). There are some flow problems as well, where material is alluded to at the end of one section and then picked up in the next (thus becoming "narrative" instead of encyclopedic." MSJapan (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments below were copied from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Wyangala GA?

I applaud MSJapan for tracking down sock puppets. However, as much as it pains me to do so, I must remind them that the reason to initiate a GAR is if they have read the article and believe that it does not merit its good article (GA) status according to the GA criteria. It truly has nothing to do with sock puppets. I am absolutely cheering what they've done for this SPI, don't get me wrong, but I must admit that it is possible for sock puppets to follow the GA criteria. If all they can say in this GAR is that the article could have been reviewed by its nominator, as much as other editors despise the sound of that, they will still judge the article solely on the GA criteria. This GAR appears to have been initiated purely for punitive reasons.

From WP:GAR:

• "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not."
• "The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it."

It may be true that this article needs fixing. I have done what I needed to do by posting this reminder. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, a cursory lookover indicates it is missing citations in several places where GA claims they are needed. There's a lot of "paragraph-level" citation that might as well be copied verbatim from the books if it's really only from one page. MSJapan (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you check to see whether the citations at the end of the paragraph actually covered the full paragraph (as is allowed in the citation rules), or did you simply add "citation needed" tags after particular facts without checking? For that matter, did you check those sources to see how closely paraphrased the article is, instead of assuming it must be? You're as much as saying the article is approaching copyvio, and I'd want examples of the places where at least close paraphrasing exists. If you want me to set up a community reassessment for you—which basically means I'd have to start it myself and put my name on it—I'll need to feel more comfortable with what you believe is wrong with the article. My initial inclination was to support the doing of a reassessment, since the circumstances of the original passage were clearly irregular, but you haven't helped your cause here. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments below were moved from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Wyangala GA?

Sorry, as I said, I'm not realy at all familiar with this process, so I wasn't sure what I had to do myself. As an example, here's the first major paragraph where I found the need for citations.

On 27 May 1815, Deputy Surveyor George William Evans was the first European to discover the headwaters of the Lachlan River, naming it in honour of the NSW Governor, Lachlan Macquarie. Two years later Lieutenant John Oxley, with Evans by his side, explored the Lachlan from its junction with the Belubula River to the Great Cumbung Swamp, a distance of 1,450 km (900 mi). As Oxley progressed down the Lachlan, he had friendly encounters with the Wiradjuri people, noting that the language they spoke was distinctly different from that used by the indigenous population on the coast. By the time Oxley had reached the Cumbung Swamp, he could advance no further due to the presence of 'impassable' marshland, eventually being forced to abandon the journey and to turn back. Oxley believed he had reached a marshy inland sea, concluding that the interior of Australia was 'uninhabitable' and unfit for settlement.

• The ref for [9] is "Journals of Two Expeditions" no page given. This is John Oxley's journal.
• The ref for [10] is "Possibilities of the Lachlan Valley" page 2. This is a 1924 news article.

1. First sentence - The material on Evans wpuld appear to be cited from from source 9, as it is closest. Oxley doesn't refer to Evans as a European. This has been synthesized from elsewhere. This does not appear in the news rticle either.
2. Oxley refers to the river as the Lachlan River right from the beginning - he never states it was named after the governor. Again, it probably was, but that information isn't from this source. It's also not from the news article.
3. The 27 May 1815 entry indicates Oxley met a native, not that he discovered something. It's the news article that uses this date, but it must be using a different source.
4. The "two years later" appears to be three - Oxley's second expedition appears to be 1818, and is Part II of this source. So despite the fact that this is unpaginated, there's a citation issue insofar as we don't even know what part of the book the material is from. There are dated entries, so it would be really easy to do it that way.
5. A text search in both sources for the 1450 km statistic stated and "Great Cumbung Swamp" returned nothing.
6. The news article says Evans discovered the Lachlan on May 27, 1815. It then refers back to the April 27 entry, and after that minor historicity, it becomes wholly modern.

This is the first major paragraph in the history. I have no idea where the majority of the material is from, but it's not from the sources cited based on the information given. I'll disassemble the rest of it if need be, but it will take a very long time.

Another shorter ;line earlier I should have tagged, but didn't know how to inline tag OR and SYNTH:

"The name 'Wyangala' (pronounced /ˈwaɪæŋɡɑːlə/) originates from a Wiradjuri word of unknown meaning. However, similar sounding words in the Wiradjuri language indicate it may mean troublesome or bad (wanggun) white (ngalar).

1. The GNB source for the name is speculative about the name (it uses "said to be"). The article states it as fact.
2. "The similar sounding words" is entirely OR quite literally taken from an online wordlist.

References

So there are major sourcing issues within the first three paragraphs of the article. MSJapan (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added OR and clarification tags in accordance with my previous comments, with any other sources I checked, and also to the usage of "European" in the first part of the article. Evans the surveyor was from England, and New South Wales, as part of the eastern part of Australia, was wholly claimed by the British. The British do not, never have (and likely never will) refer to themselves as Europeans. Unless the settlers are clearly coming over from Europe (as the Dutch did), anyone from that area should be presumed to be British or Australian-born British citizens. MSJapan (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the tags that have been applied to this article are frankly ridiculous, and whoever applied them was really straining to plaster this article with as many tags as possible. I have no particular stance on whether this article should remain a GA, but I would urge whoever did that tagging to rein their efforts in and delete the sillier ones themselves because it looks pretty questionable from here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's because the article is questionable. What I don't understand is why I find a problem, bring it here, and the first person dismisses it, the second claims I didn't do due diligence, and now a third claims that my tagging exactly the due diligence I did here and explained here is "questionable". I've shown that this article meets none of the basic sourcing criteria needed to be a good article within three paragraphs, and I'm sure it's earlier, but I can't access Australian newspapers from the 1920s. When I find OR, SYNTH, and outright made-up stuff, of course it's going to look silly. Blame the SPA who wrote the article and his sock who passed the GA for the questionability of the article, not me. The questionability here is why this isn't immediately being delisted. MSJapan (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, as it is stated at WP:GAR, we raise issues here because we have a motivation to to improve the articles we report and personally see them through to GA. We are not here with a motivation to delist articles because we have reason to punish the editors of those articles. GAR is not a natural extension of SPI. I hope this explanation was helpful to you. Prhartcom (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A community reasseessment is a deliberative process, and is only closed by an uninvolved editor when the community has had a chance to review the article, and to give interested parties—authors, previous reviewers, and members of the associated WikiProject(s)—the opportunity to do remediation. I've only just done the notification of the interested parties, so we need to give them their chance. The delisting will have to wait. The primary author, Fvalzano, when notified of this reassessment, wrote I would if I could, but I have no time right now :( good luck with it, so we shouldn't expect or wait for any edits to address issues raised from that quarter. I frankly think it's up to the WikiProject: if they take on improving the article to bring it up to GA standard, then it might stand a chance. If no editors decide to start the extensive needed work on the article in the next week or so, then based on your findings, I think delisting will be the final result here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

MAJapan: you certainly can access Australian newspapers from the 1920s, considering that they're all digitised, searchable, and even show up in Google results. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, it is not up to MSJapan to do the (apparently extensive) work to fix the identified problems with the article. At this point, with the primary editor of the article, Fvalsano, having said that no fixes will be forthcoming from that quarter, it's up to someone or several someones to take responsibility for addressing the many issues raised so far, and the ones likely to be found in the rest of the article, which has not yet been examined. The likeliest source of people with the interest in doing the edits are members of the associated WikiProject; if you're one of them, then perhaps you can let us know whether you think it's going to happen. If no one has been found to make the needed improvements by the end of the month, I don't see that there would be any alternative but to delist. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delist: unfortunately, no one has stepped forward to edit the article, and the issues MSJapan has noted are germane and sufficient that the article does not currently qualify as a Good Article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Apple TV

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

Result: Delisted.--Retrohead (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Since being promoted to GA status in 2009, many things have changed about the subject. Content about newer generations of the device has been added, but a lot of it is poorly sourced, poorly written, or just plain WP:Fancruft. I do not think that currently this article meets the GA criteria. sst^flyer 13:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delist An article with an "outdated" template shouldn't be considered a good article.--Retrohead (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delist Article fails requirements 1 and 3, should be delisted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yin yoga

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

Result: Delisted, due to instability and unreliable sourcing.--Retrohead (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this got past a thorough review, but the article at many points violates WP:MEDRS and problematically pushes a lot of WP:FRINGE notions such as the existence of qi, the claimed benefits of alternative health, and general pseudoscience surrounding the perceived benefits of this practice without addressing the notable mainstream criticisms of yoga from a variety of perspectives. Thus, it fails criteria number 4 of the good article criteria rather spectacularly. jps (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Star Alliance

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

Result: No consensus to delis. MrWooHoo (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This article has many WP:proselines, one-sentence paragraphs, unsourced statements, and WP:peacock terms. sst✈ 14:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Will hopefully work on proselines, unsourced statements, and peacock terms! MrWooHoo (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This should not be too hard to fix. Take your time. sst✈ 16:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: Can you give me more specific areas/quotes that I haven't spotted yet? I have done a minor copyedit to revise the proselines, some peacock words. and some unsourced statements. MrWooHoo (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• With a prose size of 13KB, I would recommend expanding the lead section to two paragraphs.

Y

• Dead links need to be fixed

Y

• Unsourced text:

• Finally, in November, Adria Airways, Blue1 and Croatia Airlines joined the alliance as the first three regional members.

Y

• After merging with US Airways under the US Airways name, America West Airlines joined, working through US Airways original membership, but would never be considered an individual member. Swiss International Air Lines joined as the 17th member and its sixth airline from Europe in April 2006. Swiss' predecessor, Swissair was due to join in 2001, but the airline went bankrupt in October of that year and went through an extensive restructuring process before joining five years later. Also in April, South African Airways joined the Alliance, becoming its first African member, and the 18th member of the Alliance.

Y

• Fellow Greek airline Olympic Air also intended to apply to join the alliance had their merger with Aegean Airlines been approved by the EU.

Y

• Later that year, on 13 December 2011, Ethiopian Airlines officially joined, adding five new countries and 24 destinations to the alliance's route map.

Y

• 2012 had many events happening to Star Alliance, with many airlines leaving as well as many airlines joining. In the beginning of January 2012, Continental Airlines completed its merger with United Airlines, thus formally ending its existence and membership in the alliance. Shortly after this, on 27 January, Spanair left the alliance after suffering financial collapse and ceasing operations. bmi then left on 20 April after its acquisition by International Airlines Group (IAG), a parent company of Oneworld Members Iberia and British Airways.

Y

• On 8 March 2013 TAM Airlines officially announced its departure, because of its merger with LAN Airlines to become LATAM Airlines Group. Later during the year, with the addition of EVA Air on 18 June and TACA's integration into Avianca, the alliance now had 28 members, making it the largest of the three main airline alliances.

Y

• Member airlines section: while this information is unlikely to be disputed, I would recommend adding sources, such as the Star Alliance website.

Y

• Former members and affiliates section: completely unsourced, and likely to be disputed.

Y

• Prior to Star Alliance, Northwest Airlines and KLM were operating together as the forerunners of the modern airline alliance system since 1993, although there had been even earlier pairings and groupings of airlines for decades on a less formal level. The creation of Star Alliance was a milestone in airline history because of its size. It sparked the formation of rivals, notably SkyTeam and Oneworld.

Y

• Premium status section: completely unsourced.

 Working

--sst✈ 11:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: I've made a lot of progress. However, many users have constantly been adding flag icons even after the copyeditor deleted them. Should I delete them per WP:TOOMANY or keep them? I've also asked at the Teahouse. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments: The article is on the right track, but it still needs a few more fixes.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 04:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• No new full members are planned to join Star Alliance at the moment. This needs a citation. And is it really necessary to have a two-sentence section on future members? The two lines could easily be moved under "2011-present: Further expansion".
• Today, nearly 30% of global air travellers use the services of our member carriers or, looking at it from an overall industry perspective, two thirds of world-wide air travellers use one of the three airline alliances. Worldwide is a single word according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
• BMI left on 20 April after its acquisition by International Airlines Group (IAG), parent company of Oneworld members Iberia and British Airways. There should be a definite article the before the word parent.
• During the year Emirates considered joining Star Alliance, but decided against it. There needs to be a comma after year to delimit the parenthetical element. "During the year Emirates considered joining Star Alliance" can easily be mistaken as an introductory clause.
• The article needs to consistently use or omit commas after introductory adverbial phrases. Depending on the style guide, commas are either placed after all introductory phrases or only after long ones, i.e. more than five words. The Wikipedia MoS isn't strict about this, but you should still be consistent. For example: On 1 April 2008 Turkish Airlines joined the alliance after a 15-month integration process beginning in December 2006 lacks a comma while On 27 October 2009, Continental Airlines became the 25th member of Star Alliance after leaving SkyTeam three days earlier uses a comma after the introductory phase.

--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 04:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed all of your comments. I will start finding references for SST's issues ASAP. Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

David Cameron

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: The article is demoted per unanimous consensus. Pretty good justification that the article is no longer the one which was nominated for GA. This is natural since the major aspects of his career (twice PM) happened after the GAR. Please note that I do not have much experience with GA generally, I am simply closing this per a request at WP:ANRFC. (non-admin closure) Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up for reassessment, because it is a completely different article to the one which was originally promoted.[17] On top of that the original review heavily lacked in rigour and was merely a quick 6 bullet point job.[18] The article is also heavily unstable. This is a BLP for an influential figure and it is bad of us to give the impression that what's contained within is the creme la creme of encyclopedia content. With this in mind I support a speedy demotion. Brustopher (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I would second your vote for a speedy demotion. It's not the same article as the promoted article because the most significant aspects of the subject's career (two elections and becoming Prime Minister) have all happened since the article obtained its "good" status, and the material that has been added to reflect these most important parts of his career is uneven at best. There are discussions taking place over reorganisation, but the present article is poorly-structured, lacks detail on some important aspects of his career whilst including entire subsections on lesser details, and has been insufficiently updated in the last couple of years. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a good article, and it will need a huge amount of editing to get near that status again. Dtellett (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• demote unstable article - see this as an example, large deletion without discussion of the good article content after this review was created Govindaharihari (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

History of Japan

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

Result: Consensus is to delist this GA article, determined from the comments. This is a temporary status; a few editors are expected to improve this article according to the sources then renominate it back to GA in due course. This is important, as this is a critical article. At that point, when the article is truly GA, the article will be a good resource for all readers coming to learn the history of Japan. Prhartcom (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In August this article went through a massive, one-user rewrite with almost all of the sources being replaced and much of the wording of the article being altered.[19] It passed GA ten days later having been reviewed by a user who had never edited this area before and apparently didn't examine the article very closely (see below), with the only other input being from the user who rewrote it and nominated it.[20][21][22] The sourcing of the article was only briefly touched on in the context of whether every sentence should have a citation.[23] This seems like failure to properly assess for GA purposes, given that one of the criteria for GAs is that they be "verifiable with no original research".

There are many sourcing and verification problems with the article, as demonstrated by the examples below:

A small sample of the OR/SYNTH and factual errors in the article

The article claimed that the eighth-century anthology of Chinese verse known as the Kaifūsō was a collection of "Japanese poetry", an obvious error that does not appear in the cited source, which the Wikipedian responsible quoted on the talk page as not supporting his edit. The rewrite also mirrored an error that did appear in the source by saying a work that was compiled at some point after 759 and not published until the ninth century was compiled "in 759" (a more accurate source is currently cited in the article). The rewrite also changed the cited source's "around 1004" for the date Murasaki Shikibu wrote The Tale of Genji to "in 1004" -- a claim that it's unlikely any source makes, given that the author herself wrote in 1008 that it was not complete, and to complete such a monumentally large work in the space of a year would make Murasaki a more prolific author than Isaac Asimov. That's three major factual errors and/or misleading remarks in two sentences, and two of those are extrapolations that are not directly supported by the cited source. The same thing was done in changing the source's "immigration" to "invasion".[24] There were also several citations to a fringe source written by a non-specialist for a popular magazine.

In the space of three weeks there have been several protracted edit wars, a lengthy talk page dispute and even two ANI threads over this article. This in my opinion should not be the case with a GA-class article.

Pinging involved users: @CurtisNaito: @Nishidani: @Sturmgewehr88: @Curly Turkey: @Rjensen: @Calvin999: @Vivexdino: @MSJapan: @Phoenix7777: @TH1980: @Signedzzz:

Virtually every sentence the above users and I have checked was found to contain a factual error or a misrepresentation of a cited source. It would be an enormous project to check every such instance and bring the article to legitimate GA status. Not pretending it already is a GA is the simplest and most realistic place to start, especially given that preserving the text as it was at GA review was likely an impetus for the recent edit-warring.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• The GA review was totally inadequate. Obviously a lot of work has gone into the article, but it has issues with focus and scope—it's a long article on an topic that has a lot to be covered, and the editors don't seem to be able to agree on how much detail is too much at this scope. The article should give a birdseye view of the topic and not dwell on details such as disputed numbers that belong in the (many, many) subarticles; such detail at this scope only hampers readability and detracts from much more important details. The prose needs a very thorough copyedit: as a random example, there's "Following the death of Emperor Meiji in 1912, Emperor Taishō acceded to the throne."—which is at least twice as long as it needs to be, and perhaps is another big reason the article is so long Note: this is a single random example to demonstrate a kind of problem the article suffers from in general. The lead has gotten a lot better than it was, but it needs more than tweaks—it needs to be rethought and refocused. I won't comment on the sourcing issues as I haven't looked at them, and judging sources at that level is beyond my expertise. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding article length, Wikipedia recommends that articles be between "4,000 to 10,000 words". At the time it passed good article review, the article was 8,800 words and while it has expanded over the past month to 9,180 words, it's still below the limit of 10,000 words. Although there may not be a current consensus on how much detail to include, the large majority of users who have edited the article since it passed good article review have been trying to expand it in some way rather than reducing its size. Apparently there is some consensus for expanding the article, which I think should not be a problem provided we stay under 10,000 words.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No the article is longer than it needs to be because of out-of-scope details and verbose writing, and this hampers readability. The length in itself is not the issue I'm indicating—if it were 12,000 of focused meat there'd be no issue. I was trying to improve the prose myself, but—well, things happened and I've withdrawn my services, an experience which only convinces me the problems won't be solved easily. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommends yes, but naturally for an entire history of major country article you'd expect it to be easily 10,000 words. The most important thing is "Does the article provide a neutral, balanced, accurate summary of each period of Japanese history which is very informative and easy to digest?" If 12,000 words are really needed to effectively do that, and no section is too big and difficult to read, so be it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• It does need work, as it seems the GA was somewhat "forced." I am in the process of combing my library for material, and I know we have editors asking for access to JSTOR, etc. for other materials. We can definitely reassess this ourselves, but I have a feeling the final product is going to be very, very different, so it might be wise to delist anyway, because it's not going to be a short process. Ideally thisd should be a survey-type article, and it isn't at the moment. MSJapan (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - No one has yet found any actual problems with the sourcing used in the article, neither the current sourcing nor the sourcing that was used when the article passed good article review. Most of these alleged errors are actually just the inevitable result of summarization of the sources' content. Henshall dated The Tale of Genji to 1004, so I simply opted to go with that date rather than explaining the other possible dates which are already discussed in the novel's own Wikipedia article. Such a minor issue, which has already been changed through editing, is no reason to downgrade the article. Though the overwhelming majority of Hijiri's criticisms are just these sort of minor quibbles, others can't even be explained by this. Hijiri objected to the article saying that "the Yayoi culture was established by invaders from the Asian mainland", even though both Jared Diamond and Kenneth Henshall, the sources which were cited, concur with this. Henshall says, "Around 400 BC... Japan was effectively invaded. Immigrants arrived in number from the continent, immigrants different in appearance and culture from the Jomon people." Regarding Jared Diamond, a majority of users on the talk page, including Hko2333 who was not pinged, concurred that his article was a reliable source. Given how blatantly inaccurate or trivial all of Hijiri's criticisms are, we have to ask whether he nominated this article for reassessment more out of anger than reason.

Hijiri's initial declaration that he would reassess the article was appropriately dismissed with the comment Deliberate harassment of Curtis by Hijiri88. Even before Hijiri88 had even checked the references he had already somehow concluded that "I'd bet that every single reference to Japanese literature in your rewrite of the article contains an obvious error or misreading of a source that I could point out". He made harassing comments on the article talk page concerning the good article nomination.

Because of his behavior, Hijiri was explicitly warned that "the goal of a reassessment is to not to punish those responsible as you may be hoping, but rather to improve Wikipedia by helping the article deserve its GA status."CurtisNaito (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal comments here. Nothing in my delisting rationale is based on a desire to "punish" anyone. Pinging User:Prhartcom to correct the above misquoting of them -- they didn't comment on "behavior" and neither did I above. Neither should you. The misquoting of me does not even merit a response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't misquote you. The problem is that you haven't found any problems with the article as it stands.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. This will probably be remembered as the most frivolous good article reassessment in Wikipedia's history.TH1980 (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You took the words "I'd be that every single reference to Japanese literature in your rewrite of the article contains an obvious error or misreading of a source that I could point out" out of context by saying that this was "before [I] had even checked the references": I had clearly already checked the several references I listed above. Also, by repeating your previous IDHT "you haven't found any problems", you are explicitly violating Dennis Brown's moratorium on ANI. I have informed another user of this and it will soon be investigated. I have no intention of violating the moratorium myself, so I'm keeping this user-conduct discussion to the bare minimum, and will not reply more than twice. I'll leave it to the community from here. Farewell. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: are you kidding? We bickered for weeks and had an ANI thread over the sourcing issues of this article. And that was just over the sourcing used for the GA review. Since it centered on Jomon-Yayoi sources, I'm sure we haven't even scratched the surface yet. You should stop the WP:IDHT behavior before you dig an even deeper WP:HOLE, and don't bring up Hijiri's "harrassment" without owning up to your own faults. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There was no problem with the way the original sources were cited, but there was disagreement over certain dates and details and so ultimately the original sources were replaced with different sources. Just because one reliable source doesn't give the exact same date as a different reliable source is no reason to reassess the article, especially since the article has already been changed to reflect what the objecting users wanted. In a reassessment, discussion should focus on alleged problems with the article as it is, not alleged problems which no longer exist.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: again, seriously? Evidence was presented, here and at the talk page, and we argued and edit warred over it for weeks, and you're still denying it? And about those "alleged" problems which no longer exist, since they were present in the assessed version of the article, the article shouldn't have been passed in the first place and doesn't deserve GA status. And the sourcing issues were from only two sections of the whole article; once we start looking through other sections I'm sure we'll find more. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - I have checked most of the citations in the article myself and I didn't see any problem with them. It is Hijiri, rather than CurtisNaito, who has been misreading the sources here. At any rate, the purpose of a good article review is to point out existing problems with the article in question and fix them. Hijiri is only pointing out "problems" which he already "fixed" through editing. If any real problems have crept into the article since it passed the good article review, then we should work together to fix those. But no one has found any actual problems with the article as it is.TH1980 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@TH1980: again, your dispute with Hijiri is blinding you. We found plenty of problems with the sources used in the GA reviewed version, which were solved with no thanks to you or CurtisNaito. The article "as it is" has not been investigated outside the initial focus of the Jomon-Yayoi period, but is sure to have similar sourcing issues. Saying that "[you] have checked most of the citations... and didn't see any problem" (after it was proven that there were sourcing issues) means your opinion of the current article's sourcing has no merit. If you wouldn't pick the wrong side simply because it isn't Hijiri's side every time, maybe we could actually "work together to fix" the article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, we should be working together to improve the article, and changes of varying quality have been made to the article since the good article review. However, it was more a clash of opinions than a clash of sources. I myself checked the book by Kenneth Henshall and can attest that it was cited properly. Vaguely claiming that the article is "sure to have similar sourcing issues" is not a basis for good article reassessment and not likely to be true in any case.TH1980 (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Henshall was not cited properly: "about 1004" became "in 1004", "[Chinese] poetry" became "Japanese poetry", "immigration" became "invasion", Henshall's dubious summary of the scholarly consensus on the Man'yōshū's date was taken at fact value. 100% of references to Henshall I checked involved him being misquoted; how many of the places I was unable to check misquoted him? There are almost certainly several dozen more such instances that could be found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that your errors here have been corrected enough times already, but based on Henshall the year 1004 was accurately cited and Henshall did mention the invasion of peoples from mainland Asia. I think even CurtisNaito mentioned that "Japanese poetry" could have been replaced with "Japanese-produced poetry", but whether or not that change was for the best it has already been made and so it is not relevant to this review. I checked the same book you checked, but my conclusion is that 100% of the citations (which I have looked into so far) are accurately represented in the article.TH1980 (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, your disruptiveness is going to bite you one of these days. No-one here believes you've read the sources. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The book by Henshall is not hard to acquire and is available in many libraries. I've been going through and checking the citations, but I haven't found any of the alleged problems stated above.TH1980 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for verifying the accuracy of the citations TH1980. If the sourcing issue has now been dealt with, I suppose the only issue remaining to be resolved is a little copyediting.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If no one else is going to step up to the plate then I will do it. I think another user already started copy editing the first part, so I'll give the remaining two thirds a thorough copy edit.TH1980 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If Henshall is available on JSTOR I will look it up myself tomorrow. Either way, if the source says "about 1004" and you put "in 1004", you're making stuff up. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, "about 1004" and "in 1004" are not the same. Henshall said "about 1004", a rough date with which no mainstream scholar disagrees; our article, at the time of its GA review, misquoted Henshall as saying "in 1004" -- an overly specific and very narrow date with which no mainstream scholar agrees. And yes, you and CurtisNaito have claimed several times that "Japanese poetry" was meant to be read as "Japanese-produced poetry", and that it is my fault for misreading it as saying "Japanese poetry"; but the fact is that even if that was the case, wording that is vague enough that the most intuitive reading is the wrong reading is just as much of a fault as being outright wrong. Regarding 759: the article cited an inadequate, tertiary source and so contained misleading information, which should have come up in the initial GA rebiew. The fact that the initial GA review failed to recognize these and many other blatant errors and misrepresentations of sources means it needs to be undone pending an actual thorough examination of the article and its sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - I don't know why anyone objected to the use of the Jared Diamond article, but it doesn't seem to matter anymore. The rest of the article is in good shape and I don't see any reason to change its status. Hko2333 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hko2333: Did you even read the above discussion? Jared Diamond isn't even mentioned, except briefly as a fringe source written by a non-specialist for a popular magazine. And yes, such sources are inappropriate for Wikipedia in general and unbecoming of GA-standard articles in particular. But what about all the places where good sources are being misquoted ("about 1004" became "in 1004", "[Chinese] poetry" became "Japanese poetry", "immigration" became "invasion") and the factual errors that were introduced by using such sources when they were less-than-ideal (Henshall's dating the Man'yōshū's compilation to exactly 759 is not accepted by mainstream scholars)? How many more such instances of misreading of sources exist that we haven't located yet? I checked only references to classical literature and every place I checked had such an error. Also, can I ask who you are? You made several edits to Japan-Korea disputes back on September 22, 2008, and then disappeared for seven years -- you wouldn't have anything to do with the massive sockpuppet problems in the Japan-Korea historical dispute area, would you? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. I read the above discussion, I just didn't see any decent evidence for what you're saying. I don't know whether every single citaiton is accurate or not, but the only ones you mentioned are either minor quibbling with dates or else have already been changed.Hko2333 (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Revoke GA status - given that the single reviewer, who never edits in this topic area, appears to have reviewed this article as a favor and had obviously missed the glaring sourcing issues, and the only other supporter of the GA review was the editor who rewrote and nominated it, this article shouldn't have gotten GA status in the first place. After weeks of arguing, edit warring, and two ANI threads, the sourcing issues in one section have been resolved. If, and only if, the sourcing issues are completely fixed and the scope of the article is corrected before this GAR is closed, then it may keep its GA status. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

While I agree that for such an important, extensive article the GA review should have been a lot more thorough, in looking at this article it does appear to have the basics in place and is adequately sourced for GA. I'd need to read it fully to judge the prose quality and examine the sources to assess whether or not User:Hijiri88 is right about the sourcing issue, but given the hostility here I'm not sure I want to. He seems to be an experienced editor, so might well be right. I'm not very knowledgeable about Japanese history so couldn't say if it is truly an effective or accurate overview, but other than the sourcing issue it does seem to have a summary of each period, and for the main article you'd not expect any real detail anyway as it's a basic outline of the entire history. It is for Good article too, the articles don't need to be really that comprehensive. I agree with Hijiri though that for such an article it would be better for more editors to collaborate, and rather than rush towards promoting it, that it is done in a way different editors can all approve of it. All I can say is that it is a core article which really does need to be brought up to GA status, so if there are sourcing problems I'd urge towards fixing them rather than an immediate delisting unless the problems are genuinely so extensive they'd take months to fix.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: Thank you for your input. I do think that fixing the article's problems with sourcing (as well as scope -- the article at present is woefully bare and tilted towards 20th century international relations) will take months at the current rate. The reason for that is that even minor tweaks are immediately reverted my the user who initially submitted it for GA, with the rationale that the changes don't have "consensus". Talk page discussion with said user is fruitless, as he keeps bringing up the fact that his version of the article passed a GA nomination. Most of the problems with the Jomon/Yayoi period coverage were solved, but that took weeks of edit-warring, talk page gridlock and even two ANI threads. As long as the original nominator keeps repeating that his version is a GA the only way problems can be solved is with incredible strain. Revoking the present (unwarranted, I must stress) GA status is therefore the first step to facilitating actual improvement of the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks '88. So you think there's OWN issues at stake here as well? That can make it very difficult to correct things and see progress. Perhaps the best thing would be for somebody to work on a new draft at Wikipedia:History of Japan without interruption and then a neutral administrator can review the changes and update the article without being reverted? I appreciate the effort gone into promoting it, but no editor should dismiss the concerns of other experienced editors on an article as high profile as this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a reason you favour the Wikipedia namespace over Talk:History of Japan/redraft, though? Posting the rest on your talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Either will do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only edit warring ever to take place in the article regarded whether or not to use a single article by Jared Diamond. The majority on the talk page were clearly in favor of including the source, but ultimately it was replaced with other equally reliable sources. No other edits wars ever occurred. I think a major problem here is trust issues. I verified the accuracy of all the citations, but Hijiri doesn't believe me. Another editor named TH1980 also verified the accuracy of many of the citations, but Hijiri doesn't believe him either.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: cut the WP:IDHT act. We edit warred over removing the Diamond source, then over tagging the source as unreliable [25], then whether Henshall should be used for that sentence as well, then over you adding Diamond to another sentence [26], and then over verification of Weston and Kofun [27]. The majority was not in favor of keeping Diamond because there was no majority, and Nishidani, from the "minority", replaced the unreliable source with a reliable one [28]. You say you verified the sources, but you're also the one who misrepresented them. TH1980 is simply saying or doing anything that he thinks would frustrate Hijiri88, and is only a part of this discussion, and your "side", because of Hijiri88. Stop trying to make this an "us vs them" dispute. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The only real edit war involving numerous reverts was over the Jared Diamond source. Though there was good reason to believe that Diamond was a reliable source, the alternative sources that were used instead are good enough.TH1980 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The diffs are there for others to decide what a "real" edit war is, and the sources that replaced Diamond weren't "good enough", they were better by far. And I did assume good faith, of course until disruptive editing was proven. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from the GAN reviewer, Calvin999

Keep I deemed this article as worthy of being passed during its good article nomination process; it is well written and very focused. I think there is a case of harassment going on here by the GAR nominator, of which I know cases have been raised at ANI. I haven't read the barrage of text on this reassessment in detail, but Sturmgewehr88 your comment about me caught my eye. I have reviewed many, many history related nominations had you bothered to check, thank you very much, as I am interested in history. And I am insulted and offended that you have implied that my review was done as a favour.  — Calvin999 09:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Revoke

When I first noticed the factual innaccuracies in the article I just started correcting them as usual, and advised on the article talk page that a GAR would be an unnecessary distraction. I have since changed my opinion, based on the large amount of work it has taken to correct most of just the first two sections, which leaves me in little doubt as to the magnitude of the task remaining, and the review was not ideal. zzz (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Delist – The article needs the attention of an expert. I did a quick source review spotcheck (and can provide details on request). This article does have some sourcing and verification problems. After reading the comments of editors Curly Turkey, MSJapan, Signedzzz, and many more whom I trust above, I believe it is possible the article is not GA worthy. There is no shame in delisting; one mistake does not a failure make. Many more opportunities to improve this article exist. My thanks to those that are committed to improving it. (Note: If it is helpful: Diff of old and new version) Prhartcom (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I finished my copy edit of the article a few days ago. I corrected the spelling and grammar and improved the clarity of the text.TH1980 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Check out the edit history for the last couple weeks to see just how much effort TH1980 has put into this supposed copyedit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As the old saying goes, what is your problem? If you want the page copy edited to your exacting standards, do it yourself. Be my guest, in fact.TH1980 (talk)

Everyone on this page knows what the problem with you is. What are you trying to provoke? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite a number of users, including Curly Turkey and TH1980, have made improvements to the article and, as far as their copy editing goes, I think that the large bulk of the article has already been quite well polished.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: except for the sources. @Prhartcom: which sources did you check? Have they been corrected? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I am re-checking my spotcheck now. I have just completed formatting all of the book sources in the References section as {{cite book}}, providing their ISBN and Google Books links. As nearly all of these books are partially available online, will others please spotcheck also? Prhartcom (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have completed some new spotchecks. When the topic of reassessment was raised, this was the diff from the old article to the version that was inadequately reviewed and needed to be delisted. Since then, this much work as been done to the article. Much work has been done on this article since the reassessment took place, and therefore there may be hope for this article. During the hour or so I did these new spotchecks I came up with a few observations and questions. I don't necessarily need answers to my questions; I am generally trying to find out of the article deserves its GA.

Why are references 1 through 21 to sources that are not books listed in "Select works cited", then references 22 onward are mostly to the books listed in "Select works cited"? Why such a clear dividing line? Is it solely because the books listed in "Select works cited" not cover the Paleolithic and Jōmon period and the Yayoi period? Why aren't the books listed in references 1 through 21 in the "Select works cited" list? Why is it a list a "select works" instead of the article's entire bibliography? For example, the bibliography could acutally list Richard Sims' book, Richard B. Frank's book, and Janet Hunter's book.

Why is reference 77 "Henshall, 75–101, 217" referenced eight times? Are eight passages of the article really sourced on page 217? When I cite a source as pinpoint specific as "75–101, 217", I am probably referencing something like that only once or twice, and for the other six or seven passages I would create new citations that reference the actual page numbers. The same thing with "Henshall, 15–17, 22, 228" that is referenced six times and "Totman, 576, 580–584" that is referenced four times.

When I tried doing spotchecks of specific facts stated in article passages, I found a combination of possible laziness, possible deception, and accurate citations, as much of the time I could not find the facts claimed in the article passages in the cited sources. Other times I could indeed find the correct citation. I spotchecked just a few examples. (I spotchecked others last week but regretably, I lost those notes.) It would be better for readers wanting to learn more and for editors doing spotchecks if the article's citations of specific pages really referenced that specific page of the sourced fact, without so much sharing of the citation with multiple article passages (in other words, customize each cited reference, as this is being implied).

• "The population working in agriculture shrank from 75 percent in 1872 to 50 percent within a decade of the end of the Meiji period.[86]"
  • The facts from this passage were indeed located in the cited source (Hunter p. 3), although the source said "1920" instead of "within a decade of the end of the Meiji period" (which may be correct?).
    • Meiji ended in 1912, so "within a decade of the end of the Meiji period" is not wrong. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Their government devised and implemented the far-reaching Taika Reforms which nationalized all land in Japan, to be distributed equally among cultivators, and ordered the compilation of a household registry as the basis for a new system of taxation[26][30]"
  • "Taika Reform", "nationalize", and "household registry" are never mentioned once in Perez, let alone on pages 18-19 as cited. The concept of reform, nationalized equal distribution, and registration by household is not mentioned on pages 18-19 (What is mentioned on those pages has nothing to do with what is in the article passage).

Perez was accurately cited. As noted on page 19, "Using the Chinese model, the imperial government instituted the Equal Fields System that reapportioned agricultural land every six years according to a national census." According to Henshall, who gives more details, this was known as the Taika Reform.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• "One particularly large and well-known Yayoi village is the Yoshinogari site which began to be excavated by archaeologists in the late-1980s.[19][20]"
  • "Yoshinogari" is not mentioned on Henshall, pp. 11–15 as cited but is mentioned on p. 227 as cited.

• "The Yayoi technologies originated on the Asian mainland. There is debate among scholars as to what extent their spread was accomplished by means of migration or simply a diffusion of ideas, or a combination of both. The migration theory is supported by genetic and linguistic studies.[2][19]"
  • "Yayoi-derived" is mentioned on Henshall pp. 11–15, 227 one time on page 12 but "Yayoi" is otherwise not mentioned in the reference as cited. Mention of a scholars' debate or disagreement is not mentioned in the cited source.

This is accurately cited. Henshall page 12 says "Around 400 BC... Japan was effectively invaded. Immigrants arrived in number from the continent, immigrants different in appearance and culture from the Jomon people. They were lighter and taller, with narrower faces. Their culture included technology such as bronze and iron, and was also more rice-based than that in Japan. There is great diversity of opinion over the nature and scale of this immigration, and even the motives and origins of the immigrants... Genetically, in modern Japan 54 per cent of male lines and 66 per cent of female lines show Sino-Korean origins, reflecting this influx. In material terms, both Korean and Chinese artefacts are found at this time. The period when this change started takes its name from the Yayoi district in Tokyo..." See also the other citation, which says, "Vigorous debate about the nature of the transition between Jomon and Yayoi continues. Given the locations of the earliest sites and the similarities between their contents and those of contemporary sites on the Korean Peninsula, the mainland provenance of the Yayoi technologies is clear. But scholars disagree about whether their spread was the result of the introduction and diffusion of new ideas or of the migration of large numbers of people. The latter explanation is supported by anthropological and genetic studies of modern inhabitants of the areas in question and by the work of linguists examining the origins of the Japanese language."CurtisNaito (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment and recognize the tremendous work done to this article. I regret that it appears I am nitpicking it with my spotcheck.

Based on what I've seen in the endless discussions over this rewrite and subsequent GA, I recommend that the GA reviewer of this article take a break from reviewing articles to GA for awhile and I recommend the re-writer and nominator of this article take a break rewriting and nominating articles to GA. As editors, we are better off if we put our ego aside and listen to and respect the advice of challengers, who may be abrasive, but are ultimately only trying to help the article. It's the article, not the protection of our reputation or ego, that is the most important. If our work is ever challenged, we need to recognize that the challenge is ultimately going to help the article. We should respect the challengers. We do not resist a challenge simply because we feel we must protect ourselves. Doing so does our reputation no good, stirs up a lot of bad blood, and wastes a lot of people's time.

Challengers should respect the writers/nominators and reviewers as well. They should not be intentionally abrasive. Doing so will not achieve the purpose they seek. In a perfect situation, all three editors trust each other and work together to produce a greatly improved article. This takes place daily on Wikipedia.

The article may still need to be delisted, if those editors who I know are experts in this field say it should be. On the other hand, much work has been done to improve this article during the reassessment. I am in favor of keeping it a GA article if possible. Therefore, I suppose I recommend that it keep it's GA. Prhartcom (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom: I think the answer to your first question is that there are multiple editors on this article, and that the sources to the prehistory section were done by editors who focused only or primarily on that section, and added references in the way they found most convenient or familiar. I don't think uniformity of citation style is required for GA. I asked CurtisNaito about the "Selected works" this, too, and didn't really get an answer I understood. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom:I'm often criticized during good article reviews for including too many citations for certain sentences, so this time I grouped my citations to many sources like Henshall together by time period. I used one group of citations for Meiji, Taisho, Showa, etc... in order to reduce clutter. However, I will separate out the ones which you recommend separating, such as Yoshinogari. I will also add the rest of the books to the bibliography.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey thank-you for that; I agree with you. As we all know, what's important is good, neutral, stable, broad, well-written, and especially verifiable prose; every passage of the article correctly cited to a verifiable source. I wonder if the article is there yet? Prhartcom (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, I absolutely believe you, and I agree that if you believe a citation to a source is correct, it absolutely is correct. Please double-check and ensure that each of the citations in this article are correct. You've done a lot of research and writing on this article and I respect that. I can help you with citation format (here is one example) if you wish; just ask me. Prhartcom (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So far I haven't found any example of improperly cited sentences, but I'll continue working on the article. Incidentally, TH1980 has access to a copy of the work and verified most of the citations already.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, it's good to hear that you believe Verifiable is being handled. Now let me ask about Broad in its coverage. The title of this article is certainly broad. Is the article? Curly Turkey and Signedzzz, is it? Prhartcom (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly broad—the question is whether it's comprehensively so. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you know of anything specific which needs to be added? I should have time to make the additions today, if you know of any.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple editors were making lists of things on the talk page. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, for a while I was thinking about just adding in everything from MSJapan's list, but then you said that "Many of the proposed and actual additions are totally out of scope". Did you think most of the list or all the list was totally out of scope? I intend on adding in the ones which are not totally out of scope.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess so far: copy editing-mostly Done, source verification- Done, broad in scope- Done, comprehensive-?

For the record, I think the article is comprehensive enough already, but if anyone has an idea for expanding it, I or another editor will get on it.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I also am interested to hear if the article is comprehensive (a Featured article term; we really mean the GA term Broad in its coverage). The article does appear to have broad coverage in many topics as CurtisNaito says, but I am not an expert. What do others think? We can wait and hear from others such as @Signedzzz:, @MSJapan:, @Sturmgewehr88:; any involved editors. Is the article covering all of the topics that a GA-quality article with this title should cover? Prhartcom (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

but then you said that "Many of the proposed and actual additions are totally out of scope": that wasn't specifically in reference to that list, was it? The point is, the list was proposed, and then utterly undiscussed. Why are the proposed additions going totally undiscussed? I mean, look at how much "discussion" is going on on that talk page, and how almost none of it is discussing the validity or apporpriateness of the proposed additions, etc.

Also, copyediting is not done. I began merely a first run and had it sabotaged. The copyedit didn't come anywhere close to being finished (and TH1980's was superficial at best).

Prhartcom: some editors feel there are important topics that have not been touched on at all, particularly pre-20th century topics, giving the article a decidedly Western perspective. I don't think I have quite strong enough a handle of either Japanese history or the cutoff of GA criteria to judge whether it has achieved sufficient balance for GA. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with CT, copy editing is far from finishing and there are missing pieces still. Also, source verification is  Not done. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88, it is  Done as much as possible. You are free to also do your own spotchecks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Until my edits just now, Ryukyu was mentioned once ("Japan consolidated control over Hokkaido and the Ryukyu Islands") and Okinawa was never mentioned. I've just now added most of the relevant information about Ryukyu, but there is still no mention of Okinawa, which I will probably add soon. The Battle of Okinawa and Okinawa's reversion to Japan need to be mentioned at a minimum. This is is yet another example of why this article should be delisted from GA status. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's try to keep it GA if possible, if more work can be done to address the concerns. I doubt the situation is absolutely hopeless. CurtisNaito, the article is mostly in good shape, so can you address the gaps mentioned here? As for copy editing, why not immediately submit the article to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? Prhartcom (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I submitted the article. Concerning the recent additions related to the Ryukyu Islands, I didn't think to add this information earlier because it's not mentioned in most general histories of Japan. I consulted several dozen general histories, but few of them, including Henshall and Perez, mention these facts. Still, the article is not yet at its word limit, so I won't oppose the additions as long as space for more material remains. Concerning the Battle of Okinawa and Okinawa's return to Japanese control, these are briefly mentioned in some of the main sources cited in the article, so I will add this in myself.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no "word limit", only a guideline, and further tightening of the prose will provide a lot of wiggle room. I removed over 5kb without even completing a first run of my copyedit—this is with removing hardly even any information. The topic is so broad it could easily go to 60kb (from its current 47kb) or even more without anyone raising a fuss. Reign in the prose and there will be no problem. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, everyone should see that you are clearly demonstrating a willingness to create the best article possible. You are willing to take the suggestions of the challengers and I believe this will improve the article even more. Soon the article will be copy edited; although it will take a little over a month to wait in the Guild's queue. Curly Turkey, that is good to hear that there is no problem increasing the size of the article where necessary. Would you like to provide the first pass at an article copy edit? I mean, you live there and you have produced featured articles about Japan, so I, for one, trust your judgement (if you have time, of course). I am not an expert on this subject at all, but I did enjoy reading the article and I am happy to see that work is being done to make the article deserve it's GA status. Prhartcom (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I've made multiple attempts, and they keep getting interfered with, so I've given up. There's a lot of bad will going around on this article that is hindering improving it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And if you can't tell, I am trying to do something about that. No one will interfere with you this next time. Will you please give the article a good copy edit? Prhartcom (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

When all the other issues are sorted I'll consider it. There's a lot of work to do and I'd hate to waste my time on text that's going to undergo great changes anyways. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone give Curly Turkey the assurance he deserves that, were he or the Guild to copy edit now, the article is close enough that his efforts won't be wasted? It sounds like later 20th century sections are the only areas that need trimming (See zzz's comment below). Prhartcom (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Prhartcom. Unfortunately, it seems clear to me that while the later 20th century sections could probably be reduced to a more reasonable length, the earlier periods are far too short and perfunctory for a "history" article, even before the removal of surplus verbiage. zzz (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. We need to resolve this while keeping the GA Status. zzz, do you have the sources, the will, and the time to expand those sections? Prhartcom (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have any good sources. Apparently my A Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations is not a particularly RS.zzz (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If I had an approved list of topics which need to be added to the article, I could do the work myself.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's get CurtisNaito what he needs, below, please. Prhartcom (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For a good example, see the Featured Article, History of Gibraltar. zzz (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is currently similar to Gibraltar#Early_history. zzz (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar is 74kb in length. History of Japan is currently 47kb. I don't think we have to worry about not having enough room to add stuff. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if no one else has any ideas, then I support adding material on the 1964 Olympics and on recent popular culture trends like anime and gaming.TH1980 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

People have plenty of ideas. There are entire lists of ideas on the talk page. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Once the Guild of Copy Editors goes to work, we can probably wrap this review up.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice work; keep it up if you can. The Guild's queue is moving pretty fast; they just got to my (unrelated) article; maybe just a few more weeks. They are good people there; be sure to give them all the thanks they deserve. Prhartcom (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Further comment I read through the above, but it seems no one has yet addressed the sourcing issues. You're all rearranging chairs on the Titanic at this point, it would seem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, if you read through the above, you will see I did a spotcheck of the sources as best I could. If you have better accesses to these sources then by all means, please proceed to do your own spotcheck as well. Otherwise, the sourcing issues can be considered resolved. Prhartcom (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, your edits to the article don't seem to have changed the text of the article at all. Did you check the sources and find that there was absolutely no misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the sources? As demonstrated above, it would seem that this was a fairly rampant problem in the places where I was able to check the sources. (I live in Japan, so English-language offline sources are hard for me to access in general, and on top of that I recently moved to a new city and am still finding my way around.) Is it possible that when you checked the sources, you interpreted them in light of what our article already said? The only reason I was able to notice such errors as the description of the Kaifūsō as a collection of Japanese poetry and the dates on both the Man'yōshū and The Tale of Genji was because I was already familiar with these topics -- have you already familiarized yourself with all of that material by checking multiple sources? I don't think anyone here is a subject expert on everything that has ever happened in Japanese history and pre-history, so copy-editing and checking to verify that the sources could be interpreted in a manner that supports the material as it appears presently is not sufficient. Sources that "could be interpreted" in such-and-such a way are not really appropriate for a definitive statement in an article to begin with, and actually interpreting them in that way is a violation of WP:NOR. Articles containing such OR are explicitly rejected under the GA criteria. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, you are absolutely right to remind us how important the "2. Verifiability" criteria is, although I am sorry you were absent when we last discussed it. The only way to find out if the article meets the verifiability requirement is: Be in possession of at least some of the sources, go to the page number that a citation references, and do a spotcheck to ensure that the source states exactly what is being stated in that cited passage of the article. I have repeatedly stated that I am no expert on the subject of this article, but I know how to cite sources, so I volunteered to try to do this for part of this article. It wasn't easy, as I only had some online versions of some of the sources, and even those were very incomplete, but for the most part I was able to perform my spotcheck and have my questions answered. The most important part of the spotcheck, to me, was to ask the nominating editor who is in possession of all the sources to please double-check and ensure that they themselves have not accidentally or purposely misrepresented any of the sources in any passages of the article. I received an acceptable response to this request and I am assuming good faith that, if this person is happy with the article's verifiability, then I am happy with this article's verifiability. I have repeatedly asked others to also step up and do their own source spotcheck (I went through the bibliography and provided the online links to the books). Of course, anyone who is not willing to personally check the article's verifiability should not have a verifiability complaint. If you agree, let's move past this point. We are currently checking the article against the "3. Broad in its coverage" criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, there have been multiple suggestions to you for expanding the article, such as in the earlier periods (those sections are "far too short and perfunctory for a 'history' article"). You have added a few sentences, but I think some folks here are waiting for you to fill in these sections even more. Do you agree this would help the article and help it deserve its GA? If so, please get with editor Signedzzz and others above who would like to help you with useful feedback of this kind of expansion. Prhartcom (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I could do that work. However, I already inserted everything into the article which I personally thought it needed, and I don't personally think it requires further expansion, so I would rather that other users suggest additional topics for me to add. I would like other users to post on this good article review a list of the additional topics which should be included. TH1980 is so far the only user who had named any specific topics, but I'll wait for additional suggestions.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted. How could you say that TH1980 is "the only user who [has] named any specific topics"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, since Prhartcom asked other users to put down their ideas on October 8, TH1980 is the only user who had put down a single idea. By the way, if you have any good ideas for expansion, please list your ideas on this good article review below, and I'll take care of it.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to comment on behaviour, but this has been dragging on for months for one very specific reason, and continues to do so.

CurtisNaito, you were told on ANI that if you engaged in IDHT behaviour you would be blocked for 72 hours. I was one of at least four users who listed specific ways in which the article needs to be expanded. The article still does not mention Fujiwara no Teika or Minamoto no Yoshitsune, for instance. Past experience has taught me that if I do it myself I will be immediately reverted by either you or TH1980, so I should not be expected to "put my money where my mouth is" on this point.

Curly Turkey: Curtis is violating a final warning -- any idea what should be done?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I was only asking people to put their ideas on the good article review. I wasn't violating any warning of any sort. Furthermore, neither TH1980 or I have ever reverted any of the additions you have made to the article. The only time anyone reverted you was when you were removing highly reliable sources from the article without bothering to replace them with anything else. At any rate, I've added information on Teika and Yoshitsune to the article, and if anyone else has an idea for expanding the article, they should list off their ideas on this good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, you are well aware of the very long list of items on the talk page of the article, and if you somehow weren't aware of that stuff (!!!) then I've pointed it out at least twice on this page. There are no excuses for this IDHT. That should be a reason enough to delist right there. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think the list of items to be added should be put here, partly because of the lack of clarity on the talk page over what should be added. Most of the lists on the talk page were composed almost entirely of things which were already in the article even before the lists were composed. Similarly, you yourself made a list but then immediately said, "interesting selection that likely won't match ours". What I want listed here is not a selection of things which have already been added to the article or a selection of things which should not be added to the article. All I want is a list of things which should be added. If you can think of anything, just mention it below. So far, only TH1980 has made any suggestions, but I already implemented those.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean, TH1980 parroted a single suggestion of mine that nobody else supported, and thus you'll ignore everything else on the talk page? Not how it works, I'm afraid. Moreover, the discussions I've called for repeatedly on the talk page have yet to happen. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, you know perfectly well that both you and TH1980 have reverted me countless times on numerous articles, and that the only thing all of these edits have in common are that they were all made by me. Furthermore, your referring to Teika and his father as "Zen Buddhist monks" (!) and placing Shunzei in "this period" (the paragraph began "Japan nevertheless entered a period of prosperity and population growth starting around 1250") when he died in 1204-5, and claiming that this edit made the article better and not worse has been duly noted. Did your cited source actually refer to them as Zen Buddhist monks? When did it say Shunzei lived? Or did you put these words in Totman's mouth? Heck, even Teika died when Nichiren was in his teens, so including him in "this period" was problematic. @Prhartcom: Can you not see why these kind of edits are a problem? The problem with people being placed in the wrong historical period or the ordering of dates being radically inconsistent (see my edit here) is yet another factor that is unbecoming of a GA, and it was radically compounded immediately before the article was promoted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delist — Shockingly little effort is being put into dealing with longstanding issues, and the IDHT attitude suggests these issues will simply be ignored. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Those that have spoken out have a valid point. But we're not going to escalate this. Let's keep it positive. We're 70–90% there, with this article already, compared with the GA criteria. I agree with CurtisNaito; please get him what he needs below. It's not asking too much: Please summarize, in a brief list below, only the most important items from the Talk page list. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, you earlier talked about assuming good faith in regard to whether this article should be delisted, but while AGF is a good conduct policy, it is irrelevant here for three reasons. First, you said you asked the nominator if he thought the article misrepresented sources, he said no, and you "assumed good faith" -- but the same user also claimed he thought the article didn't misrepresent sources in August. It's not an AGF-violation to say this simply is not an accurate description. Second, AGF could only apply if someone was alleging without evidence (i.e., assuming) that such-and-such user was deliberately behaving in bad faith; it does not apply to accidental misinterpretation of sources (something that demonstrably occurred here) or accusations of deliberate misrepresentation of sources made with evidence (i.e., they are not assumptions of bad faith). Third, and most importantly, AGF is a conduct policy, and has no bearing on whether this or that article is GA status. We assume good faith in the behaviour of other users -- we most certainly do not assume that an article contains no OR or unverifiable/inaccurate material before promoting that article to GA status -- or preserving ill-granted GA status that has been challenged.

Now you are talking about being 70-90% there, but you are still only talking about rearranging chairs on the Titanic. The iceberg in this metaphor -- the sourcing -- remains. And like a real iceberg, the ones that have already been addressed represent only a small fraction of what is probably there if a legit topic expert were to properly review the article in comparison with its sources.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I recognize your ability to complain. I saw it applied all the way to ANI and back again. I've acknowledged that you have a valid point. Now let's switch for a moment from AGF to due diligence. As you know, Wikipedia was built by editors who are willing to work to get the job done. Are you, or are you not, willing to do anything about this, other than repeat a clever metaphor? If you have spotted an issue with sourcing, please join hands with us and work to get the issue resolved.

All editors: Please provide CurtisNaito what he needs below. Prhartcom (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I am willing. The problem is whether or not I am able. I have worked to improve a sentence or two over the last coupla hours, but my efforts must of course be focused on defending myself against CurtisNaito's amazing friends continuing to request that I be blocked for posting here.

My attempts to improve even the smallest portions of this article have been met with "This edit does not have consensus. Revert!", so how can I reasonably be expected to go through the entire article and radically overhaul it? The user who reverted me has said numerous times that he believes the article has no significant problems and will revert any edits of which he disapproves. I (and numerous others) say the article does have problems and needs to be improved. The fact that the GA status has not yet been revoked is being used as an excuse to revert edits and ignore legitimate concerns raised both here and on the talk page.

This is why I believe the first step to improving this article is to delist it in the short run.

It is entirely unclear what CurtisNaito still feels he needs -- several detailed lists of what is missing from this article have been provided both on the talk page and here. He failed to address these (even going so far as to deny they had been provided) and then when he tried to address two of the items, one resulted in a laughably inaccurate line of text and the other completely missed the point (see below).

When I said I wanted the article to discuss Yoshitsune, I meant his flight to Hiraizumi, his tragic death, and the fact that for most of the rest of history he has been treated as the Japanese national hero. The fact that Hiraizumi itself is not mentioned is questionable. And the original King in the North (couldn't resist the GoT reference) and his clan. And the Abe clan. And Sakanoue no Tamuramaro. And Aterui. And the names of the major wars in which several of these figures were involved (Zenkunen and Gosannen). Date Masamune isn't mentioned anywhere. The 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami are taken as important enough to be mentioned in the lead, but the entire history of the whole of northern Japan prior to 2011 seems to have been rejected as unimportant. Whether this was deliberate or not is beside the point -- a proper GA review would have taken note of this fact.

(And please don't try to say I never mentioned this until now -- the diff given above clearly shows I did so on September 9, and my concerns were not met even when CurtisNaito specifically claimed he had done so today.)

As for your commenting on ANI, I would appreciate you not discussing such things here. This page is for discussion of whether or not the article should be delisted as a GA, and why; the user conduct problems should be dealt with elsewhere.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought of the three heroes of Iwate, but I guess I'm kind of biased in favour of one of them and I don't really know how many Japanese outside Iwate over the age of fifteen remember reading him in elementary school; another -- well, while I like his poetry more than that of the former, I think he was probably included to make it an even three, without regard to his importance. But Inazo Nitobe was on the 5,000 yen note, and is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I checked, and found that of the five people who have appeared prominently on Japanese bank notes in the last forty years (Nitobe, Higuchi, Natsume Soseki, Noguchi and Fukuzawa), only one is mentioned in the article proper. Considering why they are considered so important to modern Japanese society and adding them in or deciding not to based on that would be a good idea.

But again. Chairs. Titanic. Iceberg.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Prhartcom: you're not accusing Hijiri of not working to improve the article, are you? According to the page history, Hijiri's actually made more edits to the article than Curtis Naito. In fact—and here's a shocker—it appears CurtisNaito made no edit to the article before 15 August 2015, and yet has claimed credit for its promotion to GA ten days later with no more than five edits made out of the article's total of over five thousand edits. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, you're usually right about what you say. CurtisNaito, would you like to get started right away on expanding the early history sections? You could pick any item from the talk page list. Prhartcom (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone else do it after CurtisNaito made such a mess of the two short passages I specifically requested he add here? Again, Shunzei and Teika were not Zen monks, nor were they men of the late thirteenth century, and "the forms of waka poetry" is nonsense... I'm extremely skeptical that a large addition to the article made under the present circumstances will look much better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, let's watch what we type from here on. We're trying to turn a page from the days of endless bickering. Is that all right with you if we give him another chance right now? Please feel free to provide a suggestion of exactly what you would like to see expanded and any encouragement you wish to provide. Prhartcom (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. But I'm watching the changes, and I reserve the right to either (a) fix any problems I see (again -- the one arguing the article should not be delisted is actively making the article worse in response to our requests to improve it) or (b) point out such problems on this page if I don't have the time to fix them myself (posting comments on here is a lot easier for me than tracking down sources that will allow me to fix the article directly). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, no. If, after every request we make, someone has to go in after him to cleanup his edits, then I don't think he should be the one doing it. Like when I pointed out the lack of mention of Okinawa, and that I would add it in the near future, he gives an American guesstimate of the dead Japanese soldiers at the Battle of Okinawa (which probably ignorantly included Okinawan conscripts or civilians) and gave no number for the more significant Okinawan civilian deaths. I have since fixed this instance, however it only makes me doubt the accuracy of other things he's added that he barely looked into. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, guys. CurtisNaito has the sources and has expressed a willingness to do whatever work a challenger poses to him from this point forward. Is that right, CurtisNaito? A multiple-editor team effort may be required to get this work done correctly, so those corrections may be what is necessary to get the work done. Sturmgewehr88, do you have the sources? Who does, and who is willing to do the work necessary to get this article to deserve its GA? Prhartcom (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It never said in the article that Shunzei and Teika were Buddhist monks. According to Totman, Zen Buddhist monks popularized waka poetry like renga which were then "revitalized" by Shunzei and Teika. Since the previous sentence mentioned Zen, it seemed like a good segway. Also, Henshall does state that "110,000 Japanese troops" were killed in the Battle of Okinawa. The only reason why I didn't include civilian deaths or American deaths is because it seemed like too much detail. But okay, I will add in more information on Yoshitsune, plus information on Fujiwara no Hidetada, the Abe clan, Sakanoue no Tamuramaro, Aterui, Date Masamune, Kenji Miyazawa, Takuboku Ishikawa, Inazo Nitobe, Higuchi Ichiyo, Natsume Soseki, and Hideyo Noguchi. As I said before, when I was writing the article I focused on the events and people which are prominently mentioned in general histories of Japan. The reason why I did not initially mention Sakanoue no Tamuramaro, Aterui, and Date Masamune is because very few general histories of Japan mention these figures. However, I will add them in today. For the record, TH1980 has access to Henshall's book, one of the main sources used in the article, so he may be able to help also.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, if Totman refers to renga as a form of waka (poetry), then he is not a reliable source on Japanese poetry. He is either oversimplifying to the point of misleading his reader (you) or his area of expertise is far enough removed from Japanese poetry that he is simply wrong. And neither Teika nor his father were notable for their contributions to renga, which really only came to prominence in the Muromachi period (!). (I'm not familiar with the contributions of Zen monks to renga, though.) And please don't try to claim that your edit didn't imply that the two men were Zen monks -- I asked you to add a reference to Teika, and you added the words "During [the late 13th century] Zen Buddhists monks also promoted renewed interest in the poetic arts, including the forms of waka which were composed by the influential poets Fujiwara no Shunzei and his son Fujiwara no Teika" to the article. Furthermore, the timeline of your above post is even more wonky than the one you presented in the article: Zen was apparently introduced to Japan around 1191, when Shunzei was already an old man and Teika was already a prominent poet; renga (and probably Zen -- I'm not all that familiar with it) only came to prominence some time after Teika's death; waka composition had been consistently popular since the Nara period, with a brief lull in the ninth century; saying it was "popularized" (specifically as opposed to "revitalized") by Zen monks is completely anachronistic; Shunzei and Teika revitalized the art before Zen and renga were even a thing; and (I can't stress this enough) renga are usually not considered a form of waka. I don't know who "Fujiwara no Hidetada" is, but I hope you aren't saying you will add a reference to Hidehira if you are unable to read his name. And I specifically stated that you should not add any reference to Takuboku. I am ambivalent on Kenji (there are about a dozen other 20th-century novelists who should be added first). And you are absolutely wrong in claiming very few general histories mention those three figures. While I'm not much of a Sengoku/Edo buff, Masamune is one of the better-known generals of the period. If there is a general history (that covers the political/military developments of the Nara period and very early Heian period, and/or the title "seii taishougun") that doesn't mention Sakanoue no Tamuramaro by name, then it is insufficient as a general history -- every general history I have read does so, except possibly a popular work or two written in English in the 1890s. As for Aterui, I think it's up in the air whether he should be named specifically in the article, given that we don't know what his actual name was; but you can't mention Tamuramaro with implicitly referring to his opponent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It was never implied in any way that they were Zen monks. Zen monks revived interest in many forms of Japanese and Chinese poetry around the same time as the appearance of Shunzei and Teika. Totman notes this, and the information made a useful segway from the previous sentence. All you did was delete a reliable source without replacing it with anything. I think Conrad Totman can be counted as a reliable source on this matter until you find a better source. Also, Sakanoue no Tamuramaro is not mentioned by Perez, Henshall, Totman, or Hane, so I wouldn't say he is widely mentioned in general histories. Many of the other figures you mentioned are also not dealt with in these books, though I will incorporate them into the article anyway.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, Zen monks basically didn't exist yet in Japan "around the same time" as Shunzei and Teika. Both Chinese and Japanese poetry were popular throughout the Heian period, so there was no "revival" in anything other than the quality of the poetry. And why are we suddenly talking about Chinese poetry? Waka, renga and kanshi are all distinct poetic forms, and confusing them will not improve the article. Mentioning Teika (but not his father) in the Kamakura section makes sense, but the place you put it made no sense the way you wrote it, since both men were dead before 1250. (Listing a whole bunch of prominent poets in the late Heian and early Kamakura period kind of works, but would be better placed earlier.) I deleted a source that had either contained inaccurate information or had been misquoted as giving inaccurate information. I replaced it with information I got from an earlier (this spring) reading of Keene 1999 Seeds in the Heart (Columbia University Press), which is arguably the best source of its kind ever published in English. I don't have time to hunt down all the page numbers right now, but if you want to you can. We need the pages that clarify that these are essentially the four most prominent poets of their age (with the possible exception of Sanetomo, who I included because of his connection to the shogunate), and that Shunzei and Teika in particular are credited with revitalizing a stagnant art form. Finding these would involve reading through about 50 pages of text. If Tamuramaro is not even mentioned in those books, then those books do not give an adequate picture of the political/military climate of the late eighth century, and better sources should be located, simple as that. I'm a fan of Sansom -- he's old, but he probably still has broader acceptance and use an undergrad textbook and reference work than any of the more recent books you list. And you must understand that the "general histories" you consulted are not in fact general in terms of covering the same scope we should be covering: either they are introductory textbooks (and give only bare details because of length restrictions), or they deal with a particular area of history (mostly, I would guess, political) to the exclusion of important cultural figures who everyone in Japan has heard of, and no doubt the authors you name have heard of, but didn't think it necessary for their purposes to cover them. Keene, for instance, doesn't mention Tamuramaro either, but that's because Tamuramaro's escapades have almost nothing to do with Keene's area of interest (literary history). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll use Sansom, but his book is three volumes and only covers to the mid-1800s. It's natural that not everything mentioned in Sansom's book will be in this article. Virtually all recent general histories of Japan which are less than 800 pages do not mention Tamuramaro. Furthermore, the Totman source should be restored unless you can find a better source. You're trying to rebut Totman with just your own opinion, but we should be citing reliable sources here.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I had already added a better source before you posted the above. I've got an hour-long train journey to make this morning, so I'll try to find the page number then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I would however like it noted that CurtisNaito said he would do the work to improve the article, then when he made it worse by adding blatantly inaccurate information I had to step in and fix it. I cited a source (which has a convenient index) and said the page numbers could be checked later. I.e., I did 80% of the sourcing. CurtisNaito then explicitly threatened to reinsert the inaccurate information if I didn't do the remaining 20% myself first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the information was inaccurate. All I said was that the information should be accurately cited. Totman is a reliable source which was accurately cited, but your source didn't have a page number and you were just recalling it from memory. I added the information on Teika upon request in order to expand the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The information most certainly was inaccurate, as you have already been told repeatedly. Recalling the names of important poets from memory and giving the name of the book one knows one got them is entirely appropriate -- claiming that Shunzei was a Zen monk of the late thirteenth century with a single dubious source is not.

And it should be noted that the above user made good on his threat to reinsert inaccurate and poorly-sourced text placing Fujiwara no Shunzei, who lived from 1114 to 1205 (Gregorian calendar), into the late thirteenth century, and I was forced to revert him. He also removed all reference to the important poetry of Sanetomo, so that the article represented him solely as an impotent statesman even though he is primarily remembered as a poet, and removed the descriptor of Saigyo as a travel poet, replacing it with the meaningless epithet "Buddhist". I still haven't examined the other recent changes, but this does not look promising.

The WP:BURDEN should be on those who oppose delisting to fix these disastrous problems, but instead they are edit-warring to make them worse.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The article never said Shunzei was a Buddhist monk, nor did it say that he lived in the late thirteenth century. The text never indicated anything like that. The only reason why I removed Sanetomo was because Totman didn't mention him. I needed to use the reliable source that I had until you managed to locate the one that you had. I only added Teika on request, and all the information I inserted was accurate and properly cited.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The exact wording of your original edit was Japan nevertheless entered a period of prosperity and population growth starting around 1250. [...] During this period Zen Buddhist monks also promoted renewed interest in the poetic arts, including the forms of waka which were composed by the influential poets Fujiwara no Shunzei and his son Fujiwara no Teika. That speaks for itself. Since you are apparently claiming your recent edits have contained no inaccuracies, could you explain what you meant by "the forms of waka"? You weren't actually referring to kanshi and renga as "forms of waka", were you?

Anyway, you removed a reliable source and replaced it with a less reliable one. If you believed my citation of Keene was inappropriate, the burden was on you to find another source that either contradicted him or covered the same material; instead you removed well-written, relevant, sourced material, and replaced it with what an irrelevant source you happen to have read just happened to say. Sanetomo is best-known as a poet, not a statesman; Saigyo is best-known as a travel poet, not a Buddhist poet.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You just quoted the text correctly, which does not say that Fujiwara no Shunzei and Fujiwara no Teika were Buddhist monks. All the information was accurate and it was accurately sourced to Totman. Naturally, an accurate citation to Totman was preferable to your earlier, improperly cited book.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed you putting words in my mouth. I never said Shunzei (whose dharma name was 釈阿 and who was apparently also known as 五条三位入道) was not a Buddhist monk -- I think describing him as a monk rather than an aristocrat would be atrocious, and descibing him as a Zen monk is wrong. No one here is talking about "Buddhist monks" -- a description which with reference to this period is so broad as to be useless -- except you. And everyone here can see your prose clearly implying Shunzei and Teika were among the late Kamakura Zen monks who revived "the forms of waka". And on that point, you still haven't answered my question: what were "the forms of waka", and were you misinterpreting a source by inserting this inaccurate wording? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the source mentioned the existence of difference styles of waka. In one passage Totman noted that "In place of waka, however, linked-verse forms were developing and these in due course acquired many of waka's qualities." There was nothing incorrect about the previous text, though the current version is decent as well. As I noted, Totman does not say that they were Buddhist monks, nor did the text of the article say that.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So your source said "styles of waka" and you changed it to "forms of waka". The different forms of waka (chouka, sedouka, bussokusekika, katauta) had all been extinct since the eighth or ninth century, and there was no attempt by Shunzei, Teika or the Zen monks of the thirteenth century to revive them -- can you see why someone who understood what a "form of waka" was would find your original wording so outrageous? Furthermore, please stop putting the meaningless epithet "Buddhist monk" in my mouth and the mouths of your sources. Both Teika and his father entered religious orders, but this is an obscure factoid, so your trying to make this an argument over whether or not they were "Buddhist monks" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is your responding to other users' legitimate concerns about the article by inserting unverifiable, misleading information and edit-warring to keep said unverifiable, misleading information in the article even after other users made the effort to correct you. This page clearly has little hope at the present rate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have a unique way of interpreting words, but I don't think most people would have come to the same conclusion. A word like "style" is not so technical that we need to quibble over it. At any rate, I already pointed out by quoting from the book and the article that all the information was perfectly accurate and reliably sourced, and accurate and verifiable information is a key requirement for good articles.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Where did you provide a quote from the source? All I see is you admitting above to misquoting him by changing the acceptable "styles" (Nijou/Mikohidari, no doubt) to the very anachronistic "forms". The term "forms of waka" is correctly defined in the eponymous section of the relevant Wikipedia article. I know because I put it there. My way of interpreting your clearly accidental but nevertheless disruptive wording is not unique -- if it was, everyone else wouldn't agree with me. I wasn't going to bring it up here, but your changing "the Northern Fujiwara clan's territories" to "the Fujiwara clan's northern territories" (which implies the northern estates of a courtier family in the capital, rather than the all-but-independent kingdom run by a warrior clan of mixed Emishi heritage that happens to share the same name) and "tragic hero" to "fallen hero" (which implies Yoshitsune had once been considered a hero before his "fall from grace" -- I strongly recommend you read up on the term 判官贔屓/ほうがんびいき, by the way) are equally concerning, and I don't know why you couldn't find a better source for Date et al. than one of Turnbull's popular books. You need to step back and let other users fix the problems with this article, since (even though there is no doubt in my mind of your good intentions) your own recent edits have only made the problems worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources currently cited referred to them the Northern Fujiwara. Furthermore, "fallen hero" is a direct quote from the source. Stephen Turnbull is one of the world's leading experts on the samurai, so I certainly see no reason not to use his books. As I've noted, all the edits I've made have been accurately sourced to reliable sources. You've been quibbling a lot with words, but so far you haven't yet found a single instance of inaccurate information being inserted into the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Virtually all Japanese sources refer to them as the 奥州藤原, and most good English sources follow this convention. The only reason I chose translation over romanization was because typing an upper-case "O" with a macron on my phone is almost impossible. "the northern territories of the Fujiwara clan" is inaccurate, anyway, and I highly doubt you took it directly from your source.

"fallen hero" doesn't look good. If your source didn't allow you to use the preferable "tragic hero" you should have found another source, rather than expecting me to do it.

Stephen Turnbull is not regarded as one of the world's leading experts on "the samurai" in scholarly circles. All of his well-regarded scholarly works are in the field of religious studies, wherein lie all his academic credentials. He is well-known to American and British popular culture for his work as a historical consultant on various American films and video games, and for his popular books all of which feature the word "samurai" prominently in their titles. In the place where you cited him, neither you nor he appear to have been factually wrong, though you somewhat redundantly described Date Masamune as being based in an area whose technical definition is "the area controlled by Date Masamune". (Yes, I know you had a solid excuse for not saying "Mutsu Province", but it still looked silly.)

As for quibbling over words: you worded a sentence so as to imply that two men who entered religious orders at the ends of their lives but are almost never described as "monks" were Zen monks; you either referred to the stylistic tastes of different schools of waka composition or to the separate genres of kanshi and renga as "forms of waka"; you removed my accurate description of Saigyo as an itinerant poet and replaced it with the meaningless epithet "Buddhist", as though there were any non-Buddhist monks in Kamakura Japan; you actively removed all references to Sanetomo's poetry from the article in order to imply he is best known as a statesman; (with those last two you actually reverted to keep your misleading version in) you described Yoshitsune as a "fallen hero"; you described "the territories of the Northern Fujiwara clan" as "the northern territories of the Fujiwara clan". I'm not mentioning "Sendai domain" since that actually is just quibbling over awkward wording, but the rest are serious content concerns. I should again stress that I DON'T think this is the result of any malicious agenda or intention to mislead our readers. I believe you when you say you are only changing your sources' words for copyright reasons. But your carelessness in doing so, or your lack of knowledge of the topic at hand, seems to result in inaccurate summaries more than half the time. None of the above are in my opinion as bad as bad as the Kaifuso incident, but they are in the same league. Simply clicking around Wikipedia would have allowed you to put your edits in the right context (I'm pretty sure our Kaifuso article would have told you the poetry in question was in Chinese), but you seem unwilling to go to that effort.

I don't see why I or anyone else here should put the work into bringing this article to GA standard if you are going to continue to not only claim full credit but actively claim everyone else is hurting the article and should be blocked and/or banned.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anyone should be banned for their edits here. Certainly, I think you have been wrong to call into question the reliability of experts in Japanese history, and to change the wording of the article into text which is at variance with the sources. Indeed, so far you have expressed almost no disagreement with me personally, but as in your points above, only disagreement with leading scholars. However, I'm not saying you should not be editing the article just because of these issues with your editing. You can add in new material to the article if you have an idea. Otherwise, just list your own ideas and I'll add them in myself.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have nowhere either here or in my edit summaries or comments expressed any personal opinion on the views of leading scholars. Virtually everything I have said is cited to Keene, a HIGHLY reputable source whose credentials in the relevant area of historical research are much better established than those of any of the scholars you have cited. Furthermore, most of my disagreements with your recent edits are in relation to your original misinterpretations of what the scholars in question wrote, not with the scholars themselves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I have dozens of sources on my area of expertise if that's what you mean, but I'm less inclined to hand them over rather than just adding/correcting the relevant information as well

@CurtisNaito: Well where did Henshall get that number I wonder? He obviously doesn't make the distinction between Okinawans and Japanese. And civilian deaths are one of the most significant aspects of the entire battle. Maybe you shouldn't rely so heavily on a general history source made by a Westerner (it probably focuses on things well-known in the West rather than things well-known in Japan). Besides, we're not rewriting Henshall here, so we should be using the most accurate information available. Use Henshall as a guide, not holy scripture. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The number of 110,000 Henshall cites is surely a legitimate figure because, for one, the exact same number is used in Wikipedia's own article on the Battle of Okinawa. "significant" is a subjective word though. The source you cited doesn't say that the civilian death toll was "one of the most significant aspects of the entire battle", nor does the source I cited. Similarly, I didn't think the other information you added about the Ryukyu Island was overly significant for this article because it is not mentioned in any general-purpose histories of Japan. However, if it turns out that you personally think it's significant, there's no reason to delete it.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: since you looked at the article I'm surprised you missed both the label "U.S. estimate" and the accurate figure I used (from Okinawa Prefecture's Peace Memorial Park list). The Americans counted bodies indiscriminately; it gives a figure of "roughly" 77,000 Japanese and 20,000 Okinawans fighting in the battle, then says 7,000 surrendered and 110,000 died. Now where did that extra 20,000 come from exactly? And the source I cited was only for the number of dead; I can gladly add a few more sources if you're disputing the "significance" of 120,000 people dying. And the reason the Ryukyus aren't mentioned in any English general history is because they are not thought to be part of Japan Proper (although that should be surprising given Japan's attempts to either sweep them under the rug or rant that they are an integral part of Japan and always have been). I am surprised that you don't find a lesser daimyo vassalizing a foreign country significant. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I took care of all the suggestions listed. As Prhartcom said, we are already 70–90% finished, so if there's anything left that needs to be added to round things off, then post it below.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have access to Henshall's book plus several other sources on Japanese history. I may not have the same expertise on the subject as CurtisNaito, but if anyone needs me to make additions to the article, I can handle it.TH1980 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's okay, TH1980—気持ちだけいただきます。 Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's true that the article has been expanded some more recently. It should be okay if TH1980 wants to also expand it. CurtisNaito is willing to expand it as much as the subject matter experts here believe more expansion is needed. If so, please list what you want, below, or say that expansion is done. Prhartcom (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Did you read the above or look at the recent edits? The recent expansion has consisted largely of yet more misreading of sources resulting in some honestly quite funny bloopers. Those bits that are not unverifiable OR are poorly-written/awkwardly-worded ("Date Masamune, based in the Date domain"). If specifically commissioned edits resulting from a GAR look like this, then how can we possibly assert that the sections of the article that haven't been checked yet contain no factual errors, unverifiable material or OR? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, then what should be done; what do you propose? Prhartcom (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The article should be delisted as a GA, since clearly no one is both willing and able to fix its massive problems. I could in theory throw out everything past the Kofun period and rewrite it based on careful reading of sources I have access to, but that would be a massive undertaking, I would be setting myself up for yet more abuse (CN, Calvin999 and TH1980 have put me through quite enough already), and per Wikipedia's voluntary nature among other things that's not my job. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If TH1980's "expansion" is anything like his purported "copyedit", I think we'd be better off without it. Several of us here know that TH1980 is WP:NOTHERE and is actively trying to throw a monkeywrench in the works. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

May I ask why you think there was something was wrong with my copy-edit? I corrected all the typos and grammatical errors. I'm willing to do more work, but we need to assume good faith and create a friendly environment for editing first.TH1980 (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell you how happy I am that you made this ridiculous comment. I'm saving it—it will be one of the prime pieces of evidence that you're here to disrupt things. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You never found any inaccuracies. It's perfectly acceptable to say that Date Masamune was based in Sendai, because he was, and that's what the source said. If you think it's not important for the reader to know where Date Masamune's territories were located geographically, then we can leave that out, but in the all the paragraphs you wrote above you never found a factual inaccuracy. As I said, if you do have ideas for improving the article which another user can act upon, then just state it below.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You don't actually think that Sendai and Sendai domain are the same thing, do you? That's like saying Seattle and Washington State are the same thing! Sendai domain was a broad area of land that was called Sendai domain or (unofficially, but more commonly,) "Date domain" because it was governed by the Date clan who had their headquarters in Aoba Castle in Sendai. Saying that "Date Masamune was based in Date domain" is redundant and silly. The actual name of the region Date Masamune occupied was Mutsu Province, or more specifically the south-central part of the province corresponding (very roughly) to modern Miyagi Prefecture (which also isn't the same thing as Sendai). I actually laid all of this out in my edit summary, in which I presented a number of possible solutions to the problem to which I would be amenable. You have roundly ignored my suggestions, instead focusing on the false accusation that I "think it's not important for the reader to know where Date Masamune's territories were located geographically". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate about saying that Date Masamune was based in Sendai Domain, and anyone who clicks on the link to Sendai Domain can conveniently learn where the domain was located. You deleted that information as well as all the other provincial bases of other daimyo. If you don't think it's important for readers to know this, then you can leave it out, but no one can say that any information was inaccurate or redundant.

The point of good article reviews is to improve articles, not to delist. I am the primary author of numerous good level articles on Japanese history, so I certainly have the experience in this field necessary to expand the article. As Prhartcom and Dr. Blofeld noted, this article already generally meets the criteria needed for good articles, so there is no reason to delist. I certainly am able and willing to improve the article, and if anything else still needs to be done, I can implement those ideas.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: "You never found any inaccuracies." I would say that claiming waka is renga is a fairly obvious inaccuracy. If it weren't for ArbCom I'd immediately bring you to ANI for your continuing WP:IDHT behavior. And now you're a self-proclaimed expert in Japanese history because you've managed to get "numerous" articles to GA status as the "primary author"? That only begs the question of how many of those articles are actually GA quality. You may be an expert in a specific field, but you have shown that you aren't an expert in "Japanese history" in general. And if the sole point of a GAR was to improve an article, then why is delisting even an option? And even if the article is "70–90% done" that still isn't 100%. An article doesn't deserve GA status unless it has GA quality. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I highly doubt any third parties could be bothered reading further into this, and it would seem even CurtisNaito has stopped actually reading my comments before reposting the same talking points, so I'm collapsing my response. Others who wish to continue this thread for whatever reason should post inside this collapsed section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, it is very difficult to consistently assume good faith when you repeatedly refuse to actually read my comments. I never said it was "inaccurate" to say that Masamune was based in Sendai domain. I said it was redundant, since no one who understands what "Sendai domain" is would have any use for it (the definition of Sendai domain is that domain ruled by Date Masamune). For someone who doesn't understand what Sendai domain is, it would be better to say "based in Sendai". Or maybe "based in central Mutsu Province". Or we could just leave it out, since all options are based on the assumption that our readers will click the wikilink to find more information, and our Date Masamune article presumably gives the same information. I am open to any of these options, and I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I don't appreciate your repeatedly assuming, despite my specifically telling you otherwise, that my goal is to hide reference to Sendai domain from our readers. Furthermore, listing two warlords as being based in X Province and Y Province, and then another lord as being based in Z domain, is obviously awkward. As for "inaccuracies", what do you call claiming that Good_article_reassessment/History_of_Japan/1&diff=686032743&oldid=686030211 "According to Totman, Zen Buddhist monks popularized waka poetry like renga which were then "revitalized" by Shunzei and Teika."? Waka and renga are different things, and Shunzei and Teika were both long dead by the time "Zen Buddhists popularized renga". You have claimed that you provided a quote from Totman, but you have claimed on this page variously that Totman talked about "styles of waka", which would no doubt be a not-anachronistic reference to the Nijō poetic school and their rivals, and that Totman claimed renga to be a "Zen Buddhist monks popularized waka poetry like renga". I'm inclined to believe that the latter was your reading and had no basis in what Totman said, since I don't want to believe that Conrad Totman would write or Wiley-Blackwell would print such an error as "which were then "revitalized" by Shunzei and Teika". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Necessary break

• I just got access to WP:EBSCO, which gives me access to Japan Forum, Japanese Studies, and other journals. If anyone needs a particular source from there, let me know. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool, Curly Turkey, possible new sources. Do you see anything in that library that looks like a good suggestion for this article? Prhartcom (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We're talking decades worth of specialized journal articles. I'm offering my access to those who know what they're looking for and can't access it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note Over the last several days, CurtisNaito has been continuing to edit-war by reinserting the same misrepresentation of sources that he has been called out for numerous times, as well as bludgeoning this page with IDHT justification of such. The majority of the text he inserted upon the request of me and Sturmgewehr88 was highly problematic and Sturmgewehr88 and I had to go over it and rewrite most of it. Basically the ones who are actually working to improve the page all agree that it should be delisted, and the only one who thinks it is GA-worthy is the one who is actively working to make it worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring. I only deleted the invisible comments while changing the text to deal with the concerns mentioned. None of the text I added needed to be rewritten, and I don't think your version is as faithful to the original text as what I had written. However, most individuals who have been working on the article have said that it should be kept as a good article. If any further improvements are recommended, there's still plenty of time to implement them as we wait for the guild of copy editors to undertake their copy edit.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your source said (though not in these exact words) "virtually all members of the Ise branch of the Taira clan were killed" and you changed it to "he had every member of the Taira clan killed". Your source said that the real power lay with the shogunate but that they allowed the nobility to participate as part of the shogunate, and that they left the bureaucratic and religious institutions of the capital intact, and you changed it to "there was dual government". And that's just the last 12 hours, not even touching on your slightly earlier equating Sendai with Sendai domain, making strawman arguments against me, referring to kanshi and renga as "forms of waka" and directly asserting that Shunzei (died 1205) and Teika (died 1241) "revitalized" waka after the art had been "popularized" by Zen monks! How on earth would a copy edit fix such problems as these? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources said that the Taira clan was exterminated, so that's what the article also said. None of the sources mentioned the Ise branch. Henshall said that during the Kamakura period Japan had "cooperative government", whereas Perez's encyclopedia calls it "dual government". Henshall says in a restrained way that "it is probably fair to say that... the greatest real power of government was now with the bakufu". However, in spite of the bakufu's key control of military affairs, both sources make clear that power was shared. As Perez's encyclopedia notes, the shogunate merely "supervised its retainers while the imperial court in Kyoto administered the rest of the country. The two governments shared power." Both in these cases, and in the other cases, you changed the text in a way which did not match the original sources as closely as what I had written. In general, I think we should stick closely to the wording of the sources which is what I have been doing.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question There is stronger support to delist this article than there is to keep it GA, including from uninvolved editors Signedzzz, MSJapan, Curly Turkey, and myself. I saw Dr. Blofeld show an interest in keeping it GA if possible and I agreed that the GA could be saved if the sources could be verified, the extraneous text removed, the early history sections expanded, and a copy edit completed. I tried to verify the sources and saw no one else also willing to do so; until others step up I believe we can call the source review complete. I saw the extraneous text was properly removed and I'm not sure if that process is complete. A formal copy edit is on it's way and I'm sure it will be of good quality. As for expanding the early history sections, much has been done but I am not sure how much of that process remains; I had guessed that the entire project is 70–90% complete. I see a lot of disharmony, as usual, from the two challenging editors Hijiri88 and Sturmgewehr88, who of course all care deeply about the article but who are not happy with the work of the nominating editor, CurtisNaito, whom I believe is willing to do what is necessary to get this project complete. It seems like the two challenging editors are locked in an endless content war with the nominating editor, and may feel that a WP:COMPETENCE issue is involved. Can the two challenging editors tell me: If we delist immediately as you are requesting, then what will happen next? Will you both commit to improve the article? Will you soon nominate it for GA? Or will you let the article remain partially finished? What exactly do you want to see for this article? Prhartcom (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Update to all editors: CurtisNaito continues to look to you for suggestions for expansion. I believe he will expand whatever topics you ask him to expand. Please provide your suggestions below. Prhartcom (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: It's not so much a CIR issue as a WP:IDHT and WP:GAME issue. He got GA status for an article that didn't deserve it and now a) wants to save face and keep his other GA articles out of the spotlight or b) feels that he's a know-all expert because he single-handedly wrote "numerous" GA articles and that his edits are faultless.

As for this article, even if it has reached 70–90% done, close doesn't count. An article needs GA quality before it has GA status, not the other way around. After the article is delisted, I will still be here to help to get it back to GA status. Once my area of expertise is properly covered I'll probably do a full copy edit of the article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. The IDHT issues simply aren't coming to an end, and CurtisNaito keeps insisting that the large number of improvements listed on the talk page don't count unless they're copy-pasted here—that's not the attitude off someone doing their darndest to make this article the best they can make it. This from an editor who made a grand total of two edits to the article before it went to GA, and a grand total of three more during the review.

The article was obviously not adequately prepared in the first place, and the work yet required requires lengthy and in-depth research and discussion, which the nominator has made remarkably little effort to engage in. The article should be delisted so that its GA status cannot be used to bludgeon efforts to improve it. Perhaps that should be followed with a collaboration of the month at WP:JAPAN to get the article to the GA status it was never at. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I second Curly Turkey here; WPJ will gladly lend a hand here. And again, keeping the GA status when the article still doesn't deserve it is only magnifying CurtisNaito's IDHT/GAME behavior. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There was considerable lack of clarity in the talk page over which items were serious suggestions for expansion and which were just vague ideas. I was certainly confused by the fact that the first list of items proposed was largely comprised of topics already mentioned in the article. Other users posted items, only to seemingly suggest later that they did not actually want them in the article. I would have added anything into the article which was concretely requested.

However, in order to demonstrate that I can expand the article further as necessary, I will add in every single item mentioned on the talk page before the end of the day, though up to now I was not assuming that every item on the talk page was actually desired by users to be in the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: If you WP:POINTily throw "every single item mentioned" into a sloppy mess I'll straight-up revert you; no one here has the patience to play that game. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I might as well start off with all of them. You can delete the ones which you don't think fit in. Alternatively, if you present a list below of the items which you do want in the article, I'll stick with those ones alone.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Prhartcom: Why would you have any reason to doubt my commitment to such? I've put more work into improving the article in the last week than anyone else. I know it doesn't look that way if you assume Curtis's edits were all well-researched and accurate and my edits were spiteful attempts to undermine him. But anyone with access to Google Books can clearly see that Curtis's sources don't say the same thing as his edits do. I think completely undoing all the damage that has been done to the page would be a massive undertaking -- one your 70-90% estimate radically underestimates, but one to which I am most certainly willing to contribute. (Now, if Curtis's still-ongoing attempts to get me SBANned succeed, this will of course be difficult, but that's beside the point.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Periods

1. Jomon
2. Yayoi
3. Asuka
4. Kofun
5. Nara
6. Heian
7. Kamakura
8. Muromachi & Azuchi-Momoyama (because the latter is short and doesn't fit with Edo)
9. Edo
10. Meiji
11. Taisho
12. Showa
13. Heisei

Events

1. Genpei Wars
2. Meiji Restoration
3. Pacific War
4. Sino-Japanese War
5. Russo-Japanese War

People

1. Toyotomi, Nobunaga, Tokugawa
2. Emperors (in general); we should probably link to a list somewhere as well
3. Murasaki Shikibu
4. Sei Shonagon
5. Fujiwara clan
6. Takeda Shingen
7. Miyamoto Musashi
8. Yoshitsune
9. Minamoto and Taira clans
10. Basho
11. Natsume Soseki
12. Murakami Haruki
13. Edogawa Rampo
14. Commodore Perry
15. Kurosawa
16. Mizoguchi Kenji

Notable things to mention in context

1. Yasukuni
2. Samurai/bushido
3. Hagakure
4. Rise of literature in Heian period
5. Mass publishing in Edo
6. Modern pop culture, especially internationally known authors, artists, anime, manga, video games, Vocaloid, etc.
7. Daimyo/clans/crests
8. Tale of Genji
9. Tale of the Heike
10. Manyoshu, Kokin Wakashu (see Japanese poetry article)
11. Nihongi
12. Bakufu
13. Prefectural system
14. Political systems
15. Industrialization
16. Economics
17. JSDF
18. Castles
19. Japanese calendrical system (there's an article on this, but it's clunky)
20. Poetry (tanka, waka, haiku, etc.)
21. Battleship Yamato (the real one)
22. Development of chounin
23. Geisha
24. Yoshiwara
25. Major cities through history
26. Kamikaze (as far back as the Mongols)
27. Ryukyu/Okinawa

Here is the list that CurtisNaito wanted pasted here (I added the very last item although it's now covered). Anything here not mentioned in the article should be added. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most of this list was already fully covered in the article even before the list was made, including the entire first two sections. However, I will add in whatever is not already mentioned.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 DoneOkay, that appears to be everything.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Fast work, decent effort, I have another response prepared. Comments? Prhartcom (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I feel ill today (earlier than usual work schedule meant I didn't get as much sleep as I would have liked) so I haven't even looked at this edit yet. And I'm not going to until some other editor I trust weighs in. I think I've corrected enough of CurtisNaito's errors in the last four days four a break from doing so, and given that Sturmgewehr88 specifically said he would revert this edit before CurtisNaito made it, I'd rather wait until he gets back from his wikibreak. Also, I changed the section headings above to standard bold text because they were clearly not meant to be sub-sections of "necessary break" as they appeared in the contents table. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The items on the list were presented as items for discussion, and have yet to be discussed. Slapping them in willy-nilly without discussion is the wrong thing to do. The list pasted above was a single list by MSJ, and they were not the only items brought up for discussion. I stick by my delist as discussion continues to be avoided and held in contempt. The discussions should be in-depth and time-consuming and cannot possibly be worked through properly at this GA reassessment. Purporting to "fix" everything in one go like that is an insult to the intelligence. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I included in the expansion both the items on the list as well as, I think, all other suggestions made on the talk page. I had been concerned earlier that you thought that some of the items on the list were "totally out of scope", but you clarified above that "that wasn't specifically in reference to that list". However, any of the items I added can be deleted or expanded further depending on the views other users express here. If there are any further ideas for expansion, I'll leave it to other editors to post them. It's possible that this reassessment will not be closed until after the guild of copy editors finishes their copy edit, so I think we have time to wait for other users to make additional suggestions for expansion or deletion of content.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So you're confirming what I said—you've slapped everything in from the list willy-nilly in one go so as to avoid even the pretence of discussion. In the face of this sort of contempt, my delist stands. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

However, any of the items I added can be deleted or expanded further depending on the views other users express here. Yeah, except that then if you disagree with the removals or expansions you'll do exactly what you repeatedly did to me in the section above and claim that other users' edits "do not match the original sources as closely as what you had written", even though no reasonable reading of your sources could come to that conclusion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was my view, but I still didn't revert your edits. The only thing you added to the article which I deleted were invisible comments, after I had changed the visible text in such a way that made the invisible comment unnecessary.

Concerning the list, Sturmgewehr88 told me directly above to add in anything from the list which was not in the article, and I saw no objection to doing that. If an objection is raised later, we can remove what needs to be removed.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, contrary to what you seem to believe, comments made on the talk page and in the Wikipedia namespace actually count. You accused me of misrepresenting my sources, something for which you have never presented any evidence, while at the same time insisting that you yourself have not done such despite all the evidence to the contrary. You still have not explained what exactly you meant by "forms of waka", forcing the rest of us to draw our own conclusions, by the way. Your source didn't use these words. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever used the word "misrepresenting" here. I think I generally stick closer to the original wording of the sources than you tend to, and I did quote the relevant passages above to demonstrate that. But rather than talk about article text which has already been changed, why not offer suggestions for article text which can still be added.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I know you didn't "use the word". You said exactly what I quoted you as saying: you changed the text in a way which did not match the original sources as closely as what I had written. (And yes -- I know I changed the verb tense and pronoun. You don't need to point that out or claim that I am "misquoting you", either here or elsewhere.) How exactly is "changing the text in a way which did not match the original sources" different from misrepresenting those sources?

Regarding the offering of suggestions for article text which can still be added: My above comment was completely relevant to this. Why would anyone make suggestions for you to expand the article, when your epansions cannot be challenged without false accusations of misrepresenting sources being made against them? Given your track record on this matter, I don't want to actively contribute to making the article worse and thus create more work for me or (worse still) the other users here. I do not think the article's coverage level is the main problem, and virtually everyone else agrees with me on this point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has been delisted. Consensus is to delist this GA article, determined from the comments. As an uninvolved editor, I am calling this now, as I've heard enough of this 30-day discussion and know there is no hope of resolution between these challengers and this nominator.

I believe that this is just a temporary status; I am expecting a few editors to improve this article according to the sources then renominate it back to GA in due course. This is important, as this is a critical article. At that point, when the article is truly GA, the article will be a good resource for all readers coming to learn the history of Japan.

There is some good work here in the current version of the article. I saw the old version of this article and was surprised when it had been completely transformed. There's nothing wrong with that—I too have deleted and rewritten a GA article—it can be done, as long as the sources are properly represented. If you would allow me to take a moment and applaud the nominator. Whatever you may think of his work, you have to admit, the nominator is a researcher who intends no ill-will; he wishes the best for this article. He has never been very argumentative in comparison to the fierce attacks of the challengers; he is fairly low-key. I would like to ask all challengers to consider the benefits of being low-key.

The challengers have indeed been fierce. Always accompanied by a supporter or three, thier point of view is that the GA process let one article slip by. This turned out to be decided in their favor; the GA process did let one slip by. The strongest discussions have shown a clear consensus to delist, and there is no shame in that. What is most important is the article must meet the GA criteria if it has the GA icon. If it doesn't, then no problem, we just remove the GA icon during this time; a temporary situation.

We have established that more work is needed to ensure this article be an accurate and fair representation of what the expert sources say about the history of Japan. Specifically, I believe that more work is needed in: WP:GACR #2 Verifiable with no original research and #3 Broad in its coverage. I believe the article is fairly well-written, neutral, stable, and illustrated.

I applaud the challengers. They care deeply about the article and want it to succeed. When I asked, they expressed their plan to edit the article and restore it to GA. I understand they have access to sources that are necessary for a project with a scope of this size (remember Curly Turkey's source offer, above). These new primary caretakers of the article deserve a chance to work freely on this project then, without distraction, to accomplish this. If that can be done, the community gains another high-quality article. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)