Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 63

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 64)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 62) →

Forth Road Bridge

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

Result: delisted Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This article passed GA over 10 years ago, but was kept by an earlier reassessment in 2009. Since then, the importance and nature of the bridge has been changed out of all recognition, firstly due to structural problems, and then to its replacement with the Queensferry Crossing. Consequently, the article has had a lot of recentism issues, and it now looks lop-sided, as well as requiring sources in places. These issues have been brought up on the talk page, but not much work has been done, and to be honest if I can't see an obvious commitment to fixing myself, and nobody else does it, I think it's better to delist the article now, with the possibility of it regaining GA status via a fresh review sometime later, when the issues have been resolved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, and the main {{refimprove}} tag is still there, I am delisting. If I get a chance, I will work on the article and renominate it for GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Me & the Rhythm

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: Closing as delisted per DENY. I believe the references and coverage issues have been resolved, so a GA nomination in the future would probably be successful. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Article was nominated by a now confirmed and indeffed sock account of MaranoFan. While not vandalism, suggest and request re-review per WP:DENY as the nominator should neither have edited nor nominated the article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delist even if the nominator wasn't a sock, this article was passed prematurely when it has questionable-at-best citations (namely "Vancitybuzz" and "Inquistr", goes into too much detail on parent album, says nothing about commercial performance (however minor it might have been), and neglects to mention any of its live performances except for a concert on Today. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delist as well. Vancitybuzz seemed legit to me. Inquistr is always questinoble but I have taken some of those references to it now. Yes I completly overlooked the commericla performance. It does mention live perfoamcnes, read the lead. It wasn't worth having a section with one sentence. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have now added a Commercial performance section and replace the Vancitybuzz reference. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I might be an IP, but as a user who uses this exclusively as an anon in public (and as a user while at home), I see nothing wrong with this article. I think MarioSoulTruthFan's work fixed the complaints above. I know what I'm talking about, I'm not naming any names, but I may have promoted all the Evanescence studio albums to GA myself. You may choose to believe me or not, my IP changes constantly while I'm here. In any case, there is now a minor commercial performance section, the unreliable source complaints have been addressed, and honestly in my opinion the album context is necessary backstory to how the song came about in the first place. Live performances are short in references anyway. I firmly believe this article can be kept. 104.39.107.135 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who you are or what you've done in the past, right now you have decided unilaterally that the article should not be delisted (as is the obvious consensus above) and you are doing it as a sock. I've left a message on your talk page that I hope you take seriously. -- ψλ ● ✉ 02:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Decided to strike until I can verify. But please, take my points into consideration, it looks like all the complaints were addressed, and under no circumstance did my comments guarantee keeping, only encouraging. My verdict wasn't necessarily final, just my own two cents. 104.39.27.33 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As the original one operating the IP on a separate computer in a separate location for reasons which I discussed (will link upon request), I echo my Keep stance for the same reasons. It appears to me the article's been fixed, unless there are other complaints anyone has that haven't been mentioned yet. Consensus can change, especially if some issue has been fixed. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:38, 8 September 2017 (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.

Fine Brothers

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

Result: Delist Consensus here that it currently fails 3a, 1a and possible 1b. FWIW consistent source formatting is not required as part of the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC) AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the article fails on a manual of style basis. The sourcing isn't standardized and so it looks a little off-putting there. I also don't believe the prose is written up to GA standards. That being said, as the creator of the article, I would just like to have a community reassessment process done. Thank you. Soulbust (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• The article fails criterion 3a because it doesn't have anything about Sing It! other than a passing mention in the lead and an empty sub-section. I don't see anything egregious. wumbolo ^^^ 10:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

YouTube

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

Result: Delisted There is only really one decent review of the article provided here that judges it against the criteria and very few of the issues raised have been addressed. This has been open a long time so there has been plenty of opportunity for editors to address these issues. Therefor I am delisting this article. It is not far from being a good article so hopefully someone can use this reassessment to get it in shape for another nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)}

This was sitting in the backlog following a GAR request template placement. It was awaiting reassessment when an IP vandalized the template. After the reversion, AnomieBot placed it fresh in the list. As a result, I am starting an immediate reassessment of the article, but since this is such an important article, I have opened it as a community reassessment because I would not like to do this alone. I will not let an IP delay an article's reassessment like that, that's not fair. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• I get that this is a hugely important article, but is it truly necessary that the article need be 188,000 bytes long? Holy crap. There must be some irrelevant content in here. I smell a serious criterion 3B violation here. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The readable text in the article actually isn't that long. It looks larger than it is because the "Comparison of YouTube media encoding options" and "Countries with YouTube Localization" have been hidden and make the HTML look larger. If these are taken out, it removes around 60,000 bytes. The article is not of excessive length when read through without the tables. The readable text in the article is around 115,000 bytes, which isn't hugely excessive per WP:SIZERULE. There are Featured Articles at 150k or more.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh? Is there any other issue you see here? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned about the length of the actual text as explained above, but will have a detailed read through of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this Good article reassessment, as YouTube has good quality and readable text in the article. I think that YouTube should stay as GA. Jamesjpk (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. I began this reassessment because it was listed under the ones possibly needing reassessment, and was unfairly delayed. The number of bytes was at first concerning, so I wanted to check with the community. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I vote Keep. I think that this article still meets good article criteria. It provides broad, balanced scope and is very well cited.StoryKai (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delist unless issues below are fixed: though much of the article is very, very good, I believe there are significant issues relevant to GA criteria 1, 2 and 3. I've only skim-read much of the article so I'm sure there are many more small problems with the article that should be fixed, but fundamentally I think the biggest problems are with due weight and out of date or poorly sourced information. But the article doesn't seem that far off GA so I will reconsider my !vote if significant improvements are made. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Full review by Bilorv

Major issues The article contains a lot of statistics and examples that are probably out of date. For instance, "YouTube's revenues in 2007 were noted as "not material" in a regulatory filing." (under "Revenue"), "In 2010, it was reported that nearly a third of the videos with advertisements were uploaded without permission of the copyright holders" (under "Revenue to Copyright Holders") and "the White House's official YouTube channel being the seventh top news organization producer on YouTube in 2012" (under "Social impact"). Now obviously in the Company history section or when discussing past events, facts like these are appropriate but old information used to support facts presented in the present tense (e.g. "Google does not provide detailed figures for YouTube's running costs") should probably be removed or replaced and there are probably others. Why is there no section on prominent YouTubers, or explaining the types of content YouTube has in it? The "Social impact" section has quite a few very minor examples of things like a presidential debate using questions from a YouTube video or the YouTube Symphony Orchestra, but unless I missed it when skim-reading, there is no real mention of what the majority of content on YouTube actually is – e.g. categories like amateur musicians, home videos, people recording themselves playing video games, informative channels like MinutePhysics – or some notable examples (with a "Main article: List of YouTubers" link). I think this violates WP:UNDUE. Minor issues The lead's "Available content includes ..." sentence seems to mention things not covered later in the article e.g. "short and documentary films". This violates MOS:LEAD. No source for current headquarters being in San Bruno, California (mentioned in lead and infobox), and not mentioned in Company history section. Current CEO not source / mentioned outside infobox. Programming languages are mentioned in infobox but JavaScript is not sourced and what makes this source that it uses Python reliable? But more basic than that, surely the language YouTube was written in should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, with more information related to both the original development and current maintenance of the site. In the "Uploading" subsection, the "12 hours in length" and "normally through a mobile phone" facts are not mentioned in the given source. The section "Comparison of YouTube media encoding options" does not seem reliably source; two of the sources are tagged and the only fact the other sources seem to verify is that YouTube uses 1080p (just one datum among four detailed tables). "Countries with YouTube Localization" seems to have some dates which are unsourced or unknown (marked as "?"). In "Social impact", "YouTube channels launched by The Ellen DeGeneres Show and The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon became two of the most subscribed." seems unsourced and I'm very confused by what it means. List of most subscribed users on YouTube has those channels at 18th and 43rd, respectively. Perhaps they are supposedly the two most subscribed channels in the context of production companies, but this seems like OR without a source. "Assuming pre-roll advertisements on half of videos, a YouTube partner would earn 0.5 X $7.60 X 55% = $2.09 per 1000 views in 2013." (under "Partnership with video creators") seems like OR based on the $7.60 figure mentioned in the reference following. "NSA Prism program" section seems completely out of place – could it be expanded (what was its role in PRISM? What reactions were there when it was made public that YouTube were involved in it?)? Should it be merged into another section? "April Fools" section is LISTCRUFT and given too much weight. Could possibly warrant a paragraph somewhere in the article with a couple of examples, but currently giving it a full section is too much. I've also made a few edits to fix some other minor issues I found; if no-one else fixes the problems above or objects, I will also try to fix some of the issues I've listed here where I can. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I know we are looking at narrowing it down a bit, but: I would like to see some mentions of Youtube's recent policy changes regarding monetization, firearms, and conspiracy theories as these are issues that have sparked a lot of conversation and that many on the internet are unhappy with. The Thought Police (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So basically, things that regard YouTube's staff becoming people like you (Thought Police). dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Have your concerns been satisfied? AIRcorn (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of them seem to have been addressed but several remain, and those were after only a cursory look through the article. My biggest concern is the lack of due weight / mention of specific YouTubers or popular channels; I think the article sorely needs a section covering the most viewed videos/channels, people who gained notoriety through YouTube etc. There seem to be a plethora of links in the "See also" section which should instead be summarised appropriately in the article. It also concerns me that it has been 9 years since the article's promotion to GA and it has received thousands of edits since then, and a lot of significant YouTube-related events had not happened yet then. So I am not happy with the article staying as a GA at the moment, particularly when the last thorough review of it took place in 2009. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Bank for Reconstruction and Development/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Consensus is to delist AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This article relies too much on references to primary sources.(20/21) Clear Sky Talk 13:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delist – I agree with Clear Sky C. Out of the 21 sources, 17 are primary sources, mostly from the World Bank itself. This is far more primary sources than should be allowed in a Wikipedia article of any quality. In addition, this article is rather short and fails the comprehensiveness requirement.Homemade Pencils (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delist – should automatically be delisted per the primary sources template. I did check the references, which does heavily rely on primary sources. Due to this, it cannot meet Good Article criteria. CookieMonster755✉ 02:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hermann Graf

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

Result: Kept Alot of discourse here, but very little of it related to the good article criteria. Reliability of a source is relative to what it is sourcing (and not everything needs a source). Most of the sources deemed unreliable were removed during the review anyway. There is nothing undue about the tables. A Good Article is not necessarily everbody's interpretation of a good article, and I am confident that this meets Wikipedias definition. AIRcorn (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

Much of the subject's war-time career is cited to:

• Jochim, Berthold K (1998). Oberst Hermann Graf: 200 Luftsiege in 13 Monaten Ein Jagdfliegerleben. Rastatt, Germany: VPM Verlagsunion Pabel Moewig. ISBN 3-8118-1455-9.

Berthold K. Jochim is a pen name of Franz Kurowski, a known fabulist and apologist for the German war effort of 1939–45. By his own admission, he reserved his own name for "more serious work" and used his pseudonyms for largely semi-fictional accounts. correction follows: was the founder and long-term editor of the pulp series Der Landser. Specific to the book in question, an editor, who is familiar with the source, noted: The book is actually written by Franz Kurowski (under a different name). I own the 1998 version and I think it more or less a piece of s***. Quoted from: [3]. I was not surprised at this assessment as the source was issued by Pabel Moewig, the publisher behind Der Landser.

In my opinion, the article fails several GA criteria:

• Criterion 2 -- Verifiable: all in-line citations are from reliable sources
• Criterion 3 -- Broad in its coverage: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
• Criterion 4 -- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

I was unable to locate alternate sources on the subject that are reliable and neutral and provide the same level of detail. I don't believe it's possible to improve the article through normal editing for it to retain GA status and remain broad in coverage.

I'm thus nominating the article for community reassessment. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I have the Bergstrom, Antipov & Sundin book and am gradually working through it verifying the details. I am positive a lot of the facts cited can also be referenced out of that volume. Though it looks like a fair portion of the wiki-article's early paragraphs may need to be rewritten a little to avoid claims of direct copying from the B/A/S book Philby NZ (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. How close is it to B/A/S book? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@User:Ian Rose Hi, per your revert, is there some middle ground? This seems a little overly wordy to say he did flight training between x and y dates that would cover the the things you would expect a pilot to do? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the nom's claim that "much of the subject's war-time career is cited to Jochim" when only 9 of the 38 wartime sources cite Jochim and that period only covers a year when he fought against the Soviet Union. Even if we are really convinced that everything that Jochim says has been made up, it would still seem more constructive to seek alternative sources for that short period, rather than downgrading the whole article. Bermicourt (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

K.e. coffman, if Kurowski and Jochim are the same person, then what's up with the different German wikipedia entries, which say that Kurowski died in 2011 and Jochim died in 2002? Kges1901 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now updated with reference additions & details from Bergstrom, Antipov & Sundin for his early life and the 1939-1940 years of the war. I've taken out a bit of text which adds standard detail that can be found linking to other relevant articles. I've also reworded a few phrases which may be construed as overly emotive and/or too close to the original Bergstrom et al text. Comments welcome if you think these are improvements to the article or in fact denigrate the Good Article status that it holds now (which I certainly don't want to do). I'll be getting onto the Russian Front part of his career next from the same source. Philby NZ (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm rereading this article after having edited it for grammar yonks ago. It seems to me, as to Bermicourt (talk · contribs) that the citations to are minimal in the larger scheme of the article. Second, these are citations to fact, not to opinion. It is not Jochim's opinion that Graf shot down this plane or that plane, but his facts. Philby NZ (talk · contribs) seems to have confirmed the veracity of much of Jochim's citations vis a vis Bergstrom in the earlier sections. I agree with changes that reduce some of the "emotive" sections.
• relating to Kges1901 (talk · contribs)'s question, why are there two completely different biographies in the German wikipedia for Kurowski and Jochim? These are not just slightly different, but radically different, from birth to death. And just if they are one and the same man, does this mean that the work he wrote as one is superior to the work he did as another, or that either or both should be discarded simply because he was a fabulist? I'd like to know who claims he was a fabulist, and why it should be assumed that anything he writes about Nazis generally and Graf particularly should be discarded for this reason?
• Generally, on the subject of pen names: anyone who reads Napoleonic war era stuff probably knows that Digby Smith also wrote as Otto von Pivka. He chose to use a pen name (he claims) because he was writing while he was in the military. I don't know why Kurowski possibly used a pen name, and I'd certainly say that Smith's work as himself is far superior to his work as Pivka. That said, the works he wrote under the pen name are not exactly chopped liver, though. auntieruth (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: This is really a serious discrepancy – I've done some googling and found this Kurowski German Digital Library Catalog entry, which states that Kurowski died on 28 May 2011 in Dortmund. Note that Jochim is not listed here as one of Kurowski's pseudonyms. Meanwhile, the German wiki article on Jochim references an August 2004 journal article about "Landser-Pulp" in Jugend Medien Schutz-Report (apparently a German publication on the protection of youth from bad influences). The title of the article as used in the German wiki reference says that Jochim lived from 1921 to 2002. On page 8 of a later issue of the same journal, the author of the 2004 article repeats the information that Jochim died in 2002. So it seems clear that Jochim and Kurowski are two completely different people. Kges1901 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment—regarding sources, the state information system of Baden-Württemberg website leobw names the following sources:

• Gerhard von Seemen, Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939-1945. Bad Nauheim 1955
• Fritz Walter, Elf rote Jäger. 1957; Die Roten Jäger. Ein Schicksalsbericht deutscher Nationalspieler aus dem letzten Kriege. Broschüre, Hg. Ernst Heuner, o. J.
• Oberst Hermann Graf. 200 Luftsiege in 13 Monaten. Ein Jagdfliegerleben nacherzählt von Berthold K. Joachim. 1975, 5. Aufl. 1985
• Günter Fraschka, Mit Schwertern und Brillanten. Die Träger der höchsten deutschen Tapferkeitsauszeichnung, darin S. 65-76: „Oberst Hermann Graf: Fliegen, Kämpfen, Fußballspielen.“ Wiesbaden- München (7. Aufl. 1977)
• Berichte des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht 1939-1945. Bd. 3. München (1988)

Also it is not a valid reason to say "an editor, who is familiar with the source, noted: I own the 1998 version and I think it more or less a piece of s***."

I have a wider concern that K.E. Coffman's very extensive work on Germany during the Second World war seems to me to lack objectivity and be focussed on portraying Germans and Germany in an excessively negative light; far worse than is warranted by the historical evidence. Nazism was an evil, but we should tell it like it is, neither exaggerating nor playing it down. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The editor who stated that Jochim's book was s*** was now-retired User:MisterBee1966, who wrote most of the World War II German military biography articles. MisterBee does come back occasionally and I've emailed him on this issue so that he may clarify whether the entire book (including unit history) was s*** or just its conclusions. Kges1901 (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Misterbee has responded. Here's his email: "Regarding the book in question, I believe the book to be reasonably accurate regarding facts such as when where and how. I consider the book by Bergström to be superior and of higher quality. But this is just my amature opinion." Kges1901 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Request for clarification from nominator: could you pls provide some evidence that Jochim was a pen name of Kurowski? As it stands this appears to be the basis for the assertion that the referencing used here is unreliable and that it therefore does not meet the GA criteria; however, as several editors have pointed out above it seems likely (based on De Wikipedia at least) that they were actually two different authors altogether. If this assertion was in error then is there an issue here with the referencing at all? I'm assuming from the nomination statement that the implied criticism of the work remains regardless of who the author actually was given the publisher's alleged reputation, is that correct? As such is there any published criticism available on Jochim's unreliability specifically that you could provide a reference to? Unless there is something which can verify these concerns I don't think the case has been made here really. At any rate I note that another editor has already re-worked the article to reduce its reliance on Jochim anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• furthermore, Jochim is not listed among Kurowski's pen names in the article on him (although it is listed in the box), much of which was edited by K.e.coffman (talk · contribs). After reading that article, I'm inclined to tag it for POV problems, because of its use of loaded words ("highly exaggerated numbers", for example) . Second, such phrases as "nationalist battle painting" are unclear, -- how is this different from de:Hugo Ungewitter, Carl Röchling, Richard Knötel, for example? And how is this different from the images of, for example, the Confederate painter, Conrad Wise Chapman? auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification re: nomination

• @Anotherclown and Kges1901: Sorry about the confusion; it was my fault. I made the corrections above [4], and in the Kurowski article. I saw MisterBee's comment (The book is actually written by Franz Kurowski (under a different name)) and had assumed it was a pseudonym. I'm curious as to how MB came to the conclusion that Kurowski wrote the book. It's not impossible that the latter had indeed done so. Kurowski had written for Der Landser' himself, both under his name and various pseudonyms, while Jochim was the founder and long-term editor of the series.

In any case, a source from the Der Landser founder / editor cannot be presumed to be reliable. Quoting from the linked article, Der Landser was described by Der Spiegel as "the expert journal for the whitewashing of the Wehrmacht" ("Fachorgan für die Verklärung der Wehrmacht"). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. Given that original objection to the source is no longer an issue and that the article has been reworked quite a bit since this nomination is there anything specifically in the information still referenced to Jochim that you believe is unreliable? Taking what you say about Der Landser on good faith I can see how other books from the publisher and editor associated with it would be worthy of closer scrutiny; however, I don't think that automatically means that we assume they are not reliable either and therefore cannot be used, just that we need to be careful when doing so as they might not be reliable (in the absence of any authoritative criticism of the source in question that is). If you can point to something specific it might be able to be addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue. MB has elaborated on his assessment of Jochim from 2012 in a response to the email I sent him: regarding the book in question, I believe the book to be reasonably accurate regarding facts such as when where and how. I consider the book by Bergström to be superior and of higher quality. But this is just my amature opinion. Currently, Jochim is only used to cite facts and not opinions in the article. But there's no reason why the citations shouldn't be replaced with references to Bergström, and when Philby NZ finishes doing that, I think that this GAR should be closed since Jochim was the main issue with the article according to K.e. coffman's original rationale.Kges1901 (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Given recent changes which have now further reduced the article's reliance on Jochim I propose removing the "unreliable" sources tag. Although the source in question is still used it does seem to me to now be used to state facts only, whilst in many instances it has also been used in concert with other sources which I presume are considered reliable (at least no objection has been raised to them). Are there any comments on this proposal? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm okay with removing the "unreliable sources" tag and leaving the status of the article as is. auntieruth (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• I also support Anotherclown's proposal. Jochim is now used in just 7 references - less than 1% of the 90 citations in the article. Kges1901 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

”Fact” vs “opinion”; Discussion of other sources

Thanks for the continued discussion. I would object to the removal of the tag. Any source that is affiliated with Der Landser does not belong in a military history article, IMO, unless there's a very good reason to include it. Separately, re: “facts” vs “opinions” -- if said facts are only to be found in unreliable sources, should they be given any weight? Are numbers being cited, for example, facts or products of war-time propaganda? (For a related discussion, please see: Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins).

More on sources being used in the article: Bergstöm appears to be a fairly obscure author, despite having published 70 works in 146 publications, per Wordcat. His books are not available via my library system, except for the Barbarossa one. Outside of Barbarossa, I was not able to find reviews of his works. Here’s a book by Bergstöm on another German ace [5]; the web site includes the following description:

Hans-Ekkehard Bob: Ace Profiles - The Men and Their Aircraft

Acclaimed aviation historian Christer Bergstöm has drawn upon personal recollections and records to produce this in-depth and graphic account of the wartime experiences of one the Luftwaffe’s leading Jagdflieger. The text is enhanced by rare photographs taken from Hans-Ekkehard Bob’s own collection as well as highly detailed colour artwork by leading aviation artist, Claes Sundin. 

At the last moment, Bob pushed the stick forward and attempted to dive his Bf 109 to the left, and beneath the crippled bomber. But his manoeuvre was carried out a fraction of a second too late… Bob flashed beneath the bomber and, just as he did, he heard a crash and felt a terrible jolt. Looking back, he saw that his Bf 109 had lost its whole tail section, and he also saw that a part of the bomber’s starboard wing was missing.

Soft cover, 8.3" x 11.7", 72 pages, 77 rare b+w photographs, 11 beautiful colour artwork profiles.”

This does not read like historical scholarship or even popular history. This style of writing sounds closer to historical fiction or personal reminiscences.

The article also extensively uses these sources:

• John A. Weal – “98 works in 248 publications”, per Worldcat. He appears to have started as an illustrator and translator and then branched into writing. Here’s a sample title: Wings of the Luftwaffe : flying German aircraft of the Second World War, by Eric Brown; illustrated with cutaway and cockpit interior drawings by John Weal”. I’m unable to find reviews for his works. I would place him in an “amateur historian” category.
  • All Weal's works referenced in this article are published by Osprey, which specialises in works on fighter aces (among other things) -- I've used their books in many Allied ace articles, cross-checking their info with other secondary sources, and found them low-key in their language and reliable in their facts and figures. Evidently those editors reviewing sources in such articles that I've put up for GAN, ACR and FAC also consider them acceptable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ralf Schumann an author of a number of Knight’s Cross recipient profiles, including in extremist publishers such as VDM Heinz Nickel.

Regarding the level of detail, the article contains material that is either immaterial, undue or needs to be attributed due the nature of the claim. Some examples:

• German airmen of 9./JG 52 spent a couple of relaxing months in Bucharest, which was beyond the censorship and control of the Nazi regime in Berlin. Graf even managed to play football when a team of the Deutsche Luftwaffe played against Cyclope Bucharesti at the Bucharest Sport's Arena before thirty thousand spectators.

Were they engaged in any activities that would have been subject to the censorship and control of the Nazi regime? The article does not say. Graf “even managed” to play a game of football—so what?

• Graf helped Jewish families escape to Switzerland at a time when the "J" stamp in German Jews' passport had been demanded by Germany's neighboring countries. He took a great personal risk and came close to getting caught. Graf was assisted by Gruppenführer (Group Leader) Albert Keller of his local NSFK Glider Club (National Socialist Flyers Corps), who later covered up the bureaucratic traces that Graf had left.

This is fairly extraordinary statement. What is this being cited to?

• The entire section Hermann_Graf#Aerial_victory_credits strikes me as undue and indiscriminate. This list may belong in a book-length bio of the subject, but not in an encyclopedia entry. Aircraft are not capital ships to list all 200 of them in detail. Even if they were, this section reminds me of a “trophy room” and is non-neutral.

References

I’m curious what sources Bergstöm cites. Perhaps Philby NZ can shed some light on this, since he has the book on hand.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are some reviews: Ardennes 1944: Hitler's Winter Offensive, [6], [7], [8]. I can email you copies of the reviews on questia if you want them. On aerial victory lists, they are a fairly standard part of flying ace articles – see the extensive lists of victories for non-German aces like Albert Ball, Mick Mannock, Gabby Gabreski, Alexander Pokryshkin, Ivan Kozhedub, etc. Kges1901 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer; I just emailed you. Re: claims tables, I'd consider them undue in these other articles as well. Way too much detail for an encyclopedia entry, especially for the WWII aces, due to the industrialised nature of warfare. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly not everyone agrees, as I've explained to you elsewhere. There are detailed claims tables in smaller bios than this in books on Allied aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Long day, busy at work, not going to get into this otherwise I'll likely boil over. I'll let others address these. The Bergstrom et al book lists >50 books in its bibliography, but like many books, they're not linked to specific passages. I'm trying to add context & background and show he's not just a 1-dimensional "killing machine grunt" stereotype nor be just a narrative of kills per day. Are we squeezed for space here?? Is this boring reading? Philby NZ (talk)

Responses to some of the nominator's points above:

• "re: “facts” vs “opinions” -- if said facts are only to be found in unreliable sources, should they be given any weight? Are numbers being cited, for example, facts or products of war-time propaganda?" This is fair to a point, although we have not determined that the source in question actually is "unreliable" that I can see. If the source is proven to be unreliable then I agree it should be given no weight at all. However, while I accept that you believe the source may be unreliable, that is all it is at this point. Unless there is some evidence to prove this assumption we need to move on. That said if there is specific information ("fact" or "opinion") that you believe is suspect potentially this could be addressed by qualifying the wording used in the article to make it clear that Wikipedia is reporting the details as provided by the source only etc.
• "Any source that is affiliated with Der Landser does not belong in a military history article, IMO, unless there's a very good reason to include it." That's fine, but that is really also only your opinion. So far your concern about it only seems to be due to its association with Der Landser, and as far as I can tell nothing definitive has been offered to prove that there is actually a problem here. Jochim is used sparingly (six times out of 105 citations) for my mind, and sometimes bundled with other sources. What specifically about the information it is currently used to cite do you believe is in error?
• "Bergstöm appears to be a fairly obscure author" - this also seems a matter of personal opinion, but honestly why would that be an issue even if it is true? Obscure doesn't mean it cannot be used as long as it meets the requirements of WP:RS. Is there a reason to believe it doesn't? If there are published reviews of his works that express concern about POV or accuracy then certainly lets consider them, but if not then I see no issue with the source being accepted on good faith unless proven otherwise.
• "John A. Weal – “98 works in 248 publications“, per Worldcat. He appears to have started as an illustrator and translator and then branched into writing". Ian's already responded here and I agree with him. I see no issue with using this source either.
• "Ralf Schumann an author of a number of Knight’s Cross recipient profiles, including in extremist publishers such as VDM Heinz Nickel". Are there reviews of his work which support your implied concern? Also what information cited to this source do you feel is wrong?
• "Regarding the level of detail, the article contains material that is either immaterial, undue or needs to be attributed due the nature of the claim." I agree there are areas where this article could be tightened so I have no issue with you re-writing the section you identified if you are concerned about it. I've also made a few changes in places previously due to similar concerns but feel this issue has mostly been addressed. That said I don't subscribe to the view that the scope of a biography should be limited to the subject's main claim to notability, as there does seem to be value in adding detail outside this which gives a reader a sense of who the person was. This then becomes a question of editorial judgment to be resolved through local consensus.
• "Graf helped Jewish families escape to Switzerland... This is fairly extraordinary statement. What is this being cited to?" - well the citation at the end of the paragraph is obviously to "Bergström, Antipov & Sundin 2003, p. 12" so I'm not really sure what the concern is. Is there a reason to assume that it is not accurate? If so pls elaborate so that it can be addressed.
• "The entire section Hermann_Graf#Aerial_victory_credits strikes me as undue and indiscriminate." This also seems like a question of editorial judgement as I am not aware of policy which addresses this specific matter (pls correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see it as undue or indiscrimate though and I don't see much support for this view to date. It does seem to be the case that many of our biographies on similar topics do treat this matter in this manner (i.e. a referenced table). This should be fairly easy to resolve through consensus. Are there any other views on the issue? Is there support for removing it for instance? Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with the points Anotherclown has made, most of this is unsupported opinion of one editor. I would add that I don't believe the victories tables are undue, he's an ace and details of his victories are directly relevant to his notability and his biography in general. Also the opinion that the scope of a biography should be limited to the subject's main claim to notability is an utterly fringe view, unsupported by long-standing consensus on biography articles on en WP. Examination of any random selection of FA biographies will make that clear. It is an area in which K.e.coffman should just drop the stick and accept the consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delist The book by Bergström et al. is advertised by Bergström himself as "a 312-page piece of microhistory". As far as I can see, however, Bergström et al. do not appeal to the methodology of microhistory, which aims at unveiling the complexities of structures, processes and human interaction by focusing on its local context. It simply seems to be a label put on a very traditional, but heavily detailed biography of yet another German ace. As far as I can see there are no reviews which could attest to its reliabilty. I may point out some obvious mistakes which raise doubts about its overall reliability.
  • The article states that In his teens, he was selected to join a group of talented young players trained by Sepp Herberger. According to de:Markwart Herzog's piece on football in the military, featured in Fussball zur Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, ed. by Markwart Herzog (Stuttgart 2008), p. 112 f., quoting Herberger and Graf himself, Graf was invited by Herberger to attend training courses in 1938 and 1939, respectively, to see how good he was. Herberger later wrote that Graf was good enough to be considered for the national team. Graf was in his teens until 1932, right? What about his broken thumb? Herberger became assistant to Otto Nerz in 1932 and head coach of the German national team in 1936.
  • a couple of relaxing months in Bucharest, which was beyond the censorship and control of the Nazi regime in Berlin. Graf even managed to play football when a team of the Deutsche Luftwaffe played against Cyclope Bucharesti at the Bucharest Sports Arena before thirty thousand spectators. What has the game in Bucharest to do with Nazi censorship? Graf and his team of Luftwaffe footballers played an opening game before the Romanian national team played against the German national team on 1 June 1941. His team played in support of the Nazi regime.
  • In May Graf was also able to organize a second soccer international, this time against a Romanian army team. For this, he called upon Sepp Herberger, now manager of the national team. Herberger arranged for several of the current national squad to play, including an international debut for the great Fritz Walter. With Graf in goal, it was Walter who scored a hattrick in the 3–2 win. That's even more mysterious. Graf himself organized a second soccer international? I do not think that Graf was in a position to organize any soccer internationals. He may have been able to organize friendly matches against other army teams, but those were not soccer internationals. Fritz Walter made his debut for the German national team on 14 July 1940. It was a game against Romania, and Walter scored three goals, but by German standards it wasn't a hattrick, Germany won by 9-3 and the game took place in Frankfurt.
• Even more striking is the strong POV employed to describe Graf and his "acchievements":
  • On 4 September 1942, he became the second pilot to reach his 150th victory, a Yakovlev Yak-1; coming just 6 days after Gordon Gollob achieved the historic milestone.[35] Many times he was lucky to get back to base uninjured and alive, with his aircraft routinely being shot up by enemy pilots or anti-aircraft fire. Easily the top-scoring ace of the Luftwaffe, he was now shooting down several planes each day. The three fighters he got on the 9th September took him to 172, for which he was awarded the Diamonds to the Knight's Cross (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten)[61] and soon promoted to Hauptmann (Captain). I will always be irritated by such a prose and a POV which considers the shooting down of a single aircraft a "historic milestone", while one of the largest and decisive battles of WW II is being fought on the ground at Stalingrad.
  • The next day tempered his joy when, despite shooting down two more aircraft, for the first time he lost his wingman. Uffz Johann Kalb had to bail out over the Volga River and was captured by Russian troops.[61] On the 17th he claimed three more victories but a 20mm Russian cannon-shell went through his canopy missing his head by inches.[63] Such near misses drove him harder[63] and on 23 September, a remarkable ten victories in three missions took him to 197.[63] It was virtually inevitable then that on 26 September, he became the first pilot in aviation history to claim 200 enemy aircraft shot down.[64][35] Now the toast of the Luftwaffe he was promoted to Major on 29 September. Forbidden by High Command from flying further combat operations[65][66], the whole of JG 52 gathered at Soldatskaja to congratulate him[67] before he flew back to Berlin a few days later.[65] "tampered his joy "? "drove him harder"? "Virtually inevitable"? The "toast of the Luftwaffe"? The whole JG52 "gathered to congratulate him"? That's a kind of romancing worthy of Der Landser, when Graf, or, rather more appropriate to this style of writing, our hero, seems to meet his destiny to become the first pilot to reach that magic score of kills, although, as we learned earlier: Many times he was lucky to get back to base uninjured and alive, with his aircraft routinely being shot up by enemy pilots or anti-aircraft fire. Btw, I don't think that the Germans fought against "Russian troops"
  • Another example: With German forces in retreat by this time, Graf did not have any opportunity for further air combat. Graf disobeyed General Hans Seidemann, who had ordered him and Erich Hartmann to fly to the British sector to avoid capture by the Russians when the rest of the wing surrendered to the Soviets. Together with his fellow pilots and ground personnel he marched through Bohemia toward Bavaria, where he surrendered his unit to the 90th US Infantry Division near Písek on 8 May 1945 and became a prisoner of war (POW). This features some classic stereotypes of the story of a true hero. It also makes me wonder about the story of Erich Hartmann's last kill as related by Wikipedia's GA on him. JG52 seems to have had no opportunity for further air combat and "marched" through Bohemia to surrender on 8 May 1945, but on the very same day Hartmann and a wingman managed to fly a reconnaissance mission and Hartmann shot down a Soviet plane "from a range of 200 ft (61 m)"?
  • Furthermore: Graf helped Jewish families escape to Switzerland at a time when the "J" stamp in German Jews' passport had been demanded by Germany's neighboring countries. Jewish passports were stamped with a "J" after a treaty with Switzerland was struck in October 1938. So, when exactly did Graf provide his help and of what kind? When did he join the Luftwaffe fulltime?
• I consider most of the details to be unnecessary and both the writing and the POV it conveys are anything but "neutral".
• he's an ace and details of his victories are directly relevant to his notability and his biography in general. Are they? Maybe the somewhat strange analogy to a football player, a striker, illuminates this question: So you would suggest that the article on, say, Fritz Walter should feature a table listing every single goal he scored as a professional, against whom and at what minute during the game? Is that how you imagine encyclopedic information? I consider that to be information for the football enthusiast as Graf's list of kills appeals to the military enthusiast. It's more appropriate for a database than for a serious biographical article of military history.

have you seen the Wiki-articles on Gary Lineker or Diego Maradona or the Category "Career achievements of association football players" (almost 50 player's lists). Given that this is the combat-record of the 9th-highest scoring fighter pilot ever, yes, I do consider it relevant Philby NZ (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• None of the literature listed in the bibliography is up to historiographical standards. Schumann's piece, for example, is one that would be sold at certain newspaper stands. It is written for a certain audience. No academic historian would use that kind of literature for a biographical sketch of Hermann Graf. The one that would be considered to be RS by good faith, the article by Heinrich Bücheler in Baden-Württembergische Biographien 2, pp. 166-167, claims that Graf shot down 252 aircraft and joined the Nationalkomitee Freies Deutschland during captivity.

it doesn't bode well as an RS source if Bücheler doesn't even get Graf's Total Victories statistic correct when 212 is accepted by historians as correct (or as close as we will ever know) c.f. List of World War II flying aces

• Some of the external links feature online resources like feldgrau.com that have been blacklisted in the German Wikipedia for their notorious unreliability and strong POV. The disclaimer Although they often quote primary sources and with abundant detail from published material, be aware that by their on-line nature these websites are considered unreliable highlights how these links contradict WP:ELNO#2, although it is not by their online nature, that these sites are considered unreliable, but by the nature of the primary sources and the published material they quote. It's largely unverifiable research. Moreover, due to the standards currently employed by the MilHist project when evaluating the comprehensiveness of FA articles, I doubt that there are any websites which qualify as unique resources "beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" (WP:ELNO#1). Hermann Graf's war awards & command details as well as his victory claims sorted chronologically is exactly the kind of information which has been described as "directly relevant to his notability and his biography in general". --Assayer (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• On microhistory, the wikipedia article on microhistory says that microhistory could be an investigation of an individual. An in-depth biography of two German aces that concentrates on them seems to be microhistory. Just because Bergstrom doesn't conform to one definition of microhistory doesn't mean that the book is inherently unreliable.
• As for reviews, they are listed on Bergstrom's website, including reviews by historians and authors Håkan Gustavsson and Don Caldwell. It is generally hard to find journal reviews of military history books that aren't on a broad topic. For example, there are journal reviews of Bergstrom's books on larger topics like the battles in the Ardennes in 1944 or the air war on the Eastern front. Kges1901 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• I have also changed the uses of "Russian" to "Soviet" in the article since that was apparently needed for greater accuracy (although most accounts of the war that aren't from the Soviet perspective seem to use "Russian" and "Soviet" interchangeably, even Western Allied accounts) Kges1901 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

By reviews I mean third-party reviews published in respected historical journals by people with some professional background in the field of historiography, instead of reviews by "WWII aviation and Luftwaffe enthusiast"s, customer reviews taken from amazon.com, remarks by friends in e-mails and the like. "Aviation historians" seem to be a class of their own. What they lack in historiographical training, they make up for in enthusiasm for their topic. Don Caldwell was a chemist with Dow Chemical. Gustavsson's credentials are described by his own publisher, Casemate, as being "in contact with numerous veterans, and their families." If their books are not reviewed by peer-reviewed journals, it is not just because their topic is not broad enough. It's because of their credentials and approach. These books are written for the enthusiasts, not to contribute to the field of serious historiography. And you should take a closer look at the "journals" that publish reviews of books by Bergström like the New York Journal of Books, a commercial venue for book reviews. (Their WP page is quite amazing, btw, in that it is sourced almost exclusively to biased sources, namely themselves.)--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As usual, you are setting far too high a bar for sources. You are clearly in the minority. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with PM67 here. A Wikipedia article is not someone's PhD thesis (and this is only a GA/A class article at any rate). Statements like "there are no reviews which could attest to its reliabilty" imply that sources need to be proven to be reliable by a review in order to be used, yet I'm not aware of any policy that imposes such a burden of proof. Certainly WP:RS has criteria, yet where these are meet I'd say proof would need to be provided that said sources are in-fact un-reliable for them to not be used. Anotherclown (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Plasma (physics)

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

Result: Delisted Consensus here is that the article does not meet the Good Article criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Plasma (physics) should be demoted of WP:GA status as the article has several {{citation needed}} tags. Some of the sections of the article such as "Degree of ionization", "Plasma potential", "Mathematical descriptions" are completely unreferenced. This means the article should be delisted as a good article as it does not meet criteria #2b as the article does not seem to meet "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;" with some unreferenced sections.-KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• I initially added the GA reassessment tag mainly due to lack of sources. In addition to the above, the section common plasmas is very hard to source even a posteriori. The research section was taken from a questionable website [plasmas.com] (the link has since been removed). The quality of this (early-days GA) article has fallen below the GA standards we uphold nowadays. Yinweichen (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Half of the article is uncited, and a few of the existing citations are old, primary sources dating from 1879, 1897, and 1928, so this can be speedily delisted. In addition, the whole article would benefit from clearer descriptions and some copy-editing.Homemade Pencils (talk)
• Before demoting, could you give me a little time with it? After coming to the article from a RfC discussion, I'm kind of wishing to take it as a personal project to improve the article. I'll tackle the citations first and do some copy editing on the way, and then could we see where it stands? (By "a little time", I should have a decent number of edits done by the end of tonight; but we'll see.) --Nerd1a4i (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• This article could use the attention of several additional editors, as the on-going request for comment demonstrates. I favor demotion. Attic Salt (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

SpaceX reusable launch system development program

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

Result: Kept There are no requirements for citations every section and bullet points are allowed. No major neutrality concerns so closing this as keeping its good article status. AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I came across this page recently, and it looks like the article could use some work to get back to meeting the GA criteria. Specifically, there are sections that are completely uncited, a section that using bulleted entries when it could be prose (not following MoS), and it does not seem very neutral (calling a section routine procedure after one reflown booster?).

I would correct all these myself, but it looks like a very large project and I am honestly not interested in putting that level of effort in. I can contribute in reviewing and doing some of the changes required however. Kees08 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. We can work to add citations, there are plenty of good sources available. Regarding "routine procedure", we are talking about the first-stage landings, which have indeed become standard and routine. You are correct to note that relaunching boosters is not routine yet, but the article does not say that. — JFG ^talk 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's at least get some citations in that section and maybe clarify it a little. Both SpaceX and other citations would be good, in an effort to level out the POV. I can go through the whole article and pick out specific things, but I think you generally know what needs improved, so if you want you can just ping me when the major issues are addressed and I can go through it in detail after that. Whatever works for me. Kees08 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Wanted to check in on this, would you like me to start tagging the article or bring up the issues here? Probably should get this going soon. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had forgotten about this process. Do let me know what you think should be improved, and I'll take a look asap. — JFG ^talk 23:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Biggest one is to increase the number of statements with citations. I can tag a bunch with citation needed tags if you need. I can give a full, proper review as well, though it would help me out a lot if the statements in the article were supported with citations. Kees08 (Talk) 00:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, don't bother tagging, I'll take a pass over the weekend. — JFG ^talk 00:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kees08, thanks for your community review, and thanks JFG for being active and offering to help bring the article back to GA criteria. I just saw this Talk Page section today and seem to have not been aware of this. I did a lot of work to get this article to GA status back in the day, and the SpaceX dev program on this has been rather dynamic so lots of stuff is changing in the real world all the time the past 3+ years so it can be challenging to keep the article in sycn.

How can I help. It looks like JFG was going to work the set of items identified on 15 Dec. Did that happen? Does Kees08 think its fixed now? Might you be willing to tag the specific areas you see remaining so that we can keep the re-GA cleanup process moving forward? N2e (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Sorry about this, I will try to get to it again soon. Kees08 (Talk) 00:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Stephen III of Moldavia

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

Result: Kept I read the below and feel dumber for it. I wish editors would take their disputes to the right place and not bludgean each other so much. This is not about whether the article is good or not and makes no reference to the criteria. It is a dispute over the reliability of a single source. We are not the reliable source noticeboard. Take the dispute there, make your case as succinct as possible, let uninvovled editors get a word in and then you can come back here to try and delist the article if it still needs to be done. AIRcorn (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The article was recently granted the rank good article. An experienced editor expressed his doubts about the reliability of a number of cited sources, written by Kurt W. Treptow. Sorry, @Dahn:, I did not know that leading Romanian historians regularly published their works with such unreliable authors, or allowed him to edit their publications. Borsoka (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm also sorry that you did not verify Treptow's (and Watts') reputation before you used them as sources. Dahn (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I am extremelly sorry for not verifying it, but Treptow's books were published by leading Romanian academic institutions and he co-published with the leading Romanian historians. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if you could summarize why do you think that his books do not qualify as reliable sources for WP purposes. This ([9]) explanation is quite strange. Do you think books edited by Treptow could be regarded reliable? What do you think, historians publishing their views in books edited by Treptow could be cited? If they did not verify Treptow's reputation, can we say they are reliable? Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing "leading" about the Center for Romanian Studies. The other publishing houses are alright, I guess, but everyone makes mistakes, and it was after all allegedly Treptow's mission to make himself and his national-communist associates seem innocuous. Dahn (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"Do you think books edited by Treptow could be regarded reliable? What do you think, historians publishing their views in books edited by Treptow could be cited? If they did not verify Treptow's reputation, can we say they are reliable?" Books edited by Treptow should be just as suspect, by my view, because we're no longer in a position to say what is and isn't reliable in them. But you were asking me (also) about books which cite Treptow, and the claim that we might end up rejecting them is far-fetched: a historian has the job of discerning between reliable and unreliable in dubious sources, something wikipedia cannot and will not do; a historian using his critical lens on sources we deem unreliable is not himself unreliable. Dahn (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your remark that I should have verified Treptow's reliability. You may not know, but I do not live in Romania. I do not have knowledge of Romanian historians. Based on your remark, I thought that it is a well-known fact in Romania that Treptow is an unreliable source, and scholars who cooperated with him are also regarded careless, like me. Would you share your arguments with the community why do you think Treptow's books and the books edited by him are not reliable sources? Sorry, I think this argumentation ([10]) is still strange and unusual. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The controversy relating to Treptow is international, so no. WADR, I don't really care what you believe is strange and unusual. Dahn (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct you cannot argue that Treptow is an unreliable source. Could you explain this edit: [11]. Was it only an act of vandalism? Borsoka (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Why, is your use of tags vandalism? That refers to the book being edited by Watts, a similarly problematic historian, know for instance for books which deny the Holocaust in Romania and claim that Ceaușescu was framed. Dahn (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you did not mention that Watts was the reason, because you only mentioned Treptow. Interestingly, leading Romanian historians, like Ioan-Aurel Pop publicated their views in books together with such strange personalities. Are you sure about that fact? Sorry, but for me it is uncredible. I cannot imagine that historians publish together with anybody who denies Holocaust. Do you say that Romanian historians generaly deny Holocaust? Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually did mention Watts here (just above), and I also take issue with Florin Constantiniu, another one tainted by his links with the Securitate. Mr Pop also has some bewildering political positions and associations (for instance with Protochronists), but at least he has the reputation largely untarnished beyond that. His choosing to associate with this group (back then) and with other similar groups (these days) does not elevate his reputation, and certainly does not elevate theirs. Dahn (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd let others weigh in if Treptow, a convicted pedophile who praised Codreanu and Antonescu and was reportedly an agent of influence for SIE, is a reliable source, and more reliable than Bain. Dahn (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. You do not want to list your argumentation. You are still sulky. It does not make the decision easier. Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel I don't have to argue anything about the possible "reliability" of Treptow. I'll let others decide if an author with that reputation belongs as a source on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

His criminal record--and that includes him being a convinced pedophile--is irrelevant to our evaluation of him as a historian. You'd have to do a lot better than that. At best, your argument resembles the issue of Eric Gill and the creation of his fonts, which some designers refuse to use due to his crimes as a pedophile. In the end, most people choose to separate the man from his creation, and I doubt that Wikipedia's policy views things differently. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

1. The above is a comment by the permabanned User:Anittas. 2. I know Borsoka has muddied the waters when he claimed that the only objection to Treptow is his criminal record, but I actually referred to that in addition to things which make Treptow grossly unreliable, as cited here and elsewhere: he is a Holocaust denier, a fascist admirer, an associate of national-communist cells in the secret services of the 1990s, and some other things. Glancing at what Treptow is cited for in the Wiesel Report, alongside his colleague Watts, will be more than sufficient. Need I paste it blockquotes here as well? Dahn (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I never stated that "the only objection to Treptow is his criminal record". Please remember, I am not from Romania and it was hard to believe that leading Romanian historians cooperated with Holocaust deniers. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You had stated that the objection I raised to Treptow was relating to his criminal record (in fact, initially you had phrased it so that it would appear I am the one accusing him of pedophila), when you opened up discussion of this issue on several pages, and pinged me everywhere. Although I had clearly said that there are several major objections to Treptow, including his neofascism, you chose to misquote me, and I have since wasted a day or two answering to two respectable editors and the character Anittas above, as to why "pedophila doesn't make Treptow unreliable". I propose you did this deliberately, to soften the objections against Treptow. Dahn (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that it was you, who initially emphasized Treptow's crime. Borsoka (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I have, and I will again. For reasons I have explained every time I mentioned it: they may contribute to his unreliability (particularly with their political implications), but they are just one piece in his "file". You have persistently chosen to ignore the other issues. Let's hear it then: based on the other issues, do you find him reliable? As long as you yourself don't, all of this is really sterile. As long as you do, please explain to us how and why. Dahn (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your first comment feels somehow irrelevant to the subject. It's equal to someone joining a discussion where you are involved and accusing you of using a second Wikipedia account (Ano...) to manipulate the 'content' in your favor. You said that Borsoka should've verified his sources. I googled the name of this Kurt W. Treptow and after a careful look, I found this page that accuses Treptow of something called "selective negationism". As explained on the website: "[...] in other words, it does not deny the Holocaust as having taken place ELSEWHERE but excludes ANY participation by members of one’s own nation in its perpetration." I haven't found a source or an opinion (other than yours) that claims the fellow is a Holocaust denier: if there is one, it's not an easy one to find, so you can't burden Borsoka for not verifying every single source used in an article where one does not expect its sources to be of a controversial nature. On the contrary, this article on Romanian Holocaust deniers uses Treptow's work as a source. To accuse someone of being a Holocaust denier is serious business and should be followed by a strong argument. Have you produced a strong argument for why Treptow is a Holocaust denier? If you had such a source, all you needed to do was to simply write something to the effect that, 'Treptow should not be considered as a credible source because of [argument], according to this [source] and this [source]. And that would be the end of it. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I must apologize. I find it extremely difficult to read Dahn's posts to the end and I ignored the second half of his post where he mentions this Wiesel Report. I had to go back to see if missed something of worth. I found "Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania" and it doesn't say, nor does it allude to, that Treptow is a Holocaust denier. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course it does, I gave the full quote below, and anyone can verify it even in your link, Anittas. The Report also notes that he published and circulated false documents, in association with Buzatu and Coja. I have never said that he denied the Holocaust everywhere, but that he denied the Holocaust in Romania. While this may not be as serious a charge, it is interesting to see sophists argue about "he's still reliable, because we like him." Dahn (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wiesel report states the following: "Treptow, whose pro-Legion and pro-Antonescu sympathies were well known, for long benefited from support on the part of the Romanian authorities." It goes on to mention Treptow's meddling with what appears to be false documents. His objective was, as I see it, not to deny that the Holocaust occurred in Romania and Romanian-held territories, but to relieve the Romanian officials of responsibility for the killings. --Cei Trei (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Whatever he did, and however you want to call it, it is quite clearly incompatible with reliability. Affirm your conclusion, then: Trptow is reliable because, though he falsified documents and praised fascists, he didn't explicitly deny that Holocaust crimes happened in Romania -- just attributed them to fairies and leprechauns, which is a-okay. Enough wikilawyering, Anittas. (I won't answer to the claim that I have a second account as Anonimu, not least of all because it is plainly idiotic. If anyone seriously has any doubts about this, they can checkuser me all they want.) Dahn (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't come here to evaluate Treptow's reliability, DA(h)n. I came here to refute your argument which I believe is poorly structured. At first I thought you were using his crimes as a pedophile to discredit his reliability. Later you clarified that the main problem is with his falsification, or misuse, of sourced material, along with his Holocaust denial. As far as I've seen, Treptow is not a Holocaust denier--not for the Holocaust in Romania or elsewhere. Treptow was attempting to relieve the Romanian administration of responsibility. The difference between these two things are substantial, but then again, precision was never your forte: not as D, nor as A.

It's your duty, as an editor, to remain clear in your argument and not leave any room for misunderstanding. You didn't need to bring in his pedophile crimes to further discredit him--it's not like the guy was running for president. It was enough with what the report mentioned about him. That's all you needed to do, but now look at this page. It's a mess! Perhaps it's a representation of some intertwined thoughts... --Cei Trei (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"I didn't come here to evaluate Treptow's reliability" -- let's stop right there; this is an admission that you came here to muddy the waters, insinuate doubts about my standing as an editor, and harass me, the latter of which is about 50% of your edits on wikipedia (here, for instance). As for the page being a mess: it was arguably a mess when we started using Treptow as a trusted source, not when/because I brought that up. Dahn (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not an admission of anything. Allow me to be more clear. I don't think you are able to see things clearly; and the more complex things become, the more confused you become, regardless of the subject at hand. It was therefore a moral obligation for me to intervene in an article that I'm interested in. I highly doubt that 50% of my edits pertain to you. Not even if we count my edits on Ano... --Cei Trei (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Enough, Anittas. Dahn (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I sought assistance from the relevant Wikiproject ([12]). I think this can be a serious issue. We should not refer to historians who deny Holocaust or cooperate with pedofiles or Nazis. However, we should make sure that this is the case. Borsoka (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I also sought assistence from WP:RS [(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources&type=revision&diff=793275524&oldid=793002075)]. Borsoka (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Some facts:

• Kurt W. Treptow
  • pedophile: Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Treptow was the director of Center for Romanian Studies in Iasi, so it terms of reputation, CRS would be a circular reference.
• Larry L. Watts:
  • Who says he is Holocaust denier?
  • Indee, he is described as historical revisionist: "Another supporter of the official Romanian history was the American Larry Watts, author of a book called Romanian Cassandra: Ion Antonescu." (O Casandra a Romaniei: Ion Antonescu si lupta pentru reforma: 1918-1941, 1994)

Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Treptow (a convicted and jailed pedophile, not just an accused one) is also questioned as an author, for his links with neofascist and national-communist groups -- which is also an accusation brought up against Watts. Their (quite serious) critics suggest that they acted as legitimating agents for a political and historiographic school which gives the veneer of credibility to the nationalist synthesis of the late Ceaușescu era. The accusation, for instance, is that Treptow's child abuse was known and condoned by his contacts in the crypto-communist cell of Iași, and by some in the post-communist secret services (the same services who repressed democratic protests), because he lent them credibility; and that Treptow agreed to join in the charade precisely because the authorities granted him access to victims.

This for instance is an article outlining the case against Treptow and his associates, published by a respected literary critic and journalist in the leading literary magazine of Romania. Running it through google translate will probably clarify enough of the meaning. Highlights include his links with ultranationalists, open praise for the fascist leader Codreanu, and apparent lack of scholarly credentials (contrasting his intense promotion by a select group of Romanian institutions, all with the same agenda and connections). This is Treptow, not just Watts.

For the record, I do not believe that all authors who published with Watts and Treptow should be automatically seen as unreliable/unquotable. I do however have to ask if the books which have Watts and Treptow as editors of coauthors can be seen as RSes, regardless of whether other authors are reliable. Dahn (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As for Watts and the Holocaust, also consider Paul A. Shapiro or Michael Shafir, and the Wiesel Report. Both of the latter also discuss Treptow and his "work". Dahn (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

See also Irina Livezeanu for the very book used in the Stephen article. Dahn (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that historians who cooperated with an author who denied Holocaust could be cited? Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Because they do not automatically share the guilt, and because there is nothing to suggest that they themselves were/are Holocaust deniers -- just people who made an inept choice. I personally could live just fine without citing them altogether, but this is me trying to define an objective standard. Dahn (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This distinction seems to be quite subjective. Irina Livezeanu did not make difference between Holocaust deniers, pedofiles and other authors when reviewing their common book. Why do you think we should distinguish them based on the same review you referred to above? Borsoka (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know or care that we should, I can live with either situation. But here's a thing: by that standard, Livezeanu's review should render the whole book regardless of the individual authors, unreliable (the Wiesel report also condemns strongly some of the claims advanced in that book). Which is precisely what I was advancing as a possibility here, for this and other cases where one/several of the authors/editors/publishers are discredited: that we could refrain from citing those books altogether. Should this also refer to the other books that those authors published without Treptow, Watts etc.? Read my lips: I don't know, I don't care, I defer judgment on that to whomever is looking into this. Dahn (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Even if reading your lips always surprises me: you was the one who drew our attention to the issue during a content debate, but you are unwilling to help us to understand the situation. Sorry for disturbing you. I will not any more in connection with this issue. Borsoka (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot possibly summarize the situation better then the sources I pointed you to here and in other places where you opened up discussions. As for the rest: I responded to your questions and presented the solutions. If we decide Treptow and Watts are unreliable, we can either (1) cite (presumably with caution) sources that also have other authors/editors; or, (2) not cite those books at all, but cite other books which have authors that associated with Treptow and Watts (be it for lack of information, lack of cognition, carelessness, or collusion -- doesn't matter), as long as Watts and Treptow are not authors/editors of those books; or, (3) not cite any books by authors who once associated with Watts or Treptow. I lean toward (2), but, for Christ, understand: it is not my choice to make, nor do I impose this on anyone. Get it? Dahn (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, since there are some editors who still feign shock at being told that Treptow is not just a former convict, but an unreliable former convict, here's a quick review of just one of the sources discussing his scholarly credentials. The Wiesel Commission report, which is signed by tens of historians, including Watts and Treptow's one-time co-editor Scurtu, mentions a book authored by Treptow and Holocaust denier Gheorghe Buzatu:

[Holocaust revisionists] started by presenting excerpts from what they claimed was the 1955 testimony of the former leader of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Romania, Wilhelm Filderman, before a Swiss court. The document has never been produced and whether it really exists is doubtful. The alleged testimony had been mentioned for the first time in a 1994 volume in an editor's note written by American historian Kurt Treptow, who was residing in Romania. Treptow, whose pro-Legion and pro-Antonescu sympathies were well known, had long benefited from support on the part of the Romanian authorities. Coja wrote that it was from this tome that he had first learned about the existence of the Swiss 'testimony.' According to Treptow, the document could be found in the archives of the Buzatu-managed Iași Center for European History and Civilization. However, Buzatu was eventually forced to admit that the alleged 'testimony' had been simply lifted from an article published in the tabloid Baricada. The tabloid's editors claimed to have received it from Matei Cazacu, a historian of Romanian origins born in France. Upon being contacted by the Theodor Wexler, the vice president of the Filderman Foundation, Cazacu declined any knowledge of the 'document.' ... Treptow ... would again cite from it (while avoiding indicating the source) in Kurt Treptow (ed.), A History of Romania (Iași: The Center for Romanian Studies, The Romanian Cultural Foundation, 1995), pp. 485, 499-500. This tome was massively disseminated abroad by the Romanian Cultural Foundation, which enlisted the help of Romanian embassies for the purpose. Several Romanian officials and some historians were forced to face an embarrassing situation in 2002, when Treptow was put on trial and sentenced for pedophilia. (pages 357-358 in 2004 edition).

The same Report, on Watts:

Also important was the role of Iosif Constantin Drăgan, a former Iron Guard sympathizer, who became a millionaire in the West and later a persona grata with Romania's dictator. Having metamorphosed into Antonescu's most fierce advocate, Drăgan contributed to the campaign waged abroad by the regime to rehabilitate the Marshal and recruited domestic and foreign historians into the rehabilitation drive. Among them were Mihai Pelin, Gheorghe Buzatu, and Larry Watts. (page 348) ... Larry Watts and Mircea Ionnițiu turned Irving [i. e. David Irving] into a legitimate and respectable scholarly authority by citing his work in arguments meant to exonerate Antonescu. (page 362) ... Nor have only Romanians embraced the argument [that Antonescu saved Jews]. According to Larry L. Watts, a U.S. historian who resides in Bucharest, the Marshal had been the 'de facto' protector of Jews against plans to implement the 'Final Solution,' because he shared the 'Western standards... concerning human and fundamental civic rights.' (page 373)

This is all also found in a link I already gave just above. Now you can stop pretending not to have seen it. Dahn (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And I will highlight the point: him publishing false documents to support the notion that Holocaust participant Antonescu was a great guy is just one of the issues here. His credentials and scholarship, as shown, are also doubted by serious scholars, but I frankly feel that by this point the statements in the Wiesel Report (and deepened by, say, Simon Geissbühler, C. Iordachi, or Michael Shafir) should already and in themselves raise enough red flags for any editor that is actually concerned with wikipedia's credibility. Even by abstracting his participation in denialist propaganda, or the very fact that said propaganda is denialist: the man is shown to have deliberately falsified historical records. It would be very interesting to hear you argue that he is still reliable after having done that.

If not, glance over Livezeanu, exposing the very volume Borsoka added in good faith as a source to this article, discussing its reliance on national-communist tropes and its propaganda for the fascist Iron Guard. There are also several articles in Romanian newspapers that laugh off his contributions: for instance (in Romanian) his 1986 letter to Ceaușescu and his Securitate links or his contribution to Securitate propaganda. Anglist and journalist Mircea Mihăieș also discussed the Treptow scandal in an article for the leading literary magazine (in Romanian), arguing that Treptow's rapid rise and transgressions were facilitated by his contacts in the Romanian secret services, and also noting his neofascism. His carrying water for the Romanian Foreign Intelligence Service, and especially for the shady nationalist Ioan Talpeș, was also noted by Le Temps: (in French) "An American pedophile sows trouble in Romania". This article also notes that Treptow was early on a protege of the dictator's brother and pseudohistorian, Ilie Ceaușescu, and also implies that he was only charged with pedophila, after an initial release, because the city population had had enough, and his high-ranking protectors had to step back. (Mihăieș also notes the unusual leniency Treptow received from the authorities, as does academic Tom Gallagher.) Dahn (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your last edit (during a content debate) shows that you think that books edited by Treptow are also unreliable ([13]). Is this the case? Would you please share your arguments with us? Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As stated over and over again: yes, I personally lean toward that. Because I believe that once a work has been shown to be authored and/or edited by a discredited person, wikipedia editors (unlike professional historians) cannot be expected to perform original research and decide based on it which parts of a work under this category are/aren't reliable. The very exercise would be absurd: "Yes, David Irving is unreliable about Auschwitz, but I feel he makes a good point about Hitler." Once wikipedia identifies something as an unreliable source, it could only be used, at most, in claims it makes about itself. Dahn (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Anticipating: but do I feel that Ciobanu himself is unreliable? No, most likely he isn't -- though he presumably does have a bias, he is quotable with that bias and all, and can be compared to sources saying otherwise (as we are advised to do). But I have to ask if we can still cite him through a book edited by Treptow, and therefore suspect; surely, Ciobanu's interpretation of the events can be picked up from his other vast contributions to the subject, the ones not carrying Treptow's seal of approval. But again: I defer judgment to others as to whether this is or isn't the best approach; until others weigh in, the tags stay. Dahn (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason two editors decided to drop my name in the discussion, with implied accusations of sock puppetry. Thus, I have to start by rejecting such accusations and making editors aware that they may constitute personal attacks. Regarding Treptow, while indeed his work on recent Romanian history is really dubious and should be used with extreme care, his works regarding older history reflect more or less (a slightly dated) Romanian historiographical consensus. Nevertheless, given Treptow's issues, I would prefer him not to be cited anywhere on WP (except in the article on himself, maybe), as I think more reliable sources in Romanian supporting his points about medieval history could be easily found (by editors such as Dahn or Cei Trei; especially the first could just pick up some Romanian popular history book, even when that doesn't agree with his other sources)Anonimu (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anything, I merely defended myself against the risible claim that you are my sockpuppet (or vice versa); it was inevitable that I would mention your name. On the rest, we agree fully: I also feel that the facts picked up from Treptow could be picked up from other sources, whatever their POV (as long as it, the POV, is within the pale, which Treptow's, I argue, is not). You of course know that I have added all sorts of sources in articles I wrote, and confronted their POVs -- as we should. In fact, if you find the time to look at the above, you'll see that this started because I had done precisely that: added sources. Dahn (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record. This whole started because of a content dispute in connection with one specific fact you want to insert in the article based on a 110-year-old book. Remember, you wrote a congratulation to me after this article received GA status ([14]). Later, you revealed that you "always found it yucky that you felt the need to rely on [Treptow], but it was not a major issue" ([15]). And finally you concluded that a study published in a book edited by Treptow (not a study written by him!) was also unreliable, only because it contradicted a marginal claim of yours. I think the whole edit history demonstrates your attitude which can hardly be described as constructive. Borsoka (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have extended the doubt about books edited by Treptow, without passing any judgment on the matter, with a line of thought that anyone can follow in my arguments; I am sure that uninvolved editors will at least have to ponder if a book edited by a man with Treptow's reputation can be used as a source -- you yourself could explain your rationale as to why you find Treptow unreliable as an author, but reliable as an editor. I have also explained that I tend to find works on this subject (edited or authored) by Treptow to be borderline (overall "yucky", but not necessarily disqualifying) -- overall, you have done great work improving this article, and I stand by my congratulations. Now, you construe a claim that a book is necessarily unreliable because it is "110 years old" (which means absolutely nothing in itself), and have tagged references from it as unreliable; surely, this begs the question as to why we should accept books by Treptow, or by Watts, as reliable sources: the "110-year old book" and Bain were never questioned by anyone but you, while Treptow has no reputation left, and at least one of the books you cite him with is discussed as nationalist propaganda. So please understand how one hinges on the other, and how I'm open to any resolution as long as the issues (which you yourself deemed "serious") are considered, not swept under the rug. Dahn (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As I have several times stated, I had no knowledge about Romanian historians (and historians working in Romania). Sorry, but the claim that leading Romanian historians cooperated with deniers of Holocaust is surprising for me. I think Romanian wikipedians can decide that a book published in Romania can be regarded as a reliable source, because I have no deeper knowledge about this issues. Nevertheless, you let me refer to sources that you regarded unreliable and only used your knowledge of the cited author during a content debate. This is a fact which questions your good faith. Please also read again my argumentation about the 110-year-old book (which is only used by you to verify a marginal claim which contradicts to all other cited secondary sources even if you deny it.) Cooperating with other editors is obviously difficult for you, because all remarks which imply that your edits may contain errors, weasel words or original research outrage you ([16], [17], [18],[19], [20], [21]). Discussion is a normal way of working for most people I know, so this attitude is also a surprise for me, especially taking into account the high level of your edits. Borsoka (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Enough. The "110-year-old book" and another book say things that are not contradicted by other sources -- because you were unable to say where in those sources is stated that there was no war between the Poles and the Turks before Colomea. The rest is of course of no relevance: feel free not to believe me when I tell you that your very claims about Bain begged the question about Treptow/Watts (who are in any case discredited by the outside world, whereas Bain is questioned by you), feel free to depict me as spiteful or opportunistic, but what we're discussing here is utterly independent of that, and refers simply to whether wikipedia can rely on sources such as Treptow. As long as you yourself can recognize that the Treptow issue is serious, there is really nothing more to talk about how I'm not "constructive" in tagging him. Is questioning my reasons constructive?

Also, what "outrages" me is you wasting my time by picking at just about every single edit I made, when you misquote policy and introduce your personal preferences as policies (for instance, you were unable to show which part of WP:WEASEL covers the use of "possibly", though you pontificated that me using it is an instance of me adding weasel words to the source; even in the Bain & Kohn thing, your whole case relies on how a source disagreeing with you makes it unreliable). While trying to improve this and other articles (which you yourself acknowledged I have done), I have literally wasted five days of my life on your elaborate pretensions and your imperfect understanding of English (such as when you claimed that describing something as a "popular account" means disqualifying it, probably on the assumption that "popular account = folk tale"; or when you theorized that the simple statement "[Stephen's patronage] contributed to the development of Church Slavonic literature" is problematic, even when referring to Church Slavonic in Romania, because it might be read to mean that such of contribution is of universal, not contextual, importance -- an utterly ridiculous reading, but I let it slide). Yet the moment I bring up a serious issue with your sourcing, and proposed several solutions to tackle it, instead of discussing the issue you bring up my character and my supposed motivations -- an opinion which, WADR, I couldn't care less about. Dahn (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think your above outburst of anger is again a good example of your attitude. Every single edit? Please compare your edits ([22]) and my edits ([23]). Yes, my English is weak. However, presenting a widely accepted scholarly as a popular account suggest that either you cannot fully understand the same language or you try to disqualify scholarly theories based on your own bias. Yes, the text about Church Slavonic literature was problematic and you acknowledged it through adding further references. You should decide whether Treptow is a serious issue or not. Borsoka (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem above might be self-victimization: there is no "anger" in my message, it's a simple and direct statement of what I believe are the facts of the matter. When you read it in your mind, try changing the tone from "angry" to "blunt", and you'll have an image of how I wrote it.

Yes, every single edit: I have added numerous sources for all of what I've added, and yet you insisted on tagging most of my edits for various issues which are mostly imaginary, then opening up discussions that detailed how you, with your approximate English, read them, and how it must be that everyone reads them like that. Though even that was certainly not constructive, and took up days of my time, I have been responsive and rephrased things you claimed were ambiguous, though I myself did not view them as ambiguous (and no, I did not add more references to please you: most references I added because I was adding more to the text either way). "Popular" account refers to its overall popularity, Borsoka, not to a lack of acceptance in scholarship -- even if you construe it to mean that it is dismissive, you cannot possibly claim that I intended to dismiss it just because you get stuck on reading "popular" as folksy or uscholarly (though get this: it is in fact not a scholarly theory at all, it is a claim made by Ureche, many decades after the fact; but regardless, describing it as a popular account was not intended to dismiss it, but actually to validate the fact that it is prevailing among those authors who recount Stephen's rule). In describing as "problematic" the passage about Church Slavonic, you extended another skewed reading of that phrase -- you claimed something along the lines of "not any book contributes to the development of X literature", citing the books published in English, not all of which contribute to English literature etc. This even though the text referred to Slavonic literature in Moldavia, and surely the lord of Moldavia commissioning books contributed to the development of literature there. But even if it were to hinge on your quaint reading: yes, it was a contribution to the Slavonic literature everywhere, since Slavonic, unlike English, was only used by a couple of countries, of which several were even more undeveloped than Moldavia. And of course all of this was already validated by the cited sources already in that version of the article. Lastly, "contribution" doesn't imply "major contribution", this is another thing that you project from inside your entrenched editing. A minor contribution, if that is what Stepehn's was, is also a contribution.

In the end, you insisted on tagging a reference you feel is outdated, without advancing a source that contradicts it about those specific claims (for the 19th time: no source you can cite disputes that the war started before Colomea, not that there was a league). When you allow yourself to tag sources as unreliable for subjective reasons, then you invite in questions about the objective problems of your sources. And these stand out on their own, regardless of your theories about me -- even if, in tagging them and bringing up the issue, I should be entirely scheming and dishonest or rude or insane or what have you, what matters is is that there is an issue.

But do take a moment to consider this: you imply that I am a hypocrite for sending you congratulations for your (overall) good edits, and for addressing your objections even as I found them frivolous. Leave the theory aside for a moment and concentrate on this: we have sunk to the level where you're badgering me for behaving like editors should. Do you really want to go down that path?

Just again, the list of my frivilous objections: ([24] and [25]). Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm done replying to "defend" myself here, but feel free to go on, if you feel like it. I'll just ignore the chaff and the grief, and wait until you produce something resembling a point. Dahn (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your remark about the scholars who accepted Ureche's report can be read here ([26]). Of course, you can be convinced that they were wrong - but presenting their view as a popular account is quite a brave act. The debate about the reliability of the 110-year-old book can be read here. Borsoka (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and this is precisly my remark: ""Popular account": must I really summarize the loaf of text in Rezachievici where he notes that the vast majority of historians have taken up the claim in Ureche word for word (making his account "popular" in that sense), but that they did so without wondering why Stephen and only Stephen was elected in that entire period, even though he had already been associate ruler?" Surely anyone can see how I used "popular account" and precisely how Borsoka misunderstood it; they can also see how I incorporated his objection in the current text, even though I felt it was frivolous.

As for the other debate: it is an interesting study case in Borsoka reading things in the sources that aren't there, that is precisely the accusation which s/he throws around. The dispute is to whether there was a Polish-Ottoman war before Colomea -- two sources argue that there was, with very precise statements (that the war started a full year before Colomea, that Poland formed a league etc.); Borsoka claims that two other sources contradict that, even though they are entirely silent on this particular issue (they mention neither a precise date when the war started, nor anything on the league, though one of them claims that the Poles did nothing to help Moldavia -- try as you might, even that vague opinion does not contradict the claim, just like saying that France did nothing to help Poland in 1939 doesn't contradict that there was a WWII in 1939). Dahn (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• The full debate about the reliability of the 110-year-old book can be read here. Borsoka (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Hospitaller colonization of the Americas

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

Result: Kept Issues appear to have been resolved AIRcorn (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

This article was approved as a GA in 2014. In January 2016, a user unilaterally moved the page to Territorial possessions of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and added a few sections consisting of short bullet points to turn it into a list. The original text of the GA was kept. I made a move request a few months later, archived at Talk:Territorial possessions of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta; the admin said that the text would have to be moved manually. I finally made the manual move after other users weighed in and consensus seemed present to restore the text to its original location. The text remains essentially the same as it was in 2014 when it was assessed, and I would like to see GA status restored. Fishal (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fishal: The article is currently listed as good. From a cursory look I am not seeing anything that would make it not pass our criteria. Is there anything you need me to do or can I close this as kept. AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn:, you can close it. The issue of the moved article was resolved; keeping the re-listing was recommended by the admin who handled the move just in case. Thank you for looking into it. Fishal (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Mountain railways of India

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

Result: Kept Good articles are not concerned about article titles unless they fall foul of other criteria (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#Beyond the scope). I see no issues with asking for a good article to be copy edited, and if anything a completed copy edit should make it adhere more to criteria 1a. Although stability is never a good reason to delist an article, the article has been stable for a while now. Broadness was brought up along with examples, but the Kanga Valley and Lumding-Badarpur lines are now mentioned in the article. Good articles don't have to be perfect, merely good. AIRcorn (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

While the recent cleanup edits have removed several of the article's deficiencies, it is still not quite at GA.

Some of the issues:

It is mis-named, and badly misnamed. This is an article about the UN heritage sites, not about mountain railways in India. Simply looking briefly at existing railways with wiki articles, the Kangra Valley Railway and the Lumding–Badarpur section are or contain mountain railway, and are active or intact. Looking at defunct system, or systems since converted such as Cherra Companyganj State Railways and some of the Satpura narrow-gauge lines will obviously expand the list much farther. The article is not broad in coverage,but restricted to a small portion of its nominal subject.

Much of the sourcing is from a touristic/passenger POV, emphasizing picturesqueness, and, because of that, it was (and related articles were), until recently afflicted with touristical glurge in their sourcing, with both the accuracy and NPOV problems such sources bring.

Finally, an article just undergoing a major re-write is, by definition, not stable. Give a month or three first. An article can't be both a "good article" and in need of major editing. Anmccaff (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just two responses: 1) The UNESCO site is called "Mountain Railways of India," so I think the name is proper. And if not, it can easily be changed; and 2) The Guild of Copy Editors has a board where people can request a CE when they are thinking of nominating their article to become a good or featured article. So it isn't fair to say that getting a copy-edit means the article is bad. I recently did a CE on Steller's sea cow, which is currently being nominated as a FA. Just my opinion. I didn't write the article, I just edited it, but I don't think it's fair to strip it just now. El cid, el campeador (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The UNESCO cite originally covered only one of the railways, then two, then three...what do you think the second two were before UNESCO designation? I'd suggest since they were, in fact, "mountain railways" located in "India" that they were examples of "mountain railways of India" from their building, and UNESCO's designation is superfluous. There are other mountain railways in India still, and there were once even more of them, to say nothing about the mountain railways in what used to be India.Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a question of whether the article was "bad", but if it met and meets Wiki's rubric for good articles. If you had to change it, it may not have been good before, and it certainly isn't "stable" if it's recently been changed. Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep-If the article is badly named, request a move. All claims seem sourced. Some of the sources-though I can't say all-might be biased. The article itself seems neutral enough. I also don't understand how an article that recently underwent major changes cannot be considered a good article. If that "major editing" helps the article, why would you nominate it for delisting? Display name 99 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If the major editing improved the article, then the article is not stable. Stability imples that it has settled on a version that needs no substantive improvement, which obviously isn't the case if it was just substantively improved. Give it a week, or a month, or whatever, but don't claim, as editfests seem to far too often, "instant stability." Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If the article grossly fails to meet one or more of the GA criteria, we can talk about demoting it. But to suggest that an article ought to be demoted after it was "substantially improved" falls nothing short of pure insanity.

Did you read the definition of "stability" at WP:Good article criteria? I'm guessing you haven't in a while, so I'll quote it for you. It declares that the article must "not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." So there's no edit war or content dispute, just somebody improving the article's quality. And somehow that's a reason to downgrade it? Perhaps before the article was not GA worthy. Now it seems as though it is. My suggestion for you is to read the GA criteria, determine what it means, contemplate your actions carefully, and to stop punishing people for making Wikipedia better. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it recently, have you considered that the only reason I (and possibly others) are not actively editing is to give the question here a chance to be settled? If you'd prefer, I'll mark up all the sections that are dubious, &cet. There certainly is a content dispute; we have an article supposedly about "mountain railways of India" which ignores most examples of them, and almost all historical examples. Huge amounts of potential content are missing.

Next, you are assuming that the article now meets standards; as mentioned explicitly above; I feel it does not, since The article is not broad in coverage,but restricted to a small portion of its nominal subject.

Finally, stop assuming that something you don't agree with is aimed at "punishing people for making Wikipedia better; perhaps I don't see this as making Wikipedia better. In fact, I see labeling this in its current form a "feature article" as making Wikipedia a laughingstock. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Your previous posts focused most heavily on the article not being stable. I was responding to that. The discussion that we are having here does not count as a content dispute. A content dispute would be marked by frequent reverts or drama on the talk page. The idea that an article should be delisted because of a major improvement still sounds just as ridiculous, but your expanded emphasis on the broadness issue seems to have more credibility. Perhaps El cid, el campeador could expand the scope of the article's coverage so that it will better quality as a GA. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion that we are having here does not count as a content dispute....but it would, you know, were it elsewhere. Should I move it there now? The idea that an article should be delisted because of a major improvement still sounds just as ridiculous. To you, perhaps. As I see it, if it needed major improvement, it probably wasn't given a very good GA review, or it may have suffered from accumulated bad edits. Either way, it has never had a GA review in in its current form, and allowing it to keep the status either because it had once met it, or because someone had mistakenly thought it did, is just silly. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The only reason for this dispute is because you nominated the article to be delisted. You're basically saying that because you nominated an article for reassessment and thus caused a content dispute, the article should be delisted because of that very same dispute that you initiated. By that logic, every GA reassessment that resulted in any kind of discussion whatsoever-as I imagine nearly all do-would result in the article being delisted simply because of the discussion. Can you see the absurdity in that way of thinking? Display name 99 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason I nominated it is because it isn't a very good article, even if it is slightly improved from when it was a very bad article. The content disputes mentioned above haven't been settled, or even addressed. Until they are, the article is not stable. Nothing in the least absurd about that; but there is a tiny bit of absurdity in the idea that "goodness" is a permanent irrevocable condition. Anmccaff (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PS:[Here]'s the original "good" article. Do you think this is now essentially the same article? Do you think this article, in its 2010 from, should have passed GA review? Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can take a look at that. But did you notice this edit, which seems to have removed a whole lot of content? Maybe it includes some of the missing material that you're referring to. If so you can challenge it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, before that it was more in-line with the putative subject, although it had some other major failings., too. Anmccaff (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this article has, by now, gone through so many changes since evaluation that a reevaluation is unquestionably needed; does anyone now disagree? Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

...going twice.... Anmccaff (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Gone. I've removed the Good Article, which appears to be justifiable from the conversations above. Anmccaff (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Anmccaff, that is not how a Good Article community reassessment works. The GA stays on until and unless the reassessment is closed as "delist", and any closure has to be made by an uninvolved closer. Since you opened this, you are clearly not uninvolved. As for a reevaluation, that is what this page is supposed to be: a reevaluation by the community against the GA criteria. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it can take a long time to get enough folks here to do that work. I notice that this article had an enormous revision by MRI SCAN, who was on Wikipedia during the final week of July, and also added the copyedit tag. Perhaps if other participants here and other editors on the article, including Display name 99, El cid, el campeador, Mackensen, and Punyaboy could do the assessment. If all that's really needed is a copyedit, then a request at WP:GOCE/REQ for a GA-level copyedit could get the article there in the next few weeks. Display name 99, with all the recent changes, would your assessment still be "Keep", or is the article no longer there? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who was involved on the initial evaluation might want to step back from it too; they labeled as a good article something contaoning an entire section of rather obvious folkloric falsehoods. Anmccaff (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The original GA reviewer from 2010 hasn't edited here since June, and the editor who originally nominated it retired a year ago. I don't think that will be an issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think MRI Scan's edits helped any. But these could be undone or discussed here or on the talk page. One of Amncaff's concerns was that the article was not broad enough in scope to cover its title. I found one edit which removed a lot of information, posted it above, and suggested he challenge it. So far, I'm not aware of any attempt to do so. Right now, I don't think that the article meets GA criteria. But if either of these things are done it might. Display name 99 (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I requested this article for copy edit at WP:GOCE few months back. All the above dispute started because of the same. Apologies for the same. However please find my observations.

As of today, the article has same sections what it had back in mid 2016. A user Mackensen had restored mid 2016 version of article after this dispute started. After that another user MRI Scan, only made the article grammatically better (It appears so).

Restoration by Mackensen answers "One of Anmccaff's concerns was that the article was not broad enough in scope to cover its title. I found one edit which removed a lot of information, posted it above, and suggested he challenge it. So far, I'm not aware of any attempt to do so." comment by Display name 99. (The edit referred by Displayname99 was done by user DeadatRail sometime in late 2016 which was subsequently undone by Mackensen restoration)

So now only thing required is a re copy edit. Should i request it again at WP:GOCE requests?

But even after that, even if article is send for and is certified a GA or FA, it will be a GA or FA only, it will still not be a complete article. There are many railways in India which are or contain mountain railways, such as Mumbai-Pune railway line, etc. These lines were never part of this article, not even when it was a GA. Now the big question is how to find out all the mountainous railways in India. As far as i checked on the internet, none of the sites gives complete info, not only that most sites don't even mention all the railways mentioned in this article. If this stuff is done then the article will be complete article as well as a GA/FA.

(Also linking El cid, el campeador and BlueMoonset)

Punyaboy (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment We have now had, for over three months, an article that starts out with a template pointng out that it This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (July 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message), and yet it is still, by some kind of magical thinking, a "'Good Article" . It is well past the time to put that idea out of our misery. Anmccaff (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The article has now been copyedited by the Guild of Copy Editors. Where this leaves the other issues I don't know. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Shreya Ghoshal

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

Result: Kept Issues addressed during the review. AIRcorn (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please take some time and read this article it fails Neutral point of view and has a lot of bias in writing, was really surprised to see this fansite been listed as good article, No offence to any major contributor i respect their work, but still couldn't digest the fact that this article is listed as good article Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: Do you have specific areas you think are biased and fan-centric? Maybe noting some of these things would make it easier for community reviewers. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I respect ghoshal like any other musician as I am a music lover, I also value her contributions to Indian music but this article especially Popularity, Impact & Recognition section appears to be written by Ardent fan of ghoshal. 2 years before when this article passed good article status, I assume these might not be there, I was going to contact the reviewer who gave good article status but unfortunately the reviewer had declared retirement on their user page. Regards, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 23:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: the article has nearly quadrupled in size since it was made a Good Article in October 2015, so it seems likely that the new material may not meet GA standards, though there may have been some problems even back in 2015. However, a fair amount of material has been deleted from the 2015 version, which may also be a contributing factor to the current issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment. @Anoptimistix: I am one of the major contributor of this page. The section that you have pointed out as "fansite" was probably not that exaggeratedly written when it was passed two years ago. I was not active on WP for nearly a year when it was, and still is, extensively edited by User:Zafar24 who has been adding a lot of non-POV, fanboy fluffs into the article. I will try to give this article an overall copyedit. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: Is it okay now? I have chopped down almost half of the fluff in the impact and recognition section and the rest of the article seems fine to me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment : Yashthepunisher; Thank you Brother for all your hardwork done till now. I myself admire a lot of musicians and also acknowledge Ghoshal's contributions to the Indian music. Yes, I understand as a significant contributor you have worked very hard on this so I am Withdrawing this reassessment request as you have almost fixed this one. Anoptimistix (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. If there are any other issues with the article, you can address them at the talk page and I'll be happy to fix them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Shenandoah (band)

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

Result: Kept. We can only source what we have sources for so the absence of sources for a particular aspect of an article is not necessarily a problem. It is probably a good indication that that aspect is not note worthy. Having an outdated picture is not an issue for much the same reasons. This article was passed as a good article by one of our better reviewers and I am seeing nothing in the current version that prevents it from maintaining that status. AIRcorn (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My main concern is that the article kind of falls apart, due to constant membership change in the band from 2008 onward. The main picture shows a long outdated lineup, and most of the members have been unverifiable (Even at the time of GA, the only way to verify who actually was in the band was through Wayback Machine and Facebook.) The rest of the article seems to hold up all right, but those last few sections are my main concern. I was unable to find much in terms of sourcing for the constant membership changes ever since. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-assessing your own GAs again, Hammer? You seem quite modest about your work. I don't see anything amiss about the GA criteria except for maybe that last sentence. That's personally the only thing I would agree with because it doesn't have a source at all. If a primary source is all we can use, we're allowed to use it as long as we A) take care not to misuse it, B) we don't overuse them, or C) use them when others are available which are clearly better (you seem not to think so). As for the picture, I see no issue with that, if there are no others available, use it, because that's our only option. That does not affect GA criteria. Take pride in your work, it looks really good to me. I say keep if any source is available for last paragraph and otherwise meets GA criteria, but I can't be completely certain here. Danny from IP 104.39.152.54 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Esham

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

Result: Kept No requirement for a photo and ther issues appear to be dealt with AIRcorn (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• First off, there is no photo of the artist, and I was unable to find a suitable free image.

If there's not one available, there's no foul on the GA criterion.

• The intro is extremely short.

I can probably make this better, but there's not much wrong with it in my opinion. He's not a hugely popular artist.

• Several of the sources are bare links.

Fixed.

• Source 15 appears to be a self-published YouTube video.

 Working

• Sources 28 and 29, Faygoluvers, appear to be a self-published fansite.

 Working

• There is very little info on the critical reception of his albums. For instance, Flowerz is mentioned, but only its chart position is given. Compare other musical GAs I've worked on such as Joe Diffie, Doug Stone, or Diamond Rio, where each album has multiple reviews cited.

His critical reception is surprisingly small. He's had quite a few albums chart, but not much more than Allmusic reviews. I can try to find a few, but some just don't have any good reception on them.

• There are several format issues. "Psycopathic Records" has several one-sentence paragraphs, and nearly every use of a chart position uses a number sign, which is not accepted per the MOS.

 Working

• "Digital Era , No more hard-copies" content appears to have been moved from another page, as it uses bolding in weird spots. This section also has horrible grammar such as " It was released on May 26, 2017 digital only."

This was inexperienced fan-written content that I completely removed. 104.39.135.32 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The article was promoted in 2008, and maintenance has been clearly lacking ever since. (ETA: Turns out I was the one who passed in 2008. Wow.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard to fix when I have the time. If this runs as long as the average GAR does, I'll have plenty of time. The YouTube Video is a post from Esham's verified YouTube account - looks like it was previously credited to his account under another name. Does just reformatting it sound alright? Danny from IP 104.39.135.32 (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• @DannyMusicEditor: @104.39.135.32: That in and of itself is a major issue, that we can't find a picture of him nor confirm his birth date. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not having any available images is not a GA criterion. It states that is should be, if possible, illustrated by images. You try finding an Esham concert, go ahead. It's potentially dangerous. A lot of the people that go to them are shady characters. Imagine how hard it would be just to get one contributor-taken photograph of him at a good shot while all this wild stuff is happening at one of his concerts. Hard, right? No images of Esham are available on Wikimedia, so it's impossible at the moment. Since it's not possible, that criterion is completely fine.

For the birth date, we can make note that sources differ. If Mariah Carey (FA) can do that, so can this article. Of course, she had definite dates, but there are remedies to this situation, even if no refs exist which have an actual date. Danny from IP 104.39.135.32 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

HIStory/Ghosts

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

Result: Delist I am going to be slightly bold here and delist this. While splitting a section out of an article, due to size issues for example, will result in the parent article maintaining its GA status. This is a little different because their is no obvious parent article. A quick look at both articles suggests that neither is currently up to GA standards and would need some work to reach them. AIRcorn (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Note Article was moved from HIStory/Ghosts to HIStory (Michael Jackson song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The participants at article talk page agreed to split the article. Since there was not yet an opposition to the split proposal, the split will affect the article's status as GA. I could review it and then delist it, but I feared that I might displease some others who would want to preserve the article's status, especially after the split. Also, I have not reviewed and promoted an article to Good Article before. Maybe this discussion would help preserve the article's status, or maybe this would result in the article being delisted as GA, i.e. demoted into being former GA.

I would like to be bold and split the article right away. However, history logs of this article have been recorded. Maybe cut-and-paste portions about one song into Ghosts (Michael Jackson song), and move the page to "HIStory (Michael Jackson song)". Otherwise, maybe cut-and-paste other portions into HIStory (Michael Jackson song) and move the page to "Ghosts (Michael Jackson song)". First, I'd like to hear your thoughts please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, until the split proposal on the article's talk page is closed by an independent closer with a decision of "split", no action should be taken here, or indeed in splitting the article. There is no rush.

In general, it would be a bad idea to have a complicated situation like this be your first GA review. However, since you are to be involved in doing the splitting, you certainly are not eligible to do a GA review, since you will have been involved in creating the resulting new articles. Also, since this is a community reassessment, while you can add comments, it is not in your power here to delist it; this page will also need to be closed by an uninvolved editor/closer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I struck the reviewing part out, BlueMoonset. May I request a closure at WP:ANRFC then? Also, you want it this assessment closed, right? --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I did request a closure to seek uninvolved closer, but it was declined as too soon and obviously unanimous. --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: The split proposal is closed as "split unanimously supported", BlueMoonset. --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If the article is ever split, the parent article (even if moved) retains GA status and can (and probably should) be reassessed at that time; the child (new) article does not inherit GA status and must start afresh. There's nothing to do here until the article is actually fully split. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll perform the split, BlueMoonset. May I? George Ho (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to me to decide, George Ho. The proposal closed back on July 10; at this point, anyone who is willing and capable of doing so can take a crack at it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Performed the split, though I duplicated some content. George Ho (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Gail Kim

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

Result: Kept Assault no longer in article and no other instances of in universe examples highlighted. Note I removed a poor sentence from the lead here.[27] AIRcorn (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The "assaults" mentioned in the article bring up a question: How does Wikipedia distinguish between the (sorry, wrestling fans) obviously scripted events called "assaults" and actual real-world assaults? There's no discussion of police and legal action re these "assaults," which tells me that the fiction of wrestling is being discussed as if it were reality. (this is an old comment posted in 2012 to Talk:Gail_Kim#Untitled, without reply)

In addition, is it a good idea to describe outcomes of scripted play as winning? "where she won the WWE Women's Championship in her first match" For me it seems like writing in Ian McKellen article "was fighting against Christopher Lee during War of the Ring" (instead of something like "He achieved worldwide fame for his notable film roles, which include Magneto in the X-Men films and Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings")

Note, this nomination was triggered by nominating traslation of this article to our equivalent to GA - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Propozycje_do_Dobrych_Artyku%C5%82%C3%B3w/Gail_Kim Unfortunately I have extremely limited knowledge about acting so I am not qualified to fix this.

AFAIK the "assault" thing may be also a WP:BLP issue

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this very much. I've also been seriously annoyed by all the mentions of wrestlers as "competitors" as well, they're not, they're performers. "Won the title for the first time" should be replaced with "held the title for the first time". Wrestlers much like actors can recieve real awards and acomplishments for their performances, but the titles and tournaments should not be described as some of them. If it was up to me there would be a split in the accomplishment section that diferencitated between so called "kayfabe" wins and genuine victories.★Trekker (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no problems. A lot of articles are written just like this, like CM Punk or Shelton Benjamin. Also, every sources includes "she won" not "the bookers gave her the title". About the assaults, we say "legit". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't like it. It seems like some nonsense. These are real people portraying characters or personas, not necessarily the characters themselves. Which by the way generally shouldn't be describe with "in universe" terms either.★Trekker (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the word "assault" should not be used since these pre-planned and choreographed show business stunts are not actual criminal activity. "Assault" should only be used when a person has been convicted of assault in a court of law. It is not Wikipedia's role to maintain the illusions of professional wrestling, or to describe wrestlers from an "in universe" perspective. If other articles share the same problems, those articles should be changed as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

A quick google search returns the definition of assault as "make a physical attack on" which goes entirely along with what is actually being described. So far the comments left show a bit of a lack of understanding of what professional wrestling even is. There is this weird idea of what has been promoted entirely by World Wrestling Entertainment. That is a marketing scheme produced by that organization that is in no way the entirety of the wrestling industry. Outside of WWE, companies take more of a physical approach with the song and dance. They promote the individuals exactly as competitors. New Japan Pro Wrestling and Ring of Honor are more focused on treating the wrestlers as competitors, the victories exactly as a sports victory, etc. Is it pre-planned? Yes. Is it choreographed? Not always. Throughout wrestling history there are countless matches that never had a single spot planned. Sometimes they don't even have a planned finish. Such cases as Ric Flair defending the NWA World Heavyweight Championship outside of the states. With the finish not being the finish planned. Then comes the Montreal Screwjob which is an instance where the planned finish didn't occur but instead something entirely different happened. But overall, the issue with the word assault is hollow. What is happening is a wrestler is coming out an either hitting someone with a chair, slamming someone to the ground, through a table, or some other physical action. Which falls entirely in line with the definition of the word. Your perceived view regarding the definition isn't the definition. I must remind that the definition doesn't say anything about criminal activity. That is actually moreso criminal and tort law, which has its own list of definitions. I could give you the code for the Decennial Digest in order for you to be more familiar with that area. Now as for the competitor issue, may I remind that professional wrestling started as legitimate contests with actual competitors and that the individuals who are cited as "performers" (despite that being a WWE marketing scheme) sometimes are legitimately competing for better standing in the company, on the card, and with the audience and the primary point of a match is to actually appear as competitors and not as performers. Most wrestlers are closer to athletes than actors. In fact, several of them compete across a number of sports such as weight lifting, MMA, boxing, Olympic and Amateur wrestling, etc. The issue here is this talk of in universe which if anyone was familiar with the project would know that we went for years working on that exact issue. To the point that we had hundreds and yes I mean hundreds of discussions on the project page, on talk pages, in GA reviews, FA reviews, peer reviews, etc. that included project members, non-members, and administrators across the vast expanse that is Wikipedia. I helped write this very article with another editor who was very seasoned and knew exactly what they were doing with trying to not have this article be in universe from the very beginning. So far, I don't see any legitimate grievance other than not liking the word assault and competitor be used exactly as they are designed.--WillC 07:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The word "Assault" isn't something you usually see in Pro Wrestling, unless someone is being charged with Assault, or it's the name of a move, show or gimmick. However, in the context of the article, it says that "(The Bellas) caught Bryan kissing Kim backstage, they assaulted Kim, starting a feud with her". The source says: "After the break, Brie and Nikki are still fighting over Bryan in the back. They enter his locker room only to find him making out with Gail Kim. He tells the twins that Gail is his girl and they have been together for six months. Gail tells the twins Daniel felt sorry for them since they haven't had anything to do since there are no more guest stars. Nikki calls Kim an afterthought, and Kim slaps her. Chaos ensues, and officials quickly run in to restore order." Which actually suggests that they may have verbally assaulted Kim, but this could be re-written to be more accurate.
The next instance of the word is the next sentence, where it says "On January 30 at the Royal Rumble, the Bella Twins once again assaulted Kim" The source says: "(Bryan) is cut off when the Bellas interrupt and they want to apologize for Monday. After some backhanded compliments toward Bryan and Gail Kim, all heck breaks loose. Officials finally regain some sense of decorum." I'm ok with this being referred to as an assault. The word can be used to mean a backstage attack; but it's usually referred to as something else (say, attack, or beat down).
The final use of the word is with "On March 10 at Lockdown, Kim unsuccessfully challenged Sky for her Knockouts Championship, after being assaulted by referee Taryn Terrell, who Kim slapped during the match." - You could say this is also fine, Taryn Terrell did attack Kim (Which would be assault had it not been in character), with a slap.
For those uneducated as to the inner workings of professional wrestling, there are other ways to describe something as being "real", to it being "staged". The words "legit" and "kayfabe" are used, as are "shoot" and "work". I'm not a fan of the word Assualt in professional wrestling, but it does get used especially by fans and people who write up results, to mean an attack, or one-sided attack. Hope this helps Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In the end most of this does not change the fact that a lot of wrestlers articles are seemingly written in an "in universe" perspective.★Trekker (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

" Also, every sources includes "she won" not "the bookers gave her the title"" - I would expect sources maintaining Kayfabe to be with "an apparent conflict of interest" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, covering wrestling as if it was an actual sport is all too common, even if it's common knowledge to pretty much everyone that it's 100% staged.★Trekker (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because the lifting of human beings, the flying across rings, the falling onto concrete, etc. is all done with CGI and wires. The people in the audience are from the matrix. Everything is 100% staged. Nothing is real and everything is permitted. This needs to be closed because it is obvious the only reason this was brought up was because of individuals who have no idea what they are talking about and obvious did absolutely zero research. They just don't like that words are being used inline with their actual definition. So far this has went as "A: I don't like it." "B: Well let me show you how that doesn't matter." "A: I still don't like it." "B: That doesn't matter because of facts and evidence." Present an actual issue. It is written in universe. Because we used the word assault to mean exactly what it does? Still waiting on something substantial.--WillC 06:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea whatsoever what you just wrote was meant to accomplish or what you even want. Do you agree with any of the points in here or are you just complaining about something? Wikipedia rejects the use of "in universe" writing so that shit can't stay.★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

In-Universe is one thing Wikipedia pushes against; however, due to the unique nature of professional wrestling, it's hard to miss. If you were being totally anal; every championship win on every topic should read 'X was awarded this championship', rather than won; however external media also says that they won, and keeps kayfabe; so we should be going with what the sources say. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to be totally anal, honestly.★Trekker (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Pro wrestling is most definitely not an exception to the rule that Wikipedia does not allow "in universe" prose writing, and every trace of that should be removed from every pro wrestling article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I've long supported removing in-universe material. There does come a point where we end up overdoing this though and the end result is just as insulting to readers as trying to pass off the fictional material as totally legitimate. Here's a New York Times article on Jinder Mahal's rise. It's written like our articles should be because it makes it clear where the lines between kayfabe and reality are. But it still uses phrases like "[Mahal] won the championship at a pay-per-view in May called Backlash" and "Mahal will fight a rising star named Shinsuke Nakamura." Everyone who reads this article, even those who never heard of professional wrestling before, can tell Mahal and Nakamura aren't going to "fight" Fraser and Ali style. I don't think, even in the world of wrestling lingo, that there's a word for "choreographed fight" and repeatedly stating that every match is pre-determined is counter productive. The article also gives some background on the process Mahal went through to "win" his championship. In the past I've compared it to winning any other award; bookers ultimately select a champion to represent their company.LM2000 (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In that case, we shouldn't even use their ring names as the title. This article includes Jinder Mahal as a character performed by Mr Dhesi. As you said, the article includes words like "won" or "fight", so it's a blur line. To me, is nearly imposible since the huge amount of articles and a lot of FA and GA. Also, 90% of the sources writes in-universe. Should we include in every match "the match is scripted"? Turn "Kim held the title for four weeks, successfully defending it once against Molly Holly, before losing it to Holly on the July 28 episode of Raw" into "Gail Kim held the title for four weeks. She had a scripted fight against Molly, but the bookers decided Kim had a sucsefull defende. However, the bookers take her title on July 28 episode of RAW, giving to Holly in a scripted match"? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If The New York Times (which isn't exactly WrestleZone) is writing about wrestling in an entirely out of universe style and still using words like "fight" and "won" then so should we. The examples you gave above are exactly counter productive wording I was talking about. For the record, I don't have any major issue with the way Gail Kim is written.LM2000 (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

We should follow rules and guidelines. The New York Times may be a reliable source but it's not an encyclopedia. The authors choice to use wrestling terminology because it's simpler shouldn't affect what we do.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean with the naming, considering how often articles have to be moved because a new company decides they want to rename the performer maybe simply using their real names more often would be better, but not always. Their different characters that a wrestler portrays are "personas" much like a performance artist or rapper can have several personas that they embody from time to time. Sometimes specific personas in wrestling have be used by more than one performer. If we look at it from a purely non-inuniverse perspective it can be like a comic book character transfering from superhero identity to another, which happens often in DC Comics. Naming should be done based on what the readers would be most likely to search for, in other words the "common name". I don't have a problem with getting a bit more creative with the descriptions of how the titles are transfered. Your proposed alternative is deliberately forced. Pro wrestling is not too special to be exempt from being held within wikipeida guidlines. Just because news articles choose to use wrestling lingo because it's easier or flows quicker in the text doens't mean we should.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Dwayne Johnson talks about him "capturing" championships, and even "losing" one to John Cena in a "bout". At the end of the day, we have to report what the sources say, and from what I can tell all of them use terminology like this. As described in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we just follow what they say and we don't lead the charge. Inventing new ways to describe things would be WP:OR. When there's background information on the booking decisions on championship wins (as in Verne Gagne's Brittanica page), we should include it. Otherwise, saying Kim won the belt in her debut, lost it less than a month later, and was gone from the company a little over a year later tells us everything we need to know about her tenure.LM2000 (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If you say so, it's obvious that I'm being outnumbered by now. I'm giving up on this shitshow. How emberesing that so many supposedly relibale sources indulge in such piss poor writing.★Trekker (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

So I'm just going to point out once again. Editor A will show that the article has achieved at passing the guidelines posed by the in universe policy in a reasonable fashion that sources even attest too. Editor B will whine that it is in universe and never provide a single source of reference for their claim. And we repeat and repeat because someone is ignorant to how wrestling articles are even written or to the history of how the articles are written. And this discussion just keeps going and going and going with no good end result. Lets make it simple. A national publication that is designed to be written to garner the largest audience possible is writing their articles in the exact same fashion as we do. The articles thus passes the in universe policy. We have proof we are writing the articles to fit all readers. This thing needs to be closed. I'm going to put in a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for closure because the only legitimate grievance is the in universe issue and that was just legitimately fixed and addressed. I may not be an uninvolved editor, but someone else needs to be involved in this farce.--WillC 07:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a single goddamn fucking source because it's blatantly obvious for anyone litterate with eyes and a functioning brain and I'm going by wikipedia own freaking guidelines, which apparently the wrestling project seems to think they're above becuase all wrestling journmalism is lazy and behind the times and because it would take to much effort to fix. I'm done with this insessant nowhere disscussion. There's hundreds of IPs and new editors all the time who come by regularly to complain about this shit, they don't get why it says "won" or some shit like that (tip it's becuse it shouldn't say that). I'm amazed a single wrestling article has been allowed to pass "good" standard by anone from outside the project.★Trekker (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There is an WP:INUNIVERSE guideline, and we should follow it to the best of our ability. Actual policies like WP:RS and WP:OR are more important though and when all RS (even those beyond industry specific, including New York Times and Encyclopedia Brittanica) are using a certain style then we need to follow their lead. The chief complaint here was use of the word "assault", which could have been misconstrued as a legal issue. "Assault" no longer appears in the article so it is best that we close this now.LM2000 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So I'm going to point out the obvious here. Trekker just outright stated he doesn't have to prove the article fails a policy because he doesn't like it. We now have proof this whole thing is a farce. Simply put, Trekker doesn't like wrestling being given any respect. Does an individual win a championship? Yeah, they do. Just like a person wins a scholarship for writing an article. They were chosen for a position by a group of people over other people. They won something. Just Trekker is upset it wasn't a physical contest, instead it is a popularity contest. No, they didn't just pass good standards. They've passed featured standards. I have 2 that passed featured standards myself. I have several that were featured on the main page of the entire website. I bet that really annoys you Trekker.--WillC 08:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• - I am unsure as to who exactly instigated the good assessment review for this article, so tagging @*Treker:, and Mateusz Konieczny. Is there any update on this review? Should this be re-assessed again, failed, passed or similar? GA reviews are not generally arguments as above, and there has been no update in 3 months. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

William M. Branham

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

Result: Kept Already closed AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I was part of the discussion to provide GA status to this article. At that time, it was not clearly apparent that an edit conflict existed, but after working on the article for the past month, it is now clear that there is a small edit war occurring regarding acceptable sources and content. This has made the article unstable and unable to meet all 6 of the WP:Good article criteria. Visitors to this page may find it in flux from day to day. I recommend it be delisted until consensus can be achieved in the areas where there is currently disagreement. I have contributed to the article enough that I cannot provide a unbaised review and would like the community to reassess (just in case I am way off base). Please review the article’s history and talk page for evidence of the ongoing conflicts. Thank you!  Doctor^G  (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, @Doctorg:. I think the edit conflict you are observing is common to articles on NRM's. To quote from a Wikipedia essay on writing good articles on NRM's - "The key to stable, neutral articles in this contentious field is good sourcing: focus on using the best, most reputable sources, above all scholarly sources, and avoid the use of primary sources – both movement and countermovement sources." I don't think newspaper articles are sufficient secondary sources for a claim with respect to divine healing.

The issue currently in question is whether Wikipedia can support claims of "faith healing". The best way to resolve such an issue is to engage a broader audience of editors. This is an issue that is much broader than the article on William Branham. I have suggested that those in support of including claims of faith healing take this issue to a broader article such as Faith healing but this has not been done to date. I think it is a better way to resolve this issue - that there are sufficient secondary sources to support faith healing in the context of Wikipedia. I am not sure why they don't want to improve the article on Faith healing in this way, if they think they are correct.

Alternatively, I propose to copy the edits dealing with faith healing to the faith healing article and, if they disappear from that article by consensus, then I will feel at liberty to remove them here. I do think that it is a way to engage multiple editors who may not be interested in the Branham article, to comment on the greater issue. Personally I think the current approach, which is to re-review the GA status of the article is wrong, because the issue in question deals with a fundamental issue with Wikipedia sources which can more easily be resolved by the way I have suggested. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 10:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darlig Gitarist: This is only one fo several issues but I will refrain from going into a long discussion here. Please read my latest post on the talk page, I took this particular issue to the teahouse and made adjustments based on their reccomendations. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is quite biased against Branham. It seems like any "good" thing mentioned of him is mentioned in a bad light. There were discussions above regarding whether or not miracles (or healings, or however you want to mention them) should be included. There are several sources citing proven healings - specifically one involving a United States Congressman named Upshaw. I am writing now, after having worked with Upshaw's grandson (Thomas Upshaw Tuten - a physician living in SC) for years (who is not a practicing Christian nor follower of Branham) and he, himself, absolutely verifies the authenticity of the congressman's account of being raised from a wheelchair he was confined to since a young boy.

He wasn't wheelchair bound. See http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/Congressman_Upshaw

Less wrong daily (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The main sources mentioned in the article are all biased in themselves. How can an article written by someone with an agenda, not be biased? People writing about Branham all write using hearsay. Quoting a old writing full of hearsay does not make it a fact. If you are going to speak about his doctrine, surely you can quote him in context, as I understand many of his sermons are recorded. If he's like any normal human being, he probably does have trouble recalling things the same each time he talks about them. Obviously, he wasn't God, I'm sure he did get stuff switched up occasionally (as do we all).

Hearing from eye witnesses (as there are many, though aged) Branham rarely, if ever, took up an offering of money in any of his campaigns. There's certainly something to be said for that, as that's the agenda of most preacher "personalities" today. What would be his motive for such deception as the article states?

There's too much conjecture from what I've read and who I've spoken to, to consider much of the information provided as "reliable" information (whether good or bad.) If he was such an evil person, where are the sources from the time period he was living that discredit his character? Was he involved in affairs? Did he get charged with abuse? Rape? Did he beg for money?

It's much easier to point out disagreements when people aren't around to defend themselves. It's also much easier to embellish stories once someone has passed on. This entire Wiki page can never be settled.

Actually, I do believe there are enough records to settle most of these issues. What's challenging is locating secondary sources that are based on records rather than hearsay. It's remarkable how unmiraculous his ministry was once you remove the hearsay and hagiographical content.

Less wrong daily (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple secondary party sources that critically analyze Branham. Weaver and Harrell are the primary sources used in the article now, and they are both written by people who state they are non-beleivers in what Branham stood for and they offered a critical and fair review of his life. Because they are balanced they are the main sources used for the article. Kydd is also a reputable source, but more sympathetic to the subject, and the use of this source is balanced by the use of Hanegraaf who looks at the entire evangelical movement as a cult and accuses Branham of effecting a hoax on people. There is not one source in this article that is wrote by Branham's followers, in fact every source opens their book stating their own personal disagreements with Branham. We are only putting in this article what these secondary sources have said. Duyzer and Collins are the only two primary sources still in use in the article, and they are used in such a minor way (except the Jim Jones part) that they are not impactful at all on the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer is on a wikibreak, I am goign to close this reassessment. There seems to be three people in favor of closing: Me, Darlig, and Less wrong daily. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Jos Buttler

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

Result: Kept It's not perfect, but perfect is not the aim. Could do with some updating and a few more references. Howeer it meets our definition of good and I have no problem keeping it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This was one of my first ever Good articles, way back in 2010. Sadly, since then I have not kept the article up to date as Buttler's career has skyrocketed. Ytfc23 has done a pretty good job of updating the article in places, but it needs both more (and less detail) in places to meet the GA requirements 3a and 3b. The referencing in places is appalling, from the start of the 2012 South Africa, T20 World Cup and India section through to the end of the International career section there are in total four references covering eight subsections and five years. This needs a lot of work to bring it back to GA status, which unfortunately I am not currently able or willing to put into it. Harrias ^talk 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've not done this before and have little experience working at GA+ level, so if I'm a mile out with my comments then someone needs to tell me. I'll treat it as a learning process...

As the article stands right now there are clear issues - especially when it is compared to the article when it passed GA in 2010. Some of those issues have come about simply because Buttler has played a lot more cricket in the interim. Overall I'm of the view that it needs a fair degree of work to update it firstly. There are some other specific issues that could use addressing.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): generally, yes, although there are some sections that could use brushing up (personality and style for example)

   b (MoS): the lead could use refreshing as above. The layout is OK although it could use some thought and there may be better ways to structure the article. I have an issue with the lists from Statistics on down - these don't really have any clear context (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists) and some, at least, might be better presented as prose. For example, the man of the match awards might be better as key benchmarks in a section about his international career (see 3b below). There are four entire sections of statistics essentially bolted on to the bottom of the article which seems excessive to me. At the very least these could be condensed or included in other sections. And each will need a prose introduction at least.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): lots of refs, although as Harrias points out there are whole sections with few, if any, references.

   b (citations to reliable sources): fine

   c (OR): I have some concerns with the use of scorecards if they're going to be used to show anything other than participation. I would prefer if we could find alternative sources - for his very early career this may not be necessary as the references essentially show participation; for his international career I'd hope that we could fine match reports and the like instead of using scorecards (but, see 3b).

   d (copvios/plagiarism): no problems that I can see, although the detail needs checking

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): there's virtually no coverage of his Lancashire career and none at all of his play in the IPL and BPL

   b (focused): The international section is much too detailed. At times it tells us more about the match results and so on than it does Buttler's career. This needs to be radically summarised. Some of the subheadings might use rethinking as well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: seems reasonable in general

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: I don't see any major ones from the history

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): fine for this level, although it'd be nice to add some more if available

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions): dates could be added to a couple

Summary:

• needs updating, especially for domestic and franchise cricket, and some brushing up of style etc...
• international section needs summarising massively
• I'm not sure how best to structure the domestic/international parts - ideas?
• lists at the bottom need either including within prose, reducing to one section or removing (or a combination of the above)

I know I could be wrong about some or all of that. I'm entirely happy to learn from this and would really appreciate someone else looking through my points are telling me where I'm wrong. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've largely gutted the massive amounts of detail in the international section and done some work on other areas. Lots of referencing is needed and there's probably more that can be put back into the international section I would think - there's bound to be some juicy details that I've missed. It's a start though. I've made some other tweaks and will add a Franchise cricket section at some point, although I'm not altogether sure if that's desirable or not to be honest. Feel free to rewrite entirely - there are bound to be a bunch of typos in there as well... Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dude, We're Getting the Band Back Together

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

Result: Kept No reason given for reassessment AIRcorn (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The page was put as good in 2009, but now it looks lacking and not like other good articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Memoriam A.H.H. (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

FLCL

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

Result: Keep Doesn't provide ny details on why this fails the GA criteria AIRcorn (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't really tell that much about the development of FLCL, although the article has images that help understand the subject, it's very basic and more like b-class article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltomas2003 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Converting this to a community reassessment; first poster is too new to editing and to the GA process to do a reassessment per the GA criteria; there are no specifics given, and the comment wasn't even signed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Izzy Westbury

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

Result: Kept Problem sorted AIRcorn (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Another of my early Good articles. This one has had some back and forth over the past year; it spent over a year in a similar state to present (with a lot of the GA content removed) before I noticed and restored it. However, my original work isn't that great, and is out of date. The more up-to-date state it is currently in lacks comprehensiveness for GA status, but I'm not really interested in making the two marry up any more. Maybe a happy medium can be found, but not by me. Harrias ^talk 10:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias: That was strange. It is easy enough to add updated information with out removing the outdated stuff. It is not like the past disappears. In the end there were only one or two short sentences to add to the good article version to bring it in line with current one. Are you happy with this staying a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, no problem with me. Harrias ^talk 14:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Zarqa River

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

Result: Kept I can't find any evidence that the sockpuppets were the same people. Unfortunately sockpuppeteering is rife here so it is possible for these to be all unrelated. The article itself is not perfect, but we are not looking for perfect (some more references would be nice). Without further comments on it failing to meet the criteria I am closing this as kept. AIRcorn (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to translate this article to another Wikipedia project seeing this as a Good Article, but after reading for a while I felt like this might not fit GA standard. It wasn't until now that I realized the original GA review discussion was only participated by users who have abused sockpuppets and have been blocked indefinitely. Only these users participated in the review:

• Livna-Maor (talk · contribs · logs)
• Mattisse (talk · contribs · logs)
• NoCal100 (talk · contribs · logs)

These accounts also majorly edited the article in its early phase (2008-2009). Now I would like a reassessment by community to see if this article meets GA standard. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 19:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@PlyrStar93: It is strange that all participants were sockpuppets, but as far as I can tell none were sock puppets of each other.It has happened before that someone has nominated an article and then passed it themselves (which is an instant delisting), but in this case the reviews was probably a different person. Although given the history of one of those accounts I might investigate a bit more. Is there anything specifically in the article that you are concerned about related to the WP:GACR. I will give it a quick look through for any obvious failings. AIRcorn (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Khalid ibn al-Walid

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

Result: Delistd. Pretty clear consensus that this no longer meets our GA standards. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)}

The article neutrality has been disputed by Ectomorfer with this edit. I also feel looking at the article that other such as the presence of a citation needed tag warrant the need for this reassessment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

:Just how this article was considered as a good article is baffling considering its full to the brim with one sided sectarian references and myths. Ectomorfer (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.

Changes have occurred over time [28]. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree this article isn't good but not because of a few lines about Khalid's murder of Malik and rape of his wife, which is well documented and referenced.

My concern has to do with puffery and promotional sections that call him greatest, undefeated etc and talk about military strategy with no recourse to References from war studies and strategic studies books - pov of a few fans and eulogization. Airtiza14

I agree there is some exaggerations in the article. Of course, Khalid was a great general but using some attributes like greatest, etc is not acceptable in wikipedia. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

:The well documented Shia allegations are present and stated which makes this article unreliable from the get go. Tagarayen4 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.

If the Shia allegations are well documented then that doesn't make it unreliable but reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

::I do not see any puffery however I did see biased shia sources which have now been tagged. Also to Airtiza14 did you miss the over dose of puffery on Mukhtar al-Thaqafi article or it it only reserved for articles of people your people dislike? Ectomorfer (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.

Nothing wrong with WP:BIASED sources, Shia or otherwise. Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, as stuff like the Mukhtar al-Thaqafi article is irrelevant here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Some Notes:
  • Lead:

1. There is written: "It was under his military leadership that Arabia, for the first time in history, was united under a single political entity, the Caliphate." It contradicts with the sources which claims this happened during Muhammad's life. Which one is correct?
2. "Khalid was victorious in over a hundred battles, against the forces of the Byzantine-Roman Empire, Sassanid-Persian Empire, and their allies" I think this is an exaggeration. Most of the so-called battles were skirmishes. There is another sentence at the end of the lead: "Khalid is said to have fought around a hundred battles, both major battles and minor skirmishes as well as single duels, during his military career. " I think the second one is enough.
3. "Conquest of Persian Mesopotamia"! As I know Khalid had a minor role in conquest of Persian Mesopotamia and he moved to Syria very soon.
4. While Abu Bakr relied on Khalid as the chief commander of his army, Ummar dismissed him after became caliph. I think this should be added in the lead. This sentence is not clear enough: "Although Umar later relieved him of high command, he nevertheless remained the effective leader of the forces arrayed against the Byzantines during the early stages of the Byzantine–Arab Wars."--Seyyed(t-c) 07:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Before Conversion to Islam:

1. "Khalid's leadership was instrumental in turning the tables and ensuring a Meccan victory during the Battle of Uhud (625)."

This is an important issue and should be expanded.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Military campaigns during Muhammad's era:

1. Is this correct? "Khalid assumed command of the Muslim army at the crucial moment, and defeated the Byzantine forces even when another 10,000 soldiers had arrived as reinforcements for the Byzantines... The general of the Byzantine forces was slayed and as many as 79,000 of their soldiers were killed with 30,000 taken prisoner." It looks as a tale. There is another narration which says "Khalid, seeing that the situation was hopeless, prepared to withdraw. He continued to engage the Byzantines in skirmishes, but avoided pitched battle." --Seyyed(t-c) 08:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Khalid's role in political matters of Rashidun era:

1. This issue has not been covered in the article properly. I suggest to use Wilferd Madelung's work, The Succession to Muhammad, for more information.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Invasion of Persian Empire:

1. Exaggeration: Khalid was sent to the Persian Empire with an army consisting of 18,000 volunteers to conquer the richest province of the Persian empire, Euphrates region of lower Mesopotamia, (present day Iraq). Khalid entered lower Mesopotamia with this force.... The richest land was between Euphrates and Tigris (known as Del Iranshahr) and Khalid did not penetrate in those land. Although Al-Hirah and Anbar were major cities, but Apparently, his campaign was the final part of conquest of the Arab lands. Khalid did not fight with any major Sassanid army. He just fought with the local garrisons and Arab tribes. The first major battle between Muslims and Sassanids was Battle of al-Qādisiyyah. For more information, you can refer to the The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4, Chapter 1 written by Abdolhossein Zarrinkoob.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Reliability:

1. "Akram, Agha Ibrahim (2004), The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin al-Waleed – His Life and Campaigns" This source is reliable, however some of its strange claims should be checked with the other academic sources like its story of Battle of Mu'tah.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Regarding your recent edit [29], whether the problem relates to the source or not?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Akram is a reliable source. The information was added by an IP, which was clearly not supported by Akram. You are correct about the strange claims being checked against Battle of Mu'tah. Did I catch all the exaggerations? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Very good for this case. Can you please check all of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The ones that are not reliable sources:

• The Meaning And Explanation Of The Glorious Qur’an (Vol 2) 2nd Edition By Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman
• The sealed nectar, By S.R. Al-Mubarakpuri.
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir all 10 volumes published by IslamKotob(appears to be primary source with no academic translation)
• Bukhari: Military Expeditions led by Mohammed (Al-Maghaazi)(non-academic writing)
• Chapter Two – The incident of Khalid killing Sahabi Malik bin Nuwayrah (ra) and committing Zina with his widow(some website with personal translation and interpretation of events)
• Sahih al-Bukhari Book 89 Hadith 299(online translation of primary source)
• Badass, by Ben Thompson???
• "List of Battles of Muhammad". Military.hawarey.org(online website, not reliable)
• Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Saifur (2005), The Sealed Nectar, Darussalam Publications(probably same book as above)
• Allenby, Viscount (2003), Conquerors of Palestine Through Forty Centuries(actually written by Maj. H.O. Lock)

This is what I have found so far. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This has been open for quite a while now and I would like to close it. I am finding the indentation hard to follow, but it appears much of the problems have been addressed. There has also been vandalism, sock puppeting and page protection so it is a little messy. @Emir of Wikipedia, Airtiza14, Sa.vakilian, and Kansas Bear: for final comments regarding the status of this article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

From what I can tell the unreliable sources are still present.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Source reliability depends on context. A self published blog (generally considered the least reliable source) is still reliable if it is just used to source the blog authors opinion. Are any of these unreliable sources sourcing content that needs a more reliable source? AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I would say that we should probably close with a downgrade from GA unless someone is ready to quickly work on it immediately. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

How is Akbar Ibrahim Agha a reliable source? Just read the book - its a crazy, high in testosterone man's fantasy novel, with little or no references.

The article is still full of puffery.

Malik bin Nuwayrah incident is too important and deserves a separate title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airtiza14 (talk • contribs)

Baltimore Urban Debate League

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

Result: Delisted I am making a decision on this one even though I commented below. If anyone disagrees they can revert. I am delisting it because even though this version is better than the shortened one it still has failings regarding the Good Article Criteria. Obvious issues are the big tag requesting updating and also the citation needed ones sprinkled throughout. It is also missing referencing in other key spots (e.g. the champions) and some of the material does not appear encyclopedic. It needs a good copy edit and some research by editors before being nominated again. AIRcorn (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC).

Since the GAR in 2007, this article has been stripped down to a bare stub (compare) by several editors who assert that the previous content was promotional, poorly sourced/heresay, and out-of-date. Some of the content was sourced to independent refs. Out-of-date content can be rephrased using terms like "as of" if nobody knows the current info or updated if an up-to-date source is known. But so much outright deletion means some editors think it wasn't salvageable, and this process has been happening by multiple editors over multiple years.

What's here now is not up to Good article standards: badly fails point GA 3: "Broad in its coverage", and compared to previous versions there might be some reasonable images (GA point 6: "Illustrated, if possible, by images"). The editing is slow-motion and with edit-summaries and no disputes from other editors, so I don't think it's a major GA point 5: Stable" problem; either it's now stable as a neutral stub or it was previously okay and could be edited back to the previous form for collaborative improvement. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with restoration of deleted content that was sourced to independent references. I also agree that out-of-date content should either be updated or rephrased. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I will restore the last good version and tidy it up some. We can then decide whether that version meets the GA criteria, because this one certainly doesn't. AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Added some tags (update and citation needed). AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Patti Smith

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

Result: Kept. I realise I am somewhat involved, so will not mind if this is reverted. It has been open for over 6 months and I only came to it through the GA review process. The main issue has been worked on and no further comment has been made. AIRcorn (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC).

The section "2004-to the present" has become overlong and in violation of numerous Wikipedia guidelines. Jprw (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I agree the "2004 to the present" section needs work. I think creating an "Awards and honors" section and eliminating mentions of several of individual shows she played would help. Knope7 (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Split the 2004 section and got rid of some proseline. Is there anything else that needs doing. AIRcorn (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

George Town, Penang

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

Result: Withdrawn. SounderBruce 00:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled across this relatively recent GA promotion while seeking some decent examples of city articles, and found quite a few problems on a skim readthrough. There's several paragraphs and statements that lack sources, a lot of the written prose comes off as very basic and non-professional, and it has several lists and tables that aren't entirely appropriate for a main article (and should be moved to appropriate sub-articles). SounderBruce 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: I have rectified the problems pointed out by the reviewer. Allow me to go through each and every single one of the problems.

• Moreover, the city hosts unique cultural heritage, such as the Peranakans, a hybrid ethnicity which has left its mark on Penang's architecture and cuisine.

I assume the hybrid ethnicity is that weasel phrase, so I removed it.

• More investments were also made on the city's health care and public transportation.

What is so vague about this sentence? Based on the sources concerned, more health care facilities were built in the late 19th century, as was a tram system.

• The haze season typically hits between July and October.

Removed unsourced prose.

• Headquartered in the City Hall, the city council is responsible for urban planning, heritage preservation, public health, sanitation, waste management, traffic management, environmental protection, building control, social and economic development, and general maintenance of urban infrastructure.

I have added a reference - an organisation chart of the Penang Island City Council, from the council's website. In case you need some help understanding what it depicts, I could assist you on the translation.

• Originally a variant of the Minnan dialect, over the centuries, Penang Hokkien has incorporated a large number of loanwords from Malay and English, yet another legacy of the Peranakan culture.

This is vague, but I assume the peacock part of the sentence is on the Peranakan legacy, so I removed that part of the sentence.

• The full marathon route starts from near Queensbay Mall, then on to the 13.5 km (8.4 mi) length of the Penang Bridge, and finally back to the starting point for the finish.

Added ref.

• The national and international sporting events that were held in George Town include the 2001 Southeast Asian Games and the 2013 Women's World Open Squash Championship.

Added refs

• These international schools offer primary to secondary education up to A Levels and International Baccalaureate.

Removed

• Singaporean drama series, The Little Nyonya and The Journey: Tumultuous Times, were also shot within the UNESCO zone. In addition, the city was one of the pit-stops of The Amazing Race 16, The Amazing Race Asia 4 and The Amazing Race Asia 5.

Added refs

• Meanwhile, the city proper is also linked with the western parts of Penang Island, such as Balik Pulau, via the pan-island Federal Route 6.

Please refer to Malaysia Federal Route 6. A check on Google Maps also reveals that Federal Route 6 does circle the entire Penang Island.

• Meanwhile, the only rail-based transportation system in George Town is the Penang Hill Railway, a funicular railway to the peak of Penang Hill.

As far as George Town is concerned, it does not have a single LRT, MRT or any form of rail-based transportation aside from the Penang Hill Railway. Anyway, I have rephrased the sentence entirely.

• The airport is Malaysia's second busiest in terms of cargo traffic and recorded the third highest passenger traffic of all Malaysian airports as of 2013.

Added ref

These problems have been rectified as much as I could. But with regards to the tables, there is a lack of sub-articles on George Town or Penang as a whole. In fact, if you look at other GA articles like Kuala Lumpur, there are tables for radio FM stations as well, so it baffles me as to why that particular article is not nominated for reassessment, going by the prevailing logic. Vnonymous (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was surprised to see this article was up for GA reassessment because a glance through it gives me the impression of a well-written, well-referenced article, and I didn't see any lists and tables I thought inappropriate. Perhaps @SounderBruce: could list the ones he is referring to, and add citation needed tags where he thinks necessary. My concern is that the article has been nominated for DYK because of its recent GA promotion, and for that to go ahead, this review will need to be resolved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Agreed. Do correct me if I am wrong, but according to the GA reassessment guideline, many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting. One of the reasons given for this article's reassessment was that the written prose comes off as very basic and non-professional. Is this reason by itself questionable? And if the George Town article has inappropriate lists and tables, how about Kuala Lumpur? Shouldn't it be nominated for reassessment too, given that it contains several tables and lists? Anyway, I have made significant edits by reducing the tables and lists on the George Town article. Vnonymous (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The goal of a Good Article Reassessment is to get the article back to GA status if at all possible, and I see no reason why, after the work already done and whatever else needs doing, this shouldn't retain its GA status when this process is completed. A couple of points:

• While the criterion for an FA is professional-level writing, the criterion for a GA is "clear and concise" prose (including correct grammar and spelling). The prose can be basic and meet that criterion (depending on the definition of "basic"). If there are unclear or excessively verbose sections, now's the time to point them out for improvement.
• General compliance with the Manual of Style is not required (and should not be), but those MOS sections involving the lead, layout, words to watch, and embedded lists do need to be followed. (The one on fiction isn't relevant here.)

If SounderBruce can specify where the article falls short of the GA criteria after the recent updates, the article will be that much closer to where it needs to be. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I will withdraw this reassessment, but I do have a few lingering concerns. The article has far too many images, some of which could be combined using {{multiple image}} or other collage templates; it's hard to read on a smaller screen and sections get cut off by the images. Otherwise, it now meets the minimum standard in the GA criteria. SounderBruce 00:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Andy Ganteaume

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

Result: Kept No examples given here on how this fails any of the criteria. Nothing obvious from a look at the article either AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that its grade is anywhere near for GA-Class articles. At best its a C-Class article. Please see Template:Grading scheme. On the review, when it says reasonably well written, it should be in light of Template:Grading scheme. This is an example of reasonably well written for GA-Class [30]. So it doesn't pass reasonably well written for GA-class. It doesn't pass broad in its coverage as well. Only 13 sources mentioned, whereas the example shows atleast 200+ sources for a GA-class, so it fails on that as well. So, I think its grade should change to C, an example of C-class [31].  M A A Z   T A L K  13:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this. This "reassessment" does not look at the GA criteria and simply has taken two subjective examples of good articles and compared it to this one. Unless GA has changed enormously since I was active there, this is not how GA review works. Nor is this how to conduct a GA review. If specific, actionable points are raised, I can attempt to address them as I originally worked on this article a few years ago. Sarastro (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: You are not mistaken. GA reviews do not work like this.--Dom497 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Notified the reviewer, nominator and wikiproject cricket of this reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm aware about GA criteria WP:GA? and i'm sticking to my original argument. Compared to many other GA articles and Template:Grading scheme, this article is: ❌ Not reasonably well written, ❌ Not Broad in its coverage and ❌ not illustrated by images.  M A A Z   T A L K  14:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know that if there are no suitable free images available then it does not need to be illustrated by them. AIRcorn (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment unless Ma'az can provide specific examples of subpar prose or insufficient coverage, people won't really have an idea of how to improve the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have already provided my arguments. I have no further arguments. Thank you.  M A A Z   T A L K  03:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Chocolatier (video game)

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

Result: Kept Article improved during the process and now meets our standards. Well done. AIRcorn (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC).
My main concern here is that there is massive linkrot. Very many of the links here are 404.

Also, among the links that have been archived:

I'm not sure if grrlgamer.com is a reliable source. The site went offline entirely a few years ago.

I'm also unsure if Jay Is Games is a reliable source, or Gamer-Girl.org (site also went offline entirely a few years ago) are reliable either.

While the tone of the article seems fine, the deadness of the sources has me concerned. Nearly 1/3 of the links on the page are already reduced to Wayback Machine links, and a lot of the sources don't seem to have been reliable in the first place. It's clear the article has barely been touched since going GA in 2008. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Came from WT:VG, thanks for the ping. Not planning on doing the full search for the sources here, but wanted to look into the ones you mentioned. Quick assessment below:

• Grrlgamer: Seems to be reliable? But the author, Didi Cardoso, seems to independently meet reliability thresholds as well. It was founded as an offshoot of the Riot grrrl and third wave feminism movements in 1997 and was the first all-female staffed video game website. Which is actually really interesting-- I was not expecting this to be as reliable as it was when I checked.
  • They seem to have had a staff setup with editors ([32]) per a press release when the site was founded
  • Didi was a featured speaker at Interactive Content Exchange 2007 for Grrlgamer ([33])
  • The site was featured in Nintendo Power in 2006 as a "site to visit" ([34])
  • Book talks about them at length and talks about how the 97 founder was a journalist already ([35])
  • The founder of Grrlgamer talks about her founding of it and why she decided to make it ([36]). Kind of want to write an article about it now...
  • A book describes how Grrlgamer broke the barriers of websites to cater towards female gamers and write quality reviews ([37]).
• Jay is Games: Per WP:VG/RS (and this discussion), Jay is Games is only reliable when Jay Bibby writes the review himself as everyone else are unpaid freelancers and aren't proper editorialized staff. Too bad, but is not reliable.
• Gamer-Girl.org: Definitely is not a reliable site, but I believe that it's just being used for the development side of the article and because it's an interview with the creator of the game ([38]). Per here though, I'm pretty sure that we treat it like it's a primary source-- it's just the transcript of the developer's words.

Hope this helps! Nomader (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Consider running IABot on the article next time instead of turning to GAR to touch that aspect up. No comment on reliability, but Nomader looks like he has a good first cut. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: I have no idea how GAR !votes work, but this is a pretty obvious !keep for me to not delist. I've removed the one unreliable source and sentence that was sourced from it in the article ([39]), and I don't think any of the other sources have changed since the GAN to make them unreliable. Nomader (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Full list of sources below and whether they're reliable or not (thought you were just flagging those three):
    • PlayFirst: It's a primary source press release only used for the release date and sequel announcement.
    • IGN: Used just for the release date.
    • GameZone: RS per WP:VG/RS
    • Macworld: Not sure about now, but at the time it was written by paid staff for a magazine with an editorial staff from what I've found. Reliable.
    • Blogcritics: Can't find any staff stuff, will come back later today to double check.
    • Gamezebo: RS per this discussion at WP:VG/RS.
    • Killer Betties: I'm gonna guess a 'no', should probably be replaced. Couldn't find staff or editorial policy.
    • Grrlgamer: addressed above, definitely reliable.
    • Houston Chronicle: RS
    • Pretty Sassy: Not an RS, but the primary source statements from the developer are and are used in the article as such.
    • AZCentral: RS
    • Gamer-Girl: Same situation as "Pretty Sassy"
    • Jay is Games-- thought I caught the ref to delete already, I'll delete the other review as well.
  • And that's it-- really not too much is needed to fix this thing and I think a GAR is premature (although I never would have done all of this if it hadn't been nominated). Nomader (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I left a message at the reviewers, nominators and the video game wikiproject. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of delisting if the patently unreliable sources mentioned above aren't excised. There are only a few items of baseline GA criteria so this needs to meet them. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Czar: I've removed all of the unreliable sources that I mentioned in the list above. Nomader (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @TenPoundHammer: I've addressed the source reliability issues and the dead links have been addressed as well. Let me know if there's any other actions you'd like to see and I'll be happy to hop in and take care of it. Nomader (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• My main concern was the reliability and deadness of some sources. That seems to have been taken care of, so keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Why are the reviewers redlinked as if they are individually notable? If the reviewer isn't independently notable, reviews are more often associated with the publication than with the writer. Why make the reader recall the name Hollingshead from the prior paragraph if there is no benefit from doing so? (More tips in Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections) Are phrases like "The game received a positive response from critics" verifiable? Also the Reception needs basic copyediting (new sentence starts with lowercase letter, one sentence ends with comma). Wouldn't delist on any of these points but the section needs more work nonetheless. czar 10:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've done some like copyediting to the reception paragraph but still probably needs a little work. I kept the reviewer names formatted that way-- WP:VG FA examples like Halo 3 use the format. Nomader (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Note on Grrlgamer reliability: I brought up Grrlgamer at the WP:VG/RS noticeboard and it was established as a "situational source"-- only Didi Cardoso's reviews and articles are seen as notable. Luckily, that's who did this review. Nomader (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Rommel myth

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

Result: No consensus to delist, so defaults to keep as a GA for now, but note that this may change in future given this reassessment is being discussed as a small part within the ongoing arbitration case at [40]. Fish+Karate 09:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

While very well written and seemingly exhaustively sourced, the article is a POV content fork dealing with a subject that is fundamentally a neologism supported by synthesized research of a small group of editors. Additionally several claims are made regarding sources and their content that are not accurate, including misrepresentation of credentials and context. Concerns are more elaborate outlined on talk page, showing failure to meet criteria 2(b)(c), 3(b), 4, and now, 5. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've added my comment to the article's Talk page, as this is where the discussion is happening ATM: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I was about to close this as kept, but have had second thoughts. First off the article title and notability are not issues as far as a good article review are concerned. There are other venues to deal with that and they fall outside the scope of what we try and do here. My concern is neutrality (criteria 4). I am not a historian, or even that interested in military matters, but I am familiar with controversial topics and there are a few too many red flags here for me. In the lead we have scare quotes and (if any) in brackets. I can not work out what is meant by he term critical historians. As opposed to the ones that are not critical? Google did not help me here, or the body of the article (which it should for this to be a GA). I get the feeling this lacks WP:BALANCE. I am fine for a content fork to focus on this aspect of his life, but I would expect a better introduction into what his myth is before it is torn down. Maybe if the elements section was a bit earlier and expanded upon and there was a bit more in the lead about it I would feel more comfortable. I realise that neutrality is a spectrum, and this is near the edge of that spectrum if not off the side. It is very interesting and a great read, but I will let someone else close this one. AIRcorn (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Creep (TLC song)

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

Result: Delisted Issues still outstanding AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the article's main writer and also its GA nominator. As pointed out by User:Ss112 (here), it is absolutely not up to GA quality.

At the time that I was finishing writing the article, I asked a few users to give it a copy-edit and some of them suggested I nominate it for GA. I didn't know it was having so much problems in writing. For that, I apologize and I'm sincerely needing you guys to delist the article. Thank you for your help. Beyoncetan (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The article was sent to WP:GOCE and it has been fixed. Is this enough for a keep? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 23:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• CommentWas sending out notifications and just realised that the nominator was the GA nominator. Sorry about that. AIRcorn (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

This article is a great start and has a lot of great information, but I think its' greatest issue is the structure. If this does not make it through the GAR process, I would suggest taking it to peer review. Here are my suggestions to improve the article further. I think that once these points are addressed, I would think it would fulfill the requirements for a good article:

• Please make sure that every image, including those used in the infobox, has ALT text.
• Please link TLC on the first use in the body of the article.
• I would revise this sentence (Included in the remixes was a new rap verse written by Lopes which warns listeners of safe sex issues.) to (Remixes included a new rap verse written by Lopes which warns listeners of safe sex issues.). Something about starting the sentence with a verb reads a little weird to me.
• I am not certain about this sentence (With changes in both musical style and image, the song marked a major reinvention in TLC's career and was hailed as a "masterpiece".) for the use of the quote. You would either need to cite it or paraphrase the quote.
• This sentence (They performed it during several live concerts and television events, and the track being used in films and TV series, and covered and sampled by artists including American rock band The Afghan Whigs and singer Zendaya.) contains a lot of information that does not necessarily go with one another. I would separate the information into multiple sentences.
• The "Development and lyrical content" section seems rather all over the place to me and the information does not flow/read well to me. For instance, I am not sure why the part about Lopes' response is split between two paragraphs. I would try to consolidate the information about the lyrics in one spot as there is information on the lyrics here and the "Musical style and composition" section.
• Go through all of the sentences to make sure that the references are placed in the correct order. There are several instances in which the references are not in the correct order.
• I am slightly confused by this part (and Lopes' stint in rehab, re-invented TLC's musical direction and brought a stronger focus on pop elements to CrazySexyCool.). How did Lopes' time in rehab affect the song? I think more context is needed for this?
• For this sentence (Watkins recalled that LaFace Records' co-founder Antonio "L.A." Reid "flipped out" when he first heard "Creep"), I am not certain about the use of the "flipped out" quote as it is not clear if that is a positive or negative response. I would paraphrase this to avoid confusion.
• I would imagine that the information from the "Credits" section needs to be included in the prose.
• The "Critical reception" section does not have a strong structure. I would look through this essay (Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections) to find potential strategies to improve this section.
• I have noticed a few spots in which things are linked multiple times or things are not linked on their first appearance in the article. I would check everything to make sure the links are used correctly.
• For this sentence (Soon after it became their third platinum single, it topped the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Rhythmic charts, and peaked at number three on the Radio Songs chart and number nine on the Mainstream Top 40.), I would group its references together in a single reference to avoid citation overkill.
• This sentence (The group acknowledged one scene that showed the exposed left lower part of Watkins' breasts received public attention.) is rather awkwardly separated as its own paragraph. I would expand on this information more or integrate it in the previous paragraph.
• The information from this sentence (The song can be heard on the soundtracks for video games The Hip Hop Dance Experience, Everybody Dance and Dance Central Spotlight.) needs a citation.

I hope you find this to be helpful. This is a hard article to do as it is a very popular song. This is my first round of comments. @DannyMusicEditor: Just wanted to ping you as you seem interested in working on this further. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Aoba47. Beyoncetan 2 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the list. While some of those are not requirements for a Good Article (alt text, links etc), there are some good points mentioned as well. For me one of the major issues I have is the over use of quotes. This is particularly evident in the reception section, but the whole article has far too many quotes. Almost every paragraph has one and I would wager half the article is a quote or introducing a quote. I am very tempted to tag it and to be honest I would quick fail it on 2d if I was reviewing it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Friends

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

Result: Kept Fixed up a few issues with the close paraphrasing. Everything else is quotes or most likely copied from here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Per this, the article contains at least some very close paraphrasing, which the original GA review apparently missed, and containing a full sentence that was not appropriately marked as a quotation should have been an autofail, IMO. I don't have the time or inclination to go through the whole article and rewrite everything so that it accords with Wikipedia policy (and GACR2d); if someone else wants to do so they are welcome to, but I don't see that happening.

The plot summary is also a bit crufty and doesn't make internal sense (Mike Hannigan and David the Science Guy should not be introduced in the same sentence, if David is even noteworthy enough to be mentioned at all).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Sent a notification to the previous reviewer. AIRcorn (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Hijiri88: I ran earwigs tool here. The 98.5% reliability is to a wiki and likely copied from this article. The 44% confidence ones all seem to be from reprints from the same article and most seem to be quotes or part mentions.[41] The discovered close paraphrasing is easily fixable so I am not inclined to delist it for copy violations unless there are more examples. However, I am not particularly fond of the character descriptions. Anything that is not describing actions (plot) should be cited or it reads like WP:OR. For example Phoebe is ditsy but street smart. She writes and sings her own quirky songs, accompanying herself on the guitar. She has an "evil" identical twin named Ursula, who shares Phoebe’s quirkiness, but, unlike Phoebe, seems to be selfish and uncaring. Phoebe is childlike and innocent in disposition. There are similar things for other characters. The rest is pretty good though so I would be tempted to trim out the character descriptions, fix the above sentence and keep it as a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Mishmar HaEmek

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

Result: Delisted This has been open long enough. I know I was the original reviewer so you can call it me revoking my pass if you want. Copyright concerns that have not been addressed after five months. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm opening this GAR due to issues with close paraphrasing and sourcing. See some examples in the DYK nom. Some of the issues have been fixed, but given the extent I think a GAR is warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from reviewer Looks like I dropped the ball on this one. I find it particularly worrying that the lead was copied as during the review I asked for it to be expanded and it is relatively easy to do so from the actual article itself. I am more than experienced as a reviewers and should have picked this up myself. Apologies for inconveniencing everyone. AIRcorn (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the current copyvio tool result. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I (the original GA nominater) will be home only in two weeks. So either someone take upon himself to fix the issue, or just remove the GA status until I'll have a computer.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bolter21: Do you have time to have a look at this? TheDragonFire (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be home next friday. Until then I am available through the phone app.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Post-delisting discussion

Aircorn, I've fixed the copyvio problems as soon as I got my computer back in 22 December 2017. The users who started this GAR have abandoned it one by one. This GAR was posted, I responded by fixing the problem, which was followed by five months of silence and now the GA status was removed... Is there still an issue here that you need to delist the article?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: well?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I delisted the article because there was no response here from you except to say that you would get around to it. I asked at multiple venues to try and get a close, but again not much happened. I am a little annoyed that you inserted copy violations in the first place, and even more annoyed that I didn't realise it. If someone else wants to overturn this close I have no issues. Maybe ask @Nikkimaria: if they are happy with the current version or ping @TheDragonFire and Fish and karate: as they have shown some interest in closing. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bolter21: No one abandoned this review, in fact we were waiting for you as requested. There may have been a misunderstanding about the copyright issues at the time of Aircorn's close, but this is understandable given the lack of additional evidence presented here. Nikkimaria's comment on the DYK nomination indicates that sourcing issues remain after your 22 December 2017 edits and as such I endorse Aircorn's closure for the time being. If you have time to work on the article, please review the comments on the DYK nomination and make an new GA nomination. This whole thing is unfortunate, but please remember we're all here trying to improve the encyclopaedia. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr

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

Result: Delist Credible shortcomings of the GA criteria were brought up in the discussion below and no true attempt has been made to fix them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel this meets the WP:Good article criteria. Listing for community reassessment as the subject is going through backlash at the moment and multiple pairs of eyes can help determine whether the page can be salvaged and I'm not sure I could right now take this all on my own. Here's what I've found:

• Prose: Probably my biggest concern. From a glance, there's way too many really short paragraphs that makes the text look rather choppy, multiple instances of stray periods coming after citations, the italics for the Roseanne's Nuts bit within the "Reality television, third book, sitcom pilot, politics, Comedy Central Roast, Roseanne revival" section are messed up (should have the show in italics and the rest without them), and this more than once uses contractions inappropriately outside of quotes and titles.
• Referencing: I'm not sure if "TV by the Numbers", The Forward/The Jewish Daily Forward, "The Smoking Gun", "popculture.com", "solidarity-us.org", "The Laugh Button", Jewish Journal/The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, "Genealogy Magazine", "RealityTVWorld.com", Toronto Sun, or "TVLine" are good sources to use, but definitely would remove/replace Fox News (for contentious/political claims as their conservative bias often interferes with accuracy), Huffington Post (for anything political and/or contentious, their liberal lean also gets in the way of facts in this field) TMZ, The Christian Post, and New York Post. Dead links also need to be fixed. As a rule of thumb, each paragraph should end with at least one in-text citation, and use multiple references if needed to support all of a paragraph's content.
• Coverage: Aside from one praise from Roger Ebert for She-Devil, this has no critical commentary of her performances. That is another major issue. There's also nothing on how she became interested in professional acting or stand-up comedy.
• Neutrality: The "Controversies" section (which was titled "Controversy" at the time I conducted this assessment) is undue negative weight to be lumped all into one section. That's basically asking for trouble as it can easily be over-inflated. It would be better to disperse within "Career" or perhaps "Personal life".
• Stability: While there have been major changes following the Roseanne season 10 premiere as well as resurfacing images of her dressing up like Hitler, there doesn't seem to be any content disputes right now or back-and-forth reverts.
• Media: No copyright concerns with images, but it seems repetitive to use File:Roseanne barr.jpg within "career" while also having File:Roseanne barr (cropped).jpg in the infobox when they're both derived from the same thing. Can other images be found and used in place? File:Roseanne Barr at the 1992 Emmy Awards-cropped.jpg also doesn't give a clear view of her face.

Any other suggestions for improvement are also welcome. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please notify the active reviewers, nominator, wiki projects and any other major contributors when you put an article up for reassessment (although you don't need to notify the reviewer now since it was me). AIRcorn (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Already notified WikiProjects, and user who first put this up for GAN has been indefinitely blocked while the one who helped out in its GAN hasn't edited since 2014, unlikely to come back anytime soon if ever at this point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment form original reviewer This has changed a lot since the review five years ago and not for the better. I too don't like the introduction of the controversies section as there is rarely any need to have one in a biography. I have to agree with Snuggums concerns, that in its current state it is a long way from being a Good Article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that edition was perfect even though much less information on her was available at that point, but it certainly was overall far better than what we have now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sienna Guillory

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

Result: Delist for failure to meet GA criteria 1a & 1b Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This is the first time I've nominated an article for GAR. Lead is too short. Prose and organisation is poor in many places. References are not formatted consistently. Additional citations are needed. If this was nominated for GAN in its current state, I'd quickfail it. Freikorp (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for getting involved. I agree that in its current state it doesn't meet GA standards. I was going to open a reassessment but you beat me to it. A few small things. References do not need to be consistently formatted to pass GA, all that is needed is for them to be relatively easy to follow. Agree on the additional citations, prose and lead though. Also you need to message editors that might be interested in getting the article back up to standard. I will do so for you. Again thanks for getting involved in this process, we need more editors here. AIRcorn (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Aircorn: Thanks for the information. Unfortunately the original GA nominator hasn't been active on Wikipedia since 2010, and I'm not liking the chances someone else will take an interest in it. I'm not opposed to doing some work on it myself eventually, but I have other priorities at the moment, hence the nomination here. Out of curiosity what's the time limit on a GAR nomination typically remaining open anyway? Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• It varies. Some stay open for six months or more. I am trying to be a bit more proactive, but this area is poorly attended from a systematic point of view. I try to encourage editors to go the individual assessment route when possible as it is in effect a normal GA review and can be closed by the person starting it when they want. The trouble here is if I comment I shouldn't close it, but if I don't then there can sometimes be no outside opinions. I have to ignore all rules sometimes. AIRcorn (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Behavioural genetics

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

Result: Kept per Fish and karate's rational at WP:ANRFC. I see this as a close with the GA status being kept; the primary concerns (a lack of a criticism section; the lack of discussion of animal behaviour in favour of exclusively focusing on human behavioural genetics) have been addressed. If you can carry out all the procedural elements and tell me where to post that as the closing summary I'm happy to do that, or just link to this post. Link here AIRcorn (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the article should be reassessed because it lacks a neutral presentation, as indicated by the template banner which has been present since March 2017. Neutrality of course is a requirement for good article status. The article presents behavioral genetics in a largely positive light as if the scientific field was mature and produces robust findings. I am not an expert in behavioral genetics, but I am an expert in statistics and social science, and I find many of the claims of behavioral geneticists totally implausible. There are also serious ethical criticisms of this kind of research. Given the ongoing replication crisis in psychology, which is a neighbor to behavioral genetics and that behavioral genetics is is more a subfield of psychology than of genetics or of biology. I think that to be considered a good article, this article should be written in a less promotional and authoritative tone and should include a section on criticism of behavioral genetics. Sources for that section might include such publications as scientific american Nature, and Logos . Here are some additional good critical articles by Richard Lerner and Gary Greenberg .

References

--Groceryheist (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment A very good book about the history of (mainly human) genetics is Aaron Panofsky's book (not just Greenberg's review of it). The problem with the article is not just that it doesn't address criticisms of research performed in the field, but also that it almost completely ignores animal research. It briefly mentions selection studies, which actually are an extremely minor part of animal BG. There are huge amounts of animal BG done with mice (such as work with transgenics/KO, gene localization/expression studies, and a host of other stuff), Drosophila (for example, the "homosexual" flies, the whole rover/sitter story, learning, etc etc), C. elegans, and a range of other organisms (including primates and, increasingly, zebrafish, for example). Either this article should be significantly expanded to cover the animal work or it should be renamed as "Human behavior genetics". One thing that might argue for that is the huge gap between the human and animal fields. While animal work for the most part is concerned with mechanisms leading from genotype to (behavioral) phenotype, human BG is still for a large part about partitioning variance and seems to treat genes more as imaginary concepts, completely ignoring the underlying neural mechanisms. As far as I am concerned, this should never have been promoted to GA to start with, but my concerns were ignored at that time. --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• This article and related ones are awful and should not be GA. This one has all kinds of offtopic stuff about diseases generally which is not really relevant here. There is also some hyper-detailed stuff about mathematical modelling of influences on phenotype. The page makes no distinction between humans and other animals. In some animals there are behaviors that ~must~ be "programmed" in the genome, like almost-fetal joeys crawling from the vagina to the pouch, but even in those cases we don't understand how that works on the level of the genome. In humans we understand even less of the influence of genes on behavior. Yet the page makes broad claims like "Findings from behavioural genetic research have broadly impacted modern understanding of the role of genetic and environmental influences on behaviour." So this is over general in some ways, too detailed in others, and has big holes in it. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Randykitty about lack of animal work but not Jytdog. The reviewer of the page for GA was not convinced that Randykitty's concern precluded GA status, and I find it odd that no one has added anything useful about animal BG to this page. I don't have a strong opinion about GA. Jytdog you make some strong statements but the examples suggest some tweaking, not that the page is "awful". I can't see how one wouldn't conclude that behavioral genetic research has had broad impact on understanding role of genes and environment? I think it would be good to insert some crticisms, but the refs provided by Groceryheist aren't especially compelling and are mostly short commentaries. Just to take one example, Lerner was writing in 2006 and uses examples from candidate GxE paradigm in support of a big part of his argument, which themselves of course are "behavioral genetic" findings! I guess he takes (unreplicated) BG findings that support his view and discards (replicated) BG findings that do not. I also have doubts that these references represent a consensus view in psychology, neuroscience, or related fields that use behavioral genetic techniques. The authoritative tone is taken for information that represents more of a consensus view. Of course improvements can be made and I hope thye are. WRT to the replication crisis that was a huge issue for BG (animal or human), as candidate gene replication problems presaged the "replication crisis" in psychology. A comment on replication in human BG is here

References

Vrie0006 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that ref 3 is not a review and fails MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• How is an overview of a field of inquiry in a noted encyclopedia written by two very notable behavior geneticists (Gottesman being one of the most notable behavior geneticists) not a review and how does this fail MEDRS (I admit not being too familiar with MEDRS, so this is a request for explanation). --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see how MEDRS is appropriate as a strict standard in this case. MEDRS guidelines are for clinically relevant information, or for information on which individuals might base medical or health decisions. Behavioral genetics seems like a branch of psychology with little current clinical application and this is reflected in the content of the article. I think it would be appropriate to include criticisms that don't reach MEDRS level references because those criticizing another field are not likely to publish their criticisms in peer reviewed journals. Instead they might do so for magazines or in books. That said, the MEDRS guidelines are good practice, and we should follow them when reasonable, especially when it comes to clinical recommmendations. Also, much of ref 3 seems similar to the Plomin et. al article. Groceryheist (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Even if MDERS doesn't apply, the critical refs provided above are IMO clearly fringe views, which is why they are not published in leading journals (in psychology or elsewhere) and/or are commentaries. The difference between Groceryheists ref 3 and the Plomin article is that Plomin et al. is a published peer-reviewed review article written by notable behavior geneticists in a leading psychology review journal with impact factor of 10 or so. So the criticisms of twin studies etc. by Jay or Lerner or Lewontin or whomever could go in a criticisms section, but they do not reflect current consensus nor do I think their exclusion precludes GA, unless someone can find a relatively current critique in a mainstream journal. The more interesting criticisms/controversies that could be inserted are the ethical ones perhaps especially wrt to things like genetic engineering and historically divisive issues like eugenics (which is dealt with somewhat in the intro) or specific topics like race and IQ. However, these ethics controversies don't touch on the science so much as the potential implications of BG findings and/or how BG has been misused/abused in the past (eugenics, "gene for this", "gene for that").Vrie0006 (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I assume you mean the references given above by Groceryheist. I agree that 1 and 3 are marginal. However, Richard M. Lerner (4) and Nature (2) cannot be that easily dismissed. Panofsky's book has unanimously been reviewed very favorably (here are more reviews: ). I've read it myself and I think that Panofsky has put together a very insightful, impartial analysis of the history of the field and its current status (and you don't have to take my word for it, those reviews are ample evidence, in fact there are so many, that this book easily passes GNG). It is telling that his book was not reviewed in Behavior Genetics, which is, in fact, in line with Panofsky's analysis... Here is another critical appraisal of current (human) BG.

References

• The Nature article is a "news feature" and not a review, and touches more on ethical controversies in BG, which I agree could be fruitfully added to the article. My take on the Lerner piece is that he is a significant figure in developmental psychology, but not in genetics. This is why I discount his views, which are critical of the scientific methods of BG, as they pertain to the article in question. The Crusio article, on the other hand, looks interesting. But doesn't look overly critical. More of an article on ways to shape up the field on the margins, rather than claiming the whole field is bunk, like Lerner (Lerner however is fairly unreasonable...). Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall... Vrie0006 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've access to a lot of stuff in the life sciences, including this journal. If you send me an address, I can email you a PDF (and other things too if you need them). As for Lerner, yes, he's professor of psychology, but so are most human behavior geneticists. Lerner's a respected scientist and should not be discounted out of hand. As Panofsky has shown, discounting critics out of hand (the word they use is: "biased") is something that the field of BG has done for decades now (in my personal opinion to their detriment). --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Left a note at the reviewers talk page and at wikiproject genetics. The nominator was already informed so thank you for that. AIRcorn (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: As the original GA reviewer, I am not really going to wade into this issue again, as I have neither the time nor the motivation to help solve the problem, so I will offer my two cents, but not say anything more beyond this post (unless pinged, as I'm not even watchlisting this). In short, based on the GA criteria, it met that criteria at the time (independent sources, neutral tone, formatted, readable, not plagiarized, etc...), though it was definitely not anywhere close to FAC quality. Perhaps it's now a matter of someone starting to work on a more FAC-level of comprehensiveness. Acknowledging there was disagreement at the original GAN, I viewed the debate to basically be over GAN standards versus FAC quality, and if memory serves, I said something to that effect. I would support "a section on criticism of behavioral genetics" as appropiate and necessary for a comprehensive article. But keep in mind that at the time, the neutrality appeared acceptable, the "too favorable" concerns do not jump out at the non-expert reader, and the GA criteria does not mandate comprehensiveness. As for the source quality, the topic itself isn't really 100% an MEDRS issue, but WP:MEDRS can be applied to sourcing for any medical claims contained within. (Ditto WP:SCIRS). So to me this becomes a question of 1) how can the article can be expanded to present the various issues that exist? Not really a debate of "if", more of "how" and "let's just do it!" My own thinking is along the lines of Randykitty and Vrie0006, so carry on, gentlemen. As for MEDRS and SCIRS, the "soft" sciences such as psychology are not "pseudoscience" or "snake oil," but they are difficult to study because humans are not lab rats, and a lot of the "evidence-based" therapies can be absolutely ridiculous to implement on real human beings in practice (Like the computer-based form of Cognitive behavioral therapy. Seriously? Sounds like a scene from Sleeper). And this topic is still a relatively new field of study. All that said, the issue for GAR is simple: if the sources are proven dubious, should the content they source be removed, rewritten or simply have appropriate caveats added, and, if the non-compliant content is removed, does what remains still meet GA criteria? If the article needs more balance, then expand as needed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Randykitty many thanks for the offer. I got a copy of panofsky. On a quick skim it's interesting and he makes some good points. It's not especially compelling in part because it's qualitative research based on interviews with experts. We can add a section describing the primary thesis (BG is an "archipelago" without a strong hierarchical structure) and some of the worst of the bad and overhyped science ("gay gene"?) but I guess it's not convincing as a major criticism of the science as much as Lerner tries to do. (I'm still very much not taken with Lerner's arguments, nor have they become mainstream.) BTW, there already was a section on controversies. Two sentences buried in the History section. I've moved it to its own section and I added a paragraph on race and genetics. Just trying to get something started. I suppose race and genetics represents the worst of the worst controversies in BG. So if anything should be listed, it should be that. Vrie0006 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Postscript: also the previous two sentences on controversy already included the Erika Check Hayden Nature commentary. Vrie0006 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• A decent criticism section has been added now so I feel that part is satisfied enough to meet the neutrality good article standards. I don't think this article has to go too far down the race and intelligence or any other rabbit hole and is much better kept as an overview.

As to the animal studies that relates to the broadness criteria. Broad does not mean comprehensive and in many ways (like a lot of the other criteria) can be subjective. The article mentions animal studies in its own sub section and that is enough for a reviewer in good faith to pass that aspect of the criteria. RandyKitty makes some good points and provides references and examples so this should not be discounted and ideally that section should be expanded. However, passing the Good Criteria is not actually that hard and I am not convinced that the article is undue enough to preclude it in this case. Like it or not most research is geared around humans and it is perfectly acceptable for a Good Article to focus more on the human aspects of a topic. A quick look at reviews on this topic through pubmed show twice as many articles focus on humans rather than animals.[42]

So although it could be improved I think it meets the criteria and should be kept as a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Neutrality concerns means the article cannot be kept. There is a body of literature critiquing Behavioural genetics, it should be summarized and included for the article to be balanced, neutral and comprehensive.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

But there is a section in the article critiquing behavioral genetics. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

even that section comes across as apologetic and does in no way represent the substance and scope of the objections to the field's claims and methods.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what criticisms should be listed. Surely not every criticism directed at the field. The race and intelligence controversy is apologetic (the other controversies are not) because that controversy has involved people at the fringe of the field who at best marshaled poor evidence for their conclusions. The most notorious case (maybe other than Rushton, who surely was fringe) that panofsky goes into is Glayde Whitney. A good mouse scientist who inexplicably moved to race and intelligence in humans at the end of his career. So there's a tension between listing controversies and ensuring that some of these views are clearly described as being fringe and/or unsubstantiated. I was planning to put in a few sentences about Panofsky's book but, beyond that, this thread has not provided good suggestions for what criticisms and controversies to list. So, what are the "substance and scope of the objections to the field's claims and methods" that should be taken so seriously and listed? Vrie0006 (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC) P.S.: I added to the page the start of a statement on Panofsky. Vrie0006 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Matthias Blübaum

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

Result: Keep given improvements to article 17:34, 11 June 2018 Barkeep49

I have been going through Good Articles with tags on them [43] and came across some articles on chess players with issues. A discussion has started at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#links to interactive chess games regarding one of the issues. It inspired me to look at other Good articles on chess players and I came across this one. While it might be premature to delist articles for having external links in the prose until that discussion is exhausted, there are other major problems with this one that I believe fail it from being a Good Article. Considering I am involved with Chess now I wanted to go the community route, even though I know it is slower and poorly attended.

The main problem here is the prose. It is pure WP:Proseline. The whole article career section reads like a diary and it could easily be replaced by a table. It contains far to many single sentence paragraphs. For example compare it to Emanuel Lasker. There is also nothing on his playing style, strengths or other aspects of his play outside results. It fails criteria 1a, 1b (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout) and 3a. This is ignoring the notable games section, which I consider problematic on other Chess biographies. To be fair most of this was mentioned at the review, but I feel it has not been addressed adequately enough to pass as a Good Article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparing Lasker and Blübaum is comparing apples and oranges: Lasker was world champion for a longer time than Blübaum has been alive. There naturally is going to be less coverage of Blübaum. Blübaum also does not really have a "playing style"; this is the case for the majority of players of his level. There are passing mentions of his playing style with general statements such as 'he has good endgame technique', but no in-depth coverage to support a playing style section.

The notable games section was added after the GA review and before the discussion at WT:CHESS began. I am fine with removing it but that is a larger issue beyond just this article.

The issue of numerous short lines could be addressed simply by combining some of them. I do not know what you mean by replacing the prose with a table. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I was more using Lasker as an example of how the prose could be better. Combining the sentences does not fix the underlying problem to my mind, which is the WP:Proseline. Count the number of sentences that start "In [date]......". That is what I meant by it could be replaced with a table. I don't literally mean that it should be, just that the article could easily be a list of Matthias Blubaum games rather than a biography. I will admit it is common for information to be presented in this way in sports biographies, but I am of the opinion that we should strive for better if we want to classify the article as good. This is open to the community so others may disagree. AIRcorn (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The quality of an article is going to be relative to the available sources. I have attempted to reword the career section into a less formulaic prose, but it is difficult to do this without engaging in OR as there are few sources that give an overview of Blübaum's career. Lasker's career, comparatively, has been reviewed by many RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I have further improved the article, please tell me if the issue still exists or if there are other actionable suggestions. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Prose has definitely improved. The lead could maybe be expanded a bit. Could we at least have references for the notable games section? AIRcorn (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the notable games section. There is some discussion of the games in RS but not as in-depth as I would like. I may re-add later with appropriate referencing. The most "notable" game (Anand) is mentioned in the career section in any case. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Much improved. Thanks. @Barkeep49: Unless you have anything to add I would be fine with you closing it. AIRcorn (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Katolophyromai seemed to bring up similar concerns during the initial GA review in January of this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Manhattan

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

Result: Keep consensus. See discussion below for more information Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I came across this article through the GAR request template added a year ago by Ɱ.[44] My first thoughts was that it was a pretty good article, in fact I still think it is a pretty good article. However there are major issues with the lead. I detailed these thoughts on the talk page before opening the reassessment (Talk:Manhattan#GAR request). To clarify, part of the Good Article criteria is that the article complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Unfortunately this one does not meet the lead requirement as it does not summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If we divide the articles body up by percentage we have roughly.

• Entymology 1%
• History 16%
• Geography 22%
• Landscape 9%
• Economy 11%
• Education 4%
• Culture 6%
• Sport 5%
• Government 8%
• Housing 2%
• Industry 16&

Now the lead does not have to match this exactly, but when one sentence (~4% of the lead) covers the history the appropriate weight is wrong. Geography is also under represented. By comparison over 25% of the lead revolves around the economy. Outside the infobox in some cases there is no information on geology, climate, government or infrastructure.

There is also a lot of cites in the lead, a red flag for unique information added that is not in the body. Of these 28 are not repeated in the body.

Another issue is the WP:Puffery. Sentences like Manhattan is often described as the cultural, financial, media, and entertainment capital of the world and New York City has been called both the most economically powerful city and the leading financial center of the world don't really belong in the lead as written. I have come across worse in New York articles and would probably overlook this if it wasn't rated a Good Article. It would probably be alright if this was mentioned in the actual body of the article by expanding on these descriptions. You could argue that articles from The New York Times describing New York as the foo capital of the world are biased, but seeing as we use described it is not so bad.

There may be other issues, but to my mind the major issue is the lead and if that is sorted I will be happy. However, if other editors want to bring up additional issues then they are welcome.

Note: Usually I conduct these reviews as individual assessments, but I have conflicted with a major editor of this article in the past, so thought it best to keep this as a community review. AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep as Good Article. I agree that we could buff up the History section some more. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with article's GA status. It's on par with other city GA articles, even though technically Manhattan is a borough of NYC. Castncoot (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep as Good Article. I think that Aircorn may be applying Featured article standards this GA. While not perfect, I think that the article is well-written, well-cited, has broad coverage, is NPOV, is stable, and has images (if anything, too many images). Those are the criteria for a GA and I believe that it easily passes. —hike395 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I am definitely applying the Good Article criteria. I was very careful to link this above, but will do so again.

Criteria 1b says complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation (bolding mine)

WP:LEAD says summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight

My argument is that it does not follow WP:LEAD and therefore does not meet the Good Article Criteria 1b. Remember this is not a !vote, so it has to be shown that it currently does meet this criteria, or fixed so that it does. AIRcorn (talk)

It is not a !vote, but there has to be consensus to change a longstanding status, like with any other issue in Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've buffed up the historical content in the lead and added an important geographical feature. I would like to emphasize this time, however, that Manhattan is not a city but rather the core borough of NYC, and there is only a limited amount of geographical discussion that can take place in the lead about a 22+ square mile subset of any city. The human element of the borough is predominant. Castncoot (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: If the only substantial problem is the lead, it would be pretty easy to sort it out. However, there are also a bunch of unsourced sentences and paragraphs, which makes me hesitant to !vote "Keep". I like what Castncoot has done so far, but some more improvement is needed to the prose, especially regarding the sourcing. Complicating the matter, the "unsourced" sections I'm referring to are sentences like Some of the best known New York City public high schools are located in Manhattan, including Beacon High School, Stuyvesant High School, Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School, High School of Fashion Industries, Eleanor Roosevelt High School, NYC Lab School, Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics, Hunter College High School, and High School for Math, Science and Engineering at City College. Bard High School Early College, a hybrid school created by Bard College, serves students from around the city. Obviously if you searched all these high schools you'd know they are in Manhattan, but then we run the risk of WP:CITEKILL. epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I like what you have done with trimming some of the outdated material from the article so far. If you could please also do the same with fixing as per what you've described just above with the Education section (and/or other sections), that would also be appreciated. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Education: I don't think it's necessary to provide sources to support that these schools are in Manhattan; the objectionable part is "best known". That could easily be corrected by using "Some of the notable New York City public high schools …" because they are notable as they have Wikipedia articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. I think all of the issues with the lead have been fixed sufficiently. Some of the outdated material may have to be trimmed as well, but it is well-sourced. epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delist until or unless all of the above-noted necessary changes are made, in order to comply with WP:GACR. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe the article complies; if there's a disagreement, let's address it. Castncoot (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with the basis for the GAR, namely does the LEAD meet GA criterion. I am coming to it post any changes Castncoot made. I think the history paragraph that has been added adequately addresses that concern. As for the puffery, I think the two phrases of concern are Manhattan is often described as the cultural, financial, media, and entertainment capital of the world and New York City has been called both the most economically powerful city and the leading financial center of the world. For the cultural, etc while there are five RS most of them basically seem to be New York sources or people calling New York that. I think perhaps with some different sourcing this phrase could be saved and does provide important context. For the comment about being called the most economically powerful I don't think the LEAD really loses anything if that close is removed. Ideally those are both fixed but their mere presence wouldn't be enough to remove GA status. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, at least one of the sources does quote Manhattan specifically and not just New York. The remainder of the sources are still valid because the article makes clear that Manhattan is the multi-dimensional core of NYC. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that there has been no comments in 4 weeks and my status as UNINVOLVED per the Guidelines for community reassessment discussion (as I've only participated in the GAR review process and did not nominate it for GAR) I am judging consensus to be keep. Because I did weigh in on the topic, despite this action being OK by the guidelines, I wish to give other editors a chance to either further discuss the article or disagree with my reading of consensus before I formally close it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

S.S.C. Napoli

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

Result: Remain listed Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This was first made a GA over a decade ago, when Wikipedia and the club were both very different to how they are today. The history section has, as is always the case, become bloated for the last ten years, and there is a very dry and complicated explanation of the club's folding and rebirth in 2004. Two very detailed Top 20 lists of appearances and goals would be better off on the records article than here. The support section includes a lot of unsourced assumptions about rivalries and friendships. The section on the finances I won't even go into because I'm not an economics professor, but it doesn't look accessible to the common reader. Other tags such as citation needed and clarification needed over the article. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Trimmed some more. Think it is in a position to be kept now. AIRcorn (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Looks good. Keep. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• I am ready to close this as keep but courtesy ping of Harambe Walks for thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Barkeep49 sorry just seen this now. Yes, all is well due to the work by myself and others. It's a drastically better page to how it was. Please close. Harambe Walks (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

John Key

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

Result: Kept Agreement that this now meets the criteria AIRcorn (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This article was listed as a Good Article nearly eight years ago. Not only has the rigour of the review process has improved since 2010, concerns about the quality were raised even at the time, prompting a prompt and unsatisfactory review in September 2010. I believe this article as it stands fails several of the criteria that are necessary to be a GA. I am not concerned about the quality of expression or format of the article; I have been one of a few contributors who have extensively overhauled the layout of the article over the past two years. However, I acknowledge that the article is not a comprehensive overview of the topic – in particular it fixates on Key's scandals/mishaps, and a casual reader is left with little impression of his policies, decision or events during his premiership; many sections also require expansion that is beyond my ability. Therefore I request that the article is de-listed in order to prompt contributions and expansion. --Hazhk (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Is your link to the diff correct? It doesn't seem to indicate an unsatisfactory review. Am I correct in assuming you think this fails the focus criteria? If that is the case I should be able to fix those issues relatively easily. As to expansion, could you be a little bit clearer on what areas you think need expansion. Being broad does not mean comprehensive (see note 6 at WP:GACR) and nothing is jumping out at me at the moment, except maybe the Post-premiership section. There are some weaselly worded sentences, but that can also be fixed relatively easily. Let me know of any other issues as they relate to the criteria and I may be able to fix those too. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now corrected the link to the first review (for reference, this review). As to the areas of expansion: I would especially highlight the sections detailing his early political career and post-premiership. I also think that the entire overview of his tenure as Prime Minister is detached from the actions and policies of his government – the vast bulk of the information was incorporated from a 'Controversies' section (compare the current revision with the article as it stood in July 2016) and, as such, it details various gaffes and controversies, with little coverage of political events or decisions. In general, I do not feel that the level of detail in the article is satisfactory for a GA. --Hazhk (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

By way of comparison, note the depth of detail and breadth of coverage on David Cameron's article (a class-B article).--Hazhk (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

When the peer review was conducted it looked like this. Also note that Good Articles don't have to be great articles, just meet some simple criteria. I will keep working on it as I have time (see you are to which is good). AIRcorn (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel that it is not too bad at the moment. It could definitely be expanded, but nothing is obviously missing. Saying that the above critiques are fair and I feel this has a long way to go to be considered a very good article. I think it scrapes by as a "Good" article though. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hazhk What are your feelings on this article now. I feel this is all the input we will get. AIRcorn (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the changes made have been satisfactory. I feel that it should remain as it is. I would close the review.--Hazhk (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Bowsette

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

Result: Delist for lacking stability. Other issues were corrected overthe course of the GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I will be conducting a more detailed review as part of this process but I have initial concerns about good article criteria 1b (specifically with the LEAD), 3b (specifically some of the sources not being RS), issues around criteria 6 (copyright status of images used), and possibly criteria 5 (this article might not yet be stable). More detailed comments will be left below. Pinging @Vami IV, Kung Fu Man, DannyMusicEditor, and Nova Crystallis: as others who might have review comments or otherwise be interested in this community GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

As original reviewer, I would like to admit fault for not conducting as thorough review as I should have. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I just express my confusion here as to why one article needs 4 reviewers for a GAN? Because essentially this is just a redo of a GAN. Probably would have been better to have been bold and just reopened the review instead? As for the sources, again, which are the problem?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: I get what you're saying. First a community GAR can have as many or as few contributors to the discussion -it all depends on who is interested. I choose to do a community GAR rather than an individual for a couple reasons. First, Nova and Danny are experienced reviewers and since each had expressed interest in this article it seemed silly not to tap into their expertise. I am also am "not confident in your ability to assess the article" which is therefore suggested to be a community rather than individual GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I can understand that, guess for me it's a bit unorthodox after how many of these I've been through at this point, heh. Usually the GA process is the easier one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any other issues other than the issues down below, which seemed to have been solved. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor Anything from you? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have been too busy to comment lately, I will do so tomorrow afternoon when I have time. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No time for a full comment yet, but do you have anything to add that wasn't already presented in your AfD discussion, @Lojbanist:? dannymusiceditor ^oops 13:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: I'm going to be honest Danny given you were one of the initial reviewers unless you have any specific concerns I move that we close. I've been waiting to promote this for WP:DYK and this has been hampering that process, and the seven day period is nearly up. The main issue for most people seems to have been the lead, and I believe we've addressed that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: I don't think we should close this GAR yet but I would definitely support your nominating it now for DYK given those time limits. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Specific Concerns

• I haven't come up with a better wording but I worry that the MOS:FIRST, specifically which appears as Nintendo's Mario franchise character Bowser transformed to resemble another character, Peach., does not make clear to a broad audience who Bowsette is - I wouldn't have understood it, despite being a video game player, without having read the rest of the article which is somewhat against the conventions of what is desired.
• Journalists took notice of the trend and were surprised by its longevity - I'm not sure longevity is the right word considering Bowsette is like two weeks old.

I'll admit that sentence is a bit odd, it's hard to figure out how to word it without going too into detail. As for the second I would argue it's valid though: a lot of journalists expected it to only last a day or two such as the IGN panel and Alex Olney (who's statement was noted in the reception section more directly).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I've tried my hand at the lead. How does it read now? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Issues

I have a lot of issues with this article.

First, I don't believe that the article is stable. The most recent 50 edits took place within the past 4 days. In that time, there have been improvements, reverts, page protection, and an AFD nomination.

Beyond that, I have issues with the prose and the article structure. There's some pretty garbled grammar in places.

"Bowsette quickly rose in popularity internationally, with related hashtags trending in English and Japanese appearing on Twitter." -- This is all over the place. Should probably be along the lines of "...with related hashtags in English and Japanese trending on Twitter".

"Typically portrayed as a light-skinned blonde woman with horns, fangs, and a spiked collar with matching armbands, though there is some variation." -- This is a sentence fragment.

The article structure is probably my biggest problem, in that there really isn't enough structure. Far too much of this reads as just stating fact after unrelated fact. "This is what this person said. And this is what another person said." and so on. For example, the third paragraph of the "Reception" section starts off by talking about how the concept inspired gender-swapped fan art of other Nintendo characters, and ends up talking about copyright law, which is a jarring transition that makes the article hard to follow. Or there's the "Background" section, which goes well outside the scope of just discussing background and ends up mentioning a fan convention. As someone who wasn't previously familiar with the subject of the article, I had to read it multiple times to be able to take everything in.

Finally, I have concerns over copyright for the included images, especially the second one. I am not especially familiar with copyright policy, so I say this with little confidence, but I am not sure that the fair use claims really stand up. The usage rationale for the second image states that the article as a whole is dedicated to the discussion of the work, which is clearly not true. Lowercaserho (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Lowercaserho for bringing the stability piece back into play. I personally don't think the snow keep AfD should be held against it. Nor should the causes that led it to be semi-protected be held against it - that would essentially be a heckler's veto. However, I do think there are legitimate questions about its stability even beyond that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I would argue the article is stable enough: outside of a few needs for copyediting the article's structure is not needing to be completely upheaved or heavily added to (or being heavily added to), which is a significant factor for stability. Similar articles have disputed facts that get squeezed in from time to time too (such as MissingNo. or Poison (Final Fight), a FA and GA respectively, that both have had disputed facts squeezed into the articles repeatedly by editors over time or brought up on the discussion page).

Lastly regarding the images GA class articles usually allow for at most two fair use images: one to illustrate the subject of the article, and the other to illustrate a significant aspect of the article. In this case, ayyk92's panel which was the catalyst for the whole event, and an example of Japanese professional artists contributing their own takes on the design, and a common design addition by said artists. Now the first panel cannot be put on Commons in any way: While there are copyright free Bowsette images on Commons (none of which can fill the purpose of the panel, which is in this case being used similar to a screenshot or promotional artwork to illustrate a character), Mario, Peach and Luigi present in the panel would flatly fail it on copyright grounds. It may be possible to get the second image on commons, but it would require someone with far better Japanese than I to get the permission.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I will add too I think regarding this GA there's a problem of "too many cooks" trying to copyedit the article at once in response to this GAR. For example the sentence fragment brought up by @Lowercaserho: was not there in a previous version, at the very least in the last version @Barkeep49: spoke on above. I don't think that's a stability issue but one where this should be a more regular re-GAN and instead it's becoming a crowded mass discussion where even the original editors haven't even weighed in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: I get that the circumstances which has led to this GAR were not of your doing. I know you're nothing but a good faith, well intentioned editor attempting to make the encyclopedia better. I stand by my decision to make this a community rather than individual GAR - I saw an issue that I did not feel equipped to handle solely and furthermore saw other editors who were willing to participate at some level. It seemed like the opportunity for a functional GAR, rather than the mostly dead community GARs that happen where I am one of two editors that ends up closing them after minimal discussion and effort. There might be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen but I think it's a stretch to blame this community GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I understand that, I just feel we're reaching a point of rapid critical mass: the more editors that come into the mix with their own ideas of how the article should be, and then editors on top of them trying to help and maintain the article in response to those issues. This is why GAN is usually one or two editors and the main nominator fixing any issues, and even FAs are usually a bit more focused. Honestly at this point I'm getting overwhelmed to the point I'm willing to say revoke it so I can watch sources, see if I can improve the article and its prose and try to renominate it in a month. I think really my biggest mistake was pushing to get it to GA so soon after it hit, especially given it's an article a lot of folks pretty clearly feel doesn't belong.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Given Danny's comment above and the conversation here Kung Fu Man I want to confirm one more time that you're OK closing with a delist (for now). If so I will go ahead and close this GAR with that outcome. I'm genuinely not trying to pressure you here, instead give you a chance to walk back the comment right above this as (understandable) frustration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Lowercaserho beat me to the stability concerns which is what I was going to bring up but did not see. Kung Fu Man, yes, I agree. The article is just way too hot. In fact, I don't even think it's your fault; if I had completed that review, I'd have asked my pass to be undone. The first mistake would have lied with an extremely early GA review. AS for the article, it looks great, but it's still being so heavily worked on, and the article was improperly reviewed, I just don't think it should have been passed in the first place. Please don't be discouraged, though. What I saw in your last edit summary was basically all I was going to say, though. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'm throwing in the towel here. Honestly I really do think it should've just been redone but at this point I think there are, as you say too hot right now. I will say for the purpose of further discussions though I don't think afds like that one should be used as a guide for article stability: anyone can nominate it, and in this case the nominator has an issue with articles he feels don't belong here rather than the content of the article (and that has actually happened with two other articles I've written and gotten to GA, in fact, so kinda used to it by now).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

1939 California tropical storm

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

Result: Closed Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the article is possibly slightly below the level of a good article. While it does address the main points of the cyclone in a concise way, I don't believe there are really enough images or explanations of terms to justify a good article rating. Also, the "Impact" section doesn't seem to be organized well enough to merit this status. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 04:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This article has problems in the sense that I don't think it's detailed enough but what you have described isn't exactly one of them. There aren't going to be many images for a storm that happened 80 years ago. And can you be more specific on "explanations of terms". If anything, jargon is more explained here than in most hurricane GA articles. The order of presentation in the impact is not how I'd do it if I was writing the article but regardless that's an easy fix. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose and close No clear issues and images are optional, according to WP:GACR. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose + Close The only thing I can see is the prose needs a tad bit of improvement. With the image thing, you simply need to look at the time period. There were minimal images at that time and most of them have likely been lost. As for the explanation of terms, I have no idea what you are talking about. This article isn't overly technical in its explanation of the system. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 00:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan, Nova Crystallis, and Figfires: Thank you for your feedback. Does anybody know how to close the discussion? Also, thanks for educating me about good article reassessment. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hdjensofjfnen: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment has instructions on closing it. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Figfires: Thanks. Closed successfully. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 03:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Auschwitz concentration camp

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

Result: Several improvements were made to the article and the discussion was closed on 25 October 2018 — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC).
I think this article is generally very good quality for the breadth of the topic that it is expected to cover, and certainly a high B class. However, I think there is some important information that is missing in the article and I am also concerned about the quality of sources. Overall, the USHMM entry on Auschwitz in the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos is a good reference for balance and which topics should be covered, and can be downloaded for free on the USHMM website. Specific comments follow. Catrìona (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Coverage

• The guards and who they were is not explored, especially the large proportion of Volksdeutsche, Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht soldiers assigned to Auschwitz towards the end of the war.
• Prisoner hierarchy; the "kapo" vs. regular prisoner was not a one-way distinction, since there were many privileged positions: ie lagerkapo who supervised work details and blockalteste who supervised each barracks, as well as various types of clerks.Y Although some were in fact corrupt and brutal, much of the prisoner hierarchy was involved in the Auschwitz resistance.
• Specificity on the selection process: It states children and elderly, but not that the exact age ranges that the doctors were looking for. My understanding is that those younger than 15-16 or older than 40-45 were murdered immediately.
• Auschwitz was the first place that Zyklon B was used, and the first prisoners to be gassed were Soviet POWs (USHMM 206)Y
• That selection was used on surviving inmates to murder those who were worn out and not able to work, substituting them with new arrivals. Y
• Other than the Hungarian Jews, the murder of the prisoners at the Theresienstadt family camp, arrivals from the Lodz ghetto, and arrivals from Theresienstadt in late September-late October 1944 who accounted for most of the last victims in the gas chambers.Y
• Survival rates for different types of prisoners, for instance Polish prisoners were allowed to receive food parcels and this greatly improved their survival rate compared to other prisoners, until the fall of 1944 when the postal system was disrupted.
• Of inmates registered into the camp, 49% died at Auschwitz, a higher percentage than other concentration camps, even Mauthausen, which was graded more severely. (USHMM 205)
• How the policy of keeping the Reich "Judenrein" affected the Auschwitz population; in late 1943 and early 1944 many "Aryan" prisoners were sent west to work in forced labor in concentration camps in Germany. Only in the spring of 1944 did this policy change and Jews began to be sent westwards. During the spring to fall of 1944, Auschwitz was largely a screening/transit camp for new arrivals who were often put through selection and had those chosen for labor sent on to other camps without being registered.
• Partly because of this policy, the subcamp population was almost entirely Jewish (USHMM 221)
• The inefficiency of the labor regime. According to Yad Vashem, at times almost 50% of prisoners were not working.
• Almost no information on the Political Department.
• The percentage of Auschwitz guards who were tried for crimes was less than 10%, most of these by Poland. (USHMM 207) Y This is covered in the "Trials of war criminals" section. - Diannaa
• "Organizing" as a form of resistance and survival. (p. 212 and elsewhere)Y this is already covered in the section "Escapes, resistance, and the Allies' knowledge of the camps". I have added a bit more. - Diannaa. According to USHMM, the SS guards were so corrupt that prisoners bribed them into allowing them to bring in explosives for the Sonderkommando uprising.
• Sabotage, USHMM 217.Y Sabotage is covered, not with a separate section, but here and there. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality and balance

• Overreliance on the testimony of Miklos Nyiszli for conditions in the camp. Not only is this a primary source, Nyiszli was only at Auschwitz for the last several months, and he did not see an overview of conditions in other parts of the complex. I think we should reference scholarly sources for things like how much food the prisoners received.N see below. - Diannaa
• The "death toll" section gives many estimates, but only a limited idea of which of these numbers are widely accepted today.
• In the USHMM encyclopedia, it states that prisoners had only one or two Sundays per month off work (p. 223)

Hi Catrìona. A couple of general comments. It looks like you have access to the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and found some good material to improve the article. If you don't mind me asking, is there some reason why you have not improved the article yourself from this source? A second problem is suggesting content that you think needs to be included and then trying to find supporting sources. That's backwards - a better plan is to find out what the available sources have to say and then working on the article using those sources. That's what we did when we re-wrote this article for GA. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A second question: Can you please be specific about which GA criteria is not met? Your heading "Coverage" implies that you think it fails some part of criterion #3, but as far as I can see the present version of the article meets criterion 3A which reads "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"; which main aspects do you think are missing from the current version of the article? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Catrìona, would you please say which main aspects are missing? Otherwise it's hard to know how to proceed with the review. In case it helps, see the GA criteria and the accompanying essay, WP:GANOT (in particular the "broad in its coverage" section). SarahSV ^(talk) 16:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was not working from sources when I came up with the above list. I was also clear about which criteria were not met, namely broadness of coverage. Although I'm happy to help fix the article, many of the issues are non-trivial to solve. I am actually familiar with the GA criteria, and the reason why I believe that it is not met in this case is that, per accepted research practices, the USHMM encyclopedia counts as the type of high quality tertiary source that should be used to determine weight and coverage. Furthermore, the editors note in the introduction that the entries on major camps such as Auschwitz are extremely brief compared to the scholarship on them. So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that any issue (for example, sabotage) which receives significant coverage there could be considered a main aspect of the topic. You can download the encyclopedia for free at the USHMM website if you want to check. Catrìona (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: there are numerous high-quality Auschwitz sources. There's no need to be guided by just one. In addition, the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos entries are long—Auschwitz I by Charles Sydnor, Auschwitz II by Franciszek Piper, and Auschwitz III by Florian Schmaltz, plus the sub-camps—so it isn't realistic to expect a GA to reflect them. What the entries are excellent for is their listing of the key sources. If you want to compare this article to a shorter encyclopaedia entry, you could try Encyclopaedia Britannica.

What's needed for this review is that you list the main aspects that are missing. Or else work to develop them in the article. As WP:GAR says, "the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it." It would be better to open a talk-page discussion listing what's missing, preferably with a source for each aspect. That would give us something to work with. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see anywhere in the essay WP:Identifying reliable sources (history) which you linked to where it recommends using tertiary sources to write articles. That said, it is an essay, and cannot supercede the content guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, part of which (WP:RSPRIMARY) states that Wikipedia articles should be written primarily based on secondary sources, not tertiary sources.

I have downloaded the four available PDF files (Volume 1 Part A, Volume 1 Part B, Volume II part A, Volume II part B). I have looked at page 217 as suggested (page 217 of Volume 1 Part A), and it says that construction of the plant at Monowitz was delayed due to sabotage. Examination of search results on the word "sabotage" gives various other examples of sabotage and suspected sabotage that took place at the main camps and the subcamps. I am going to bring in in inter-library loan the book The Nazi Concentration Camps, ed. Yisrael Gutman and Avital Saf (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1984) which has a chapter by Krzysztof Dunin-Wasowicz titled “Forced Labor and Sabotage in the Nazi Concentration Camps”, to determine if there's something more in-depth we could add beyond stating that sabotage occurred and listing some examples of where it happened. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have received the book and (similar to the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos) it contains some examples of sabotage that occurred, but nothing beyond that. I have added a brief addition.

Nyiszli was in the camp for eight months. I don't think that can be construed as a short stay, considering the 4-yr 8-month history of the camp and the extremely short duration that most people were there. There are 9 citations to his book in the "Life in the camps" section out of the 19 cites. I don't think that's excessive.

I've added tick marks above where I have added information on your suggestions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

As you may have gathered from my remarks so far, I disagree that there's any main aspects of the topic that are not covered by the article (criterion 3a) as it stands right now. Failure to use a specific source, whether tertiary or not, is not a valid reason to de-list, as high quality sources were used throughout. I have added some content based on your above comments, but I found no major defects and hope you will now close this review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to closing this review at this time. Catrìona (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Jutsu (Naruto)

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

Result: Delist _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem to fulfill the Good Article criteria as they currently exist. Its main problem is that most of the references are primary sources and it doesn't have a "broad coverage" per the criteria. The Reception section uses many unreliable sources. Ultimately it appears to be a great deal of plot cruft without much evidence of real world notability that can be accurately verified from the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delist: The article seriously lacks of sources: there're something like 14 or 15 sections without any source, other sections with just one source (incidentally, the manga chapters), and so on for the whole length. Reception section is basically a confusing mix of critical comments about battles and Ninja techniques, and that's completely different (just like the article seems to say) from the Jutsu itself. [E.g.: take the last paragraph, with vague Kimlinger comments.] Some sections (see Rinnegan) are surprisengly long and full of in-universe and irrilevant details.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delist: I don't find it too notable considering we could merge its contents with other characters.Tintor2 (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delist: Multiple unsourced paragraphs or statements, and a lack of outside sources. Merging with what sources are good seems the best option for this article's future. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Audi S and RS models

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

Result: Delisted. feminist (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The article for the “good article” nomination lacks sources, needs minor corrections, correction of design in links and other corrections. I propose to remove the nomination "good article"--Anton V. (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

5 days passed, no one expressed objections, and there were no improvements in the article. The nomination is removed.--Anton V. (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anton V.: The GAR was not properly closed, and 5 days is way too short for adequate discussion and improvement of the article. Please follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines to close this reassessment. feminist (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Not 5 days, but about a month since the beginning of the discussion. No one objected. I nominated the article, and I am the main editor. For this I use community reassessment.--Anton V. (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

My problem is that procedures at WP:GAR were not followed properly. Now, these are common mistakes, so just remember to perform the close correctly next time. feminist (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Corey Taylor

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

Result: Delisted. feminist (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that for a supposed GA, this article has a myriad of problems. It was promoted back in 2010 and has had a myriad of changes since, mostly for the worse.

• Lead too short.
• "Other work" was getting information creep with random one-sentence additions.
• "Acting career" subheader entirely unsourced.
• "Personal life" is also subject to one-sentence creep.
• "Discography", "Filmography", and "bibliogrpahy" are all unsourced.

Thanks to @Jax 0677: for bringing this to my attention. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Concur - Concur. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've had this article on my watchlist since reverting some vandalism to it a few months ago. I'll add to the above that there is no mention of Slipknot or Stone Sour's most recent studio albums (released in 2014 and 2017, respectively) in the "Music career" section. Without serious improvements, I support delisting. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Boston Massacre

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

Result: Kept No convincing reason given why this article fails any of the Good Article criteria. Mainly hinges on whether it should be described as a riot, but that is essentially up to the sources. Overall the article seems balanced enough to meet our understanding of neutrality AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

As highlighted in the talk page, this article is not neutral...

There is a blatant anti-British tone. Its ridiculous... "The BBC propagandists seem to be at work here, whitewashing history". The BBC has been rated most accurate and reliable TV news, says Ofcom poll, and is considered extremely neutral and accurate. And is there is nothing here to imply this article was written by the BBC. "The position that the British acted in self-defense is a minority view". This is definitely wrong and the view that the incident was a massacre has long been debunked. The fact that this article has been dominated by these anti-British viewpoints is terrible and needs to be reviewed.

My neutral edits which provided alternatives viewpoints were removed by a user who 'lives near Boston, Massachusetts', where the alleged the massacre occurred. I doubt this is just a coincidence. This is a sign that this Wikipedia article is being dictated by patriots and that it is extremely biased. The alternative viewpoints need to be made clear in this article. In fact when this article was originally approved as a good article it included that the Boston Massacre was described by some as a riot, however since then this has been removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by H.A.W.C 101 (talk • contribs)

I can see why your edits were reverted and it wasn't anything sinister.[45] We rarely cite youtube so you will need a better reference. Your edits look like original research, or at least opinion, were not presented neutrally and contained misleading edit summaries. It is too soon to jump to a good article reassessment without a proper discussion at the talk page. I made a few edits and looked for sources citing Boston Riot [46] and nothing jumps out that makes me think it is justified as a bolded title. I think failing some more obvious issues this should still be kept. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, although the source was hosted on Youtube, it was actually a documentary from History.com which was presented by several academic historians. However, I shouldn't have cited Youtube as my source, and should have explicitly cited them directly. There are a vast range of sources describing the incident as a riot, and later on I will provide them and other sources to backup my edits. Due to your feedback I will henceforth ensure my edit summaries and clearer. H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC) I had cited Youtube since it provided the video, and people could therefore watch it and check it.

This GAR feels like forum shopping on a content dispute which feels icky to me. However a claim about lack of NPOV is a credible reason for a GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User H.A.W.C 101's account is brand new. The user page displays a large flag of England and a userbox announces they speak British English. Their talk page is made up largely of corrections for their mistakes. All this indicates lack of experience and possible national bias. Perhaps this review request is misguided and should be shelved. YoPienso (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... And I was told, "do not cast aspersions as to other editors" by Iryna Harpy. Yes, my account is relatively new, however I have made 142 edits as of now, with 98% of them being live (which is dwarfed by your number of 8080 edits, but this isn't a competition). My talk page is indeed largely made up of rejections of my articles, and when I mistook the license for an image that was actually copyrighted. But people have claimed you have made mistakes on your talk page too, although I don't find this too relevant, and have only brought it up since you have tried to unfairly discredit me. The claim that I'm biased is quite silly actually after looking at your page. A user box announces that you're American, and the killer is that you have a user box claiming that one of your ancestors fought Cornwallis in the American Revolution, so you're obviously far more biased than I am. So according to your approach, your comments are irrelevant and you should be ignored (which I wouldn't argue but it's what you implied with my comments).H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Moderator, please note H.A.W.C. 101's comment just above: "My neutral edits which provided alternatives viewpoints were removed by a user who 'lives near Boston, Massachusetts', where the alleged the massacre occurred. I doubt this is just a coincidence. This is a sign that this Wikipedia article is being dictated by patriots and that it is extremely biased." Is his conclusion of bias justified? That's the reason I pointed out his own potential bias.

The Encyclopedia Britannica article (written by an American) calls the incident a skirmish, not a riot, and notes the crowd was aware the British did not read them the Riot Act. The alternate name, the "Incident on King Street," is referenced in our current WP article (to a journal review I can't fully access) and is also given here. I can't find an RS for calling it the "Boston Riot." Does user H.A.W.C. 101 have one? YoPienso (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There are no moderators here. Just regular volunteers who take an interest in what is a good article. All that really matters at this page is whether the article meets these simple criteria. An editor being bias either way does not essentially matter, what matters is whether the article itself is biased (Criteria 4). While describing five deaths as a massacre does not appear particularly neutral, it is its common name. To provide alternate viewpoints we need reliable sources and I would have no issue with them being described or attributed as "riots" with a suitable source. All in all I am not seeing too much that causes this to fail the neutrality criteria. Keeping in mind that being neutral for this purpose is within a spectrum and does not have to be an exact point. The description of the event appears factual and it does not to my mind lean too far either way regarding blame or otherwise. My only issue is with the categories, as it does not fit in with the other "massacres" represented there. AIRcorn (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

As highlighted via several sources, the protesters were indeed aware that they had not been read the Riot Act. The protesters' courage was largely based on the assumption that a British soldier could not fire on rioters before a magistrate had read the Riot Act, which authorised the army to restore the King’s peace. At this point, the magistrates in Boston weren’t going to risk their safety by reading the Riot Act.

You can find several sources referring to the massacre being likeable to riot:

http://www.bostonmassacre.net/alternative.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-SwXEifHHo&feature=youtu.be&t=13m49s (I am aware Youtube is not a reliable source, however it is just being used to host a previously presented series by the History network, so it is available to viewed readily. During the series, John Hall, a military historian, highlights how the incident was more similar to a riot.

Also, I never called the incident the "Boston Riot", but only highlighted the incident was "arguably more like a riot"; and this the only edit I made in regards to the incident being likeable to a riot.H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugetsu

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

Result: Delisted The main issue appears to be broadness concerns, in particular the legacy section and reception in Japan (which is more a broad issue than a neutrality one). AIRcorn (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The original review was insufficient and should probably be undone. Some examples of problems that were missed despite being present in the reviewed version include:

• an entire paragraph (made particularly prominent by its being the last piece of running prose in the article) of textbook OR;[47][48]
• a fairly clear copyvio image (tied to the above OR, also prominent because of its positioning);[49]
• a prominent, and reoccurring, misuse of a diacritical mark;[50]
• an unsourced claim, in the unsourced plot summary (i.e., implicitly attributed to the film itself, which is explicit that it takes place between 1467-ish and 1568-ish[51]), about the historical setting of the film "in the late 16th century";[52]
• a plain English (as opposed to romanized Japanese) spelling error;[53]

The OR and copyvio image should have been autofail material, and the lack of anything beyond a superficial illusion of stability (the nominator was involved in an edit war over the page back in 2013,[54] the page saw only fairly minor tweaks in the four years thence,[55] and the nominator alluded to the edit warring when they returned to the page a few days before nominating their version of the page for GA[56][57]) is also concerning.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. There's been a lot of bad blood over this article (see here for example), and I hoped when I endeavoured to expand and reference beyond what the nominator had ever attempted, it was all in the past. It turned out that he was topic banned during the expansion and when that lapsed, he went right back to disrupting the article with verbose complaints on talk. [58] [59] The hints of the old grudge: an inexplicable mention of JoshuSasori, who Hijiri (under his old username Elvenscout) got banned years ago. He's made clear he associates me with Josh and how little he thinks of me [60] The above points are petty since many of them have already been edited. If he disagrees with a diatric, he can edit it. Like I said, I hoped this was all in the past, but I have little faith now that collaborative editing can maintain stability on this article anymore. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I hoped when I endeavoured to expand and reference beyond what the nominator had ever attempted, it was all in the past I've written literally hundreds of articles on Japanese culture topics, almost none of them less than 3kB in length, so even if your sticking a jab at my article creation/expansion in were not off-topic it would be simply wrong. On top of that, this has nothing to do with "bad blood": your expansion made the article worse, not better, and the GA review that followed immediately after should have noticed this. It turned out that he was topic banned during the expansion and when that lapsed, he went right back to disrupting the article with verbose complaints on talk. I appealed my TBAN almost a year ago, and I have just been gradually noticing the problems with this article since last December; I have no idea what that could have to do with any of this. The hints of the old grudge: an inexplicable mention of JoshuSasori, who Hijiri (under his old username Elvenscout) got banned years ago. Umm ... he got himself banned (without even any direct involvement on my part -- I had already left the project because of his harassment, which in turn was after my change of username), but continued to harass me for years after that. Nothing inexplicable about it: you criticized me for OR (same as he always did), when in fact you were the one engaging in OR (same as he always did); but what any of that has to do with the good article criteria I do not know. The above points are petty since many of them have already been edited. Yeah, I fixed some of them (with not-insignificant opposition from you), but they should not have been there in the first place. The original GA reviewer either passed the article because of the content that should not have been there but missed the problems (the current article includes en entire section called "Legacy" that is only four short sentences), or didn't care to check closely enough that the article had these problems; unless there is community consensus that the article, despite these problems with the initial review, still happens to meet the criteria by accident now that I have fixed the few that I noticed, it should be delisted. Like I said, I hoped this was all in the past, but I have little faith now that collaborative editing can maintain stability on this article anymore. Your battleground mentality is showing through; can we please focus on content? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic response to off-topic "you're holding a grudge against me" accusation. Posting here only because it kinda needs to be addressed and I'm pretty sure I'm not welcome on Ribbet32's talk page.

BTW: I just went back and checked, and I actually told you last September that I had only the faintest recollection of who you were, while you indicated the previous December that you remembered me quite well. I also apologized to you 56 months after the fact for any offense my gruffness at that time may have caused. So it would make damn-near no sense for me to be the one still nursing a grudge here, if anyone is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Leaving the past aside, as the page stands right now Hijiri88 which of the GA Criterion, listed below, do you feel that the page doesn't satisfy? I'm having some trouble seperating past issues that you've already corrected with those that you think remain. I'm hoping then there can be a discussion about the state of the article meeting those criteria and/or action taken to bring the article up to GA standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   C. It contains no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Barkeep49: I can say with confidence that it currently fails 2, 3, 4 and 5. I am less certain about 1 (I fixed the prominent reoccurring misspelling of the protagonist's name -- I think! -- but I didn't notice "sceenwriter" until an IP fixed it, which was the last straw for me filing this GAR) and 6 (the article does contain a reasonable number of images, which if they don't have copyright problems means it's probably OK, but the initial review found the final image to be okay and it clearly wasn't; I'm not the best with image copyrights, which is one of the reasons I don't do GA reviews myself, but I don't think it's safe to assume that everything is okay now that the most blatant copyvio has been removed). As for 2, 3, 4 and 5:

The article still does contain a bit of OR that I missed; I don't want to remove it, though, because it's probably WP:TRUE and verifiable, but not currently verified, which is a problem.

2. I didn't notice until just now, but the paragraph of OR that I removed from the body was also summarized in the lead. Currently, It is credited with [...] influencing later Japanese film is not currently supported by anything in the article body or any external reliable source. Thing is, I don't actually doubt the "truth" of this statement and consequently don't want to blank it, but it needs a source that actually verifies it, without resorting to OR/SYNTH as the reviewed version did. Additionally, the fact that the article included the problematic OR/SYNTH in the first place makes me really suspicious about the other parts of the article I haven't examined in as much detail (I don't have access to a lot of the sources). The default assumption should always be that the article doesn't meet this criterion, with the burden being on those who wish to include the content and get past GAN (or in this case GAR) to get sources that verify it.

The article gave the impression of being broad during the initial review, but with the OR gone this is not the case.

3. The film almost certainly does have a legacy that deserves more than four lines of coverage in our article, and a GA-standard article would describe that without resorting to OR. The article says nothing whatsoever of the film's critical reception in its native Japan, either in the 1950s or later, and has very little to say about its initial critical reception in western countries. Another key aspect of the topic that is mentioned nowhere in the article is the film's title, which literally translates to "Tales of Rain and the Moon", but neither rain nor the moon appear to be mentioned anywhere in the article. I know that it's named after a book which itself had an abstract title, and so the film's title is, in effect, meaningless, but our readers do not know that.

Does ignoring the film's reputation in its native country count as "non-neutral"? If it doesn't then I guess this can be lumped into the above.

4. It's perhaps more a problem of systemic bias than neutrality, but the above lack of anything to say about its reception by Japanese critics and audiences (the studio's anticipation of a domestic commercial failure is not the same thing) is concerning. It's also not clear why the title of the article gives pride of place to the film's US home media title when it hasn't been seen in English-speaking countries outside North America under that title in decades, if ever. (Weirdly the article is written with British spellin -- "popularising", etc. -- despite this.)

Stability is an illusion.

5. All low-vis articles have an illusion of stability because no one ever makes significant edits to them anyway, but in this case any time the article has been the subject of significant attention it was either in the form of edit-warring (as with the variant titles in the lead back in 2013, or the period in which the film is set in 2017) or the nominator adding a large amount of material that on examination is quite problematic. That he hasn't reverted any of my fixes since December would be promising, except that he complained about it above, which indicates that he doesn't actually acknowledge that the content was problematic and would reinsert it if he thought he could get away with it: and technically, since that content passed GA review, he can claim consensus and WP:STATUSQUO against my "unilateral" changes. Undoing the original, inadequate GA review would prevent that. (And the frankly desperate seeming step of aligning himself with an editor who was site-banned five years ago, going so far as to repeat the same memes that were popular among said banned editor's allies back then -- that I "got JoshuSasori banned" and that I changed my username, as though that were some kind of policy violation -- makes it really look like the nominator is either nursing a years-old grudge against me or is deliberately trying to get under my skin so I will give up and walk away so he can have his article back; that kind of OWN behaviour would indicate the article is really unstable.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks. I have deleted the criteria which don't seem to be under discussion. Let me know if that's correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yeah, that about matches. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Great. I'm going to thread them so that we can have parallel discussions without any confusion about which part we're talking about.

So I have finished creating threads for areas identified as concerns. Some of the concerns do seem valid but also seem fixable by interested editors (perhaps Hijiri88 or Ribbet32. It would seem like a shame to delist given what seem like resolvable issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

5. Stability

I have always viewed this criteria narrowly. There is either edit warring or there isn't. The claim here is actually one of WP:OWN By definition Good Articles have room for improvement and so a claim of WP:STEWARDSHIP is going to be weaker than with a FA. Regardless of whether Ribbet32 liked the changes that the three different multi-edit editors have made since January there has been no revision and Ribbet has been active the whole time on Wikipedia. Since this is a talk page discussion it strikes me as completely with-in WP:CONSENSUS to express disagreement about content. In the end I just can't see issues with this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

3a Broad in Coverage

This seems like the best claim of a shortfall for GA status but also fixable. Are there sources which can be found to remedy? While I am not ignorant of Japanese film (especially of this era) it feels like other editors would be better positioned to find high quality sources to add context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

1a Well Written

I admit that spelling/grammar proofreading isn't my strongest area as an editor but I'm not seeing any issues with the article in this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

4 Neutrality

This is tied into 3a but does concern me given current composition of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg

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

Result: Delist Valid concerns that have not been addressed four months. Some may be minor, but the lack of the honours section seems to be a clear failure of the broadness criteria AIRcorn (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that this article had accumulated a few unsourced statements since 2008, when it was promoted. Also, the section on awards and honors was growing so bloated (and poorly sourced) that it has now been spun off into a separate article (List of honours dedicated to Raoul Wallenberg). A well-sourced summary is therefore needed here, since Wallenberg did receive a lot of awards. It has also been alleged that the article gives undue weight to dissenting views that he didn't die in 1947.[61] I hope these relatively minor concerns can be addressed so this stays a GA. Catrìona (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Chris Field (composer)

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

Result: A clear consensus for article demotion was reached D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 23:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Fails point 2 of the GA criteria – I don't believe the majority of the sources in this article are reliable ones, and much of the article remains unsourced, e.g. the entire "Albums" section which can only be sourced from non-RS, or no sources can be found at all for some of the statements. Of the sources cited, ZoneMusicReporter is a website which invites artists to pay subscriptions to promote their music, so it is not impartial, and the interview is almost entirely about the equipment used to compose music for his studio album. Trailer Music News appears to be a blog run by five enthusiasts of trailer music – in any case, the majority of the interview is primary material asking Mr. Field about his inspiration and method of composing music, not about the actual music itself. The AllMusic link gives no details or review of the album whatsoever, so it's useless. The only two sources that could be considered reliable are the interview in the trade magazine of ASCAP, and a paragraph in Sound on Sound talking about Mr. Field's most well-known composition [62]. Most of the music for films in the table can only be referenced to a primary source, Mr. Field's own website. The "Further reading" section is simply a repetition of the first four sources in the references section. Mr. Field certainly seems to be a big name in composing movie trailer music, but in my opinion the sourcing falls a long way short of that required for GA. In addition the article appears to fail point 1 of the GA criteria: the lead is too long and full of unnecessary information, and the section headings and content do not follow MOS:LAYOUT (the "Discography" section, for example, seems entirely unnecessary – it presumably refers to the album, but it's unnamed and it shouldn't include a complete track listing). Richard3120 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Demote. This article is ineffably feeble for a GA. The criticism above says most of what needs to be said, but I note that the review which initially promoted it was perfunctory to say the least. I am astonished that it received a GA rating: I should say it deserves a C rating at best.--Smerus (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Demote vastly underreferenced. The "Albums" section has no sources at all! While the version that got promoted to GA looked much better with regards to citation placement, there still is a concern over source quality. This probably shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Demote Does not meet at all #2 of the GA criteria - much of the information is unsourced or poorly sourced. I am also of the opinion that the article does not pass criterion #1 - what is the reason to put the Albums section (which, under MOS:LAYOUT, is an "appendice") as the first section of the article? Not to mention that the information in Albums is not presented chronologically ... Zingarese talk · contribs 00:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)