Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 20

< Wikipedia:Good article review
Archive 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 21) Good article review (archive) (Page 19) →

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

Archived Disussions

Illinois Institute of Technology

Result: 1 to delist, 3 to speedy delist

The newly created WP:WPChi assessment department is just getting a hold of its inventory. As part of the process all WP:GAs are getting a cursory review of whether they uphold current standards. Basically, substandard citation such as this article exhibits will cause me to nominate an article here. I am nominating solely based on inadequate referencing. It is likely to be substandard for several other reasons. I am hoping it can get the attention deserves in this process. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hope that during the GA/R process someone could take the time to add an {{ArticleHistory}} template to the talk page to help clarify the progress of the article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delist - Only two inline citations, several fact tags, insufficient number of references. It's a very listy article. Too many dead links. Infobox contains copyrighted image. That's just from glancing. This article shouldn't have even been brought here. LaraLoveT/C 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist -- Well put by LaraLove. This one isn't even borderline. Besides all of the problems she notes, there are external links in the main text. It is quite OK to "shoot first and ask questions later" for articles that are egregiously out of line with WP:WIAGA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist This article isn't really close to GA status at all, giving it the attention to make it come up to GA could take a very, very, very long time, and that's not really what GA/R is mandated to do. The copyrighted image alone, if it doesn't have fair use justified, instantly fails this article, but even ignoring that, there is just simply no way the tiny number of references given can possibly be covering this rather large article properly. Homestarmy 19:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Valley Line

Result: Delist 7-0

Nominate to delist for the following reasons:

  • Inadequate lead
  • Inadequate referencing
  • Fails broadness requirements

Unless these fixes can be made in short order, the article should be delisted.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - This article does not meet GA criteria. In addition to issues listed above, I found:
    • WP:MOS style issues:
      • (UK) should follow United Kingdom.
      • Random wikification of stand-alone years.
      • Month/year combos not wikified.
      • Decades are not wikified along with other words that should be.
      • Townships are randomly wikified when they all should be.
      • Date formats are inconsistent.
    • "... currently (October 2006)..." - what is that?
    • The last paragraph is missing a period (full stop).
    • There is a misplaced comma in the same paragraph in a date.
    • Lacks sufficient referencing.
      • The second reference is not properly formatted (see WP:CITE).
      • References are listed under Notes heading with no notes included.
      • There are only two inline citations which leaves the article appearing to be riddled with OR. LaraLoveT/C 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 11:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as clearly spelled out above. Vassyana 10:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist For reasons above. This article is currently a start class at best. --Nehrams2020 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, but i'd also like to hear anthonycfc's rationale for passing this. Homestarmy 01:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention that Homestarmy since I wish to avoid dispute following recent spats I've had, though I'm with you on the issue and would like to hear his rationale also. LuciferMorgan 14:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Phonetic Alphabet

Result: 4-1 Keep (Strong Keep 2, Keep 2, Weak Delist 1)

The article is jargon-ridden. Many people coming to the page are probably trying to get a little help quickly. This is not possible. In addition, there are all sorts of dumb squares that show up on some computers (It is NOT the encyclopedia reader's responsibility to set her/his computer (which in fact might belong to a school, PC room, or library) so that these squares get converted to some-thing presumably meaningful. The "View this table as an image." produced only a small part of the table. Kdammers 11:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep
    • Addressing specific issues of the nomination: The lead should be sufficient for those looking for "a little help quickly". The "dumb squares" are explained in a technical note at the bottom of the article. It is, in fact, the responsibility of the reader to adjust their computer settings accordingly to allow for the display of such characters. The "View this table as an image", I assume you refer to the one for "Affricate Ligatures", is of legitimate concern. It does need to be expanded to include the full table displayed in the article.
    • Applicable GA criteria issues that I noted: There are two sections tagged as lacking any citation, but I'm not sure it's even necessary that inline citation be included for these. Information in these sections is not likely to be challenged. However, if citation is necessary to sustain GA, I don't feel the main contributing editor(s) would have much difficulty in correcting this. There is some issue with errors with phonetic characters carrying over from one line to the next, but I'm not sure if this is anything that can be corrected. I feel that the article could use more wikification, particularly in the lower half. As for references, PDF files lack page specifications, and I don't see the need for reference 32 to be in parenthesis, as there is no quote before it.
    • Overall determination: I found the article educational. I don't feel that it is jargon-filled. Wikification of words leads to further explanation. Although the article is technical, I don't see the necessity for someone who doesn't understand any of it to read it. It's well-referenced, with the exception of those noted above, well-illustrated, and sufficiently detailed. To me, this article is the epitome of what a GA should be. LaraLoveT/C 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is at WP:FAC now, I would wait until that is over until listing it here. No point in having two sets of reviews for it at this time. Quadzilla99 16:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. WP:POINT --Kjoonlee 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article links to relevant terms. Many people coming to the page are probably trying to get a little help quickly, so we do provide quick help. Sadly, we do not have a Help:IPA page with instructions for IPA fonts. However, we do link to IPA downloads. It would be nicer if you told us which table needed its image updated. --Kjoonlee 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is suitably referenced, and while it may have 'jargon' in it, how is the IPA supposed to be descriped without 'jargon'? Zeus1234 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delist The article is FANTASTIC, really, close to featured quality, BUT there are two sections with "unreferenced" cleanup tags in them. If those are fixed, I will quickly change my vote to keep. The rest of the article is fantastic, however, it would be a shame to let those small issues keep it from being GA or FA. Also, the article is uncategorized, and that needs to be fixed as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good article. Regarding the citations, the criteria stipulate that the article must cite "reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I'm not convinced that I can find any such material in the tagged sections. Verisimilus T 08:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then remove the tags. If you are knowledgable enough about the material to do so, then do so. But I question the existance of an article on the Good Article list with cleanup tags. If the article carries these banners, it needs cleanup, and would seem to easily fail as a Good Article. And if someone added the tags to the sections, then they are being challenged and thus, need inline citations. So simply removing the tags without referencing the sections seems to be disingenuous. The sections are being challenged. They need inline references. We should not keep this as a GA until the problem is resolved. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I changed the first template with a wikify template and added one fact tag to the first paragraph. As for the second tagged section, I just don't know that it's challengeable. I get that someone tagged it, but I could go tag anything solely because I don't understand it. That doesn't make it challengeable material. Additionally, there are wikified words in the section that lead to further detail. --LaraLoveT/C 05:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapping

Result: Delist 6-0

One general cleanup tag, fact tags, lack of inline citations all over article and unprofessional writing in "Regional Variations." Delist (would have tried writing this rationale in rap, but couldn't be bothered). --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong (1933 film)

Result: 6 to 0, Delist

A severe lack of inline citations, with a complete absence in "Significance", "Censorship", "Theatrical Re-Releases", "Famous and deleted scenes", "Dinosaurs and reptiles" and "Video releases". Also a misplaced quote section and an existent Trivia section. Reccomend delist if nothing can be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenin and McCarthy (talk • contribs)

Never mind, Lara's vote is stamped on the 21st, so more than three days have to of passed Homestarmy 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scelidosaurus

Result: Keep 3-0

Recently, two articles from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team were promoted to Good Articles based on review from members of the team who hadn't worked on either article. I think feedback from the community is important here, and would prefer to have no Conflict of Interest (or appearance of Conflict of Interest) issues.

Both articles were reviewed by good faith editors who did not feel there was any conflict of interest. Neither one had contributed to either article, but as our GA and FA passes are feathers in the WP:DINO team's cap, I am listing them here for review. Things such as clarity, etc, might be issues with someone who has never read or worked on a WP:Dinosaurs article. I'd like a second look at these two articles, and make sure they truly represent GA material. I think they do: I nominated both of them, but would prefer community feedback. I am only looking to legitimize the promotions. If the reviewers missed minor issues, please list those and give the article editors a chance to address them. Scelidosaurus passed February 22nd. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both I see no obvious variance from the good article criteria. The articles aren't FA quality, but they are well written (no obvious grammar or spelling issues), well referenced, broad enough, NPOV, stable, and use images appropriately. Good job! In the future, it may be good to avoid having project members review project work (even if they don't directly edit it) to avoid appearences of COI if you prefer (if they are genuinely interested in reviewing articles, there is PLENTY to go around); but these article are obviously GA standard articles.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reads well. I see nothing in need of correction. --LaraLoveT/C 04:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Short of what I would consider A-Class or FA standards, but well within the standards of good articles. Vassyana 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambeosaurus

See nomination comments for Scelidosaurus above. Result: Keep 3-0

Lambeosaurus passed on May 13th. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both I see no obvious variance from the good article criteria. The articles aren't FA quality, but they are well written (no obvious grammar or spelling issues), well referenced, broad enough, NPOV, stable, and use images appropriately. Good job! In the future, it may be good to avoid having project members review project work (even if they don't directly edit it) to avoid appearences of COI if you prefer (if they are genuinely interested in reviewing articles, there is PLENTY to go around); but these article are obviously GA standard articles.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reads very well to me. I see nothing in need of correction. --LaraLoveT/C 04:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Short of what I would consider A-Class or FA standards, but well within the standards of good articles. Vassyana 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars

Result: 6-0 Delist

Delist recommendation based on WP:MOS/style issues, misplaced info box, main image is copyrighted, substandard lead, multiple fact tags throughout article, many book references lack page specification, incorrectly formatted references, unstable (edit wars). Promoted Jan 2006 without review. --LaraLoveT/C 05:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Red Cliffs

Result: Restored open status on GAN

  • Comments on WP:GAC are over a week old. Tried to contact the reviewer. Am concerned the page will languish on GAC interminably, since other reviewers will assume someone has taken responsibility for it.
  • There are comments by the reviewer on the article's talk page. Originally I agreed, but now think the article is ship-shape for WP:GA.
  • Thanks Ling.Nut 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the "undecided" comment from the GA/N page. I also left a message on the talk page of the "reviewer" to let him/her know that is not acceptable. The article should get picked up by a reviewer soon. There is quite a backlog, but we're working on it. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Cantor

Result: Keep 6-0 (1 neutral)

Warned by Agne in September 2006 regarding lack of citations, and only has 4 citations at present. Delist. LuciferMorgan 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article has been cited in order to achieve verifiability, I'm withdrawing my vote. LuciferMorgan 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What citations are you referring to? There seems to be an enormous bibliography in the end. Arcfrk 07:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to citations which aren't present. LuciferMorgan 14:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, Set Theory section very POV and flowery, and doesn't appear to be referenced clearly. Even if it is referenced, it shouldn't be written so non-neutrally anyway. Homestarmy 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Needs infobox; There is random wikification of stand-alone years; Redlink "Wangerin", I assume that is for Friedrich Heinrich Albert Wangerin, which is without an article. The full name should be used; Quotes and challengable statements without inline citaion; fact check and fact tags; Incorrect spacing between punctuation and citation for 3 & 4 (minor, but still needs to be fixed). There seems to be sufficient referencing based on the bibliography, but it needs inline citation for GA. That's what I found in scanning the article. --LaraLoveT/C 04:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. It needs a solid rewrite. Definitely some bloat and embellished language. It needs a lot of work in meeting the standards of the Manual of Style and our neutrality policy. Vassyana 10:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you, please, elaborate on perceived violation of neutrality policy? Arcfrk 07:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case then the Maths Project needs to reconsider its rating since that is a wholly inaccurate assessment. LuciferMorgan 14:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just had a look at this article through the eyes of a mathematician, and I have to say that this is definitely not a case of the non-mathematical community misunderstanding high-quality but technical mathematical writing. The article is devoid of inline references, to the point that when it emphasizes an interesting fact or development in Cantor's life, I instinctively look for the footnote and feel cheated when it's not there. It's wonderful that people have made the effort to build so large a bibliography, but there are no actual references in the article. Actually tracking down any of the claims would be tantamount to rewriting the article from the sources. That being the case, I guess I support the position that this article needs a "rewrite". I don't think the set theory section is particularly POV, though. Ryan Reich 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist 1c and MoS issues. Quadzilla99 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no 1c on the Good Article criteria. Also, the applicable MoS guidelines for GA status are laid out in criterion 1b; violations of others outside that list do not warrent delisting. — Deckiller 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is one major current biography, at least in English: Dauben's, duly listed in the bibliography. Implicitly, all assertions not otherwise noted, and not purely mathematical, are from Dauben, which I have consulted, and which does have an index. I have not systematically collated the article with the book; but I don't see any evidence that any of the delete voices have either. Since I see no challenges to specific points, I can only conclude that the article does in fact comply with 1c, as written. Don't bother to reply; this is best dealt with by restructuring, or deleting, this entire waste of time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hold off for a couple of days, I am sticking in those inline citations that you want, but it will take me a while to finish. Thank you--Cronholm144 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any direct quotations need citations as well. This is really non-negotiable:"You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quotation" — (Wikipedia:Citing sources). Also, each para should have at least one citation, assuming all the info in that para comes from one source, on the whole it needs a lot of citations. I just wanted to make that clear as some of the editors of the article seem to resistant to inline citations. Quadzilla99 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI am not arguing that quoted material shouldn't be be cited, but I don't see quotation marks in the article that indicate a direct quote. Furthermore I don't know of any wikipolicy that requires a direct quote every paragraph. Is this a GA WP policy?
I said each para should have at least one citation, not each para should have at least one quote. Quadzilla99 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I'm sorry. I misread your words. However my request for a stay of execution still stands.--Cronholm144 04:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am somewhat surprised by some of the assertive and dismissive comments on this page. I agree that a few more inline citations would improve this article, but there is no requirement to provide a citation for every paragraph, and most of the quotes are sourced in the text. In any case, this is a GA, not FA, review. Good articles are not perfect, and the standard for inline citation is widely disputed. Some copyediting and stylistic improvements would also help the article, but it does not, in my view, need a "solid rewrite" to meet the GA standard. I am also disappointed that reviewers seem to "scan" rather than read the article, and make general comments rather than specific recommendations for improvement. Geometry guy 13:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It should be noted that while the criteria between "FA" and "GA" differ in some important key areas, referencing is NOT ONE OF THEM. If you read the FA and GA reqiurements on referencing:
      • WP:WIAFA: ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."
      • WP:WIAGA: "It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;[2][3] and (c) contains no original research."
There are some minor differences in the wording because the guidelines were written by different editors; but substantively they require the same thing. <rant>Please don't treat GA as a place where failed FA's go for validation; like GA is some kind of dumping ground for substandard articles to feel better about themselves. The GA standards are REAL, even if they are different in some places than FA standards. It is expected that editors that apply GA status to an article do so by strict adhearence to the standards as outlined in [[WP:WIAGA]]; these standards are different than FA but we should not let stuff slide simply because "It is only GA."</rant>
All that having been said, the article needs to be Delisted for the following concrete reasons that are in clear violation of WP:WIAGA:
  • There are numerous [citation needed] tags in the article. If statements are being challenged, they need inline citations to support them. I would endorse that most of these need citations; the statements they follow make interpretations of peoples motives and actions; they express opinions about why someone did something or how someone felt. Who else besides wikipedia has published these feelings?
  • his exceptional skills in mathematics, trigonometry in particular, were noted. - Really? Who noted it? Needs a reference.
  • In 1862, following his father's wishes, Cantor entered the Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich, today the ETH Zurich and began studying mathematics. - Who says it was his father's wishes? Who is psychoanalyzing his father that we know what he wanted? We need a reference here.
  • Cantor was promoted to Extraordinary Professor in 1872, and made full Professor in 1879. To attain the latter rank at the age of 34 was a notable accomplishment, but Cantor very much desired a chair at a more prestigious university, in particular at Berlin, then the leading German university. Where is it noted that 32 was a young age to aquire such a rank? How do we know what Cantor desired? Where are such statements referenced to?
  • However, Kronecker, who headed mathematics at Berlin until his death in 1891, and his colleague Hermann Schwarz were not agreeable to having Cantor as a colleague - How do we know this was Kronecker's and Schwarz's motive?
  • Kronecker, now seen as one of the founders of the constructive viewpoint in mathematics, - According to whom? This is a superlative claim; someone besides the author of this Wikipedia article MUST have siad this earlier? WHO?
  • In 1884, Cantor suffered his first known bout of depression.[citation needed] This emotional crisis led him to apply to lecture on philosophy rather than on mathematics. Every one of the 52 letters Cantor wrote to Gösta Mittag-Leffler that year attacked Kronecker. Cantor soon recovered, but a passage from one of these letters is revealing of the damage to his self-confidence: "... I don't know when I shall return to the continuation of my scientific work. At the moment I can do absolutely nothing with it, and limit myself to the most necessary duty of my lectures; how much happier I would be to be scientifically active, if only I had the necessary mental freshness." - COntains a direct quote; that needs a specific reference. COntains psychoanalysis of Cantor; that needs a reference as well.
  • Cantor believed that Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare. During his 1884 illness, he began an intense study of Elizabethan literature in an attempt to prove his Bacon authorship thesis. He eventually published two pamphlets, in 1896 and 1897, setting out his thinking about Bacon and Shakespeare. Really? Where can I find this information? reference needed.
  • The entire "Late Years" section, filled with further psychoanalysis and claims about his health, state of mind, and financial situation is unreferenced.
  • Most importantly, Cantor was the originator of set theory, 1874-84. According to whom? Superlative claims need citations. Also, this sentance is fantastically awkward. What is with the random dates tacked on the end?
  • Cantor was also the first to appreciate the value of one-to-one correspondences (hereinafter denoted "1-to-1") for set theory. Another superlative claim without reference.
  • The rest of the "Work" section is ENTRIRELY unreferenced. It reports on analysis of his work; importance of his work, effects and causes of his work. We need references for each instance where such connections, analysis, and interpretations are made.
That should give you a start to improve the article. Honestly, I don't know why the custodians of this article are so dead set against making it better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Jayron32 for taking the time and trouble to comment seriously on the article. I have just a few comments and points of information to add.
    1. You glossed over the crucial word "preferably" in the GA guidelines. This is substantively different from the wording in the FA guidelines. Inline citation is not a requirement if there is clearly a source, in this case the biography by Joseph Dauben. I will add a citation early in the article to clarify this.
    2. The citation needed tags have mainly been added during this process. (I am not here questioning their validity, although equally this does not mean they are justified.)
    3. I am not one of the custodians of this article, but came here because have discovered that many editors of mathematics articles despair that the GA process is completely broken. This is a sad situation, and I hope it can be resolved.
    4. I am also certainly not against improving the article, and have added some further citations in response to this GAR.
    5. This article is not a failed FA. It is not seeking validation from the GA process. Indeed many editors are doubting that the GA process really provides any useful validation, and the fact that essentially all your comments concern citation will probably not help. I have had a related experience, in which I was amazed to find that a totally inadequate mathematics article had been promoted to GA with the only criticism being that it didn't have enough inline references. Subsequently, you will be pleased to hear, the article has been improved. But it seems to me that the GA process really misses the point if it is about ensuring that every i and every t is dotted in some of the featured article criteria (such as citation), instead of ensuring that a GA article is basically sound across the board.

Finally, I would just like to mention the scientific citation guidelines, just in case any reviewers here are not familiar with them, as it appears to be in some cases. Geometry guy 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mention in #5 that the GA we are trying to meet FA in some areas and not in others. To the contrary, the reason that GA and FA are identical in there stance on citing articles has to do with verifiability; a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is unique in its place as a reference work as it is freely editable. When the encyclopedia presents a piece of scholarship, it must be transparent in the way that it arrives at that scholarship. Look, if I take a magic marker and add nonsense, even well written nonsense, to a print encyclopedia, susch nonsense can be ignored; it is plainly wrong. However, anyone can add a piece of information to a wikipedia article. If all information added can be checked against a source, wrong information can be countered and corrected easily. Without such assurances, an article lacks specific verifiability that makes it trustworthy. To sacrifice this transparency for any other reason is unacceptable. This isn't a GA issue. This isn't an FA issue. It's a wikipedia issue. ALL articles should be held to these standards of referencing. The fact that many articles are not there does not excuse the rest.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA are not identical in their stance on citing articles: see #1. WP:V states that there should be a reliable source for any material which is challenged or likely to be challenged. It does not specify that the source must be provided by an inline citation. Furthermore likely to be challenged is a subjective criterion: common sense would suggest that it be applied less stringently at the GA level than the FA level. I am disappointed with the rest of your comment: WP:V is not in dispute, only its misuse to support inline citation of every nontrivial statement, so a rhetorical lecture on its purpose is unnecessary at this point. Geometry guy 17:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the objection to improving the article? That is all I want to know.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, in case you haven't noticed, it is being improved. I even made half a dozen edits myself, even though I am not usually interested in working on biographical maths articles. Geometry guy 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you firmly believe in the validity of scientific citation guidelines, I feel you'd be better served in requesting via the GA criteria page that this info regarding these particular guidelines be added to criterion 2. b. (the GA citation guideline). At least then if consensus is on your side, it will give your argument more footing. Up to you though. LuciferMorgan 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that footnote [2] of WP:WIAGA (which is cited under criterion 2. b.) already addresses this point. (Note also that WP:SCG is as much a guideline as WP:CITE; neither is a policy.) Geometry guy 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been so much hubbub over this article, i'll be more specific in my criticism of errors in the Set Theory section:

Thank you for a serious effort to comment on this article, which is worthy of some specific comments interleaved below. Geometry guy 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  "Cantor's 1874 paper, "On a Characteristic Property of All Real Algebraic Numbers", marks the birth of set theory." Usage of personification here is flowery.
    The language should certainly be improved, and this would certainly be an issue at FAC, but the statement is basically correct, and I fail to see why this is issue here. Anyway, it is easily fixed by anyone.
    • I'm not saying the statement is wrong, i'm saying that it isn't written encyclopedically. I could try to fix it by replacing it with some other term of course, but mathematics isn't really my thing, and what happens if there's some more correct way of saying this that i'm not aware of? Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, when I last checked, this project was a wiki. Anyone can edit any article right? Now why does this work? Well, because any mistake or bad edit is easily fixed. If there is some more correct way of saying it, then someone will either revert your edit or (better, and it is the norm in a relatively calm area of the project like mathematics) improve it. Because this is a wiki, it has a different philosophy to normal life. The reason that this process is broken, in my opinion, is that it is at odds with the entire philosophy of Wikipedia, which should be a collaborative effort, not an adversarial court-room style battle. I am not at all against reviews and reviewers: there is an important job to do here, but the system at the moment is not delivering as much improvement of articles as it could, and is demoralizing dedicated editors in the process. It is not working because it operates in complain mode, not in "lets-try-to-fix-it" mode.
      I have a concrete proposal to make: no one can comment on an article at GAR (or similar procedure) until they have made at least five edits (however trivial) aimed at improving it (and by that, I mean textual edits, not adding tags). They are then of course, quite free to point out all the other defects in the article. This has several advantages: such a reviewer has shown willingness to make the article better; they will have invested something in the article; GAR will yield more improvements to articles; reviewers will be more familiar with the articles they review. As you point out below, such familiarity may reveal that an article is even worse than you first thought, and should be delisted, but that's fine: at least the review process has yielded concrete suggestions, rather than a lot of tags and vague complaints.
      Finally, thank you again for offering the article editors more than just tags in these detailed comments. It is just a pity that efforts like you have made here are not more frequent at GAR. Geometry guy 09:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on my experiences reviewing articles, I can safely say that if I had gone with my gut feelings on some problems i've seen in articles and changed things the way I thought they might supposed to be, I would of introduced many factual innacuracies through articles by not knowing the subject well enough. The idea of criticizing articles without being mandated to actually try and change things yourself is practiced widely at WP:PR and WP:FAC, both of which are more established than GA. And who knows, some of my criticisms may simply be flat out wrong, so that if I actually tried to change anything, I would only make the article worse. Having someone review an article and identify problems is collaborative, that's what Peer Reviews are all about for one thing, uninvolved editors are often much better at examining an article than someone who has been editing it for a very long time, this is a well-established principle throughout English in general as well, when people write something and are too familiar with what they've written, its harder to look back on it and identify errors. Like I said below, if someone corrects even just most of the things i've identified, i'll keep reviewing the article, and eventually, it will probably be up to GA standards. (Though I haven't addressed the WP:SCG concerns yet, i've found that referencing issues are often much harder to fix than other things, but i'd still be willing to help) Homestarmy 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  "Previously, all infinite collections had been (silently) assumed to be of "the same size"; Cantor was the first to show that there was more than one kind of infinity." "Silently"? If they were truly silently assumed, how did anyone know that the assumption was going on? When Cantor's paper was published, did a bunch of mathematicians come out of the closet and declare they were secretly assuming that infinite sets were the same size all along?
    This is a standard synonym for implicitly in this context, and should proabably be replaced for clarity. Again a trivial issue.
  •  "He then proved that the real numbers were not denumerable, employing a proof more complex than the remarkably elegant and justly celebrated diagonal argument he first set out in 1891" This is the sentence that clenched my earlier vote. complexity, elegancy, remarkability, and the justice of celebrating something are all relative, and this sentence is a claim of absolute fact, just because there's a cite at the end doesn't mean the article can proclaim what's in the cite to be true.
    If this clinched your earlier vote, then it suggests flaws in the GAR process, because the sentiments of this sentence are widely agreed, and are supported by the references. All truth is relative (see e.g. Carroll's paradox).
    • I saw the start of the Set Theory section go from bad to worse, so I assumed that it wasn't going to suddenly become amazingly brilliant down the line, and now that i've reviewed it more precisely, I can see my assumption was correct. All truth is relative is a truth statement itself, and is one which I do not agree with. Remarkably elegant according to whom? Justly celebrated according to whom? More complex according to whom? Even if this isn't an NPOV violation, the text does not say who believes these things, and having a citation at the end of the sentence isn't the same as explicitly stating who agrees with these statements. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  "Since Cantor had just shown that the real numbers were not denumerable and that the union of two denumerable sets must be denumerable, it logically follows from the fact that a real number is either algebraic or transcendental that the transcendentals must be nondenumerable." This sentence seems to be ugly gramatically, I think that "from the fact...algebraic or transcendetal" is a parenthetical expression, but I had to really look at this sentence hard to figure that out, set it apart with comma's and introduce the expression correctly, such as "it logically follows, due to the fact that....is either algebraic or transcendetal,....", unless this is supposed to mean something else, which it might depending on how this parenthetical error could be fixed, but not being a mathematician well acquainted with set theory, I don't want to go guessing.
    Commas would certainly help you to parse this sentence: why not add them, and see if someone disagrees rather than complain about it?
    • As I said here, there is a possibility with many grammar mistakes that there is more than one logical way to fix something, not being well acquainted with this article, I can't be sure that the way I would fix this sentence actually results in the article being correct. For all I know, the error may of been caused by some vandal deleting part of the sentence. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transcendentals have the same "power" (see below) as the reals, and "almost all" real numbers must be transcendental." Self-reference bad, though its not a GA problem, but I don't understand why "almost all" is in quotations, emphasising this isn't necessary if that's what its for.
  •  "In an 1877 letter to Dedekind, Cantor proved a far stronger result:....." "Stronger"? Word choice not neutral.
    It has a standard meaning in mathematics: result A is stronger than result B if B can immediately be deduced from A.
    • Is there a Wikipedia article for this mathematical meaning of strong that could be wikilinked to? To the non-mathematical layman such as myself, it looks like an NPOV violation at face value. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  "This astonishing result has implications for geometry and the notion of dimension." I'm certainly not astonished, and Wikipedia trying to convince me that it is astonishing isn't changing my mind one bit. If it has implications for gemotry and the notions of what dimensions are, the article should be able to demonstrate it, and a reader can then make their own mind up about whether the result in question is truly astonishing or not.
    You are not being asked to be astonished. You are being asked to appreciate that experts at the time found it astonishing. This could certainly be rephrased, but why not rephrase it instead of complaining?
    • True, i'm not being asked to be astonished, astonishment is being demanded of me by Wikipedia in this sentence, by simply stating as absolute, incontrovertiable fact that the result in question is astonishing. And what happens if I don't want to appreciate the experts, but rather, to know what they had to say? Encyclopedias are supposed to give knowladge, not garner support for the public to appreciate people. I could of rephrased the sentence, but since it doesn't actually link to any articles based off of set theory or provide any referencing for its claim, I would of been more inclined to delete this sentence than rephrase it, if I had to of made a choice. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Fixed"By agreeing to publish these articles, the editor displayed courage, because of the growing opposition to Cantor's ideas, led by Kronecker." Now it just sounds like a short story on the brave adventures of Georg Cantor and his wonderful Set Theory, rather than an encyclopedia article. I really don't see how this sentence is encyclopedic in any way.
    Good, so change it. Does a non-encyclopedic sentence prevent an article from being a good article?
    • Although I don't see this sentence as having any value, editors such as yourself who are more familiar with this article may of disagreed with me, I can't read minds, for example, in the Michal Jackson GA/R which was recently archived, (The one up now is separate) I saw the large amount of quoting of his various awards in the lead as useless, yet main editors of the article disagreed, and do not seem to like the idea of changing the lead any time soon. If I had tried to change it, I do not think my changes would of lasted very long.Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Fixed"For Kronecker, Cantor's hierarchy of infinities was inadmissible." inadmissable as what, proof of Cantor's papers on Set Theory?
    Unacceptable might be a better word. This is surely in the main sources for the article.
    • I didn't really care much about whether it was referenced explicitly here, my main concern is that inadmissable was unclear and left unanswered questions, as does unacceptable, why was it unacceptable? Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  "The fifth paper in this series, "Foundations of a General Theory of Aggregates", published in 1883, was the most important of the six...." Most important according to whom? I certainly hope not Wikipedia....
    Generally recognised. There are references in the text. This could certainly be clarified, but I fail to see an insurmountable issue.

Do I need to go on here? I didn't even finish the Set Theory section. Homestarmy 23:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did you find a substantial objection. I appreciate that you made an effort to make complaints that went beyond a lack a citations and this motivated me to respond in some detail. But why can't editors devote more energy trying to fix problems with articles instead of trying to delist them?
My problem here is not about this article, which has plenty of flaws, but about this process. I can just about understand the complaining approach for an FAC, because there is usually then a dedicated nominator and other editors who fix the complaints of reviewers, but this methodology just doesn't work for GAR. If you have a problem with the article, try to fix it before you complain about it. I don't have a particular attachment to this article and do not have time or a strong desire to improve it. I have other things to do. I ask you to consider whether this process is making the best use of your time as well. Geometry guy 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to go even farther in my critique? A whole bunch of small problems in articles add up to one big problem of not meeting GA standards, (I have done this style of review three times before now, the American Civil War GA/R which is in a recent archive, Abortion-Breast Cancer hypothesis, and recently LGAT, and all of the articles had similar wording problems multiple times like what i've highlighted here, yet all of these articles seem better from my critiques) and i'm sure if I spent even more time on this article, it would simply become more and more evident that this is not a Good Article at all. It's never the one thing that does it unless its a Fair Use problem or BLP violation, (bad writing is one thing, but an article literally breaking the law is pretty terrible no matter how many times its done) but when the problems in articles start stacking upwards and outwards, I start becoming more and more skeptical of saying that an article does indeed meet GA standards overall. Homestarmy 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a user who has access to the appropriate literature has decided to fix the problems that you have outlined here, so I recommend holding off until he is done with his edits. It is good that he has the time and energy left to do so. I am sorry to say that I leave this process jaded, drained, and unhappy with the current state of affairs. For many others within the mathematics community, these recent events (Bertrand Russell on notice for 1 hour and 19 minutes before demotion and of course this GA/R) have only confirmed the serious doubts they had about this process. It seems GA and FA are rapidly becoming the same thing in terms of requirements. However, the two ratings systems will never be the same in terms of prestige, leading one to wonder if the GA process isn't simply an exercise in futility.--Cronholm144 03:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody actually goes and fixes at least most of the problems i've listed here, i'll keep reviewing the article more if someone wants it. Homestarmy 05:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sinply unbothered by the mathematics community since recent events seem to indicate it thinks it's special and exempt from the citation criteria, when in fact all the other Projects have had to cite their articles in order to become GA. While the mathematics community has doubts about GAR, I have doubts about their desire to improve the quality of maths articles on Wikipedia at large. Every GA/R or FAR they become involved in usually descends into a citation dispute. LuciferMorgan 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, uh.. I'm kinda working on it a little. I dunno when I can get that book from the library; perhaps tomorrow, perhaps the next day (?).. Will try to do some ce tonight. Have already fixed several of the issues Homey brought up. later Ling.Nut 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meant to say 2b. Basically, I meant citations are still needed the early life section is unreferenced and there a lot of other passages that are unreferenced. Aaron Bowen 03:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article now had 13 inlines and all of the MoS and NPOV issues have been addressed by Ling.Nut. Ling will get the book soon and finish soon, but even as it stands now the issues that caused this review have been addressed so I see no reason to continue seeking to delist it.--Cronholm144 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been an interesting experience. I came to this page, neither as a supporter nor a delister of this article. I hadn't even read the article before. On reading it, however, I found on the one hand that it was impressive in the depth and thoroughness of its content, but on the other hand, had many deficiencies in its presentation. I am therefore not surprised that it came to be listed here. There is a source for all of this article (mostly it is taken from the biography by Dauben) but this was not made sufficiently clear to the reader in the article at the time.
Instead I came here because of a widespread perception that GA/R is broken, at least for technical articles, and I wanted to see what was going on for myself. The goal of the GA system is to set a minimum standard of content and form for good articles. However, the perception among many editors is that:
  • those who regularly participate in GA/R are not qualified to judge content, particularly for technical articles, and so the focus is on form;
  • standards for form (particularly inline citation) are now being set unrealistically high, whereas bad content is being passed.
Editors here must surely be aware that because of these concerns there are pressures on this project to change its name to something more neutral, such as Wikipedia:Well sourced and presented articles (many alternatives have been suggested, but you get the idea). At the same time, editors who have formulated the criteria for Good Articles are frustrated that reviewers are not applying them, but are instead treating GA as mini-FA and applying similar standards (but only for form, not content) to GA articles as they do to FA articles.
I would not be against moving this project to a more appropriate title. I think it deserves a chance to retain its role as a Wikipedia-wide quality assurance benchmark, and I would be sorry to see WikiProjects withdrawing from the process because it is currently failing them. But I also wanted to know if the Good Article procedures had something to offer for articles like this.
In studying this process and also related talk pages, it seems to me that GA/R is currently overloaded, so that reviewers are not in general able to take sufficient time to look at articles and point out concrete deficiencies. I have tried to suggest concrete ways to reduce the burden on this process, and make the procedures more lightweight. In brief, I think that GA/R should be a last resort, and should be a purely procedural forum: delisting, like listing, should be in the hands of individuals. To compensate, some requirements of competency should be place on these individuals.
Anyway, this is just one attempt to save this process from being abandoned by many parts of the project.
Returning now to this article (please ignore my aside if you are not interested), the initial discussion was rather disappointing. Yes, this article needed improvement, but it is not going to happen if it is delisted "per 1c and MoS". Instead, the few editors who were once interested in the article will abandon it, and it will ever remain inadequate.
Consequently, I did not say "keep", but asked the editors to make more concrete suggestions. When they did, I made a few corrections myself, but was delighted when another editor, Ling.Nut, decided to improve the article. Thanks largely to the efforts of this editor, the article now cites sources in appropriate places. Most of these cites are, not surprisingly, to Dauben, but nevermind, these improvements make it easier for the reader to find the source. As a result of these improvements, I am now prepared to say Keep.
I urge those delisting editors to look again at the article, but even more to look again at the criteria for good articles, and reconsider your position. In particular those who believe that citation requirements for GA and FA are identical, please read WP:SCG, and also look at WP:GVF, which states
Featured articles are usually subject to greater scrutiny in regard to factual accuracy and verifiability.
Thank you. I'm just trying to make this process work better for technical articles. Geometry guy 22:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article is much improving, and pending the resolution of one [citation needed] tag, I am prepared to change my vote soon. It's in the Paradoxes section, and paraphrases the opinions of unidentified people ("Some also question..."), and thus needs to cite who is saying it. I personally would like to see more inline citations, but begrudgingly I must note that the uncited sections are largely uncontroversial, and the article complies with SCG (pending the fix of that uncited opinion). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found and fixed the last fly in the Cantorian ointment (see immediately above). Thanks! Ling.Nut 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus check

In light of the length of this discussion, all the recent changes, and the many vote retractions, below this header, we need to simply focus the discussion to the salient point at hand. What is your response to this question: Does the article Georg Cantor, in the state it is currently in, meet all the criteria as spelled out in WP:WIAGA? If you wish to answer this question, please do so below. If you wish to leave other comments, please do so in the above section. (Note: There is no GA criteria 1c, so please don't use that as part of the basis for your vote.)

  • Keep per above reasoning. This is not Featured Article review. — Deckiller 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was going to look for more problems after most of what I identified was fixed, and after removing one unecessary word, it seems to me that there are now more than enough citations in enough sections to mostly meet WP:SCG, and I don't see any more POV problems. Oh, but one thing I would try to do for the future is find a logical way to divide the Set Theory section into two or more smaller sections, that one big section is pretty long.Homestarmy 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is fully compliant with SCG referencing requirements, and all apparent fixes have been made. I change my vote to full support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All issues that I noted seemed to have been addressed along with the issues noted by others. --LaraLoveT/C 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Citations have now been added, but the poor way in which the Maths Project has treated GA/R is deplorable and shame on them as far as I am concerned. LuciferMorgan 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment. I thank Ling. Nut for his readthrough of Dauben; a useful service to Wikipedia. A comparison suggests that there are at most three uncited assertions he did not find there, and of those I believe all are sourceable to Bell. At least one (Halle's relative lack of stature among mathematics departments) I believe to be both true and easily sourceable; but it is not vital, and just as well out. Any reader who wished, in the interim, to verify the rest of the article would have gone to Dauben and consulted the index; in order to verify now, he must still find Dauben, but he has a page, or a range of pages, to look at. This is characteristic of articles written chiefly out of a single source, as many (including this one) really must be; the difference is not earthshaking - it certainly is not WP:V compliance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is now formatted better, with better referencing and reads as being better-researched. (more specific, and a longer bibliography ;) ) Well done all those who worked quickly on the article and did the research to improve it.-Malkinann 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_review/Archive_20&oldid=1136091265"