Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 1

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 2

Good article review (archive)

Vivien Leigh

This is a damn good article, should be good article...I'm not sure why it isn't....... 08:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's not a good article is because it's already feautured. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 08:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thank's very much. Missed that. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure if its proper to ask this of general mathematical-type articles, and this one was recently promoted, but it doesn't seem to have a single reference at all. This seems suspicious to me. Homestarmy 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA tag was added on 18 February - possibly that was before we instituted the nomination system. I've removed it and left a note on the talk page. Worldtraveller 18:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem Renaissance

Part of the article is blatantly plagiarized. For example:

from http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566483/Harlem_Renaissance.html:

No common literary style or political ideology defined the Harlem Renaissance. What united participants was their sense of taking part in a common endeavor and their commitment to giving artistic expression to the African American experience. Some common themes existed, such as an interest in the roots of the 20th-century African American experience in Africa and the American South, and a strong sense of racial pride and desire for social and political equality...

From the Wikipedia article:

No common literary style, artistic style or political ideology defined the Harlem Renaissance. What united participants was their sense of taking part in a common endeavor and their commitment to giving artistic expression to the African-American experience. Some common themes existed, such as an interest in the roots of the 20th-century African-American experience in Africa and the American South, and a strong sense of racial pride and desire for social and political equality...

... and it continues.

Agreed, I removed it from the GA list. Tarret 02:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate (device)

This article was removed by Armedblowfish because he interpreted the citations for events in various episodes of the Stargate series to be citations for the Wikipedia articles about the episodes, and therefore not valid citations since Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to reference other Wikipedia articles. As one of the people who has added a lot of episode citations to Stargate-related articles, I can assure that this is not the case. The links to Wikipedia articles are in the citations purely as a convenience since one can't hyperlink from a web page to a DVD. Those citations are referencing the episodes themselves as primary sources. This has also been discussed at Talk:Stargate (device)#Why I delisted this from Good Articles - Verification and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate#Important - Referencing. Bryan 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you could link to a site that sold the DVD, or include bibliographical information regarding the DVD, which would be more of a citation of the DVD. The current citations include a link the the Wikipedia article, and no mention of a DVD. At the time of my complaint, very few of the episode articles had external links or references themsleves. However, adding bibliographical information on the DVDs this is hardly worth the effort, in my opinion, when there are more useful things on the internet to link to, such as transcripts, summaries, reviews, episodes guides, etc.

The status of fixing my objections is that I'm currently adding external links (including transcripts) to all of the Stargate SG-1 Articles. I'm currently in the Ts (alphabetically), and StargateWiki (my main transcript site) is down. If they don't come up soon, I'll continue and use Moon-catching instead. After finishing those, I'll add links to the transcripts from this article in the references (or you can start adding links now, if you want to help), and then there will be no further objections regarding this article being a good article by me. Armedblowfish 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin D. Roosevelt

I TWICE removed this article from the Good Articles list, per the de-listing rules I read indicating that it is subject to VETO and it should be explained on the article's talk page--which I did. The article does not have neutral POV, as there are nazi-like censors running around adding and removing text to put FDR in as glamorous a light as possible. Notice that I made ZERO (0) edits to the article. I merely de-listed it as I was given to believe is proper. I also commented it, so it wasn't removed inexplicably.

Well, according to Godwin's law, the censors just won :/. But seriously, if this is a content dispute that means its unstable, but if its just some coordinated vandalism, can you show us some diffs? I think I tried to view the history but it was very slow and I don't think I could get it to load :/. Homestarmy 12:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who did not sign: where precisely does it fail NPOV? Absent specifics your accusation is without justification. Given that negative aspects are mentioned as well as positive ones, it seems that your assertion that "nazi-like censors running around adding and removing text to put FDR in as glamorous a light as possible," is, (aside from being an NPA vio) spurious at best. Jim62sch 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2-6-0

I was just browsing good articles for a model "good article" and came across this which I am really not convinced is a good article. It seems to have been made a good article by its creator. Other similar articles 2-8-0, 4-2-0 and 6-2-0 seem to be similarly listed as good article without having particular merit. However, I know next to nothing about trains. Perhaps this is all that could be said about these classes of train? --Richard Clegg 17:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they were added in the early days before we introduced the nomination system. I think they're good - they are definitely referenced and illustrated, and they're comprehensible to the non-specialist. They are all short but length is not a criterion for GA status. Broadness of coverage may be a concern though - what is not explained in most cases is the advantages and disadvantages of the wheel configuration, which I would think would be a major facet of the topic. Worldtraveller 09:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design

This article seems much more like a thesis on evolution than an encyclopedia entry. The main points of the theory are introduced and immediately after each, "counter-evidence" or "refutation" is presented. Perhaps a "Criticiism" section would be appropriate as to present both sides of the argument, but the attacking manner in which the current article is written is NOT appropriate. The article does not explain the theory from an unbiased, objective perspective.

On a personal note (though, most would disagree with me), it would be best NOT to have an "Intelligent Design" article at all; most people do not know enough about what it is, or have too many misconceptions about it to write on it with any authority. But then again, that's one of the drawbacks you get with a Wiki. I believe the best step would be to invite some experts on the theory to contribute to the article, but I highly doubt this would be probable.

I would fix it myself, but the problem is prominent throughout the WHOLE article, and I simply do not have the time.

Neil Young

Although the first half of the article is acceptable, the later half is has turned into a fanzine, with frequent but rather poorly written updates of what Neil plans to do next. Sometimes fascinating stuff but clearly not appropriate to a good article. I would say everything from the Back to country roots section on down should be rewritten in a factual manner that does not provide free advertising for almost anyone who ever shook hands with Neil. I would delist it myself, but I invested a lot of time rewriting the entire article as well as protecting it from vandals. Unfortuanately, however, I have reached the point where it is time to walk away, so I have listed it here. Spventi 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta, Georgia

There are quite a few problems with this article. It's not that it's bad or inaccurate, but it is clearly in need of some cleaning up. Take, for instance, the last two sentences of the Government section: "Under now Mayor Deke Copenhaver the city of Augusta is no long racially divided. By the year 2010 the city of Augusta is aiming to have one the top government in the Southeastern United States." It's nonsensical and sounds a bit POV.

It's a good article, but I'm not sure it's a Good Article. Where are its references, for a start? Metamagician3000 09:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A clean-up and copy-edit would be relatively simple, so if that would solve the problem then I'd be happy to wait a little while. However, the total lack of references will not be solvable so easily. My recommendation would be to put a warning on the talk page that if no references arrive within the next week, say, GA status will be removed. Alternatively, we could be cruel to be kind and delist it now?TheGrappler 09:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cystic fibrosis

This is a nice article but I don't think it meets the standards of a 'good article.' Right off the bat, is it well written? No, it's inconsistent in it's writing style. It's far too technical in some areas of the article. It is factually accurate? Yes, but the references need to be double checked and reworked, they're a mess. It is broad in its coverage? Yes and No, There are areas that are broadly covered but there are still areas of this disease that are not covered or are lacking in detail or just need to be rewritten. It adheres to the neutral point of view policy? Yes, from what I can see this is the only criteria of the good article status that it meets fully. It is stable? Yes, but it's almost a stagnate article. Being voted a Medicine Collaboration of the Week article did add a bit to it, but didn't expand the article nearly as much as it needs to be. It contains images to illustrate it? Yes, but more are needed. The items that this article needs can be found here [1], and even then this isn't a full and complete list. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl disaster

Perhaps it is the recent 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster that has seen massive editing on this page (That was the reason I looked it up) but I feel that the article no longer meets the criteria on multiple points. The article is no longer well written. There is a link from the subtitle 'The effects of the disaster' to another page for that subject but the debate on the effects still continues far down the original page. This leaves the coverage of the effects split over two pages leaving contributors to either update both or, as it is at present, update one leaving two different articles for teh same topic.

From that subtitle down I believe that the article rapidly goes downhill. I believe that it breaches the NPOV rule in that undue emphasis is placed on reports from one side of the debate (I'll let you decide) and arguments against the other side. There are studies cited which are not studies but little more than random phrases taken from foreign language news reports and the page is no longer stable with over 200 edits in five days. I have suggested a standardised way of presenting reports on the discussions page and await a reply. Could someone take a look and see if my concerns are justified BRT01 04:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although some areas of this article get better and better, some are missing or somewhat misleading Natmaka 08:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am delisting the article BRT01 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy have been delisted by User:Raphael1 on the grounds that it is not stable. This is no longer true unless of course Raphael1 singlehandedly will start another editwar to prove his point. I think it is unreasonable that a single partial editor in that way can block an otherwise clearly good article from becomming accepted as one. --Anjoe 11:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also so that Raphael1 is a former major contributor to editing wars by contributing viewpoints build on false information. His main objection seems to be the cartoons themselves, but the cartoons are not a point of view, they are the fact the article discusses. MX44 11:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I'd like to say, that I haven't been involved in yesterdays edit-war about the cartoon display. The article has just been unprotected a few hours ago and has been protected many times before, because there are many editors, who do not agree, that the cartoon image gets displayed. Apart from regular islamophobic slurs [2][3][4], which doesn't make the article stable either, here's a list of edits, which should prove my point:

All of those edits have been within just a week. I'm sure, I missed a couple. Raphael1 13:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and which is also obvious, those vandalizing edits are reverted witin a minute or so. Your point is to reward the vandals? MX44 13:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAND explicitly says that repeated reversions against consensus is not vandalism (see here, bullying and stubbornness). Raphael1 13:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There is no consensus that Muslims are pigs and no consensus that the cartoons are not the subject of the article. If you want to contribute to an article not about the cartoons there is plenty to choose from. Get real! MX44 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the cartoons from the article is not vandalism, even if there allegedly is a consensus the cartoons should stay. (see also WP:NBD) Raphael1 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest contribution explained that one of the cartoons indicated that Muhammad would reward suicide bombers with sexual favours. The actual cartoon says that he won't! Because of your misinformation jihad, the cartoons must stay so that people can see for themselves that you are talking out of an unusual place! MX44 14:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above mentioned changes are either simple vandalism (like the islamofobic ones) or the type of vandalism refered to as Blanking, which is defined as: "Removing all or significant parts of articles". It has by clear consensus been established that the pictures are significant for the article, - to remove them constitutes therefore vandalism. --Anjoe 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you like it or not, but obviously there is no consensus on the significance of the cartoons to the article. Maybe there's still a supermajority, but lots of removals of the image clearly show, that there are editors with a different POV. Raphael1 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, leaving that aside, is the thing a Good Article? It looks good to me - is there any reason not to simply promote it? William M. Connolley 19:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually nominated this twice before I think, it failed each time for stability, but as time has gone on im afraid there just isn't as much of a flood of vandals as there was before, and it always has seemed to me to of fulfilled every other qualification. I think it should be promoted. Homestarmy 22:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has made great progress, but the semi-protection is causing me to hesitate on this one. But, I don't think a few stubborn vandals should prevent this article from getting to good article status. Featured article status, however, is a different story. joturn e r 04:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody failed it again, and the issue as to whether the person has made signifigant contributions or not is up in the air :/. I don't understand how it could be said this article isn't referenced....The standards here call for references, not amazing ones. Homestarmy 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't failing because it's poorly referenced. The article is failing because some of its editors persist in confusing supermajority with consensus, and are far less concerned about finding a compromise position on the obviously controversial aspect of the article (the cartoons themselves) than they are in defending an ideological position (ie. that any deference to civility — eg. below-the-fold positioning, or special-purpose labelling — somehow constitutes censorship).  JEREMY 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the history doesn't seem to indicate severe edit wars, simply arguing on a talk page does not instability make. Homestarmy 15:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why to you think is the article is protected again? Raphael1 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a sec; I'll check to see whether anything has changed.  JEREMY 16:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.  JEREMY 16:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little addedum to these comments above is in order. Netscott 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was just vandalism, that's not really the same as content disputes, why should Wikipedia have to feel like it has to bow down to the will of vandalism and not acknowadge good looking efforts just because of a little anon action? Homestarmy 22:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VANDAL. Raphael1 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute implies multiple parties, I don't know many vandals which take (insert random obscene gibberish here) to the talk page. I don't see anything in there about bowing down to the will of vandals and not marking deserving pages with status either :/. Homestarmy 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't found the 64 KB Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display page yet, have you? Raphael1 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page seems pretty died down. Besides, all of the arguments for censoring the images were pretty much blown to bits months ago, i'd know, I was there. Homestarmy 12:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, that you haven't read the discussion at all. 1. The discussion hasn't been about censoring the image for a long time. Instead the discussion has been about linkimaging the cartoons. 2. Contrary to what you stated, all of the arguments for directly showing the images were pretty much blown to bits. Raphael1 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then if I haven't read the discussion, why are you wasting time talking to me? That discussion was far too complicated and overblown to spend time telling people about all the details in something as simple as this atmosphere, if I have truly not read the discussion, talking to me should not be your concern. And the arguments for directly showing the image seemed sound and inline with Wiki policies, the article concerns the pictures, and WP:NOT censored and all that. As I remember, the WP:NOT censored trumpet was the main argument being proposed, and as far as I remember nobody managed to show how saying "This image has been hidden to avoid offending our readers" didn't constitute censorship. But hey, GA isn't exactly a strict system, this whole thing really isn't worth edit warring over. Homestarmy 15:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT censored doesn't mean to show shock images or pornography on Wikipedia either. Raphael1 15:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoons are now on the same level as goatse? What times we live in.... Homestarmy 16:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are living in a globalized world full of cultural diversity, where your measure of disgust might not reflect those of others. Raphael1 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find goatse especially shocking (astounding, certainly). I do, however, find the idea that certain wikipedia editors seem to feel that it's a marvellous idea to display images directly responsible for hundreds of deaths as prominently and provocatively as possible (in order to defend a position on free speech) deeply shocking and saddening.  JEREMY 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well nobody would be doing it to "defend a position" if they wern't under attack in the first place. And I see no cultural or religious reason why Islamic countries should not feel disgust over photos of beastiality just as much, or perhaps even more, than western society does, which goatse is in its own little way. Personally, as long as the cartoons are in a relevant position in the article, then it's fine with me. Move them down to the description section, a highly appropriate place, then we can put a picture of one of those embassys which got fire bombed on the top to illustrate one of the more interesting reactions in the controversy. But as long as consensus is to keep them up top, then don't use Wikipedia, Pakistan has already taken steps to make sure nobody can see them by blacklisting Wikipedia from what i've heard. Homestarmy 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Strong Remove This is probably the most unstable article that exisists here on WP. Even the admins are in the heat of the war. Tobyk777 03:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity Users ScottRR (talk · contribs) (which was an impersonator of myself) and Wawwaw (talk · contribs) were sockpuppets of the indefinitely blocked user Vkasdg (talk · contribs) and I am nearly 100% sure that all of the IP addresses that made efforts to disruptively remove or otherwise change the display characteristics of the cartoons were the work of the puppetmaster Vkasdg (talk · contribs) and as such every single one of their edits should be utterly disregarded! Netscott 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vkasdg wouldn't have so many sockpuppets, if he wouldn't have been indefinite blocked for calling a self-proclaimed pedophile pedophile and for removing the cartoons, which is neither vandalism nor a reason for an indefinite block. Raphael1 04:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael1, you look really good defending an individual who stated "You're a fag with lots of free time." and "You won't block all of my proxies.", I suppose everyone will have to view your future edits with much more concern. Netscott 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two people for a fight, and I know that you can be snappy too. As I tried to tell you, all that proxies and sock puppets are a result of unjust blocks. Raphael1 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With your commentary it is very easy to lose respect for you as an editor Raphael1. And I thought you had integrity. Now I'm very doubtful. You falsely presented as evidence several edits done by supposedly different editors as proof that this article shouldn't be listed as Good and now you're defending the vandalistic (blanking) and disruptive editor despite his usage of open proxies and commission of personal attacks. Where is your character? Netscott 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I reported the edits, I couldn't have known that ScottRR and Wawwaw are suckpuppets of Vkasdg, since you've marked them as such two days later. Raphael1 15:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point, the point is that now you know better and yet you are still defending such a disruptive editor. Please show some integrity and avoid supporting such behavior unbecoming of Wikipedia. Netscott 15:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am defending that editor, because I feel, that his indefinite block has been unjust and therefore pushed him to the behaviour he has shown ever since. Raphael1 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well it is now apparent that I was entirely correct in submitting your name for WP:RCU relative to those abusive and disruptive sockpuppets. Based upon your comments here I suspect that will not be the last time that a CheckUser is performed on your account relative to disruptive editing here on Wikipedia. Netscott 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can file as many RCUs you like. I don't need any sockpuppets, since I always try to play by the rules, even if it seems they get changed or reinterpreted to push an islamophobic agenda. Raphael1 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like the GA system is important now, our first major fight over a really contentious article :D. Homestarmy 12:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Raphael1 delisted it again! Whee! Kyaa the Catlord 13:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets all just try not to edit war so much over it, I mean, this isn't exactly the most legalistic of systems on Wikipedia. Homestarmy 13:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Raphael1 delisted it (AGAIN), I request a review of the article by a neutral party. If you have not contributed to the article and could take the time, those who have contributed to the article would appreciate the honor of an impartial review. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My impartial opinion is that the article is not suitable for listing here. At 73kb it is far too long. An article that long cannot realistically be well assessed by one user, and you should seek peer review and put it through the FAC process if you want good quality wider input. GA is supposed to recognise excellent content that is inherently unlikely to make it through FAC and as I see no reason why a neutral, well written, concise and well referenced article on this topic shouldn't make it through FAC I think this falls outside the scope of GA. Worldtraveller 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood some things. It is necessary for an article to get a GA badge that it must be inherently unlikely to make it through FA. On the contrary, I've seen at least one article which I reviewed for GA - Hong Kong action cinema - successfully make it through FA a bit later. Also, there's no reason why a reviewer can't review a long article. That would rule out many good articles from this process. I have reviewed very long articles for GA, and a long article on which I was a main contributor has recently been given GA status. Metamagician3000 09:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never contributed to the article and had not previously read it. I have some knowledge of the controversy from being an avid newspaper reader, and having been in the U.K. at the time it broke. So here are my thoughts: 1) it reads as NPOV, 2) it is broad in coverage (if anything veering to the side of being too broad), 3) it is generally well-written, 4) it contains images [an image of the cartoons seems necessary to meet this criteria given that cartoons are inherently images, and an effectively thumbnail image is a good compromise between the western free-speech and Islamic no image POV perspectives], and 5) it is not stable - it is averaging over 2 edits per hour for the last 100 edits - which I can't call stable. There appear to be around 20 users participating (though I can't judge distinctness) in just the last 100 edits. Since it is not stable, it does not meed the good article criteria, so I didn't take the time to judge verifiability - with almost 100 refernces, I don't have time to judge if they meet the guidelines for reliable sources. GRBerry 17:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment on your opinion, that the thumbnail image is a good compromise. First the compromise is not between "freedom of speech" and "the islamic no image perspective". It is about "freedom of speech" vs. "opposing an incitement to hostility". Does WP want to be a platform for open hostility against a religion or not? Is WP a democracy which lets a majority legally defame a minority or does WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Etiquette also apply to a religious minority? The many editors, who removed the cartoons and are wrongly accused for vandalism, suggest, that the current "thumbnail" is not an accepted compromise. I'd rather have a linkimage compromise, where those who oppose the compromise are not offended by the article and if they put the image back, they could easily be blocked for disruption as WP:BP#Disruption explicitly states: "inserting material that may be defamatory" is called disruption and can result in a block. Raphael1 19:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory to whom? Muhammad has been dead for over 1,300 years. He is the only one conceivably defamed by the cartoons, while political cartoons of even living figures are not generally considered defamatory - particularly when they are presented because the article is about the cartoons and the resultant controversy.Timothy Usher 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't seem to conceive, that defaming ones prophet is defamatory to oneself, doesn't change the perceived defamation. Raphael1 12:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Perceived defamation" doesn't cut it.Timothy Usher 19:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the inline cartoon display has been discussed ad nauseam, for weeks and weeks. They are the subject of the article, and the present situation is backed by clear consensus. There is no reason to reiterate the above discussion yet another time. There may be other issues with the article that might merit a discussion here, such as it being way too long. I suggest people either discuss such on-topic points here. If the "display debate" is the only point brought forward, we should consider this "dispute" spurious and add back the GA tag. Personally, I would like to see the article cleaned up before it is added back, but I don't feel strongly enoght about it to remove its GA listing myself. dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think, that a straw poll conducted two months ago for a period of approximately 2 days can be seen as a forever binding consensus. Consensus is not achieved with a straw poll, instead it takes empathy, compromise and civility. There is no reason, why this discussion should be ostracised, since we've got all time in this world to discuss this issue to finally find a new consensus. Raphael1 12:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - I've reviewed the article and think it is still impressive. It does not look greatly different from last time I looked at it (for another purpose), if stability is supposed to be a problem. Also, I don't think it's appropriate that an article should be delisted by someone who is one of its active contributors, rather than someone a bit more independent. Nor do I think that this forum is an appropriate one to settle any content disputes. We are not here to judge the merits of content disputes. An article is either sufficiently stable or it isn't. My call is that this one is, though I respect the contrary view that there is an edit war going on. However, that seems more like one person objecting to an aspect of the article. I don't think that should disqualify an article. Metamagician3000 09:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain America

I think this is a great article, I've watched it grow, and there are several people working on that have really taken their time to make sure it that it continually improves. I really think this well cited, well organized article deserves to be a featured article. I've already added the {{GA}} tag, but I'd like others to review it and concur (or disagree!). (Bjorn Tipling 03:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

well, have you put it up for nomination yet? Homestarmy 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? (Bjorn Tipling 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

List the article in the proper category here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations Homestarmy 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville, Florida

Should be delisted due to ongoing revision war between cuchullain, katoabjv, and others using exclusionist tactics. This undermines an otherwise good article. people shouldn't let their petty gripes get in the way of edits.

I do see a possible edit war brewing in the article but nothing major yet, refrernces need to be fixed and I'm not a fan of the formatting in the article, clearly won't pass FA but still a good article. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Language

I fail to see how an article that should not even be included in the Section Ancient Germanic Languages can be regarded as a good article. It is offensive and culturally insensitive to even consider that it is genuine. Scots Gaelic is a dialect of Irish Gaelic. It is linked to the culture of the Scots people. Not Germanic people. Clearly a dialect of English is the most common language spoken in Scotland. Not good reasoning.

Global warming

When I studied climatology in university it was made patently clear to us that water vapor was the most significant contributor to the Greenhouse Effect. I can't remember the figure but it accounted for something like 80%-95% of the effect. It seems strange to me that the word "vapor" doesn't even appear in the article anywhere. Is this science by consensus?

See Talk:Global warming -- this is one of few Wikipedia articles that are not science by consensus, as we have an expert contributor. Jkelly 03:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the article is about global warming, not the greenhouse effect itself. The article notes that the vast majority of the greenhouse effect is "natural" and distinguishes this from global warming (i.e. the world is warmer than it would otherwise be, due to the greenhouse effect; the problem is whether it is now getting warmer still, due to changes in solar activity and/or human activity strengthening the greenhouse effect)- and it is at the greenhouse effect article (in this long series of articles) that water vapor is considered. Since water vapor is not considered to be a major cause of global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, there is no overwhelming reason to bring it up in this already crowded article. I endorse maintaining GA status. TheGrappler 16:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TheGrappler, even without reading the article. The Greenhouse enhancement by industrial emissions is the crux of the biscuit, so not mentioning water vapor would not be a complete emission, I mean omission. DavidH 05:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's definitely still a GA. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, expert here :-). There is no particular reason to mention WV in the GW article. But if you go to Greenhouse gas (which is linked high up in GW) its all explained there. William M. Connolley 19:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incest

No good reason to include "covert incest" at all in the article; too much reliance on emotional arguments to make a good encyclopaedia entry. 24.80.109.19 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been removed from the good article list by the nominator. Considerable agreement between editors exists on the talk page that the present article lacks adequate referencing, NPOV, correct definitions... I think we can consider this one settled. TheGrappler 18:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Vie en Rose (Gundam)

La Vie en Rose (Gundam) was nominated for a GA, but pulled as described here. When asked in comparison for the FA Spoo and explained that article would be better suited for GA status than FA status, remover replied likewise. Nominator now questioning if deletor has reasonably explained his deletion.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the explanation is fair enough: the criteria require articles on fictional work to step outside the frictional frame and consider, for instance, the process of authorship/creation and real-life impact. Spoo is a prime example of this - the GA rejection was not about the topic, it's about the content. There is no reason why La Vie en Rose can't reach good article status, so long as it addresses these concerns, and is on a good start (well-referenced etc), but it does need to step outside the fictional framework. User:Zzzzz did give some helpful links on writing about fiction, which will help getting this up to GA status, an example of excellent reviewing practice (a good decision, with specific, actionable reasons given, and assistance given on how to address those concerns). Does this help? TheGrappler 00:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the explaination offered by User:Zzzzz was fair. Please don't be discouraged, but if you do want the article to become a good article you will need to discuss the topic beyond the context of its fictional universe. Fictional topics are one of a number of topics that are inherently difficult to write about. Cedars 03:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polythiophene

The polythiophene article currently lacks link density and is therefore too technical for the average Wiki reader. This should be dealt with V8rik 17:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, I don't understand a word of it. --Manboobies 05:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded So much technical stuff, ouch :/ Homestarmy 16:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I don't mind that there is technichal stuff in the article, even though I do not understand it all. What I do mind is that the lead section is completely unreadable by a non-specialist, which goes against Wiki specification for lead sections. Is this thing a chemical element? A liquid? A solid? A molecule? A polymer? A magic potion? -- CommonGround 18:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be either a polymer or a monomer..... Homestarmy 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking

This article [5] has been removed from the main article [6] without any consensus or prior discussion as a complete whitewash and deliberate attempt at placing a favorable light on smoking and the creation of a positive POV or light. Passive smoking was also removed from the article [7] where it has since fallen into garbage. Proof of lack of prior discussion can be found here [8].

As such this article definately does not follow standards for a good article, specifically POV and should be removed from the good articles list.--Manboobies 05:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks impressive at a glance, but if there's a serious content dispute going on then it's unstable ... no need to look into it more deeply. Metamagician3000 12:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism

Zoroastrianism - recently tagged as {{good article}}, but should be reconsidered. The "Holy Book" section isn't factually accurate (see my comment in Talk), and there are a number of issues (like the dates of Zoroaster) which are referred to as "contested", and then don't cite sources. Also, IMO, an article on a religion needs professional review. -- Fullstop 16:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a dispute, it isn't stable, and thus isn't a GA. I've put up the DelistedGA tag, and am removing it from the list now. Fieari 08:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]