Wikipedia:Good article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WP:GA/D
WP:GA/R

The Good article review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if Good article listed articles still merits their good article status, contesting former GA's that someone may think was improperly delisted, or request feedback on articles that have not yet been promoted.

Articles on this list are graded against the good article criteria in which an article is checked to be at the GA-Class grade on the article assessment scale. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the article's status. This is not a Peer Review Process, for that see Wikipedia:Peer Review.

If you believe an article should be delisted

If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it:

  1. Check that you have logged in, anons may not delist articles.
  2. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet.
  3. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
  4. If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s). If possible, put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates.
  5. If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the criteria , you can delist it and remove it from the list at WP:GA immediately. To do this remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA|8 April 2007}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}.
  6. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
  7. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles.

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please check that you have logged in, notify the editors in the article's talk page that it is under review, and provide a link to the GA Review page before listing the article here.

If you believe an article should be listed

If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away.

  1. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page.
  2. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
  3. However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be re-listed as a Good Article.
Good article review (archive) (Latest) →


Contents


[edit] Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Include [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] in the section heading.

[edit] Gridley Bryant

Has zero inline citations and no article sections. Delist. LuciferMorgan 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Morrison Flagler

I'm nominating this for delisting since it has a "Trivia section", but first and foremost it contains no inline citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 21:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Phi Omega

Too few references, other issues such as solo linked years.Sumoeagle179 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niellim language

There's barely any text in this article; the text that is there is a series of one sentence paragraphs and sections. I realize that this is an obscure language, but no language's syntax can be summed up in one sentence. I see no evidence of it ever undergoing the nomination process. Teemu08 21:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Delist: Almost entirely devoid of substantial content, what is there is too listy. IvoShandor 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bench language

A bunch of one sentence paragragphs, the article consists almost entirely of examples, no citations at all. As far as I can tell, it was never nominated and passed. Teemu08 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amtrak

Too listy in sections, has whole paragraphs uncited and an external link farm. Delist LuciferMorgan 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist Teemu08 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Too many cn tags and needs some cleanup. --Nehrams2020 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I shucked one of the most listy sections off as Amtrak rolling stock and tried to de-emphasize another list. Hope that helps. Nonetheless, I support delisting as an incentive to improve the article. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Turns out that lists weren't what the good article criteria concerned; they fell under a separate editing criterion, Wikipedia:Featured lists, and, also, I may have improperly rendered a list concerning railroads joining Amtrak into prose. So far as "good article" status was concerned, the embedding of lists was noted as a practice to keep an eye on, though; however, lists are often worthy of inclusion in a good article. Stay tuned. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
While some lists have been removed, I still stand by all my nomination concerns and my vote. LuciferMorgan 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trans-Siberian Railway

Too listy in sections, has a trivia section and an external link farm. Delist. LuciferMorgan 11:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist Teemu08 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - too few references.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delist per all above. Sumoeagle179 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Champagne (wine region)

The objection I have to this article is that most of the information contained therin more properly belongs in a different article, that of Champagne (province). The wine region article should be delisted, split and merged into the province article, and renamed something like "Wine making in Champagne", then each article could be renominated for GA as appropriate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Well Wine making in Champagne would not be an appropriate title since the wine history of the region is a vital component to terroir of the region. I'm not sure how familiar Jayron is with wine but there is much more to the creation of wine then just "wine making" with the people, places and history each adding profound elements that make wine like Champagne truly different from any other sparkling wine. For reference, similar articles along this line would be Napa Valley (wine) and Languedoc wine.To that extent I do think Champagne (wine region) is the most appropriate title and place for this information. After looking over Dr. Cash's comment, I agreed with him that an article titled Champagne (province) should include more details on "the government and politics, demographics of the population, transportation, economy, sports team" etc like an article on a US state like Rhode Island or another French province like Lorraine (region). As the majority contributor to the wine related history and info, I agreed with him that the wine related history and info overwhelmed the provincial article so I went ahead and split the two and renominated the wine region to be evaluated on its own merit. I hope this clarifies things for you. AgneCheese/Wine 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, as an FYI, if sections such as the "Military history" are what caught your eye as maybe belonging better in Champagne (province), I will direct your attention to the citation references at the bottom. They are all from wine books since those elements of Champagne history has had a profound affect on the wine industry in that region. Every item in the Champagne (wine region) article is tied back into its influence on the wine. AgneCheese/Wine 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Last Supper (Leonardo)

This article has a few citations, but much of the article is uncited. "Legends and alternative theories" and "The Last Supper in culture" aren't mentioned in the lead and are mostly lists. Teemu08 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist External jumps, lead needs to be two paragraphs, Popular culture is a mess with one sentence paragraphs and about 2 references. M3tal H3ad 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Virtually no references, too "listy" in places, lead should be longer. Chrisfow 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Drama and film section doesn't seem referenced, along with the first two sections after the lead, altogether, I think that makes a non-well-referenced article. Homestarmy 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Stubby in many sections so reads too listy, and some other places need cites. LuciferMorgan 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delist per above.Sumoeagle179 21:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schuttern Gospels

Man, a lot of articles were warned about a lack of inline cites but haven't improved. This one was warned by The Bethling last September. Teemu08 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has exactly one reference. Every statement in the article came from that reference. I suppose that one could add a footnote after every sentence to that one reference, which would, in my mind, be a silly thing to do. I can understand that having only one reference may violate the GA criteria. I will note, however, that the reference in question is about as authoritative as will be found on this manuscript. Dsmdgold 03:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Retain This is a highly relevant case for Jayron32's comment on the Talk Page just now:

"BTW, inline citations are not strictly required. It is possible, for example, where a short, though comprehensive, article is written from one or two sources where inline citations become moot. However, I have checked the articles YOU nominated on GA/R, and I would agree that these need more inline citations. But the lack of inline citations should not ALWAYS be an "autofail" in all cases. Each article should be ajudged of its own merit as to the need for inline citations. They are USUALLY needed, in a great majority of cases, but not always."

- quite why he though this article on a single manuscript did not meet the case he describes I don't know. It is as clear an example as you could hope for in my view. Perhaps he could explain? Johnbod 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delist: The article can easily be converted to inline citations. With the sources in hand, it would take maybe a half hour? Also, I think the lead is not WP:LEAD compliant, at least on size issues. Finally, I see no discussion of why this particular codex is significant, leading me to wonder if it is notable. Let's ask these things be attended to and a new nom be made afterward. --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Delist: Let's not forget why footnotes (inline citations here) are used in academia - so that someone researching the subject or checking the claims can go back to the source they were taken from. I am looking at this article and thinking "which of those 'further reading' sources do I go to? Which bit of the article comes from each source? Inline citations and referencing are not a requirement of GA in order to annoy people and take up time - we are trying to create an encyclopedia here, one which can be used by people no matter what they may be using it for. Sticking inline citations in there and expanding the lead are just two things this article needs, and creating a damn good encyclopedia article should be the goal, not struggling to retail a little green cross on the talk page. Chrisfow 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
All the material is from the one source, as its creator stated above. As is the norm on WP, "Further reading" means the source has not been used directly. The reference heading could be changed to Source(s) to help the literal-minded I suppose. None of this article is by me btw, except I have updated categories. Johnbod 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not have "sources in hand" used in the "Further Reading" section. No library in my state has all of these sources. It would take weeks to months to get them via Inter Library Loan. All of which is irrelevant, since I did not use them to write the article. Every statement in the article (including the references listed in the further reading section) comes from the British Library Catalog. If I had used multiple sources, I could see an argument for in-line citations. Perhaps the lead does not meet the GA standards, but that is a different issue. As to notability, so far as I know, there is no expressed notability standard for manuscripts. However, I believe that any 1200 year old illuminated manuscript is notable. Dsmdgold 02:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
On notability, the references given show pretty clearly that this is a non-issue under the WP criteria. As Dmsgold said, any illuminated MS of that age will be notable. Johnbod 03:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delist due to lack of inline citations, as the article lacks verifiability. LuciferMorgan 11:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848)

Article was promoted way back in 2005 before the current nomination process. Warned by The Bethling last September about a lack of inline citations. Teemu08 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See comments above for Schuttern Gospels. Dsmdgold 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - same situation as Schuttern above. Johnbod 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Delist - see above. Chrisfow 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Delist - see above.Sumoeagle179 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delist: You have to be kidding me, keep? This article is so far from thorough I can see the holes from here. IvoShandor 23:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delist - I am echoing Ivo's sentiment, surely there's more to the subject than this? Gospel translations like this often have very signifigant historical background behind them. Homestarmy 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As the article says in line 2, it is a standard Vulgate text, which has its own article & was 400 years old by then. Johnbod 02:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I read "The Vulgate text..." Not merely "a Vulgate text....", which of course could apply to hundreds of things i'd think, but all this may be irrelevant, the only reference for the entire article appears to be linkdead. (At least, its broken for me right now) I really don't think an Encyclopedia article anywhere should derive all of its referencing from some catalog entry somewhere in the first place, but now that the link seems to be dead, the article is certainly not well-referenced. Homestarmy 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The link comes & goes - fortunately WP goes on forever (usually). The primary sources in all art history are "some catalog somewhere". It really is pointless dealing with you guys. Good luck with the rock bands, the anime & the non-notable mid-western courthouses. Johnbod 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, it's should have, would have etc, not should of, would of etc. Johnbod 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an art history article as I read it, its an article about a Vulgate Gospel manuscript. While I understand that the "Creative Arts" can apply to writing, because the subject matter is also very historical in nature, I don't think its too much to ask for more references than a single intermittently available catalog entry. And trying to throw me off by making up non-existant grammar mistakes isn't helping. (It is definently which of, hundreds of, and all of, and certainly not which have, hundreds have, and all have) Homestarmy 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I should have made myself clearer on the grammar. I was referring to these: [1],and two here [2] Johnbod 21:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that the only scholars that would be interested in this manuscript are art historians and paleographers. It is far too late to be of interest to anyone doing textual criticism for the history of the Vulgate, or the Bible. It does not have any marginalia, like the Book of Deer of interest to linguists or historians. What it does have is illuminations that are an early example of a significant school (School of Tours), within a major art historical movement (the Carolingian Renaissance); and a example of an important script (Carolingian minuscule). The cover is also of some interest as a relatively rare example a Carolingian treasure binding. (Most of them have not survived.) This is what makes this an art historical article. Those who have doubts about the viability of basing an encyclopedia article on a manuscript catalog, have not looked at a manuscript catalog. Catalog entries for manuscripts are always more full than they would be for a modern printed book. Some entries can be thousands of words long. I'm not sure what can be done about the screwiness of the link. It seems to me that it has to do with the internal workings of the BL database. Deep linking doesn't seem to work very well. I could put something like: "Go here. Set the collection dialog box to 'Additional Manuscripts'. Enter '11848' in the number dialog box and search. Click on 'show full description' link of the Add 11848 result on the result page." Although that would be a bit cumbersome, it would get someone to the entry every time. Dsmdgold 03:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, if this one catalog entry is basically it for everything important about this subject, then that's certainly something important to consider in terms of whether an article is well-referenced or not, and also something to consider about how long the article should probably be. But when people can't get to the link in question much of the time, its hard to figure out if just one reference will do it. If having those instructions is necessary, I don't think there's any rule against it, so go for it. Homestarmy 03:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The availability of the reference online should not be an issue here. It wouldn't be if it existed only in book form (I suppose this part of the Catalogue does exist in book form, but it would only be found in large university libraries, & would be pretty old, probably 19th C - the online version will be more up to date). It is what is called for books a descriptive catalogue, the equivalent of a Catalogue raisonné for paintings. A good example of such a catalogue will always be the preferred source for an article under WP:ATT (in WP terms it is a secondary source; I was using the terms in a looser non-WP sense calling it primary above). Johnbod 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Delist due to lack of inline citations. LuciferMorgan 11:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Still say delist, and choosing not to respond to the above due to my perception of an uncivil attitude towards the work of others. IvoShandor 14:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

There seem to be NPOV problems, such as this line: This raised concern as some perceived his actions as child endangerment, although Jackson has vehemently denied these tabloid rumours. media attention that is negative being stated as "tabloid rumours" seems a bit biased. Strong fox 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delist Lead is far too long, surely some/most of the stuff about his accomplishments can be better said somewhere else in the body of the article? It seems like a bunch of overkill with so much in the lead. Homestarmy 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delist The lead definitely could be trimmed, you could almost make a whole new section with the information there. There are also many citation needed tags throughout the article, and I'm sure other areas could also use some more inline citations as well. --Nehrams2020 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sears Catalog Home

Warned by The Bethling last September about inline citations. Also some bad prose (ie "And, not all of them became private residences."). Teemu08 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Music of Trinidad and Tobago

Warned by Agne last September about inline citations. Also heavy on redlinks and stubby sections. Teemu08 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] List of Oregon State University alumni

This was removed as a GA (which it has been for nearly a year now) simply because it is a list. While lists may not be accepted as GA's now, at the time they were accepted and this list has nothing but improved since being a GA. I don't feel this should be delisted simply because lists are no longer accepted to be reviewed as GA's. This isn't ready to be nominated as a featured list yet as there are too many redlinks and there are still a few entries without sources, but I do believe this still meets GA standards, even if it is a list. I'll also take this opportunity to ask for any improvements people think this list could use as to better be prepared for a featured list nomination. VegaDark 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'd actually send this to FL now or really soon imo. By the time this review's done it could be turned into FL quality.--Wizardman 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • endorse delisting Lists are not graded by Good Articles. That does not stop this article from being reviewed by other means (featured list or A-class). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • endorse delisting Per above, try Featured List. M3tal H3ad 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo

I simply cannot figure out why this article was removed. Could someone either enlighten me or return it to the list.24.20.175.87 09:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was delisting back in November of 2006, so the article was probably quite different back then, the delister's argument seemed to deal with the article being too listy I think. Homestarmy 15:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse delist: Aside from the listyness, which remains, the intro is filled with info that appears no where else in the text, thus it is a lacking summary. It also makes a POV assertion right off the bat: well-known console manufacturers. That's POV. The rest of the article did look messy. If this isn't reason enough I give the rest of the article a good go over, I am sure it fails a multitude of other criteria. IvoShandor 14:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse delist: One sentence paragraphs failing criteria one, inline references are external jumps, quite listy. M3tal H3ad 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delist Not enough sources--Sefringle 06:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delist, poor layout, few refs. Sumoeagle179 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sodium sulfate

The article, as developed by the Chemicals WikiProject has been GA and A-Class classified for a long time. It recently was GA-delisted for failing the in-line references technical requirement (not applicable at the time of the original GA-listing). This requirement has been taken care of, and the article was renominated for GA. The renominated failed because of the above mentioned arguments. In my perceptions, the requirements for GA are over-estimated by the GA-renomination auditor. This article in my humble opinion should very reasonably be considered GA-class or even A-Class, albeit not FA-Class yet. I recommend re-instating GA. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

This is problematic, i'd really think an article over a topic like this easily falls under the WP:SCG I mean come on, its a chemical compound. Homestarmy 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, actually, I think I might see the problem here. While the second section certainly seems complaint with the Scientific citations criterion, all the others seem left a bit high a dry.....also, in the lead, it might be better to talk about the element itself more in the very first sentence, instead of how much of it is produced, it just seems like a bit of an awkward way to start in my opinion. Homestarmy 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delist, no improvement that I can see on the two things I highlighted, article is not WP:SCG compliant, and the weird way to start the lead is still weird :/. Homestarmy 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist due to lack of verifiability. LuciferMorgan 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • None of the material seems in any way contravertial. However I agree a few more references need provided, they seem to vanish after the first section. This should be a GA with a little work, but for the moment Delist--ZincBelief 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Honestly, guys, the recommendation that a few more references would improve the article is of course true, but rather a weak argument for not assessing the article as GA. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Taoism

If this were a GAC, I would review it as such:

  1. Well-written. The lede is problematic. Instead of providing an overview, it is preoccupied with the debate over the classification and definition of Taoism. This appropriately belongs in the article, not the lede. The article immediately jumps into the history without providing a context; that is, failing to inform the reader what Taoism is first, so the historical events have meaning and importance. The beliefs section is especially problematic. A reader would not come away with an understanding of what Taoists believe. Overall, the writing is inconsistant in quality and often confusing.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable. The sections "Beliefs", "Deities", "Practices", "Taoist symbols and images" and "Relations with other religions and philosophies" are all poorly sourced. Overall, the article could use more citatations to support its claims and a wider pool of references. This is a widely studied and published topic, with many variant academic and mainstream viewpoints. Finding a strong variety of sources is necessary for beadth and NPOV.
  3. Broad in its coverage. This article mostly runs the bases, but lacks a discussion of the impact of Taoism on the West, nor on its cultural importance/impact throughout East Asia.
  4. NPOV. The state of the lead, which focuses so heavily on one issue instead of providing an overview, gives a reason to be concerned about POV issues.
  5. Stable. The article is reasonably stable.
  6. Use of images. Makes reasonable use of images. Could use a few more for the article length and/or perhaps a review of current images, with an eye towards the best compliment for the article.

This article needs a serious overhaul, especially in the lead, "Beliefs" and in overall structure and citation. I feel this article should be delisted. Vassyana 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • While there is plenty of room for improvement here, in general, I disagree with Vassyana's analysis, particularly his characterization of the introductory material as being "preoccupied with the debate over the classification and definition of Taoism." Rather, it serves as a more detailed "disamig" if you will, explaining that the term "Taoism" means different things to different people and helps avoid confusing readers (and potential editors). This is not an unusual approach for a scholarly work on Taoism to take, and it seems a reasonable approach here. And it is sensible to immediately direct people interested in Taoism as Chinese folk religion to the separate article where that information can be found. I do agree that the transition to the historical information could be a bit better. I disagree that this article would leave the reader without understanding of what Taoists believe. Vassyana should also note that with respect to "beliefs," the reader is directed to a separate article, Three Jewels of the Tao (and agree that article could use work). As for the citations, while there could be more inline citations, particularly in the "Relations with other religions and philosophies" section, I don't think this fault (if it qualifies as one) is enough to downgrade the article. Crypticfirefly 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't believe scholarly works are the correct yardstick for a lede. The correct yardstick is WP:LEDE. The beliefs sections only mentions wu wei in passing and never even touches upon "pu". I just don't understand how the beliefs section actually informs the reader on that topic when it doesn't even cover the basics. I also do not understand how a near complete lack of verifiability in multiple sections is questionable as a fault. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Then I guess we can just disagree. The introduction addresses context: "Chinese religious and philosophical traditions." It tells you why it is notable: it has existed a long time and is widely practiced (admittedly added by me after writing my earlier comment, but you could have added it as quickly and easily). Finally, it tells you about the controversy over how the topic should be approached. Could it be longer? Sure. Could it be better? Sure. But is it in conformity with WP:LEDE? I would argue yes. As for "near complete lack of verifiability"? I think you exaggerate. I see in-line citations (which are not required for a "good" article) and I see a long list of references for this article. Again, could there be more? Sure. But many of the facts referenced under three of the sections you mention have wikilinks that verify them, and there are endnotes for many others. Again, I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement, I just don't think it is quite as bad as you think it is. It looks as "good" to me as many other articles flagged "good." And I further urge you, if you think it needs work, to get hot. :-) That's what I intend to do. Crypticfirefly 01:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think we can agree to disagree without a problem. My opinion is just mine and anyone is always welcome to some salt with it. ;) I see you're already working on the article. I'll join you on that. I'm brainstorming on ideas. Be well! Vassyana 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Civil War

I am asking that this article be reviewed for the following reasons:
1. Historical inaccuracies are rife.
2. The article relies on one source (McPherson) for 39% of all references.
3. The article makes little to no use of some of the more established Civil War historians from the post war era using predominantly post 1960 authors.
4. The article makes little use of eyewitness accounts and official documentation of which there is an extensive amount.
5. Many of the comments are without reference.
6. The author/s have taken a heavily partisan point-of-view and not retained an objective stance on a highly debated and potentially sensitive subject; using their knowldege of the period solely to support their social opinions as opposed to providing a factual and comprehensive article on a period of history.
7. There are still grammatical errors.
8. The article has ommitted or glossed over key aspects of the conflict.
Spite & Malice 15:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose delisting After having reviewed the request for reconsideration, the Talk Page and the article itself, I have been unable to find support for the various charges against the article. Responding point by point:
1. Historical inaccuracies are rife.
No specifics are offered. This seems to be in reference to claims of an anti-Southern bias based largely on references to slavery as the primary factor leading to secession and the war. The scholarship is clear on this issue and there has been no attempt to introduce other sources that dispute this. The article references a separate article Timeline of events that notes the major events leading up to the Civil War – I believe folks would be hard-pressed to come up with non-slavery related issues that should be included on that list.
2. The article relies on one source (McPherson) for 39% of all references.
McPherson’s “Battle Cry of Freedom” is still considered, as far as I know, the best single volume work on the Civil War and its origins. If you go through the footnotes one by one you will see that almost all relate to uncontroversial factual issues (i.e. Confederate capital moved to Richmond, Scott’s strategy referred to as the Anaconda Plan, Federal troops advance was halted at Bull Run, etc.). A review of the section of the article involving origins of the Civil War has only a few references attributed to McPherson – in fact it appears an excellent mix of primary and secondary sources has been used in this section.
3. The article makes little to no use of some of the more established Civil War historians from the post war era using predominantly post 1960 authors.
The implication of this is that substantial factual material has been intentionally or otherwise omitted from the works of Civil War historians for the last two score and seven years. Absent some particular reason to suspect some sort of conspiracy, I would think that an encyclopedia would emphasize recent scholarship. The originator of this reconsideration request mentioned on the Talk Page the exclusion of “authors of [Bruce] Catton's era”. In fact, on most issues (including the importance of slavery as a cause of the war), Catton varies very little from McPherson et al. David Potter, Allan Nevins, and Don Fehrenbacher, for example, are roughly in Catton’s generation or slightly earlier and they differ very little from McPherson et al on the causes of the war.
4. The article makes little use of eyewitness accounts and official documentation of which there is an extensive amount.
The documentation is appropriate for the scope of the article. When quotes are used they appropriately blend in and add color consistent with the overall narrative. By the very nature of the article in particular and encyclopedia articles in general, it is to be expected that the article will be based heavily on secondary sources.
5. Many of the comments are without reference.
It appears from my review that every significant paragraph is properly (possibly excessively) footnoted.
6. The author/s have taken a heavily partisan point-of-view and not retained an objective stance on a highly debated and potentially sensitive subject; using their knowldege of the period solely to support their social opinions as opposed to providing a factual and comprehensive article on a period of history.
I can only assume that the reference is again to the origins of the war and slavery. The article presents a fair representation on the current consensus that has existed among history professionals for decades. The alternative Lost Cause version of history has been given its separate article on Wikipedia.
7. There are still grammatical errors.
Significant ones? It seems the proper action would be to correct them.
8. The article has ommitted or glossed over key aspects of the conflict.
Within the scope of a general article on such a broad subject in which so much has been written, it seems that the coverage is appropriate.

Tom (North Shoreman) 17:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose delisting The article is not "Featured" status, but it seems to easily pass the Good Article criteria. The article can be improved (for example, the entire causes section could be forked into a new article and summarized in about 25% of the space it is now). The main concern of Spite & Malice seems to be NPOV, that the article doesn't talk about what he wants it to, and such ommissions represent a non-neutral point of view. Two things should be noted:
    • Neutral POV does not mean inclusion of every POV. Specifically, minority viewpoints should not be given undue weight in the article. In the case where reliable scholarship overwhelmingly ignores or refutes a viewpoint, it may not even bear mentioning. (For example, the idea that the Great Pyramid of Gizawas built by aliens is a well reported minority viewpoint which is completely refuted by any serious egyptologist. Thus, even though many of us have heard of such a viewpoint, it is only given the briefiest of mentions in the article, as those who know consider it total bullshit.)
    • From a stylisitic point of view, not every single battle, event, cause, opinion, etc. etc. can be included, given the size of a good readable article. In choosing which items to include, it is important to look at what respected scholars in the field have chosen to include in their works, and do the same. It appears that this article does that quite well.
Again, this article is seems to meet the criteria of GA's quite well, and thus should remain a GA and not be delisted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"the article doesn't talk about what he wants it to"
I just want non-bias historical fact to prevail over ridiculously one sided points-of-view. Of course slavery is a major issue in the war, but it should not be given so much time. Surely the article should focus more on the actual events of the war and not just blabber on about Uncle Tom's Cabin and slavery. Slavery seems to play an issue everywhere in the article, I find it almost childish. Perhaps it would be better to outline the causes briefly and devote another page to them, because they seem to be taking over this article on military events.
"Thus, even though many of us have heard of such a viewpoint, it is only given the briefiest of mentions in the article, as those who know consider it total bullshit."
Ah yes. Of course. My mistake. You were there I suppose... You saw it all, thus you know! How long have you spent researching the American Civil War? Are you an American? This article has become a vehicle to push moral ethics in a nation still reeling from its institutional racism, elitist culture, and complete intolerance for diversity or differing points of view.
"In choosing which items to include, it is important to look at what respected scholars in the field have chosen to include in their works, and do the same."
Even the greatest scholars of all time can be selectively quoted to provide someone with their own agenda a set of valid and well sourced arguments. Otherwise America would not have two heavily partisan camps of "historians" constantly pushing thier own agendas and threatening to tear history to shreds. The existence of two camps on the war should be a wonderful thing. It allows historians to debate, learn and evolve. When both camps shove their heads in the ground history becomes a waste of time. All I ask is an objective article on the subject and I am afriad that this will not happen, leaving nothing more than a bias so strong it casts doubt on some of the well-made points in this article. Of course it is not my decision, I have no intention to force my will on others, if people are happy to let this article stand as it is, then I will fully support the community decision, though I may strongly disagree with it.
" this article seems to meet the criteria of GA's quite well, and thus should remain a GA and not be delisted."
Fair enough. I'm just gonna remove the unnecessary "is" from this statement.Spite & Malice 09:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I haven't read the whole article, but it does seem to start out suspiciously undue-weightish, though i'll have to appeal to my personal experiences on this one. The article starts out immedietly in the lead with slavery as the apparent only issue in the entire war, since it doesn't mention anything else concretly. (It wasn't started by an argument over the right to secede, its just the right to secession was attempted as an argument by the South to secede peacefully.) The only clue that there was any other concrete cause is at the very end, with something about how the causes are debated. However, thinking about every history class i've ever been in, I really don't understand how slavery could of been the absolute only obvious issue in the civil war, I was always told it was slavery causing a massive amount of buildup, with a primary/companion cause being constant Southern discontentmant at not having as much States Rights in general over the slavery issue and many other issues. I don't know much about any fight that's been going on here over this particular article, but as far as I know, in the real world, (for me anyway) there is nobody arguing that the war was definently about slavery, that all the other causes are only mere possibilities, and that all the other causes really aren't important enough to elaborate on as much as slavery should be for a summary of the topic. But i'm not going to vote to delist just yet, I don't suppose anyone could give me (Or, really, all of us, since its a public page and all) some kind of defense of the structure and emphasis of the lead as it is currently written, that isn't just really vauge like "In the case where reliable scholarship overwhelmingly ignores or refutes a viewpoint, it may not even bear mentioning.", because I have no idea if anyone here who states that is correct until i've seen specific references. (And citing a bunch of names doesn't count, page numbers would be helpful.) Homestarmy 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm not voting here, since I contributed to the article, but I just wanted to point out that the sub-article on states rights was greatly expanded before due to previous comments, then reduced again due to many complaints about excessive length. Also, books written on the subject by the best historians (McPherson, Potter, Nevins and so on) present many issues that all get mixed up with the slavery issue, even if they start out as something else, and that's what was there to work with. For example, the Mexican War had something to do with Manifest Destiny but got mixed up with the Wilmot Proviso and compromises including a fugitive slave code. Kansas-Nebraska started with disputes over a transcontinental railroad, but slavery became a volatile issue there as well. And states' rights was part of the argument over slavery in the territories as well as a right to secession. And so on.Jimmuldrow 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But if the issues only had the force that they did because they were mixed with the slavery issue, then I don't see why almost only the slavery issue is mentioned to start with, since without the other issues, I seriously doubt the war ever would of happened in the first place, there wouldn't of been anything for Slavery to get mixed up in, and once again, as far as i've learned, Slavery alone wasn't anywhere near close enough to be an issue for the war to happen over on its own. I'm not talking about sub-articles right now, i'm talking about just the lead, since that's where the article should set the tone for what will follow. Homestarmy 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think mention of Manifest Destiny and debates over whether a transcontinental railroad should go north or south should be added to the lead? I suppose they played a role as well. Although others will complain about the length again if this is done.Jimmuldrow 20:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the length of the lead needs to be changed at all, just something needs to be done so that Slavery isn't the only concrete thing mentioned, then we can look at the rest of the article. Surely U.S. education isn't all a myth, don't any of historians you mention just "State's rights" in general as part of the dispute, or do they all just chalk it up to slavery plus a bunch of other things which primarily were a problem only because of slavery? Homestarmy 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's been enough discussion over this that I think it's time for a more thorough review, which will now accompany a Delist vote from me. I'll be going line by line through various problems as I come across them:

  • "....declared their states' rights to secession and formed the Confederate States of America, led by President Jefferson Davis." This seems unclear, if they declared their rights, then how could Lincoln just reject their rights? I don't think this is exactly how it went down, I think a better wording would be "declared that they had the right to secession,...."
  • "The Union, led by President Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, opposed the expansion of slavery and rejected any right of secession." Whoa whoa whoa, where did slavery come from? Slavery where? From the Republic of Congo? (Not sure if it existed then) This assumes the reader already knows plenty of background information about America, which isn't a good idea from a compleate worldview type of perspective concerning how to write articles.
  • "...when Confederate forces attacked a federal military installation at...." Federal whatsit now? Who's the federated side? Once again, assumes the reader knows things that aren't exactly required reading everywhere else in the world.
  • "In 1862 large, bloody battles began, causing massive casualties as a result of new weapons and old battlefield tactics." Err, why? Did the old tactics not work effectively to reduce casualties when new technology was utilized? (I'm pretty sure that's right) Better: "causing massive casualties as a result of incompatability between new weapons and old battlefield tactics"
  • "In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made the freeing of the slaves a war goal, despite opposition from northern Copperheads who tolerated secession and slavery." Whoa, here's slavery coming out of nowhere again, was this proclamation designed for the Republic of Congo again? Those Congoites, financing the southern half of the U.S. and buying all the cotton, despicable....
  • "Emancipation ensured that Britain and France would not intervene to help the Confederacy." Oh did it? I was under the impression multiple factors were involved in ensuring that Britain and France wern't going to help the confederacy, and while slavery certainly didn't make them keen to help out the South, the South's lack of military victories at a certain point in the war certainly contributed heavily, probably much more than Slavery ever did. I don't see how the proclamation "ensured" anything here, Better: "Emancipation further influenced Britain and France to not intervene to help the Confederacy".
  • " In the East, Robert E. Lee rolled up a series of Confederate victories over the Army of the Potomac, but his best general, Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson,...." Whoa, where'd this Lee fellow come from? Is he some sort of Congoite military advisor or something? Why does he have a general of his own? Is he head of the Confederate army or something? Might want to say that first.
  • "In the West, the Union Navy captured the port of New Orleans in 1862, and Ulysses S. Grant seized control of the Mississippi River by capturing Vicksburg, Mississippi in July 1863, thus splitting the Confederacy." The West of the U.S., you mean, California? Aha, that must be where those Congoite smugglers hosted their slave trading markets, it all makes sense now...Anyway, might want to specify where precisely the "West" in the Civil War was precisely.
  • "Lee won most of the battles in a tactical sense but on the whole lost strategically, as he could not replace his casualties and was forced to retreat into trenches around his capital" Tactical according to whom? It sounds like his victories wern't very tactical at all if they were compleatly pointless due to too many troops being lost. Better: "Lee technically won most of the battles in this time, but lost strategically overall, as....."
  • "William Tecumseh Sherman captured Atlanta, Georgia. Sherman's March to the Sea destroyed a hundred-mile-wide swath of Georgia." Yea, that Sherman, some punk Congoite rebel turned traitor I guess, intro doesn't say really who he is anyway, so the reader is free to imagine history for themselves.
  • "...all slaves in the Confederacy were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Slaves outside Confederate control were freed by state action or by the Thirteenth Amendment." Ah, so now it comes out those rotten Confederates were sharing slaves with the Congonese! Good thing that Congo, outside of Confederate control, was invaded by all the other states here and had its constitution amended to add a thirteenth amendment to it so there wouldn't be any more slaves there, eh? Wait, that doesn't seem quite right historically....
  • "The main results of the war were the restoration and strengthening of the Union, and the end of slavery in the United States." Yes, because as we all know, when you burn like half of your country to the ground, that's real nice for strengthening purposes, you don't need to say anything, we all know that builds valuable character that the Union really needed in those tough times! Perhaps if this was more specific, people wouldn't have to stop reading to wonder...But wait, what about Slavery in the Congo, didn't the Thirteenth Amendment up there end that? Isn't that a main result too? I mean, who knows what Slavery the article started talking about anyway?
  • "Secession was caused by the coexistence of a slave-owning South and an increasingly anti-slavery North." Ah, the innocence of youth, wouldn't want to talk politics on Wikipedia, now would we? Slavery wouldn't of been problematic from a sesessionist standpoint at all if the political atmosphere didn't encourage half of the states to be slave and half to be free. And you know, just like it says here, coexistance in and of itself between slavery and freedom in a nation automatically causes a Civil War, I mean, it's not like people in the Southern legistlatures decided to secede or anything, right? Slavery just caused it to happen with nobodies consent....
  • "Lincoln did not propose federal laws making slavery unlawful where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, envisioned it as being set on "the course of ultimate extinction"." It was much more than that, Lincoln several times made it known that he would not just end all slavery, [3] due to the obvious problems of where would the slaves go or what would they do when suddenly freed, and of course because that would of just caused secession to be seen as necessary even more to the south. It was set on the course of ultimate extinction not because he intended to personally end it by outlawying it, but because he believed it would simply end itself if contained.
  • "According to McPherson,[2] while controversy over the morality of slavery could be contained, it was the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories that made the conflict irrepressible..." Hold the phone folks, who's this McPherson chap? Why should I, or more importantly, the reader trust some, as far as can be gleaned from the text, randomly chosen name to tell them about how much slavery made the conflict unavoidable? The reference just reads "McPherson, James. For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (1998)", and doesn't tell me if he's some scholar, the grand ruler of all Civil War historians, or just some grad student who decided to write a book on the Civil War to get some pocket money. And even if he is the Grand Ruler of all Civil War historians, why only cite his opinion? Why not cite academia in a more broad sense? Or, better yet, if its an obvious fact of scholarship, just link a few things that say so, instead of just picking an, as far as the reader could tell, arbitrarily chosen name to tell them about the expansion of slavery and how it influenced the war.
  • Is the entire rest of the paragraph with McPherson there just right out of his book or something? If it is, the same thing as my last comment applies, and if it isn't, its not very clear where the information comes from. Besides, the section doesn't seem well named, it's not so much a note on causes as it is a note on Slavery as a cause, and by writing "note" there in the section, that seems kind of self-referency.
  • "According to Kenneth M. Stampp, each section used states' rights arguments when convenient, and shifted positions when convenient.[3]" Once again with the, as far as the reader can tell, arbitrarily chosen names....
  • "Stampp mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat." And was Stampp right to make this accusation? Does the very name Stampp entitle him to judge Stephen's work in front of the whole world to condemn his flip-flopping, and also entitle him to have everything he says be taken at face value no questions asked and no rebuttles presented? I don't know what kind of disputes have happened in the past over this article, but having all of scholarship on this issue rest on the back of one person at a time probably isn't helping to solve anything.
  • "...as reserved in Amendment X,.... " When I first read this, I was thinking "Amendment....EXTREEEEEME!" Why is the Roman Numeral used here, when the actual number of an amendment is spelled out in the intro?
  • "States' rights advocates also cited the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution to demand federal jurisdiction over slaves who escaped into the North." What fugitive slave clause? I was under the impression this fugitive slave business was because of some weird issue where the Supreme Court or something decided that now would be a great time to deputize the entirety of the North into demanding that they personally go out and catch escaped slaves wherever they could find them. I don't recall no fugitive slave clause in the Constitution, and I doubt most readers will have any idea what this is talking about either.
  • "According to McPherson, Calhoun regarded the territories as the "common property" of sovereign states, and said that Congress was acting merely as the "joint agents" of the states." Again with randomly chosen people to tell us what the facts are one person at a time, but this time we have the added bonus of throwing in the compleatly random name "Calhoun", there's not even a wikilink, is this supposed to be the former president? I have no idea what the point of this sentence is when it doesn't assert why the names in it are of any importance or even relevant to the issue at all.
  • "According to Stampp, states' rights theories were a response to the fact that the Northern population was growing much faster than the population of the South, which meant that it was only a matter of time before the North controlled the federal government." Well, whoever this Stampp person is, he apparently doesn't understand this whole "State population means nothing in the U.S. Senate" concept, if, as far as the article tells me, this guy can't even get basic U.S. politics right, why is he being cited again and again as the sole source to tell us something about the United States civil war? Now, if this was supposed to be extending the idea that increased Northern population would lead to more anti-slavery people in new territorites, and this in turn would lead to more free than slave states in the future, then this would make sense. But the article doesn't say that, so all I (or a reader) can do is guess.
  • "As Allan Nevins described it, "Governments, observed Calhoun, were formed to protect minorities, for majorities could take care of themselves." And welcome random person number, well, i've lost count, to tell us about the Civil War, and once again with compleatly random name Calhoun! Who is this person? Is this like some Carmen Sandiego thing where a reader has to hunt all over Wikipedia to find out this particular Calhoun's identity?
  • "The South's chosen leader, Jefferson Davis, defined equality in terms of the equal rights of states,[10] and opposed the declaration that all men are created equal" I think this is very misleading, if I know my history right. As I understand it, when the Constitution was created, it was already being crafted not to step on the toes of slave-holding colonies, and there was an implicit assumption among many that, as Jefferson Davis says in this quote, the phrase "All men are created equal", didn't actually extend to black people, I believe the current racist assumption at the time was that black people were subhuman or some such nonsense. So I don't think Davis was explicitly trying to reject the Constitution here, and there's no source actually arguing for this, just Wikipedia engaging in OR by interpreting Jefferson's statement how it pleases.
Ok, this is quite enough, and I don't even know if i'm halfway through the article yet, and i've quoted or mentioned almost half of the upper part of the article I think as having problems, most of which have to do with references and how they are utilized, ambiguity in the lead and in other places, and all sorts of stuff, rather than just the whole Slavery thing getting all the spotlight in the article argument. On everything i've cited alone, I think i'd be inclined to fail this article. It's a big topic guys, and a very high-up one when it comes to controversy, similar to Religion articles, articles on areas like Serbia and Kosovo, where you're going to get alot of disputes over minutia, and in order to make a Featured Article in this case, you're going to have to overcome the disputes (Assuming there are some, as I gather from the arguments preceding my first comments) and look at the article as a whole quite often to fix glaring errors. Nobody said writing an FA, or even a GA on this topic would be easy, and I doubt it will be much fun fixing all this junk in just the top half of the article, but its just something that one way or another has to be done. It will likely take quite awhile, depending on how much Stonewalling (no pun intended) that happens over controversial statements, but now that you've got some specifics from me and ideas of what to look for, maybe it'll go faster, I dunno. Homestarmy 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I agree with almost all the specific points mentioned by Homestarmy, and will address them.Jimmuldrow 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winston Churchill

An editor delisted this GA. S/he did not list it here as far as I can tell. S/he gave a very brief explanation on the article's talk page, which amounted to saying they looked at one section and didn't see any criticism so the article therefore must not be NPOV. Then they added "Probably a whole lot else missing, but I can't be bothered digging any further, complete omission of criticism is bad enough for delisting."

An article should not be delisted on such scant investigation. No time was given for contributors to discuss/address the concern, and it is barely actionable anyway. This is not FA. A single complaint should not fail the article. Therefore, I have brought the matter her for review. Johntex\talk 03:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support delisting I agree that an article should go through here before being delisted, but you're not going to find much sympathy with all of those "citation needed" tags all over the article. This article is brutally under-referenced, contains a quotes section (which should be moved to wikiquote), short lead, and tons of one sentence paragraphs. Teemu08 04:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The trouble is that many of the "citation needed" templates are also unfair. The article has 37 in-line references and 26 ADDITIONAL sources that are not in-line. All of the facts that are tagged "citation needed" are backed up by these sources. The GA critera does not require all references to be in line. I am a big fan of in-line referencing. Therefore, I have been reluctant to remove the tags. However, GA standard does not require this. The fact that we are going beyond GA standard with so many in-line references should not be held against the article. Johntex\talk 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell, the references aren't a huge problem. This is a GA we're talking about, not a FA. I didn't find any major NPOV or factual errors, so as far as I'm concerned, it meets GA criteria (although admittedly, I did not read the entire article). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support delisting Cites haven't been correctly formatted, and the article is listy in sections - this isn't a GA, as far as I'm concerned. LuciferMorgan 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delist, with Comment: I hope the dedicated editors of this article are reading this; I'd like to extend them congratulations on all the obvious hard work they've put into the article.
  • I agree that there do not seem to be grounds for the original reason for delisting, which was NPOV. If anything, Churchill comes off looking more than a little bigoted. I also agree that some of the "citation needed" tags are unnecessary. They should be placed beside text that is, or is likely to be, challenged. I do not think that was done correctly. Finally, though, I unfortunately agree with Lucifer that the article is too listy, and furthermore the refs section needs too much work to let pass... This trumps other considerations. I hope the editors will fix these problems and resubmit. GA is very much within reach, after application of some elbow grease. --Ling.Nut 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. The writing needs a lot of work, as noted above. I'd also ask for better referencing. A bibliography is not the same as providing references for claims. Vassyana 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-instate GA-Class. The article is complete, reasonable well written, referenced, and generally complies to all GA requirements. If it not completely complies yet with various details of requirements, then that is acceptable for GA-Class (not for FA-Class). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Support delisting - One sentence paragraphs failing criteria 1, lead needs to be two paragraphs, the "Honours" is a mess. M3tal H3ad 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support delisting While I agree with the person who brought this here that just speedy failing an article for not having criticism of a subject is probably not right, (The vast majority of biographies on Wikipedia probably have no notable criticism on the subject at all.) the lead is definently far too short, Winston Churchill has got to have more to the guy as a summary than what's there now. Homestarmy 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delist Sumoeagle179 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War II

This article is no longer a good article, if it once was. It is not stable, the text changes large amounts in short amounts of time, and there are constantly edit wars and/or very large heated conflicts on the talk page. The article is also unusably long. This article is not up to the standards that wikipedia should expect of it's good articles. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

  • KeepI wouldn't say it's unusably long; that's World War II and it was not only long but it was very important in history. It also seems to follow summary style so I guess that thats as short as it could get. As for the stability, I agree that its not as stable as it should be, and an article of this size could use more references. Tarret 18:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as GA.Sumoeagle179 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as GA - I have read through the article and the recent changes and I don't think there is any problem here worth a delisting. The article still meets GA standards in my view. Johntex\talk 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Am I the only one here who sees a horrible formatting prob on this page? The text bleeds completely off the text area and into the left sidebar... I'll look at it in a computer at school and see if that helps.. --Ling.Nut 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I fixed it. But fixing it exposed further layout problems.. that infobox is huge...--Ling.Nut 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Quality is improving in general. Haber 12:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lead does not meet WP:LEAD needs to be expanded to three paragraphs. M3tal H3ad 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Lead is definently not sufficient in length or content for a topic this expansive. Homestarmy 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep IF lead is made a summary.Rlevse 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

I passed this article after failing it once. The concerns were addressed, yet it was delisted (not following any procedure but the user's own I might add) shortly after I passed it. Thought I would post it here to get some other opinion. May have possibly been delisted by a POV pusher, not quite sure. Need more input here. IvoShandor 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the user has asserted that I said he had no right to delist it, I will emphasize that I said "possible" and "not quite sure." I think the editor's here need an accurate assessment of what my interpretation is, why I listed it here. If that upsets you, sorry, not my intention. IvoShandor 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, I now endorse delist as this article is unstable and likely to now be the subject of edit warring. I however do not support the delist for the reasons delisted, just as a note. IvoShandor 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
May want to take a look at the talk page for anyone looking at this. IvoShandor 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Change position: to Neutral.IvoShandor 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I relisted the article. It has been delisted by a signle POV pusher - this is not a valid procedure. Until a consensus at GAR is reached to delist it, it should be listed. Also, note that one and only one user is claiming POVness and disputing the GA status, and reviewers at WPMILHIST suggest A-class review for even a higher quality rank. Several editors spend months improving this to GA, a single user who has not contributed almost anything to the article should not be able to block the quality assessment of the article if there is consensus againt him.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear you resorting to name-calling Piotrus. Anyway, the objections to all concerned parties are explained at talk. The article fails GA by multiple criteria but I will now try to improve it. Until then, your repeated reattachment for the label would be perceived as a dirty trick. --Irpen 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What name calling? Do you deny you are pushing a certain POV - just as I am? We are all POV pushers, Irpen, and in this particular case it is very visible we are both POVed. Several neutral editors have reviewed this article and found no POV. Until there is consensus on GAR that this article is not GA-worthy (read: a consensus contrary to the current consensus it is GA-worthy), your repeated removal of the label would be perceived as a dirty trick. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, the GA label was attached not trhough a concensus but through an agreement of just two editors and was possible only because I missed your attempt to drag the POV-inflammatory article to a GA status immediately after it failed the nomination. I just keep getting things from you that I do not expect despite my thinking that I know you well enough. Once I started editing the article, you immediately transferred your revert warring from the article's talk to the article itself. I can't work like this. Not until you calm down. I am POV-tagging the article again and will return to it only when my attempts to edit it will not be subjected to your attacks. --Irpen 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
GA label was attached in due process. Even better - usually it just takes one editor, here two reviewers agreed. Your accusations that I somehow prevent you from editing, coupled with your ranting about POV of this article for months - but still failing to provide a single reference to back up your view - are the only thing that is disrupting this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It was attached in due process, I had no interaction with this user or the article before I grabbed it off the GAC page. Just FYI. Veiled accusations of collusion are unappreciated and unhelpful. IvoShandor 13:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

....Ooookay, I don't think we need all this fighting to figure this out folks. The person who speedy failed the article didn't include anything in their note to justify why the article didn't live up to GA standards, though I suppose one could go all hyper-technical and argue that he was merely using the original reviewer's explanation. However, since he didn't actually justify his position at first, I do think that it probably wasn't a very well-planned fail. But irregardless of all that, we're here now, and one way or another, we'll get to the bottom of this i'd hope, so I don't think there's a need for all the fighting. I'm inclined to think that an edit war caused specifically by the GA review and subsequent delisting is definently a WP:IAR moment, attempts to bring an article up to GA standards actually causing it to fail GA standards is a paradox I know I don't want to deal with, and i'd hope other people don't want to deal with it either, improving an article really shouldn't be grounds for not letting it be a Good Article in and of itself in my opinion. Just for the sake of helping this review along, I think it would be helpul if Irpen's justification for his fail (which he says he gave on the article talk) was copied here in some form so people who may want to comment don't have to go hunting for it. Homestarmy 23:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just off-hand, the second paragraph in the lead could probably do with some shortening, the article overall is pretty short, and the lead just needs to be a summary, not anything too amazingly detailed. Homestarmy 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Irpen's many-months long argument about this article being POVed boils down to 1) the title with the word invasion is POVed (despite being used by many academic sources) and 2) the article is 'Polish propaganda', portaying Poles as good and Soviets as bad (unfortunatly he fails to provide any more specific claims and/or any sources other than his POV). Such objections are unacctionable, and coupled with the fact that no other neutral reviewers pointed out to POV issues, I believe Irpen objections should be discarded.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I believe the WP:LEAD could/should be trimmed down, as Homestarmy suggested. But after reading the article and plowing thru the talk page, I was not able to pick out any substantive arguments against the article. The only possibility is NPOV. I am not a histbuff so can't make judgments on that score. But I read the MILHIST review too, and it didn't seem to set off any alarms there. I'm not seeing any substantive probs. BTW, to the reviewer who just removed the over-long Molotov quote:Thank you! --Ling.Nut 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This section contains my original review and, under Concerns addressed? Irpen provides reasoning. IvoShandor 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning is provided through the first GA fail Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#GA_nomination which looks like it was by Irpen. IvoShandor 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bees and toxic chemicals

It was on hold, but then someone quick-failed it because some anon had put up a template, and though every other fact had been checked, one single one was behind a subscription barrier and couldn't be. It's been two months and no further sign of the anon, so I've removed the template, but, really, is this "GA quickfail" template even a good idea? It gives no suggestions for moving on. Adam Cuerden talk 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like just a bad quick fail to me, the mere existance of a template isn't a reason to quick fail an article unless its, say, the copyvio template or something like that. Homestarmy 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, was tired and had far too many tabs open that night. I likely failed it in error. IvoShandor 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments Citations need retrieval dates etc. LuciferMorgan 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if that, in of itself, is a reason to fail. Per the GA criteria, inline citations aren't required, and this article has them and they are pretty conisistent. IvoShandor 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If they were consistent, I wouldn't be asking for them to be cleaned up. LuciferMorgan 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Closer inspection reveals some consistency and a lot of incosistently, regardless the quick fail was an error, resulting from too many tabs and too little sleep. IvoShandor 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Promote Looks good to me. Teemu08 14:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Since there was never an actual real review, perhaps this should just be sent back to the candidates page with a date of March 7th so it gets reviewed quickly? Homestarmy 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percy Henn

I'm not sure why this article didn't pass the good article criteria, as I believe it meets all of them. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 11:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like the prose style. However, it obeys NPOV, it is referenced, and the material covered is comprehensive.--ZincBelief 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it stubby where its split into sections to be honest, and as a result disjointed. Eg. the "Legacy" section is only a single sentence. I endorse failure. LuciferMorgan 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't see that anywhere... Seventy dot 03:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm new, but according to the Good Article Criteria, this article passes. Seventy ... dot ... 13:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
struckout comments made by proven sockpuppet of blocked user User:Auroranorth. —Moondyne 05:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Failure Has wikilinks in titles, See Also comes before references, solo years are linked, references come after punctuation with no space, one sentence paragraphs and a one sentence section, not "well-written". M3tal H3ad 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist not even close.Rlevse 22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph McCarthy

Same situation as the last three, it was passed, but there was a bit of a dispute in the GA discussion, and since this isn't actually listed on the GA page I figured a review ought to be in order to clarify the status. Homestarmy 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article's status was just fixed later anyway, I don't suppose anyone is saving some wall of text type argument about this article that I should know about before I archive this as nothing? Homestarmy 22:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep as ga Rlevse 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything preventing it from GA status, so promote. M3tal H3ad 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This review was pretty old, I only listed it as a procedural thing because it showed up on a list of improperly passed articles that had the talk template but wern't on the GA page, and because it looked like someone had some issues with it... Homestarmy 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Looks good, don't delist. Chrisfow 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-nom-Some editor nominated this again up above I merged the two noms to avoid confusion and notified the nominator. I have no views personally incidentally (I haven't read it as of yet). Quadzilla99 23:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Major POV-pushing in the introduction, calling those who opposed communism "extreme", calling his claims "sensational", and other examples of framing the introduction against McCarthy instead of making a balanced factual introduction. Judgesurreal777 20:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose delisting at least for the reasons given. The neutral point of view policy doesn't mean you should never say anything negative, only that there should be references and facts to verify negative or positive statements. Would it be neutral in the sense of being in line with the facts if the article said that McCarthy was reasonable and fair? The article has many references. Does anyone disagree with them?Jimmuldrow 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is already being reviewed below. Teemu08 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I am not saying don't list negative things, but the introduction is written in the form of a sensationalist newspaper, calling America "extreme" and his claims "sensational", then proceeding to spell out the entire definition of McCarthyism TWICE! If this intro isn't POV, there is no such thing. Judgesurreal777 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would it be ok to merge this with the redundant listing of the same article below? Also, did the article call America extreme? I must have missed that. Also, anything is objectively sensational if enough people react to it, which they did. Also, why is this article listed twice? As much support for this article as was listed below, it would be better if they'd waited awhile before listing it again.Jimmuldrow 14:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Not only was this article improperly promoted, but it is in flagrant violation of Neutral Point of View policy. These issues are real, and should be dealt with. Judgesurreal777 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/o/Wikipedia%7EGood_article_review_6588.html"