Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced Wikipedia good article reviewers. The old nominations in need of additional reviews are: Entre a Mi Mundo • The Muppets' Wizard of Oz • Boron • Martin Luther •

Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status. GAR can also promote articles to GA status, but this has been infrequent occurring occasionally following delisting from GA status or after failing a good article nomination. GAR can sometimes provide more feedback for delisted articles or failed GA nominations. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. Before attempting to have any article de-listed through reassessment, take these steps: Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix, if the templates will help reviewers find the problems. For example, it may be helpful to add a {{Verify credibility}} tag after a source you think is dubious. Do not tag bomb the article. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination; it is primarily used to reassess the status of current good articles. A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review, and an individual's assessment. In that case, an editor requests a discussion on the good article status of the article, and that discussion is listed on this page. When consensus is reached, the discussion is closed and the status of the article is updated accordingly. edit guidelines

Individual reassessment When to use this process Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria. Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment. If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself. How to use this process Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window. Allow time for other editors to respond. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script), relevant WikiProjects for the article and, if recently GA reviewed, the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. To do this, remove the article from one of the lists at Wikipedia:Good articles; then remove {{Good article}} from the article and the {{GA}} template from the article talk page, if there is one, or update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page. Change any project assessments on the talk page. To close the reassessment: if there is no {{ArticleHistory}} template then replace the date in the {{GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted". If there is an {{ArticleHistory}} template then update it and delete the {{GAR/link}} template.

Community reassessment When to use this process Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved. If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises. If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered. How to use this process Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page). Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script) and relevant WikiProjects for the article. See below for how to contribute to a community reassessment, and how to close one. Depending on the situation, reviewers may move mountains to list an article as a GA, or they may simply endorse a fail, or suggest the article be renominated. See also: Alphabetical list of previous community reassessments

Guidelines for reviewers. Please consult the good article criteria before you comment on whether an article should have its status changed or not.

All suggestions for improving articles are welcome, but criticisms not based on the good article criteria do not ordinarily disqualify an article from good article status. Note also that if an article is listed here, it almost always means that someone considers it to be of good quality, so if it does not meet the criteria, an explicit explanation is more likely to be appreciated than a general comment that the article is inadequate. Furthermore, reviewers should feel free to fix problems with articles under review if they wish: this is not regarded as a conflict of interest, and may encourage regular editors of the article to engage more actively with the reassessment process. Good article reassessment is not a deletion discussion, but many of the guidelines for contributing to such discussions (such as the essay on arguments to avoid) contain useful advice. Any registered user can list or delist a good article (see above), but for articles listed here, please follow the archiving guidelines below for closing discussions and changing the status of the article.

Guidelines for closing a community reassessment discussion. When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user: please click on the "show" link (above right) for guidelines on when to close discussions. To close a discussion, go to the community reassessment page of the article and replace {{GAR/current}} by {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Here you should state the outcome (whether there was consensus, and what action was taken) and explain carefully how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. On the talk page of the article, replace {{GAR/link|GARpage=n}} by adding or updating {{ArticleHistory}}. If the result changes the GA status, update the article and article talk page templates and the good articles list accordingly. The reassessment discussion will automatically be removed from the good article reassessment page and added to the current archive within an hour. edit archiving guidelines

Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 2–3 days old, unless at least five editors have expressed an opinion the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus. However, discussions which have lasted more than 4 weeks can be closed with no consensus: in this case the status of the article should remain unchanged. Closing a discussion requires taking responsibility, determining what the consensus of the reviewers is, and taking action where necessary. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes: for instance, the article may have changed since being listed for reassessment, and some comments may no longer be applicable. Compare the comments made in the discussion with the current state of the article and with the criteria for good articles. If there is a clear weight of argument that a current good article does not meet the criteria, then it should be delisted. If there is a clear weight of argument that a delisted good article or failed nomination does meet the criteria, then it should be listed as a good article. If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, leave notice that you intend to close the discussion, and wait 2–3 days for further comments before closing. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions.

← (All archives)

Good article reassessment (update archive number)

(Current archive: 53) →

Articles needing review and possible reassessment

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GA request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply remove the template from the article talk page.

• 13:30:58, 22/02/2012: Current date for reference

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GA request}} to the article talk page.

See also

• Good article cleanup listing

Articles listed for community reassessment

Margaret Thatcher

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

Result pending

My belief is that this article was delisted for political reasons unrelated to its quality but rather to its subject. This is a biography article, and not a critical assessment of Margaret Thatcher as a politician; other linked articles do that, and in accordance with summary style this article simply summarises them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher is one of the most controversial Priome Ministers of the 20th century. I cannot see how completely downplaying negative views of Thatcher, while giving huge amounts of space to her supporters can possibly be considered NPOV. I don't, of course, think the article should be an attack piece, but it confuses neutral with sympathetic point of view. I'd actually say this goes so far as to make the article's educational purpose compromised. I think any reasonable reader of an article on a politician would expect to be able to learn about the triumphs, failures, controversies, and public views of the politician. By concentrating only on the triumphs and positive viewpoints, the article - although it does a very good job at presenting them - fails in its educational remit.

I think that one key example is that before it was last delisted from GA, it had three paragraphs describing and analysing the end of her premiership - and was still delisted for concentrating too much on views of her supporters. It now has been cut to one paragraph, basically saying that the policy was unpopular, but not explaining what the policy was, why it was unpopular, and downplaying the riots. Margaret Thatcher was forced out of office for that and other unpopular decisions; that's a pretty significant part of her career to be glossing over, and the other reasons for her fall aren't even mentioned.

One might compare three roughly corresponding sections from Premiership_of_Margaret_Thatcher#Fall_from_power, which, while written somewhat in the essay style, informs the reader concisely why she was forced to leave office:

Thatcher sought to relieve what she considered the unfair burden of property tax on the wealthiest section of the population, and outlined a fundamental solution as her flagship policy in the Conservative manifesto for the 1987 election. Local government rates were replaced by the community charge—popularly known as the 'poll tax'—which levied a flat rate on all adult residents, with rebates for low earners, but a minimum payment of 20%. [...] The poll tax was introduced in Scotland in 1989 and in England and Wales in 1990. This highly visible redistribution proved to be one of the most contentious policies of Thatcher's premiership. Additional problems emerged when many of the tax rates set by local councils proved to be much higher than earlier predicted. Opponents organised to resist bailiffs and disrupt court hearings of community charge debtors. One Labour MP, Terry Fields, was jailed for 60 days for refusing to pay. [...] As the crisis deepened and the prime minister stood her ground, opponents claimed that up to 18 million people were refusing to pay. Enforcement measures became increasingly draconian. Unrest mounted and culminated in a number of riots. The most serious of these happened on 31 March 1990, during a protest at Trafalgar Square, London. More than 100,000 protesters attended and more than 400 people were arrested.

and

Thatcher's political "assassination" was, according to witnesses such as Alan Clark, one of the most dramatic episodes in British political history. The idea of a long-serving prime minister — undefeated at the polls — being ousted by an internal party ballot might at first sight seem bizarre. However, by 1990, opposition to Thatcher's policies on local government taxation, her Government's perceived mishandling of the economy (in particular the high interest rates of 15% that eroded her support among home owners and business people), and the divisions opening in the Conservative Party over European integration made her seem increasingly politically vulnerable and her party increasingly divided. A Gallup poll in October 1990 showed that while Thatcher remained personally respected there was overwhelming opposition towards her final initiatives — 83% disapproved of the government's management of the National Health Service, 83% were against water privatisation, and 64% were against the Community Charge, while various polls suggested the party was trailing Labour by between 6 and 11 points. Moreover the prime minister's distaste for consensus politics and willingness to override colleagues' opinions, including that of Cabinet, emboldened the backlash against her when it did occur.

These provide a clear understanding to the reader of the controversies that led to her leaving office, in a neutral way, without whitewashing the issue, whereas the current article fails utterly at this; indeed, since the community charge is covered (badly) in Margaret_Thatcher#Economy_and_taxation, and never brought up again, and the other issues aren't really discussed at all, the section on her resignation is nearly incomprehensible.

There is no valid argument in Malleus' claims, it's simply an unconcealed attack. 86.** IP (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The "unconcealed attack" was the the one that you just made: "There is no valid argument in Malleus' claims". Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your argument, particularly before you revised it, consists solely of a claim of malfeasance on my part. If you drop your claims about my motivations, your argument would be reduced to a statement that unspecified information is in other articles; you have not provided any defense of the decision to only remove the negative material to other articles. 86.** IP (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we on the same page? In what way have I revised my claim about the motivation for your delisting? I have stated my opinion very clearly and it has certainly not been changed by your outbursts here and elsewhere. I get it that you don't like Margaret Thatcher, I'm not one of her greatest fans myself, but this is a summary article of her life, not her political career. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You spend more time attacking me than talking about the article before the change, now you very slightly talk more about the article. You still provide no defense of the article in your opening statement, however, since you fail to even fairly summarise the nature of the dispute.

I find your claim that a person only known for her political career should not have a balanced portrayal of that career - but should instead only focus on the positive events - bizarre. The article is, by space, about, what, 75% on her political career? It's just a very unbalanced view of this career. 86.** IP (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I feel that I've been lured into controversy here, and I therefore have no option but to take some very good advice that was offered to me recently, and leave this for others to decide. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Let's look at Margaret_Thatcher#Legacy. Of 9 paragraphs, 5 are positive, 1 negative, one mixed, and two are pretty much completely neutral. Thatcher herself and two of her promoters are given substantial space for quotes, of multiple sentences; Critics have their views presented in a very rushed summary.

Parts of this article are quite good, insightful, even. The section on the Miner's strike is an excellent summary of a controversial issue. The writing is excellent. But there's enough sections and parts that show bias and fail to explain an issue that I don't think this could be considered GA. Noone would want this to be turned into an attack piece, but controversial aspects of her career need just as well explained as the uncontroversial, and... Yes, I'm harping on this a bit - but the surprising, catastrophic loss of her career soon after leading her party to the third term is not something you gloss over; it needs explained if the reader is going to understand her career; that's a basic completeness issue (Good article criteria 3). Instead, it's crammed in at the end of Margaret_Thatcher#Economy_and_taxation, and that it was one of the reasons for the end of her premiership - one of the defining events in British politics of that period - let alone the other reasons for it - aren't made explicit at all.

I don't think this needs a huge amount of work - balance out the sections on views of her career a bit (to make it fit within NPOV); sort out the confusing, non-chronological snarl of political section, and make sure it reflects and, where appropriate, explains the causes of the important milestones in her career (Good Article Criterion 3), and all's fine. But it shouldn't be a good article until it actually comes within the good article criteria, which, at present, it does not. 86.** IP (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. And I'm interested in the views of independent reviewers, as always at community GAR. Geometry guy 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  

---

United States

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

Result pending

This article was listed as a good article in 2005, but modern nominations are expected to have at least one reference per paragraph. The article has several paragraphs, and even full sections, without references.

• Etymology: second paragraph
• Independence and expansion: First 3 paragraphs
• Cold War and protest politics: First and third paragraphs
• Government, elections, and politics: All paragraphs after the first
• Parties and ideology: Second and third
• Crime and law enforcement: First paragraph
• Literature, philosophy, and the arts: Third and fifth
• Food: First

I realize this is a vital article, and that the GAR may be disputed, so I opened this as a community reassessment directly, instead of as an individual reassessment Cambalachero (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than saying that "X, Y, and Z" paragraphs are unreferenced, could you give examples of statements that are unreferenced that need to be referenced? Cuz right now, your criticism is too vague to be fixed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would assume they are meaning the statements in the actual paragraphs. For instance what is the source of "Columbia", a once popular name for the United States... AIRcorn (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for notifying the United States Wikiproject, could you also notify DCGeist (talk · contribs) as he seems to the main editor and anyone else you think may be interested in fixing this article. The actual GA criteria for referencing is not at least one per paragraph and is actually below a lot of peoples personal expectations. At the minimum it just requires inline references for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". However, in a popular article like this most statements could perceivably fall under "likely to be challenged". It should also be reasonably obvious what reference applies to each statement. AIRcorn (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Sholay

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

Result pending

How can this article be listed as a good article? This article has multiple issues !

Hmm. It was reviewed by two editors, and passed about a year ago. It has not really digressed since then that I can see. If you would list your concerns, I could try and take care of them. BollyJeff || talk 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – does anybody know what a "golden jubilee" is in this context? It apparently received 60 of them over a 50 week period. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it means that the film played for 50 weeks (golden jubilee) in 60 different theaters. That statement is sourced in the box office section. BollyJeff || talk 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Can you list what issues it has with regards to the good article criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Upanishads

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

Result pending

GA 2 : Factually accurate and verifiable: The Section regarding " authorship " is completely false , without evidence and has no citation confirming the same. The linkage of possible new composition of upanishads to "Ranade 1926" is false, as this has been checked and is not verifying with the said statment

GA 4 : Neutral

In order to acheive unnatural Neutrallity of the article, information which has no evidence and acceptance has been given at the " Criticism " section and also information does not have a neutral tone and the criticism is based on a single line quote from a single upanishads out of 100's of upanishads does not reflect criticism on the entire upanishads at source Shrikanthv (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Above user is a religious POV-pusher, see Talk:Upanishads#Regarding_recent_POV-pusing. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please check my history of editing i do not have an agenda or beliefs of things , the above editor is in conflict or view point and taking things personnely. Please have look at the points i have mentioned Shrikanthv (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Neutral point of view again the criticism section ( now others in critcism section )mentions about the author John Murray Mitchell, who was was a religious preacher from UK who came to India (with chritian ideology and agenda )in 1800 's , and i reject him of being authoritative about Upanishads , as he had no prior knowledge of Indian culture and writings, you can also find that the only other book he has written is about islam ,which is again was suiting to his requirement for Indian agenda. how would he ever be considered to have a neutral view point on religious subject matter ?

The whole Criticism ( now in the others section) does not have a neutral tone and are not criticising the literature itself , but on the possible interpretaions of the litereature. and this is done by qoutes out of christiam missionaries to India. which are not to be trusted for having neutral point of view interms of religion literature concerend Shrikanthv (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New findings on false hoodness of the article

I have done a quite a research on the citation qouted and how the article has been twisted so that the general outlook is turning out to be poor their are two authors and books which does not match

1) Mahadevan's History of Philosophy Eastern and Western

Where Mr Mahadevan never wrote the book " History of Philosophy eastern and western " but again this was written by Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (who was president of India ) and again i really went to the page number 56 (as the first reference is Mahadevan p 56 in the whole article) the funny part was it is simply not there .

for those of you who do not want to buy this book and check, here is how i can prove the editor did not had neutral point of view and just adding his own texts and linking wrongly.

Their are 4 lines linking to same page of mahadevan p 56 (first reference in the article)

line 1 - The Upanishads are found mostly the concluding part of the Brahmanas and in the Aranyakas.[a] line 2 - If a Upanishad has been commented upon or quoted by revered thinkers like Shankara, it is a Mukhya Upanishad,[b] line 3 - Not much is known about the authors except for those, like Yajnavalkayva and Uddalaka, mentioned in the texts line 4 - The Brihadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the most important of the mukhya Upanishads. They represent two main schools of thought within the Upanishads. The Brihadaranyaka deals with acosmic or nis-prapancha, whereas the Chandogya deals with the cosmic or sa-prapancha

you can see the difference in content , it has to be an small essay to include such a varied topics and definitly not from a book which has 9 volumns in total !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

2 )

Regarding quotes reference 2  : Ranade 1926, p. 205 , these are outrageously lie!! please check yourself with the following links the book is in pubic domain!! and look in to page numbers , it is completely not existing !!!

3)reference 104 : Ranade 1926, p. 59-60.

Here the author picks up only one line. !! and then puts another text from another source to bring about wrong meaning. Eg the line from the book is " The Brihadaranyaka gives an unorthodox explanation of the origin of the caste-system." and then qoutes from other source "This has been criticized by the Dalit leader Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar."

where the actual content says that the brihadarnayaka explains caste system based on duties and responsibalities which is unorthodox !

which gives false notion that it was from a single content !!

the link : http://www.archive.org/details/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926.djvu

The actual pdf file : http://ia600604.us.archive.org/2/items/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926.djvu/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926_text.pdf

Will an admin please close this mess?

This report was filed to 'right great wrongs'. Despite Shrikanthv's claims, Mahadevan wrote the portion cited from the book edited by Radhakrishnan, and the Ranande 1926 reference is not false. This was already discussed at the talk page for the article, where I provided quotes to prove this, though someone decided to ignore them. As for the sources that he dismisses on racist and sectarian grounds are cited for their criticism of the Upanishads. He doesn't seem to have a problem with non-Hindus praising the Upanishads, and he would rather have a source where a Hindu criticizes western study of the Upanishads, but he doesn't want western criticism included. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Recently added material has been merged into the appropriate headings, referenced and attributed. Article looks to meet the criteria. Possibly a pointy nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is rather disappointing to see that wiki articles have been compromised of quality because of force full editors, I am still waiting for answers for my 3-4 questions , where out for 1 only pertained view of one person being forced to be true, i am just asking to make the article better, giving it good status , makes it to be true. And cleaning or improving it becomes not easy. Shrikanthv (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

reckless editor involved

The above Ian is involved in reckless editing of the upanishad page, Possible diversion from the issue by branding me as a racist, without out answering the complete issues in hand Shrikanthv (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Quit lying about me. I did not delete your additions to the criticism section (as you've claimed on the talk page and on User talk:Jojalozzo), I merged it with more appropriate sections. Your additions to the criticism section only served the purpose of weakening the rest of the criticism section and were given WP:UNDUE weight.

I will admit that when you tried to dismiss sources just because their authors were not Indian Hindus, that I did call that dismissal racist and sectarian.

As for not answering the complete issues at hand, I keep pointing out that the citations provided support the information given, and even quoted half of them, but you keep ignoring it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes , you were intelligent about deleting two section and merging only one section with article, so that your activities are seen to be justifiable, and again i am pointing out to Point 3 and point 2 and not to point 1 (which you are answering , which i know not to be true ) and stop convicting me for doing 'right great wrongs'. , i have not added any commercial links nor from book which is commercially selling know , but from a book which is available free to public!, and no personnels interests are being involved Shrikanthv (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Entre a Mi Mundo

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

Result pending

The reviewer did not leave helpful comments for improvements on this article. Sh/e left the GA review template blanked with oppose signs. Sh/e only explained, in a one-short sentence, that the article is not near GA level (wow very helpful). This isn't the first time I complained about a GA reviewer. I'm not sure if its me personally and that's why no one likes to review any/the article(s) I nominate but I think I should get a fair review. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, your comment that you will fix it has not been done, not even about the copyright status of some files. Well, I did remove them. Secondly, I'm male, and the parser fontion {{GENDER:Ebe123|he|she|}} works perfectly. You could of asked for extra details, but it does need to get more compliance with WP:MOS. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Because you failed it without any comments for improvements besides the short sentence. I didn't know you was going to quick-fail it, that's why I said I was going to fix it. Secondly, I don't need to ask you to review the article on your talk page, if you started the review yourself. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the comments left are not very helpful, a community review is unlikely to yield anything in this case. Your best bet is to take Ebe123 up on his offer of more details, fix what you can and then renominate it at WP:GAN. AIRcorn (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

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

Result pending

Met GA status 4 years ago. Recently i had to add a citation needed tag to it and upon reading this, compared to other GA articles, i don't feel it meets the GA anymore. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:09 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please list specific examples of problems here. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The significant contributor is semi-retired and hasn't been on since December 2. The GA nominator is also the same person. I could send him a message, but i wouldn't know if he would answer. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:03 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RustedAutoParts, the idea is not to 'scalp' articles, but advise on how you think they can be improved to meet criteria. You've obviously looked at the article enough to come to the conclusion it doesn't meet Good article criteria, so now list what those problems are. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the cite-needed tag with a ref to an offline source [1]. I can email the magazine article upon request but I can see that the article was written based on this press release. maclean (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other concerns now that the citation needed tag is resolved? AIRcorn (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The cast section seems to be a bit awkwardly written. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:23 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the Muppet Performers section much. In my opinion it would be a lot better to simply have "Steve Whitmire as Kermit the Frog" and leave all the "as the ......." stuff out of it. It should probably focus just on the main Muppets, I am sure we don't include all the minor roles in other movie articles. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The change to the cast section was relatively recent so I reinstated the wording that was present in the version that passed GA. It has improved it greatly in my opinion. I would be happy for this to be kept if this change holds. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Boron

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

Result pending

I feel that the article is not suitable referenced; there are many paragraphs that lack refs. In addition, the prose strength does not seem GA-worthy to me. StringTheory¹¹ 05:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The page grew from 54,848 bytes (2009-07-21) to 71,713 bytes (2012-01-05) and also from 98 refs to 112 refs, there might be the good chance to improve the page with the help of the main contributors.--Stone (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep While it could be improved I am not seeing anything here or at the article that warrants delisting. Maybe if some examples of poor prose or unreferenced statements were provided a stronger case could be made. AIRcorn (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Martin Luther

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

Result pending

There is a huge paragraph (Starting with "According to scholars") in the "The start of the Reformation" above "Justification by faith" that attempts to discredit a bunch of commonly held ideas about the circumstances of the 95 thesis. I added in a liberal sprinkling of ^{[citation needed]} since this was a huge blob of psuedo-"facts" that hadn't been verified in any way for almost a year. This wasn't meant to be a menace, I am just trying to clarify the large number of claims in this paragraph without tag bombing it.

I find it interesting that this was listed as a featured page in October 2011 when this huge, fact-laden paragraph only has a single citation - the first sentence - and then makes many more claims with no citations to back them up. Some good soul put in a single ^{[citation needed]} dated May 2011, so I can only assume there are more facts that need to be carefully rechecked and properly cited -- or removed entirely?

I bring this up because this has been a heavily used page for the front page "on this day" feature, ten times in fact, and we are pointing to this page as a good example of what Wikipedia is, while at the same time not citing the facts. Hopefully someone can decide to remove this paragraph completely, or a student of god can go back and verify these claims?

Therefore, it fails criteria 2b - (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged

Thanks Hadlock (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley: I passed the article for GA (not, of course FA, as stated above). If the three sources at the start of the paragraph in question did not cover all the statements that follow them, further citations would be needed. Is it suggested that they do not do so? Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you happen to check those citations when you did the review? AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I do not have the resources to check the first three citations, although considering the layout and abundance of the other sources within the article I find it unlikely that they support the rest of the paragraph. Walter Krämer, Götz Trenkler, Gerhard Ritter and Gerhard Prause are the authors of the citations, however they are not mentioned in the rest of the paragraph, which lends more weight to the idea that these sources don't apply to remainder of the paragraph. Furthermore in the passed version a cite to this website was present near the bottom, correctly removed with this edit in June 2011. The citatinon needed tags have been requested for a while with no action being taken despite a lot of edits to the page. If someone could resolve those tags (or removes the uncited information) soon then this can be kept, otherwise it will have to be delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Delist, regretfully. If the citation needed tags are taken care of before this is closed the closer can disregard this !vote and consider me a keep. AIRcorn (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delist. I have removed the contentious unsourced material and replaced it with a short summary. The source I used to cite it is a travel book, so it's not top quality, but it's better than nothing for the moment. I would strongly support a delist - it appears the sources have not been checked; the lead does not cover the article adequately per WP:Lead; the presentation isn't clear - his decision to drop law was the result of his thunderstorm experience, though this is presented in a separate paragraph; there are a number of short paragraphs giving a choppy, awkward feel; there are a number of short sections contrary to WP:Layout; the contents are unbalanced: there is a large section on antisemitism, and nothing on his legacy or significance (which is standard in encyclopaedias on Luther, given his importance), so failing 3(a) and 3(b); there are images cluttering the article, failing WP:LAYIM; captions are variable, sometimes too long, sometimes not clear enough, failing 6(b) - WP:Captions. The article needs a decent peer review, and a period of work before being nominated, and then, given the topic - its size, importance and complexity - it would benefit from an experienced reviewer prepared to track down and read sources. Fails - 1(a) and 1(b); 3(a) and 3(b); 6(b). It needs to be checked for 2(b) and 2(c), and 4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delist - there are a vast range of academic sources available on Luther, and I don't think the content is adequately presented or referenced. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  

---