From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced Wikipedia good article reviewers. The oldest nominations in need of additional reviews are: Silent Hill 2 • Barbara Gordon • Marsileaceae • Mark Foley scandal • John Herivel (update list) Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Shortcuts: WP:GAR WP:GA/R The Good article reassessment page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if good article listed articles still merit their good article status, if former good articles have been improperly delisted, or if good article nominations have been inappropriately failed. It is also allows feedback to be given for delisted articles or failed nomination when the explanation for delisting or failure was inadequate. Articles on the good article list are assessed against the good article criteria. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a disagreement about the article's status. This is not a Peer Review Process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer Review. edit guidelines

If you believe an article should be delisted If you find an article listed as a good article that does not satisfy the good article criteria, then there is a procedure you can follow to delist it. If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, seek another delister, or ask other editors to reassess it here (see below). 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. Leave a message on the article talk page detailing any remaining problems. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article. Allow time for other editors to respond. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. To delist, check that you are logged in (anons may not delist articles), remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and decrement the good article count. Then remove the {{GA}} tag from the article talk page and replace it by {{DelistedGA|27 November 2007}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}. Remember to explain on the article talk page what the problems were and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to reassess it here (see below). You may also delist, and renominate, which invites another editor to evaluate the article again. Please be sure to explain this fully on the article talk page.

If you believe an article should be listed If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, then it is best not, in general, to take the article straight back to the nominations page. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page. 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! However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfill all the requirements, or that the explanation given was inadequate and you need more feedback, then you can ask other editors to reassess the article and/or the decision here (see below).

How to list an article here. To list an article here, click this link, and add {{subst:GAR|Article=ARTICLE.NAME|Reason=RATIONALE ~~~~}} to the top of the list. Replace ARTICLE.NAME with the name of the article, an insert your RATIONALE for bringing the article to GAR. More information can be found here.

Guidelines for reviewers. Please consult WP:WIAGA 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 review 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 wikipedian 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 and archiving a reassessment discussion.

When a reassessment discussion has run its course, it can be closed and archived. This must not be done with discussions which are still active unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 5 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 days. 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 7 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 5 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, do not close. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by more experienced archivists. To archive the discussion, remove it from the reassessment page, and add it to the bottom of the latest archive page. At the top of the discussion, state the result (whether there was consensus, and what action was taken) and add your signature. If the result is not immediately obvious from the comments in the discussion, explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. Finally, and most importantly, leave a comment on the article talk page explaining the result of the reassessment, and linking to the archived discussion. edit archiving guidelines

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Latest) →

Contents 1 Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list) 1.1 Analytical Marxism 1.2 Dodo 1.3 Battle of Britain 1.4 Pikachu 1.5 Dante's Cove 1.6 Batman (1989 film) 1.7 Batman Forever 1.8 Denmark 1.9 Call of Duty 2 1.10 Battle of France 1.11 Tofu 1.12 Allegory in the Middle Ages 1.13 Stillwell Avenue 1.14 Opus Dei 1.15 Goldfish 1.16 Silent Hill 2 1.17 Barbara Gordon 1.18 Marsileaceae 1.19 Mark Foley scandal

[edit] Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)

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

[edit] Analytical Marxism

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article doesn't appear to meet criteria 2a and 2b. Sections such as "Justice and Power" and "Denoument" have no in-line citations. For example, statements such as "Most of its practitioners agreed that the Marxism that in the beginning they had set out to interrogate and, to an extent, defend, was not theoretically or politically defensible" lack any cites. Additionally, all of article's in-line citations lack page references. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist This has been a GA since Dec. '05; things have changed. I think it simply got a GA tag slapped on it... didn't check GAC.. not sure if GAC even existed then... It does have good content but needs a rewrite in the new GA zeitgeist. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dodo

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I reviewed this article as part of the sweeps, and I found a few issues with it. While from a strictly technical point of view, the lead conforms to WP:LEAD, I feel like there is too much about the Dodo used in language and too little on its biological characteristics. In short, the amount of text given to certain areas of the topic in the lead is disproportionate to the amount of information in the article. Also, I feel like there aren't enough cites in the Diet, Morphology and Flightlessness, and Extinction sections. Additionally, the Dodos and Culture section seems to need to be re-worked into something resembling a paragraph. However, since from a technical point of view, this article seems to conform to WP:WIAGA, I was not sure whether or not to delist it. Corvus coronoides _{talk 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)}

Keep. I agree that there are a few issues with this article. In addition to those pointed out, the word Dodo/dodo is inconsistently capitalised throughout and there are too many unnecessary wikilinks. But overall I think it's a strong article that needs just a little bit of TLC to restore its shine. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say keep too, but isn't it too late? Geometry guy 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, someone had to say it I guess. :) But I'm going to bring the dodo back to life – or at least I'm going to make the changes that will hopefully allow this article to keep its GA status. Maybe I feel a little bit of affinity with the dodo, but this article will lose its GA status over my dead body. (I'm not sure how to represent demonic laughter in text, so you'll have to bear with me.) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Britain

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. I reviewed the article last week and left the article on hold for a week to address the issues I raised here concerning inline citations, but none were added. There are other statements that could be sourced as well, but I believe the statements I mentioned should at least be sourced. I don't know if this is just my obsessive desire for more referencing within articles (see Battle of France below), so I need alternate opinions on the status of the article. Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only a small way into the article, but am already finding exactly the same kind of sensational language (i.e., matters of opinion) unsupported by citations as I found in Battle of France. Example: "More shocking to the German pilots was the newer Spitfire Mk I, which was quickly recognised as a nimble, world-class fighter." By whom? And who says the German pilots were shocked? I notice that you mostly focus on uncited facts in your analysis, but it is the opinions that really need inline citation in my view: facts can be supported more easily by general sources. Anyway, I suggest you follow your instincts and continue the delisting process that you started. There's no need for a GAR on this in my view. Geometry guy 20:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist Again, this smells a bit like a GA in places, but many statements are uncited, including statistics and expressions of opinion; some sections lack any citation at all. It doesn't need a WHOLE lot of work, but it is still not GA in its current state. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hey Nehrams, good work on all the sweeps. I won't post a hopelessly distracting beer image here, but here's a link: Image:Lager beer in glass.jpg. :-) Hey, have you been posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history about any GAR's and delistings in this area? Those people are (sometimes) good about getting on top of problems like these.... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of the project/task forces when the article was on hold, but I didn't mention the GARs, so I'll do that right now. Thanks for the heads up. By the way, thanks for the picture, because I can't drink the actual thing for another six months! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pikachu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Speedy delisted with no notice on talk page, and edit summary of "lacks real world information". However, unlike most pokemon articles, this particular one does seem to have information about the real world, in the cultural impact section. Most of the article seems referenced, though a few of the links might be questionable. I'm on the fence about this because some of the references I just don't know about, but one thing I do know is that this article definently has real world information in it. Homestarmy (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - does the real-world content in this article meet the updated WP:FICT? -Malkinann (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated? Man, nobody tells me these things anymore.... Homestarmy (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But to answer the question, it does seem notable per that guideline, a float appeared in a Macy's day parade, and there's something about a plane. Of course, that's the first time i've read the "updated" WP:FICT, so I might not be understanding it right... Homestarmy (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or it might have been WP:WAF - I forget which one, but one of the fiction guidelines has been made more stringent of late. I note that the "biological characteristics" section is still very in-universe.-Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - lede needs additional sourcing to support assertions about the character's notoriety and status as mascot and the source of the name. Sex differences in the bio-characteristics section needs a source. If there must be a pop culture section then the bit about the first balloon being retired and the new balloon need sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that "pop culture sections" are supposed to show the cultural impact/influence of Pikachu, and that's supposed to be the "meat" of the notability of the article?? -Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, it would be nice if that's what they were used for, wouldn't it? But that's a conversation for another day... Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. Doesn't show the notoriety of the character, and written in a very in-universe style for the "Biological characteristics" section. bibliomaniac15 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist until Sweeps come and do a detailed review. Read the whole article, and you'll see that it does relate to real-world (such as trading card game, parade mascot). Even an airplane featured pikachu (Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg, so do you think it's important? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohana, this is the detailed review. The main problem is that text itself isn't hugely convincing. I know that puff phrases aren't allowed, but have you tried Google Scholar? As Pikachu featured in the anime there might be a few sources out there that examine Pikachu in particular. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dante's Cove

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

Listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

GA was failed claiming that the episode summary section violated WP:OR. While it appears that WP:WAF allows for the use of the episodes themselves to write summaries as long as the summaries are factual and not a synthesis, the reviewing editor disagreed, stating that WAF is "a controversial element of policy that may or may not have consensus." Regardless, per his direction I relocated the episode summaries to a sub-page but now the reviewing editor is on break for the next week. I'm hoping since the summaries were the only objection that the article can be listed quickly. Otto4711 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will get a quick answer here: just renominate, and archive this discussion when you do. Geometry guy 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batman (1989 film)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I'm doubting this statusdue to the following concerns:

1. The lead section is far too sparse to be a concise overview of the article.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Plot section is too long.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I will get to work on the other three problems.

1. The non-free images in the article besides the identifying image have insufficient fair use rationales.

1. The Box office performance section is too sparse to warrant its own section.
2. There is no Critical reaction section from independent perspectives to comment on the film.

Hopefully these concerns can be addressed. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist especially per a lack of rationales for fair use and a critical reaction section. Very poor article. VanTucky ^Talk 19:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batman Forever

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was concerned to see that an editor who has only been editing since November 3, 2007 passed this as a Good Article. These are the following issues:

1. Non-free images in the article besides the identifying poster image lack sufficient fair use rationale.

Done I'll get to work on the other two improvements later. Wildroot 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The "Critical analysis" section barely has any reviewers talking about the film. A lot of the content is from people involved with the film itself. It would be appropriate to have more independent perspectives -- see Road to Perdition#Reception for such a section.

Done I think you should see for yourself. I wrote it in the same format/style that you wrote in Road to Perdition#Reception. The reason why I included quotes from Schumacher were because of his reaction towards the reviews, so to speak. Now, I'm just trying my best to find those articles you listed. They are of course hard to find, but I did purchase two magazines off EBAY with a total of three dollars each. They were original published material specifically from Warner Brothers. I'm going to see what I can dig up, catch you later. Wildroot 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Purely online sources are not sufficient for shaping an article's content. Take a look at User:Erik/Batman Forever for many sources that should be used in the article. Even Good Articles require some research beyond what's accessible via Google.

Hopefully, these improvements can be made. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I make no comments other than to refute the above single claim; that online sources alone are not sufficient. There are many online sources that are reliable enough to pass WP:RS. If individual online sources used by the article are not reliable, please note which references need replacing. However, one cannot summarily reject all online references as inherently unreliable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denmark

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I think this article should be reassessed before putting on the list of GA at the moment. Very weak citation:

• 1) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Pre-Christian Denmark.
• 2) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Medieval Denmark.
• 3) Only one citation can be found in the paragraph of Recent history.
• 4) Only one citation can be found in the section of politics.
• 5) some statements in the section of economy need citations:
  • The government has met the economic convergence criteria for participating in the third phase (the common European currency - the Euro) of the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU), but Denmark, in a September 2000 referendum, rejected The Monetary Union.
  • In the area of sickness and unemployment, the right to benefit is always dependent on former employment and at times also on membership of an unemployment fund, which is almost always -but need not be- administered by a trade union, and the previous payment of contributions. However, the largest share of the financing is still carried by the central government and is financed from general taxation, and only to a minor degree from earmarked contributions.
  • The Danish welfare model is accompanied by a taxation system that is both broad based (25% VAT and excise) and with high income tax rates (minimum tax rate for adults is 39.6%).
  • Denmark is home to many well known multi-national companies, among them: A.P. Moller-Maersk Group (Maersk - international shipping), Lego (children's toys), Bang & Olufsen (hi-fi equipment), Carlsberg (beer), and the pharmaceutical companies Lundbeck and Novo Nordisk.
• 6) No citation AT ALL in the section of transport.
• 7) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Cinema of Denmark.
• 8) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish sport.
• 9) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish Food AT ALL.

Several sections need more information:

• Transport
• Religion
• Military

Many references seems not to follow the format of reference (MoS).

• 1
• 14(?)
• 23
• 32-34
• 40-42

No English sources AT ALL provided in the section reference, only Danish and Swedish were given. How about See also?? Coloane 05:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delist I guess it could use some more citations for a few surprising/contentious facts, but in general it seems ok. A paragraph-by-paragraph run-down seems like overkill though: there's no rule that says every paragraph should have a citation. The citations are also poorly formatted, and a few sections are choppy/short. Definitely close to GA, except for those few issues. Drewcifer 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per the nomination. I agree that citation is a problem here, but there are also other formatting discrepencies with mid-prose external links and images. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Several sections, particularly those on history, need references. Statements such as "It is believed that Denmark became Christian to prevent invasion by the rising Holy Roman Empire in Germania which was a constitution by Charlemagne, that made Harald Bluetooth build six fortresses around Denmark..." need in-line citations. With some work this article can be a great GA-class work. Majoreditor (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per referencing and citation problems. VanTucky ^Talk 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call of Duty 2

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As I see it, fails the 'broad in coverage aspect', giving only a brief bit about anything besides gameplay and plot. The lead reflects this lack of information- it talks about mobile phone versions, but I haven't seen anything in the article about it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Woah, I guess I was biased in looking at it when I wrote it...anyways, I'll go add to the reception (etc.) sections now. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of France

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. Although multiple sources have been added since the last recommendation to include them, I don't believe it to be sufficient for the length of the article. Nehrams2020 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Much of the article is well-referenced; I count a total of 62 in-line citations. However, two sections lack any citations. The Prelude section would be stronger if it contained a citation on Hitler's peace overtures. The section on Dyle Plan also needs citations. Majoreditor 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the casualties section (which deals with hard numbers) had inline citations for the figures, i'd say this article would be well-referenced overall, neither unferenced section seems critically important, and there are general references at the bottom which probably cover some or most of the material in those sections. Homestarmy (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist It is not the number of citations that matters, but how they are used. Most of the citations here are to specific pages to support specific facts, but which facts get citations seems to be a bit of a lottery. Ironically, one of the few examples of multi-page citation (footnote 45) seems to support only a quotation (probably it is supporting the whole paragraph). The article might benefit from some general cites to its sources to support paragraphs containing uncontroversial material such as "Because of a low birthrate that had even further declined during the First World War, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to the total population — which furthermore was only half of that of Germany." On the other hand, there are also matters of opinion that really need specific citations which do not have them. One example is the section on "Allied reaction", which is full of such unsourced opinion statements. In the next subsection, there is also the assertion that "The Allies seemed incapable of coping with events." which surely needs a source. Geometry guy 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tofu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was found during sweep process. It carries a lot of information, but I feel that it's a little too much (per criteria 3b). The references are not uniform. Also, trivia section was found. It definetely doesn't deserve a bold delist, so I want others' opinions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It clearly does not meet WP:LEAD at the moment. Although this doesn't deserve a bold delist, it might be appropriate to use a regular delisting procedure, as described in the guidelines at the top of this page: i.e., list your concerns on the talk page, maybe try to fix some of them, wait a week or so, and if the article still does not meet the criteria, delist it. Geometry guy 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Yes, the lead is definently too short, it can't possibly be summarizing most of the article. Homestarmy (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist lead is too short for an article this long. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Allegory in the Middle Ages

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Has been listed as in need of citations for 11 months. As it stands, it is unsourced and reads like OR. Pastordavid 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. Paucity of in-line citations means that it fails GA criteria 2. Majoreditor 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist needs citationsBalloonman 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist There's no way a mere three sources are capable of adequatly covering a subject as broad as this. -- Homestarmy (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. As per above. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. This need not have been brought to GAR: see the delisting guidelines at the top of the page. It suffices to detail the problems on the article talk page, maybe try to fix some of them, wait a week or so, and if the article still does not meet the criteria, delist it. The article clearly needs to be better sourced, not necessarily by more inlines. For example, the quotation from Dante, although it is attributed, is not even accompanied by bibliographical information about Dante's work in the references. Geometry guy 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delist. bibliomaniac15 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Though due to a lack of breadth, not necessarily a lack of citations. I don't see much of the article as requiring citations under the GA criteria, but the article is sorely lacking in content/coverage for such a broad topic. Drewcifer (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stillwell Avenue

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I would like a second opinion on this article, based on concerns at Talk:Stillwell Avenue. Thank you.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse fail: While the reviewers choice of words "too short" may have been a bad choice, the crux of his arguement, that the article lacks the broadness required of a GA as spelled out in WP:WIAGA seems quite accurate. The history section, for example, contains 3 unrelated facts crammed into one paragraph. 80 years of history condensed into 3 short lines does not seem to be broad enough at all. Also, the "future and culture" section? The title itself makes no sense. If both topics are to be covered, they should be part of separate sections "Future plans" and "in culture" or "culture of the street" or some such. Also, we have a superlative statement (largest subway station) that is left unreferenced. That needs referencing, as all superlatives are inherently challenegable. This seems well below WP:WIAGA standards at this time. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse fail. The article does not do enough to assert notability, it is not broad, the lead does not summarize it, and the prose is poor (e.g. "The road is a parallel for a short time to Henderson Walk until the intersection with Surf Avenue at .2 of a mile."). There are several minor issues that also need to be fixed, such as the simultaneous left and right images in the transportation section. Geometry guy 20:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as above. When will "incredibly dull to read" be added as part of GAC? Eusebeus (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  I like it! New criterion 1(c): "the article should be incredibly dull to read". I can't wait to delist some articles that are just too interesting to be encyclopedic! :-) Geometry guy 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I am not personally involved in the article, and am actually not sure whether the article should be delisted or not. However, one user has delisted the article without giving any time for concerns to be addressed, and I think it is much better that a consensus be reached (especially as it is not 100% clear this article should be delisted). Some of the concerns can be found at Talk:Opus Dei#Delisted the article as GA. Shudde ^talk 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the GA list. I honestly don't see the POV problems the delister is complaining about. The article is comprehensive, indeed an excellent overview of the subject, and it DOES present both well publicized positive and negative perceptions of the organization. The sources are approrpriately used; it cites both secondary and primary sources as approrpriate. While I would agree that for obvious cases, it is quite allowable for an article to be delisted without discussion, this was right to be brought here. I see no major issues with this article as it stands now. Indeed, I would recomend an FA run in the future. This seems quite close to meeting the requirements of an FA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. I do think that there's a neutrality issue with this article, as noted by the editor who pre-emptorily delisted it. I'm particularly concerned about the Replies to criticism section. If whatever's important in that section was distributed elsewhere in the body of the article then I might be persuaded to change my mind, but as it stands it does look a bit like "set 'em up and shoot 'em down". --Malleus Fatuarum 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the article meets GA criteria and is well-balanced. I'd prefer to see the criticism and the rebuttal integrated into, rather segregated from, the rest of the article -- but that certainly isn't grounds for de-listing. Majoreditor 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Well this is a first Of all the articles I have ever read and come away knowing no more than before I began, this is by far the longest and most meticulously documented. I lean toward Delist, because I have no idea why O.D. is so powerful, and the criticisms were glossed over in a hurry. Please feel free to persuade me to Keep... --Ling.Nut 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are definately some problems with the article. The introduction is very choppy and should be smoothed out. I saw a lot of criticism of O.D. throughout the article. The controversy section used a lot of weasel words (name critics and supporters.) The controversy section was also where the article was its weakest. The criticism section should be strengthened, while the rebuttal section should be shortened. But overall, I thought the article is clearly a Good Article. I do not, however, agree with Jayron in thinking that it is "quite close" to becoming an FA. Too many sections where the prose wasn't quite there.Balloonman 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nowhere near FA; still very questionable on GA. I think it's a diligently created puff piece, frankly. Glossed over everything. To repeat, I learned nothing except what I could have learned if I had bothered to find some pamphlet in some Catholic library somewhere or other. --Ling.Nut 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Diligently created puff piece would be a good summary of my opinion of the article as well. Nowhere near FA, and very dubious for GA. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I shall have to remember "Diligently created puff piece" as a possible GAR recommendation! Although I have seen worse, I would have to agree. I read through the article, trying to imagine I'd never heard of the topic. By the time I reached the "Controversy" section, I was thinking "How dare they criticise such a wonderful organisation! Okay, some of its members may have strange personal practices, but look at all the good work they do."

Controversy sections are not a great idea at the best of times: when they are of the form "Criticism - Rebuttal" they are particularly unhelpful at achieving NPOV. This is yet another article (cf. Freemasonry) which is written from the internal point of view of an organization that feels more widely misunderstood. Consequently, it fails to achieve a neutral tone: where criticism is discussed, the article is defensive, and uses loaded words and sentences. Words not avoided include "claim", "point out", "although", "despite", "report", "allege", "maintain", and "contend". Also, although "while" is not mentioned at WP:WTA, it is misused in several places, including a particularly flagrant abuse in the lead no less. As a result, the lead clearly fails to summarize the article, with all of the controversy swept under the carpet in that loaded sentence.

After my own review, I went to the talk page to read the case for delisting made by Jaimehy. While I cannot verify some of the individual points made, I tend to agree overall with the analysis there.

WP:NPOV is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood of Wikipedia policies. I have said this here many times before: NPOV is not primarily achieved via a contest between pro- and anti- viewpoints, it is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the entire article from a neutral perspective. There is a beautiful and eloquent description of this by Gosgood in my talk archives.

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article, but I cannot support the continued GA listing of an article which is riddled with sentences like "Despite his praise, the relationship between Paul VI and Opus Dei has been described by one Opus Dei critic as "stormy"." Delist. Geometry guy 14:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies I apologise sincerely for preemptorily delisting this article. In my astonishment that it should have been listed in the first place, I didn't stop to understand the accepted procedure. However, given that the article is, on the one hand, very important in its category and, on the other, astoundingly misleading, incomplete and biased that it should be urgently delisted. In tone and content, it is exactly the description of Opus Dei would have made of itself. Considering the controversial nature of the organisation, it is very inappropriate that this should be the case. Please delist as soon as possible Jaimehy (talk)

• Keep. I agree with those who voted "keep" based on GA criteria. I believe this piece follows actual Wikipedia statements on NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." The word "proportionately," I believe, is more often than not forgotten when WP:NPOV is discussed. This word goes with another word "expert" that is also usually missed: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." John Allen, Jr. and Vittorio Messori are highly respected professional journalists and are not Opus Dei members. Marax (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply This sort of argument from authority has no place in Wikipedia. Besides, while John Allen and Vittorio Messori are both highly respected journalists, they are prominent apologists for a variety of flavours of Roman Catholic conservatism. Extraordinarily, even the mild criticisms of John Allen fail to be addressed in the article. Delist urgently Jaimehy (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Jaime, arm-waving comments such as Delist urgently aren't going to help you reach consensus. Calm, civil discussion works best. Majoreditor (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is good advice. Note that Jaime is relatively new to WP, so we need to allow a bit of slack per WP:BITE. In any case, it is the substance of the argument that is important, and no one has addressed the issues, for example, that I raised above. Geometry guy 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reply. Even if the article does represent all significant views fairly and proportionately (which I very much doubt), this only means it satisfies part of the neutral point of view policy (described mainly by WP:UNDUE). The NPOV policy requires that articles are written from a neutral perspective. The clue is in the name of the policy. Representing all significant views fairly and proportionately is but a part of that (otherwise the policy would be called ASPOVFP). As for the criteria, I see no counterargument to my assertion that it also fails 1b (via WP:LEAD and WP:WTA), although I am pleased to see that both Jaimehy and Marax are making efforts to improve the article. Geometry guy 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps they can take a crack at re-phrasing the "while" in the lead. Majoreditor (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but one of the reasons that the good article criteria flag up WP:WTA is that it is a strong indication that an article has not been written from a neutral perspective (which, as WP:NPOV boldly declares, is "non-negotiable"). So fixing the "words to avoid" alone is unlikely to solve the problem. The article needs quite a bit of rewriting, and then the lead will need to be rewritten to summarize the article. I've usually found it is pointless to fiddle with the lead until the article is in good shape. Geometry guy 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. The WTA you mentioned were placed there by Alecmconroy who did a major rewrite (see here please). You might want to look at his his user page. He has been suspected of being an atheist and a Jesuit. He was suspected by a pro-Opus Dei editor of planting a number of straw men arguments (see here) so as to put Opus Dei down. I believe Alecmconroy did a good job in structuring the article so as to include a lengthy coverage of criticisms. I also believe much of Jaimehy's concerns are covered by that generous section and other criticisms found throughout the article. While the section can be improved, I have not seen another article with such generous coverage of criticisms. I do believe Alecmconroy’s use of WTA was balanced. Those words were placed strategically on both sides of the dispute. Balance has always been his main concern. However, in deference to clear Wikipedia consensus on WTA, I am helping bring back the "he state", "he said" and "he wrote" that was in an older version before the major revision by Alecmconroy. All this is to show you that great efforts were expended by editors here to write the article from a neutral perspective. Marax (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome for the comments, and thanks for the fascinating answer. First you pin the article's problems on an editor and report vague accusations about him, questioning his good faith (excuse the pun). Then you say that you believe he did a good job. Then you suggest that you are helping to undo his edits in deference to consensus on WTA.

Let's unpick that a little. First, the religion of an editor is irrelevant: what matters is the quality of their edits. Second, I can see that Alecmconroy inserted several "claims" for the criticism he added, but the two oldid's given in your link do not support the idea that Alecmconroy is responsible for the words to avoid, loaded sentences, and lack of neutrality in the current article. The pre-Alecmconroy oldid contains plenty of words to avoid and loaded sentences, while many of the problems I noticed with the current text cannot be found in the post-Alecmconroy oldid.

It would be rather odd if the article's bias towards an internal Opus Dei and/or Catholic point of view were directly caused by an editor adding external criticism, especially given your accusation that this editor was hostile to Opus Dei. Instead there seems to have been a defensive response to the added criticism.

Neutral point of view is not primarily achieved by being "generous" in the coverage of criticisms, it is achieved by writing the entire article from a neutral perspective (how many times do I have to say this?). And if you have not seen as "generous" an article, I recommend Homeopathy and Parapsychology. Geometry guy 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Parapsychology article you draw attention to is an excellent example of writing about a potentially controversial subject from a neutral POV. No matter how good the rest of this Opus Dei article was, the mere presence of a Replies to criticism section gives the game away. There is absolutely no question in my mind that it is not written from a NPOV and ought to be delisted as a consequence. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying further the problem you see -- the replies to criticism, and for bringing up two examples of neutral writing. These examples, I believe, strengthen my previous point about proportionality and expertise. With regard to homeopathy and parapsychology, the majority of experts or neutral writers about the field find the criticisms valid. In the case of Opus Dei, the majority of third party experts who have studied it have concluded that the criticisms are not valid, they are myths.

In deference to the fact that the findings of these experts on Opus Dei have not cascaded down to the majority of readers, unlike those of the experts on homeopathy and parapsychology, the replies to criticism section is almost the same length as the criticism section. In fact, if we are to follow the logic of proportionality and expertise on homeopathy and parapsychology, this article would have to be re-written to provide more space to the replies to criticism so as to explain Opus Dei further according to Wikipedia standards of WP:RS.

John Allen, Jr.'s book was published in 2005 and was said to be "widely considered as the definitive book on Opus Dei", and was praised by Opus Dei critics. John Allen, Jr. is CNN Vatican analyst (once described as "maddeningly objective") and his independent work agrees with the findings of other investigators, e.g. Vittorio Messori and Patrice de Plunkett.

I hope I was able to understand your position well and reply accordingly, if not I'll be glad to know your position better. Marax (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my view that a Replies to criticism section is completely inappropriate, unless you also have a Replies to replies to criticism section, and a Replies to replies to replies to ... section. It appears to be apologists having the last word. You present the case, you present the criticism. You don't then try to refute that criticism. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Delist. I've seen enough. See my comments above. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist Mainly sticks to a factual breakdown of Opus Dei, but a bit spotty in its coverage/handling of its controversial nature. Much of the content necessary for a neutral approach seems there, so perhaps a reorganization of the article would do the trick. But as it stands it reads a little too positively. Drewcifer (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldfish

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Poorly-written and absolutely chock-full of {{fact}} tags. Some major sections are completely uncited. VanTucky ^Talk 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. It definitely needs more citations. I also dislike the lists inside the "Varieties" section, they would do better in a better article in my opinion. The "Description" is way too short as well. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist I get the feeling that this used to meet criteria in its past; the first several sections are all adequately referenced and well written. The last 2/3rds of the article, however, have poor prose, and are in desperate need of citations; even beyond the fact tags are several statistics provided, as one example. All statistics need a source, per WP:SCG, the relevent guide for this article. Its a shame given the quality work done on the first 2-3 sections, but as an overall article, this is clearly below WP:WIAGA standards. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right Jayron. I remember reading the article not too long after it passed, and it was good. The usual stewards of the article got burnt out with the large amount of vandalism that was going on for some time and left, so it's now in the sorry state you see. VanTucky ^Talk 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My heart aches. This one could be turned into GA by a dedicated editor. The ingredients are all there. Delist. --Ling.Nut 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist due to lack of citations. Additionally, the description section needs expansion and the prose are clunky. Majoreditor 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per above comments. More citations are needed, prose could be improved and fact tags need to be addressed. Rai-me 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per above... but also the lists are long and the prose reads as fluff---"they also die if they don't eat in a week." It isn't very encyclopedic. I do agree with Jayron, the first 2-3 sections were very strong... then it crashed.Balloonman 04:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Hill 2

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

My third successful GA. It has, since its nomination, swelled in its plot summary and gained an OR tag. Does it just need a bit of work or should delisting be considered? Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Keep A decent article for a great game, but there are a few things that stick out to me. First off the plot section should definitely be trimmed down. I'd say it needs to be about half of what it is now, but that's just a guesstimate. Also, there's a few instances of in-line citations having a space in between them and the sentence. It should be this,^[1] not this. ^[2] Also the in-line citations need to be formatted consistently and need to give proper and full attribution. Some of them are all over the place. Although the Music section has a main article link, I think you should add in a bit more prose than just a single sentence. I'd also trim down the External links a bit. Also, this sentence is a bit confusing "and he has been manifested from the perspectives of the film's characters rather than that of James, as he does not appear in the film." If you can fix those things, I'd say it definitely meets GA criteria. Hopefully that doesn't seem like too much work. Drewcifer 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Due to lack of improvement based on the above. Drewcifer 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Are you sure the version promoted meets the GA criteria? if it does you can be bold a revert back all those versions. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see how the plot is swelled. The current version of the plot is 10,1 kilobytes, reviewed version is 8,98 kb. The refs are the main reason for the increased size. --Mika1h 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Some of the sentence constructions in the plot section are troubling:
  • she has loathing for James - loathes? dislikes?
  • On their way, Maria claims to have seen Laura, and out of concern, Maria and James follow her. - Maria follows Maria?
  • After calling Laura a "liar", she runs off, - Laura calls herself a liar?
  • Pyramid Head, however, chases them and kills Maria while trying to make their escape - Pyramid Head and Maria were both trying to escape?
  • She greets him with disillusions of Mary and provocations. - James:"Hello, Maria!" Maria:"Happy disillusions of Mary, James! And merry provocations to you!"
  • After killing it, Angela becomes furious with James - Angela kills it?
  • There are probably others, I just got tired of listing them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Way too much in-universe information and not enough focus on real-world notability (sales figures, influence, etc...). Needs a major trimming on the plot, endings, etc... since as it is now it veers too much toward gamecruft to be GA. Eusebeus (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Gordon

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As per my peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Barbara Gordon, this is not a good article. It is far too excessively focused on the minutiae of DC comics trivia and continuity, and fails to provide an overview of its most significant claims - that Barbara Gordon, in both of her major comics incarnations, is a cultural icon in some sense. Furthermore, the article is appallingly presentist, with half of the character history being spent on the last four years of comics. The article is not a good article, and requires a thorough rewrite from first premises to become one. Phil Sandifer 14:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist I would agree with the above assessment. The balance between in-universe and out-of-universe perspective is WAY off, per WP:FICT guidlines, and the article is fails the WP:WIAGA broadness guidelines in both of its sub-criteria: It ignores major aspects, as Sandifer notes above, and also delves into unnecessary details. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment None of these issue were brought up during the original assessment, but improvements are being made to comply with this new review.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This was my first review ever, and even if i now see some of the issues mentioned by Phil Sandifer, i'm afraid others (like it's broadness) could only have been spotted by someone that knows a lot about comic books, i mean Phil says For a character with a 40 year publication history, it is ludicrous for almost half of the character history to focus on the last four years, heck i just though she didn't appear much early on but a lot during the last four years. By the way, Phil Sandifer appears to have retired from Wikipedia. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Renominate At this point all but 3 of the 13 issues mentioned in Phil Sandifer review have been corrected or are in the process of being corrected. This article should not loose its GA status.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment What are some of the issues brought up by Phil that aren't addressed? The summary style is way off in the bottom of the article - it's poor style to have an empty section with "Main article: such-and-such". Try using the lead from the spunout article as a summary in Barbara Gordon. -Malkinann (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply The first image should be replaced with something more classic - preferably showing her in her wheelchair. Alternatively, as the article makes the case that her portrayal as Batgirl is what she's most known for, go with a Batgirl image - it is preferable to have the iconic versions of characters over the current ones.

This is one issue I don't agree with. The current artwork is the clearest image of BG without other characters cluttering up the image. And there is already a clear image of BG in her Batgirl persona within the article.

There's a 20 year gap in the publication history between the Batman TV series and attempts to popularize the character and Killing Joke.

While this is true, I, as of yet, have been not been able to find critical reception of the character's use in DC Comic titles between 1970 and 1988- anything added at this point would be plot summary rather than critical analysis.

All other complaints/issues in the peer review have already been corrected. And I added a summary to both "Alternate Versions" and "Media Adaptations" in the main article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for that. The citations also need cleaning up... You can look at WP:CITE to see what needs doing. Like all the references in the form: "["Lady Shiva"]". ["Birds of Prey"]. etc. ISBNs would be very nice too. Web references should also have a last accessed date. -Malkinann (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply I've used the template from Template:Cite_episode for all for all episodes. They have been filled properly, with deleted parameters (as the template suggests) which are not needed or unavailable. As far as ISBN, I'm the ONLY person who has added them to the article, so if they aren't there (which is usually the case for individual issues rather than the collected volumes) then it means I simply can't find them. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marsileaceae

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Failure to use a specific template is not the same as failure to produce a broad article. The specified template is a guideline used by WP:PLANTS for species pages. It is in no way a straightjacket that all plants articles must meet. Many articles do not follow that "standard" template, and many should not follow that template. The Marsileaceae is one such article because a) it is not about a particular plant, b) it is not a plant that is cultivated except in specialized botanical gardens, so the "cultivation" section wouldn't apply, c) it does not have economic uses, except for occasionally substituting four four-leaf clover, which is hardly deserving of an entire "Uses" section. In short, the "broad coverage" criterion was misapplied by the reviewer. It means '"broad coverage", not "specific format". EncycloPetey 04:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse fail The article has two inline cites (not none as noted by the reviewer) however, some additional references seems to be required by the scientific citation guideline, which asks for specific citation for statements such as these: :*"In all, the family contains 3 genera and 50 to 70 species with most of those belonging to Marsilea." Statistics need citations always.

• "The majority of species (about 45 to 65) belong to the genus Marsilea, which grows world-wide in warm-temperate and tropical regions." Again, contains a statistic that needs a reference.

It is understood that SCG has different citation requirements than do other citation guidelines, but there still are some citation requirements.

Also, the broadness criteria seems to not be met. It was not the use of a specific template (in the Wikisense) that the reviewer objected to, it is that the article does not adequately address all major aspects of the topic. While a GA does not require the depth of coverage that an FA does, it does require that there be no major omissions. For example, the ecology (such as relation to other species/relation to its environment) is not covered. Also, no information is given on human interaction with this class of life, such as uses of these plants, or perhaps how these plants are cultivated(if useful) or controlled(if pest). Based on these shortcomings, it looks like a fail was an appopriate act to take. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The citations criticism is accepted and has been corrected. However, please note that the ecology/human interactions criticism is inappropriate. There are about 350,000 species of plants, and for most of those species little or nothing is known of how they interact with other species, and most plants have no human uses. Requiring an article to say "nothing is known of the ecology and there are no uses" imposes an unmeetable criterion, since such a statement would require a citation, and no such citation will exist when no such information has been published! It is a catch-22 to require an article to contain original research in order to meet "good article" status. The broadness criterion only requires known and published information to be covered, not unknown, unpublished information. If the information is so obscure that it is not published in books or articles about the plants, why should lack of that information in the article be a hurdle to receiving "good article" status? These plants are not cultivated, controlled, or used (beyond the little blurb in the article). In fact most of the world's 350,000 species of plants are not cultivated, controlled, or used by humans.

And you are mistaken about the reason for failure. The reviewer said: "This template contains numerous section topics not addressed by the article, hence the failure of broad coverage of the subject." The reviewer specifically failed the article for not including information she assumed should be in the article, whether or not that information actually exists, basing her decision solely on the misapplication of an inappropriate criterion: the WP:PLANTS template. The template does not apply to larger groups of plants and was never meant to be applied that way. It is merely a guideline, intended for use on pages covering a single species of plant, or in some cases a genus. It was never intended to apply to pages that cover larger groups of many disparate species, such as this article on a fern family. The broad coverage criterion is being misapplied. --EncycloPetey 12:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Return to GAN The article appears to have addressed the citation issues. Also, I can understand and accept the above arguement for broadness requirements. It is my opinion that the best course of action now is to seek an additional full review, by returning this to GAN. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate I didn't see the two Harvard references, but it still needs work. It is, however, obviously not a quick-fail in consideration of that. VanTucky ^Talk 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Opinion only I was the original reviewer and failed the article for lack of broad coverage, citing the non-adherence to the plants template. Not that the template should have been followed to the letter, but it raised plenty of questions for me about broad coverage, that's all. Contrast the sections in this article with those in Fabaceae, also a family-level article, which has sections on taxonomy, description, uses, images, refs and sources. FWIW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoyer (talk • contribs) 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  That's not a fair comparison. Fabaceae is the bean family, one of the largest, most diverse, and most economically important groups of plants on Earth. It includes over 600 genera and more than 16,000 species, with countless crops (peanuts, peas, lentils, clover, etc.) and a large number of kinds of trees. By comparison, the Marsileaceae is a group of small aquatic ferns with at most 70 species in 3 genera, and no economically important crops come from the group. Equivalent rank (family) in a classification does not indicate anything about the relative size or economic importance; it is merely a scientific label. One plant family may include only a single obscure species of liverwort with no economic or horticultural relevance, while another may have thoudands of members familiar to people all over the world. Compare for example Takakiaceae and Poaceae. --EncycloPetey 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems to me that some of the items in the reference list (eg. Campbell, Gifford, Kenrick, Lellinger, Moran, Smith Pryer and Schuettpelz, and Taylor and Taylor) aren't being used to reference anything in particular, but are more 'general knowledge'? -Malkinann (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  It looks that way only because the in-line citations aren't in place. Each article or reference was used for specific information in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Foley scandal

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I believe this article was unfairly failed due to "stability" issues, when the article itself has barely been edited in the past few months. I feel it is a Good Article. FamicomJL 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Renominate. I suggest that this article should be re-nominated. I really don't see much wrong with it. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse fail. The stability issue is due to the Transwiki tag in the article. I would endorse that that entire section needs to be moved to Wikiquote or Wikisource as described in the template. The problem with stability seems to be not that the article has NOT changed, but that it NEEDS drastic changes, and a GA review should NOT be undertaken until said changes have been made. I think the reviewer needed to explain that better, but the Transwiki should be completed before a proper GA review should be done since that changes that will make to the article will be significant. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Egads, I wish I hadn't read that. Disgusting. well, you can say Renominate or you can say Endorse fail, either way you wanna cut the cake.. but this shouldn't be GA until after the transwiki issues are cleaned up for sure. I think it should be sent through WP:LoCE as well... but a lot of work has been poured into this article; that much is abundantly clear. --Ling.Nut 04:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

..and OH PS I sympathize with those who brought this into GAR; the review was unusually cryptic. But still not GA time for this one yet. --Ling.Nut 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Renominate It seems stable, the removal of a "Message excerpts" section won't drastically change the article. There are too many of those text message quotes anyway, they're removal will only be for the better.Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)