Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators—Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings—work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delisting.

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Manual opening steps

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
4. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one month.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
   • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
4. After at least one month, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
5. If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.

Manual closing steps

1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
   • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
   • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
     • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
     • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
     • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles above the top review 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:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Include [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] in the section heading.

Princeton University

This article has been listed as a GA for some time now, this article's history suggests that this important page has been unfortunately stagnant. After a comprehensive reorganization to bring it in line with a WikiProject Universities-suggested section structure and trimming away of former news items, boosterism, and other cruft, the article still has many rough edges that do not currently meet GA criteria. These include: several embedded lists, poor verifiability due to inconsistent and sparse citations, and inconsistent coverage of topics (prominent buildings, traditions, fictional representations merit more attention than faculty & research, current administration, schools and departments, noted alumni, important historical eras like WWII, Cold War, last 25 years). Madcoverboy 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry

The article was GA listed May 29, and on June 30, User:Meekrob delisted it without following procedure (he delisted it and then brought his concerns to the talk page). We agreed to discuss the issues, but apart from a few minor items we were able to resolve, Meekrob has not been active either in the discussion or on WP since July 1, so we're at a standstill as far as that goes. As the article was delisted outside procedure, can it be relisted and then re-reviewed if necessary so we actually have time to work on fixing any potential issues? MSJapan 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth

Failed today by Pandacomics for not being broad in detail. The article is 30kb long and the only section missing is a production section; had that been included, there would be nothing to improve on. As criterion 3a notes, "This requirement...allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed." Atropos 07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse failure. While the article looks great, I fail articles all the time (albums, movies, etc...) on lack of production information. That section is significant enough that, when missing, the article fails criteria 3a.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Commment Atropos, is the reason there's no production section because there's no available sources on it, or because it isn't done yet? Homestarmy 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because, while I'm sure there are sources for it, I haven't found them yet. I expect there is information on the DVD special features, which I do not have, and I'm sure there are some interviews that are more geared towards production than del Toro's ideas somewhere. Atropos 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Power of Nightmares

Recently failed by PocklingtonDan. The review cited especially a failure in the neutrality criteria, and recommended that the article be given a "critique" of the subject matter. From what I can tell from the reviewer's comments, their idea of such a section would constitute original research. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• List as a GA It looks like the article DOES contain critical reviews, however. It is listed right in the article, and its well referenced too. I see no obvious variance from WP:WIAGA, and had I been the principal reviewer, I probably would have passed it. A few awkward turns of phrase here or there, but this is easily GA quality writing. I say it should be listed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the GA reviewer, I should point out that the article's author has not mentioned that I failed the article not just on the grounds of neutrality but also on the grounds of stability, with both the edit history and talk page demonstrating the article's lack of stability.My issue with the neutrality f the article is that the various claims are presented as fact without stating they are the author's beliefs only or evaluating or citing them. Just as one example among many the article states "The Neo-Conservatives, with their conservative Christian allies, attempt to demonize Clinton throughout his presidency with various real and fabricated stories of corruption and immorality". Not "The documentary argues that neo-Conservatives, with their conservative Christian allies, attempt to demonize Clinton throughout his presidency with various real and fabricated stories of corruption and immorality". There is quite a difference between the two, with the former being an uncited statement uncritically repeating the film's claims. If this was an article on a fictional novel it would be fine to say "Goldilocks ate all the bears' porridge". However, when reporting claims made by a documentary I would expect sentences to read "The documentary claims... It goes on to say... Contrary to popular accepted views". If somebody made a documentary saying for instance "Clinton is a lizard", For example, in David Icke's articles outlandish claims are preceeded by "According to Icke, ", "His latest work sees George W. Bush as", "Icke's core ideas...", "what Icke calls the", "He writes that", etc, etc. In contrast, The Power of Nightmares simply states in plain prose as fact every claim of the film series. Either the statements need to be cited, evaluated, or else reworded to make clear that they are all claims. I don't think this is unreasonable to make clear this is opinion/sedition rather than established fact. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't reviewed the article entirely yet, but I did check out the talk page and edit history, and it doesn't not show me any sign of an edit war and lack of stability. The edit history shows NO SIGN of instability. Most of the discussion page is over a year old, with only the last little bit being less than three months old. There was some recent discussion about some parts of the article, but it seems to me that it's been dealt with in the proper manner. - T-75|talk|contribs 05:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have also not reviewed the entire article as of yet, however I did look over the talk page and history and I agree with Theo. There was a quite lengthy dispute on the talk page about 3 months ago. It seems to have been resolved at this point, however. The history shows no edit warring, at least none in the past few months. Recent discussions on the talk page seem civil and constructive. As far as neutrality, I'll comment on that in my forthcoming review (and by "forthcoming", I mean "in a few hours"... at the earliest). LaraLove^T/_C 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse fail
  • The lead should be a summary of the article. Currently, it does not adequately summarize Airings and distribution or include anything from Reactions or the subheading of Criticisms.
  • I feel there is a need for more wikification.
    • "America" should be wikified as "The United States of America" or "The United States" considering "America" is a colloquialism and, therefore, is not encyclopedic. Subsequent uses should be "The United States". Currently, there is an inconsistency with this as both are used in subsequent appearances as well as "U.S." and "USA".
    • I also believe Individualism (this first appears in Part 1, but is later sublinked as "individualist" under Content), Westernization, Eastern Bloc, Bill Clinton, and Jihad should be wikified.
  • Is there a reason that 'evil' in the second paragraph of Part 1 is in single quotes as opposed to double quotes?
  • Punctuation is off in the article. Commas are missing and misplaced. This is something I may correct myself at a later time. Currently, however, it needs a good copy-edit. LaraLove^T/_C 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Tried to do some work towards this, altohugh a few times replacing "America" with "United States" seemed a touch awkward. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid

• Ridiculously technical article, full of phrases like "elevated cholesterol (increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels)", "alterations in left ventricle morphology" (and that's just the lead...). History section seems to confuse anabolic steroids with allegedly performance-enhancing substances a lot: For instance "The word "doping" is thought to of originated from the Dutch word doop which means ‘sauce’ and the verb doopen means ‘to dip, or immerse.’ The Boers frequently dipped their bread into strong drinks before hardships or tough challenges." - what does this have to do with steroids? Then there's just plain awful writing, like "Anabolic-Androgenic steroids produce anabolic and virilizing (also known as androgenic) effects." An article that refuses to work its way down to laymen's level, with questionable history, and poor focus. Not, in my opinion, a Good article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• I had myself wondered why the history section starts with material that has nothing to do with Anabolic steroids, but the last review was cancelled before I said anything. Now that you mention it though, there's no reason that some of those phrases in the lead couldn't be dumbed down, many of those big words in particular have easy synonyms. (for instance, morphology could just be shape, or form and structure) "public understanding of the true risks remains limited." makes it sounds like the article is going to start warning the reader about stuff, definently a no-no. Also, are they only banned in U.S. sport organizations? Why does the article wait until much later to say that other countries make the usage of these steroids illegal? The movement for decriminalization section also seems odd, because all it names are a few people and one or two maganizes, that's a pretty insignifigant looking movement if you ask me, and the last sentence has no referenced quote for "too great". For now, Delist. Homestarmy 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Homestarmy, I question whether or not you have even read the article or even wikipedia policy for that matter. Firstly, ALL of your criticism has absolutely nothing to do with WP:WIAGA. If you read WP:WIAGA you will see that the article more than meets the criteria for being a good article. Secondly, You claim that the only sports bodies listed are American? Huh? The IOC is American? FIFA is American? UEFA is American? Try again? I urge you to change your vote. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Every single one of my criticisms has to do with the GA criteria. Myself and Adam have already demonstrated jargon, having off-topic material in articles violates 3b, my concerns over the decriminalization thing might possibly indicate undue weight if those few people named are really the end of the decriminalization movement, and by extension, be a NPOV violation, and my concerns over which countries ban what and the unreferenced semi-quote are minor, but I felt I might as well mention them since I noticed them. Homestarmy 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting. The article fits the criteria for WP:WIAGA. Nowhere in WP:WIAGA does it say that good articles can't be technical and your criticism simply doesn't warrant a de-listment from good article. Moreover, I question your assertion that "increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels" is "technical language". Do you really think "LDL" and "HDL" are technical terms? They're used in common speech everyday in the media and on commercials, most people know what it means. The history of doping is only mentioned very briefly in the first paragraph of the history area. The history of modern pharmaceutical steroids is elaborated on right after that. Anabolic steroids are very relevant to sports doping and should be mentioned in it's history. I highly suggest you read [WP:WIAGA]] to get an idea of what meets the criteria for a good article and what doesn't Anabolic steroids definitely meets the criteria for a good article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  From 1b:Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Homestarmy 15:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Criteria 1 includes Wikipedia:Explain jargon. This article violates that right and left. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Are you seriously saying that "LDL", "HDL" and "morphology" are jargon? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and changed the cholesterol terms and cardiovascular terms to more understandable terminology. The other criticisms can be voiced on the talk page as they have nothing to do with good article criteria per WP:WIAGA. You should change your votes or withdrawal your submittal of this for review. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  That's not the only examples of jargon, they were the first two. What about things like "Bone marrow stimulation: For decades, anabolic steroids were the mainstay of therapy for hypoplastic anemias not due to nutrient deficiency, especially aplastic anemia. Anabolic steroids are slowly being replaced by synthetic protein hormones (such as epoetin alfa) that selectively stimulate growth of blood cell precursors." Or "Anabolic steroids can cause many unwanted side effects. Most of the side effects are dose dependent and are caused by chemical reactions of the hormones, such as metabolism of androgens to form hormones which may interact with steroid receptors including the estrogen, progesterone, and glucocorticoid receptors, producing additional (usually) unwanted effects. The most common side effect are elevated blood pressure, especially in hypertensives,[18] and increased cholesterol levels due to the fact that some steroids can cause an increase in bad cholesterol and decrease good cholesterol levels.[19] Testosterone can also cause an increase in risk of cardiovascular disease[20] or coronary artery disease[21] in men with high risk of bad cholesterol. Acne is fairly common among anabolic steroid users, mostly due to the increases in testosterone which can cause stimulation of the sebaceous glands.[22][23] Conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) can accelerate the rate of premature baldness for those who are genetically predisposed. Other side effects can include altered left ventricle morphology and induction of an unfavorable enlargement and thickening of the left ventricle, which loses its diastolic properties with the mass increase.[24] However, the negative relation of left ventricle morphology to decreased cardiac function has been disputed.[25] Also, liver damage can be caused by high doses of oral anabolic steroid compounds that are changed (17-alpha-alkylated) to increase their bioavailability and stability in the digestive system.[26] In a few cases where high doses of steroids were used for long periods, such liver damage may lead to liver cancer."?

  (WIAGA criteria: 1a (unclear prose) 1b (MOS, including Wikipedia:Explain jargon)) Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• (unindent) LDL and HDL are indeed jargon. I don't think many people could accurately define what lipoprotein particles are or why their density is important! A good alternative would be to just say "raise the levels of harmful forms of cholesterol." The article isn't great and is still a long way from FA material. However, it is reasonably comprehensive, well referenced, well formatted and stable. In general it does a reasonable job with its prose, although there are parts where this certainly could be improved. It could also be better in terms of expanding more on the medical, rather than the sports uses of steroids. However, all those shortcomings are things I would bring up in a FA nomination - the article is in my opinion good enough for GA. Tim Vickers 15:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've made the adequate changes brought up in the criticism which are relevant to WP:WIAGA. All other criticisms should be voiced on the articles talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article has serious problems with WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. I've re-read the article and clicked through on a lot of the links, and a lot of the links don't support the arguments in the article. Often the links are to body-building websites - not exactly NPOV. There's a lot of spin - for example the bit that people taking steroids are better educated than most drug users, but it doesn't mention that the reason they are taking steroids is for body image purposes. It should also point out that that is an Australian study, which may not apply to other countries. The article also has to move away from the term "myth" - a myth is something that isn't true, whereas in many cases the argument that's being made is that there hasn't been enough research to decide the issue one way or the other. User TimVickers did some good edits recently that helped a bit, but in my opinion this article has no business whatsoever being a good article.Jmkleeberg 16:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Hi Jmkleeberg, I've made another pass through the section that I have renamed as "Misconceptions and controversies", since not all these ideas have been proven to be untrue. I have tried to remove any use of the word "myth" and make completely clear distinctions between which ideas are certainly untrue and areas where our knowledge is just unclear. Tim Vickers 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Jmkleeberg, Firstly, Your criticisms are very very vague and seem to reflect those of someone who hasn't read the article at all. You claim that links don't support the arguments being made? Examples? You claim that Bodybuilding sites aren't reliable or POV? The references to bodybuilding sites aren't being used where a POV is required, they are being used to reference specific assertions from specific people or groups and are therefore reliable since the people making the statements are the ones being referenced, moreover only a small % of the links are to bodybuilding websites, the vast majority are to scientific studies. Secondly, Please read WP:WIAGA and add criticism relevant to that. It's obvious that you have neither read the article itself nor the criteria for a good article here WP:WIAGA. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  WIAGA criteria: 2 (factual accuracy, particularly 2b, requiring reliable sources) 4 (questions about NPOV) Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Wikidudeman, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it does seem like you're attacking and belittling anyone who disagrees with you when you claim they haven't read the article, and/or don't know what a good article is. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Homestarmy, All of your relevant criticism per WP:WIAGA has been addressed [[1]]. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Adam Cuerden, I'm stating facts. WP:WIAGA says nothing about most of the criticism being brought up. You can't delist an article from being a good article because it doesn't meet criteria that isn't even required of a good article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've labelled the criteria being brought up in each complaint, except Homestarmy's, who did it himself Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yet you still have the already corrected material listed as a criticism. You need to cross it out and change your vote or remove the article from review. The LDL/HDL thing has been fixed, The cardiac thing has been fixed, The history of doping thing has been fixed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  What about the other two lengthy paragraphs I quoted in response? I said that jargon was *everywhere*, and gave examples, then gave more examples when you fixed those two and said it was done. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• *sigh* *facepalm* The history section was a copyvio of its source, and where there's one copyvio, there's usually others. I've deleted the page, as I don't see what else I can do. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  As a matter of a fact it was not. If you can elaborate on where the History section was copyrighted then please do so or simply removed the specific sentence or sentences that are copyrighted. You were totally unjustified in erasing the entire page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  History section, before my recent trimming:

  Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength. One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine. He is thought to have introduced the technique of acupuncture. One of the first written records about herbal performance enhancers, compiled around 1065–1771 BC, is Shen Nung Pen Ts'ao Ching’s "Divine Husbandman's Classic of Materia Medica", considered the earliest example of Chinese pharmacopoeia. Comments on professional athletes in ancient Greece suggest that a wide variety of natural anabolic substances were used to promote androgenic and anabolic growth. These ranged from testicular extracts to plant materials including fungi toxins. The word "doping" is thought to of originated from the Dutch word doop which means ‘sauce’ and the verb doopen means ‘to dip, or immerse.’ The Boers frequently dipped their bread into strong drinks before hardships or tough challenges.

  http://www.dopingjouren.se/page.asp?page=history

  Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial. This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine. He is believed to have introduced the technique of acupuncture. The first written record about herbal medicine was compiled in 1065-771 BC, Shen Nung Pen Ts’ao Ching, “Divine Husbandman’s Classic of Materia Medica”, the earliest Chinese pharmacopoeia.

  In ancient Greece different fungi poisons were used.

  The word “doping” is believed to originate from the Dutch language, where “doop” means sauce and the verb “doopen” means to dip, or immerse. It is known that the Boers dipped bread in strong drinks before tough hardships.

  The first paragraph of the source, plus its comments on doping, are practically identical - except the first paragraph is missourced. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  IDENTICAL??? What are you talking about Adam? The article paraphrased what the source said. This is NOT a violation of copyright. The Dutch part was already deleted and if you thought that specific aspect of the history was copyrighted then you ERASE THAT PART you don't delete the article! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Hi - Jmkleeberg again - had to go out and do some errands - but here are the sentences that I've noticed that didn't have adequate support:

  "no serious health defects have been identified that are caused by the long-term use of anabolic steroids."

  This needs a supporting footnote, and it doesn't have one.

  "While risk of death is present as a side-effect of many drugs, the risk of premature death from either the medical or illegal use of anabolic steroids seems to be extremely low."

  This sentence has three footnotes, but when I read the summaries on PubMed they don't support the contention of the sentence.

  Here are the cites:

Schroeder E, Vallejo A, Zheng L; et al. (2005). "Six-week improvements in muscle mass and strength during androgen therapy in older men". J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 60 (12): 1586–92. PMID 16424293. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Bhasin S, Woodhouse L, Casaburi R; et al. (2001). "Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men". Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 281 (6): E1172-81. PMID 11701431. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Fudala P, Weinrieb R, Calarco J, Kampman K, Boardman C (2003). "An evaluation of anabolic-androgenic steroid abusers over a period of 1 year: seven case studies". Annals of clinical psychiatry : official journal of the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. 15 (2): 121–30. PMID 12938869.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• The article also relies on a Steve Kotler article, a piece of popular journalism in Los Angeles Weekly by someone who is not a medical doctor, and is admittedly written in a "devil's advocate" tone.Kotler, Steven (July 2005). "Sympathy for the Devil". LA Weekly. Retrieved 2007-04-24.

  "While lower levels of testosterone have been known to cause depression, and ending a steroid cycle temporarily lowers testosterone levels, the hypothesis that anabolic steroids are responsible for suicides among teenagers remains unproven. Although teen bodybuilders have been using steroids since at least the early 1960s, only a few cases suggesting a link between steroids and suicide have been reported in the medical literature."

  The citation goes to an article by Jack Darkes, who is a PhD, not an MD, and is a bodybuilder and steroid user himself (on the website, Jack Darkes describes himself in these terms: "He has been an avid weight trainer for 20 years and is interested in all things related to weight training and performance enhancement through drug use, supplementation, and diet. He credits these interests and activities with helping keep him young.") The article was not published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, but on a bodybuilding website.

Darkes, PhD, Jack (2005 July). "Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids and Suicide, A Brief Review of the Evidence". MESO-Rx. Retrieved 2007-04-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• The section also quotes Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale. He is an MD in good standing - I checked the Ontario medical licensing website - but he doesn't seem to be making his living from medical work any more. [2] He doesn't have a tenured position at a university, he isn't accepting patients, and he doesn't have admitting privileges at a hospital. He is a bodybuilder. His recent work is publishing books on bodybuilding and selling dietary supplements to bodybuilders. He was previously the medical director of the World Wrestling Federation.Jmkleeberg 01:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  Concerning the sentences...

  "no serious health defects have been identified that are caused by the long-term use of anabolic steroids." The refs are identified before hand, 57-60.

  "While risk of death is present as a side-effect of many drugs, the risk of premature death from either the medical or illegal use of anabolic steroids seems to be extremely low." Sure it does, take a look at just one of them which says concerning the study "few clinically relevant changes in physiological parameters or laboratory measures were noted throughout the study"

  Concerning Steve Kotler, I don't rely on him for anything but a source for a quote. The quote from Di Pasquale.

  The article from Jack Darkes is relevant because he is Assistant Professor at Department of Psychology at the University of South Florida. Very credentialed person despite the fact he is a "bodybuilder" he has a doctorate in clinical psychology. The fact that it's not in a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean it's not reliable, it cites it's sources as well.

  P.S. Please add this sort of criticism on the articles talk page, Even the nominator of this review has decided it's GA material. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I don't think the article has enough problems anymore to warrent delisting, but there are several things that don't appear right to me. In the Movement for Decriminalization section, what's with the "it is perhaps worth nothing..." bit? There's no reference, and Wikipedia shouldn't be speculatively noting things like that unless there's a very good reference. I also still don't understand why it seems there's only a few magazines and people named, as far as I can tell, this is a really tiny and relatively insignifigant group of people. Also, something like "including lawyer Rick Collins whose book, Legal Muscle, is one of the most detailed published resources on anabolic steroids and the law." really needs a source, because without one, that's compleatly debateable OR since "most detailed" can be so relative. Also, in the Misconceptions section, there's a Lyle Alzado named as an example, but his article doesn't appear to have any references that actually back up the idea that he was rumored to of died from steroid use. Homestarmy 04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  The Movement for Decriminalization is not very notable alone by itself however in the context of Anabolic Steroids (which is itself very small) it is very notable. It cites its sources and there are only 2 paragraphs dedicated to it, which per undue weight is actually a fair amount. As for the Lyle Alzado statement, I just now referenced it. I also reworded the Rick Collins statement to get rid of the POV tone. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting - Recent major improvements in readability and citations in response to GA review have largely covered the concerns raised in the nomination. Tim Vickers 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. On the surface this should be an easy "keep": indeed the article is well on its way to FA status. However, the closer I inspected the article, fixing minor issues, the more problems I found, and maybe this is an opportunity to fix them, so that the next FAC is successful.
  • This article will constantly have to deal with the fact that its subject is controversial. Hence it needs to be NPOV++ in order to be stable. At the moment, however, parts of the article give the impression of being a guide to using anabolic steroids: advice is given on their use, users are shown to be sensible, and evidence is presented that they are effective, not harmful, and should not be controlled. These points may all be true, and I do not wish to dispute them, but this impression opens the article up to unnecessary criticism. A similar issue concerns the overuse of the term "side effect". I don't think these are major problems with the article: they could be easily fixed without significant changes to the content. However, I believe they underlie other problems with the article, because controversy and neutral point of view matters have distracted editors from other issues.
  • In fact, most of the controversial stuff is reasonably well-handled; it is the factual matters that are problematic. Recent edits have significantly improved the comprehensibility of the article, and reduced the use of jargon, but there is more to do. I am not against jargon per se, but each paragraph should be as accessible as is appropriate for its content. In paragraphs concerned with the biochemical effects of steroids, it would be foolish to eliminate terminology from biology and medicine entirely. On the other hand, the same scientific tone is unnecessary for paragraphs on more straightforward matters such as history or administration.
  • The article is well cited, but several times I found puzzlement on consulting a citation. What does Ref.6 have to do with the 1996 study? (And what 1996 study, by the way - the book?) Why cite a reference to support the vague claim that users are typically around the age of 25, after not citing a reference for the more precise claim that the median age is 27? And the 2.7% figure for high-school use is supported by a reference that is apparently unrelated.
  • My main concern, however, is that the factual content is disorganised and repetetive. What does "administration" have to do with "biochemical mechanisms", and why is the latter needed in addition to the section on "Anabolic and androgenic effects"? As for these last two terms, I would guess that "anabolic" means "stimiluting tissue growth", and "androgenic" means (approximately, in lay terms) "stimulating the maintenance and development of masculine attributes", but the article is all over the place here. I realise that that "muscle growth" is probably both, but in the lead, the muscle growth aspect is implicitly excluded "androgenic", whereas in the "biochemical mechanisms" section, it is taken as the definition! This disorganisation and repetition is reflected within the lead itself, which mentions three times that anabolic steroids stimulate muscle growth.

  I'd be happy to have a go at fixing some of this myself, because I think this article should remain GA and head rapidly for FA. However, editors more expert and/or familiar with the article (such as Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman) may have comments, or may be more able to effect such changes; I would surely make many mistakes without some support. Geometry guy 22:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  I appreciate your recent edits and improvements Geometry Guy and Lara. I consider myself very knowledgeable of Anabolic steroids and sex hormones however I am not very good at the small things such as the minor grammar errors or the fact that the wording sometime might be confusing. That is something someone else might want to take a chance at improving. I'll see what I can do with making the wording more coherent so that the sources match up exactly with the wording. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - I have posted a detailed peer review on the article talk page. It covers many issues, including some not included in the GA criteria. For this discussion I will mention only those issues concerning WP:WIAGA. In my opinion, the article fails the following criteria:
  • 1a: There are multiple areas within the article where the prose can be improved. There are also several issues with grammar and punctuation.
  • 1b: Words to avoid. I need to look at this closer, but I believe there are several instances where the use of "however" and "although" imply that one POV is favored over the other.
  • 3b: I find there are several redundancies within the article. It needs to be trimmed and focused. I also believe some of the included information is not necessarily relevant to the article/encyclopedic.
  • 4a: NPOV issues, some in connection with the above states issues regarding criterion 1b.
• Although I've noted many issues and feel that the article fails multiple criteria, I do believe that this article can easily, and even quickly, be brought up to standards. There are many issues, but they are almost all minor. If the issues are addressed I will, of course, change my recommendation. LaraLove^T/_C 06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to being far too strict for GA criteria per WP:WIAGA. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon articles

Mudkip

Similar, had a sort of review,[3] but was only removed somewhat later by another editor without further comment.[4] Gimmetrow 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ivysaur

Same situation as Charizard and Crawdaunt, [5] the original review was older than Crawdaunts but at least gave a little bit of helpful advice, once again, no comment on the talk page was given to justify the delist, just the same edit summary explanation as in Charizard. Homestarmy 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Crawdaunt

Same sitation as Charizard, [6] but seems to of been passed much more recently, and while the original review passing it seems rather lacking, there was still no comment on the talk page for delisting the article immedietly, and the edit summary didn't defend the decision to delist this article at all in terms of the GA criteria. (It was just "This is in no way even GA quality.") Homestarmy 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Charizard

This immedietly delisted article was delisted with no comment on the talk page at all, [7] and while I am aware the quality of references generally used in all Pokemon articles is considered suspect due to heavy reliance on guidebooks, I don't think that failing the very high standards of references that should be used in FAs automatically means they fail the standards of GAs too, certainly not enough to not even give an actual comment about delisting the article. I'm neutral on this article for now, as I haven't really examined it, and although i'm inclined myself to think that most of the references given for this article at least are relatively reliable, i'd prefer not to defend the references without a full story. Homestarmy 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These were all summarily delisted, and incorrectly. (I had to fix the currentstatus, etc.) Charizard has been nominated for FA a bunch of times and the same problems come up. The primary questionable reference is serebii.net, which this article uses for 7 of 58 references, which isn't bad. The other references tend to be fairly superficial, product listings and such, which relates to an issue of completeness, as the article doesn't have a lot on the creation of the character and other out-of-universe content. This is not a "great" article, but I think it's a "good" article. While I'm less familiar with the other two articles, a brief review of the references suggests the same issues. Gimmetrow 03:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction? Does serebii.net fit under that definition? -Malkinann 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relist ALL These are fictional creations. There is not going to be much in the way of secondary sources---the closest you are going to get are guidebooks. I found the articles to interesting and informative. They were written clearly about characters in a game/anime/video game. I think they meet the criteria for GA.Balloonman 04:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Added Mudkip for review, too. Gimmetrow 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that one, but the user appears to of actually said something that time, there's actually a section on the talk page, saying it was unstable. Homestarmy 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, there was a sort of a review, then someone almost two weeks later changed the template. Gimmetrow 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reslist All - I actually thought I'd already done this... possibly this is where I was when my internet went down. Anyway, I don't see an issue with in-universe in these articles. They appear to meet the criteria in my opinion. LaraLove^T/_C 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Relist all except Mudkip. They all meet the criteria except for Mudkip, which has content issues (the rarely cited 3a) and a blank footnote, in addition to the question of its stability. Geometry guy 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WorkChoices

This is a "barbeque-stopper" (controversial issue) in Australia, being a set of new industrial relations laws. This has been a GA since 2005 and now has some gaps - For example, having only one inline reference in the WorkChoices#Significant changes section, (criterion 2b) and the article not really covering what happened with WorkChoices in 2006. (3a) Was it being enacted the be all and end all of WorkChoices in 2006? There were some causes celebres in 2006 - like a 16 year old who got their paycheque cut by 30% under one of the new agreements. I'm not sure if that could go in the article without being a POV magnet, though. The references all need to be checked for non-404ing,(2b) and there's been some concern about POV in the talk page - weasel wording and the like. (4) I think it gets a bit POV in places. The references need to be consistently formatted, (2b) and the external links embedded in the text need to go.(1b) I've cleaned up the article somewhat, so now I'm submitting it for review. -Malkinann 23:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I can't really talk about the POV as I'm not familiar enough with the controversy. But the article reads fairly well. The first section, where it is all bullet points, needs some serious work---and while I would like to see some of the information updated from 2005, I don't think the problems warrant delisting as a GA. IMHO, it probably meets GA criteria---but I don't have a strong enough sense for this article to vote to keep it.Balloonman 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Several fact tags and cleanup templates, listy and stubby in multiple sections, needs a good copy-edit for wikification and punctuation issues. Citations are not consistently formatted. That's just from scanning the article. LaraLove^T/_C 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I also noted, upon looking back over the article, that the lead is not a summary of the article. Above issues have not currently been addressed. My recommendation stands. LaraLove^T/_C 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Singapore

Nomination for delisting

• the section of culture is terribly written and poorly organized.
• the section of education wrote too much unncessary details like how many foreign students are studying there, PRIME, etc.
• subheadings are not really necessary in many sections, like history, transportation, etc.
• references didn't follow MOS format properly; and also further reading mixed with that section make it very untidy.
• quite a few statements with a tag of "citiation needed" and nobody pay attention to them.
• information is not that up-to-date, e.g. GDP per capita shown in the part of economy is 2005 that is almost three years ago.
• photos are basically oversized that hurt the layout and left many unnecessary space in many paragraphs. Coloane 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• VERY VERY Weak Keep and cleanup The article needs some help as you do bring up some valid concerns. But overall I thought it was a pretty good article. The problems that it has are easily fixed by somebody willing to make any effort whatsoever at cleaning it up. The education section and foot notes in particular need to be cleaned up.Balloonman 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • re photos -- oversized? looks fine to me. there is no whitespace on my 19", whether by 1152 or 640.
  • re culture section -- the whole part in parenthesis is indeed very clumsily presented.
  • re references -- looks more like a case of inconsistent format. but for a few, most use the citeweb temp or equivalent.
  • re subheadings -- not particularly troubling to me.
  • re cit tags -- solvable problem, without first mentioning a couple of them are redundant. Chensiyuan 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - I agree with several points of the nomination, although I do not feel there is an issue with subheadings. I also don't think the images are oversized, but I do think there are an excessive number of images. It does affect the layout and spacing of the article, and I believe the article should be trimmed down to include fewer images per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images. Stagger remaining images as necessary to avoid clashing with article contents. The fact tag issue also needs to be resolved. Cite references for these claims or delete the info. There also needs to be consistency in formatting of references. The article could use a copy-edit as well. I made some minor changes, but I don't have time to go over it in-depth right now. LaraLove^T/_C 19:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Issues have not been addressed. Further recommendations are needed. LaraLove^T/_C 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delist - the 'international rankings' list needs to be prosified and explained better, and the [citation needed]s need to be taken care of. I feel it's close, but doesn't quite fit the criteria.-Malkinann 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rite of Spring

Note: This article has been delisted prematurely citing this process as the reason. However, this discussion and its recommendations do not currently warrant delisting. Therefore, this discussion should continue as normal. If no improvements are made and further recommendations result in delisting, then it shall stand. On the other hand, should improvements be made that bring the article up to standards, it should them be relisted as GA. LaraLove^T/_C 06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for delisting: Article is badly undercited, especially the more scholarly analysis. Would require someone with good knowledge and available literature to cite the stuff. The paragraph on Disney's Fantasia is very close to trivia. History needs more citations also. Centy – – 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you leave a message on the talk page of the article? That's meant to be so that people who are interested in the article (and who hopefully wrote some of it) can know about the review and address the concerns brought up in it. -Malkinann 00:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I will comment that the article cites two books, and an essay, specifically on the Rite of Spring; if any of the criticism is not from there, it would surprise me. It seems consensus at first glance. It would be bizarre to omit the section on Disney, since, even with a sequel, this is where many readers will have met it; if we delete it, it will return.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Please sign your comments, mate. I can completely understand the concern about sections of an article spontaneously respawning, however, as it is, the Disney section doesn't have any inline citations, and some of the information in it could be considered controversial - an argument between Disney and Stravinsky.-Malkinann 01:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - I agree that there is not sufficient inline citation. The lead is also insufficient. I recommend further wikilinking. Paris and benevolence, for example. For the articles current state, I must support the nomination. LaraLove^T/_C 15:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Easy Delist---wow, I wish all of the articles we reviewed were this clear cut. This article is woefully undercited. The lead alone would be enough to delist. This article needs a lot of help to get up to GA status.Balloonman 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Good writing, but unfortunately well underreferenced. Not an easy fix, this article makes many challengable claims that need inline cites to back them up. Also, there are numerous direct quotes that have no obvious source. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There have been some changes to the article, but the addition of only one reference. Additional recommendations would be appreciated. LaraLove^T/_C 02:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This article is a solid piece of work and it would be a pity to delist it. However, it does need some fixing. At present, the lead does not stand alone as an overview of the article. This should be fairly easy to fix: the article is sufficiently accessible that anyone could summarise it. The section on "Musical characteristics" needs some clarification. Presumably the commentary of Perle comes from his book, but the page numbers refer to the score. In the section on Disney's Fantasia, Stravinsky's comments appear to have a source, but there is no source for the rest of the material. Someone familiar with the article needs to fix these issues. If they do, I'd be happy to give the lead a shot. Geometry guy 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler Sunbeam

This might not be the best moment to post an article for GA/R, but I really need third-party opinion. This article was nominated by me and subsequently reviewed by User:Jazznutuva, who subsequently failed it for it being written basing on only one source, which he found unreliable. In my discussion with Jazznutuva, I have explained I was nto aware of any GA-related stipulation that would require the article to have multiple sources and explained why I find the source reliable. I would be grateful if you could have a look at both the article and the discussion in Jazznutuva's talk page and tell me whether you also believe this article should be failed - either for the reason stated by Jazznutuva (if you can find relevant regulations please) or for any other. Thank you, PrinceGloria 12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

New noms go on the top. LuciferMorgan 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stupid me... This only goes to show I am not that immersed in this process, but also, that sometimes rather than pointing fingers you could actually walk the talk (whatever has been said in the talk page notwithstanding) PrinceGloria 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• List as a GA I had a long review written out saing that the article should fail and why this article needed independant sources. Then I actually checked the source. It looks like an independant source to me, and seems quite reliable in that vein. It appeared from the name of the source that it was sourced to Chrysler itself (which would then be unreliable). But this looks kosher when I actually read it. Given the wealth of automotive trade publications like Motor Trend and Road and Track and the like, I find it hard to believe that NO other sources exist, but given that this source seems independent, and is thus reliable, I see no reason to fail it. As room for future improvement, though, it does need additional sources... Back issues of automotive mags from the 70's could really help flesh the article out, but this is GA quality in my opinion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you! Now, I believe that although automotive magazines from the period could give some insight, some of the more important background information only saw the light of day years later, when former employees decided to reveal the behind-the-curtain details to eager enthusiasts, which is how the site was created to some extent. So, I think I could add some hardcopy sources (if only I gained access to them, which is not that easy, at least for me), but those would mostly confirm the less-disputable details such as tech data. Perhaps some enthusiasts'/classic car magazines would contain more info, but I think most of what would be contained therein would make its way to the site anyway. PrinceGloria 14:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• PS. Oh BTW - I don't think that either MT or R&T have a UK or European edition.

• I am not familiar with UK or European automotive publications, and while those mags may not be distributed in Europe, some equivalents I am SURE are.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support as GA I am not convinced that the source cited is truly neutral---but it is more of a history and thus "ok". I think the article is well written and interesting---but the source is very weak. But at this level, I think it is adequate. You wouldn't want to go to A-class or FA-class review as is... but for GA it meets the criteria.Balloonman 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)EDIT: convinced by discussion below that this should be delistedBalloonman 15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• List as GA As per Jayron32. Source appears reliable and sufficient, but I'm sure other sources can be found (besides the two that have been added). - T-75|talk|contribs 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse fail - I find it to be inappropriate to rely on one source for an article. Although there are three references, they are all to one source. If a topic is notable, there should not be issues with finding additional sources, with few exceptions. Additionally, I find the lead missing some information, the article could use additional wikification, and clarification is needed with regards to the first sentence of the second paragraph under "The launch". The prose is off to the point that I'm not sure what is being said. LaraLove^T/_C 20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review! Great to see you reviewing again! I admit it was a bit lazy of me, but I could think of a few more sources, and they would be the ones used in both the other articles I have mentioned. Neither is as comprehensive as the one I used, so it would all boil down to adding more inline citation marks and not any actual content, FWIK. Anyway, could I have a few questions of you?

1. What information is missing in the lead?
2. What wikification? I try no to overlink, and I think I have linked to all major relevant articles along the way...
3. Mmm... What is unclear about the sentence you've mentioned? Does the comment on the prose pertain to that sentence or the entire paragraph?

• Thank you in advance for your reply! PrinceGloria 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't stay away...

1. I believe the lead would benefit from information regarding the launch and positive reception between development/manufacturing details and the takeover info. The lead should touch on the most important points of the topic. It's generally considered that each header defines an important point. With that in mind, a bit of detail from each section should be included in the lead. In this case, as mentioned above, that would include "The launch". Additionally, I believe PSA should be "PSA Peugeot Citroën (PSA)" in the lead.
2. I respect not wanting to over-link the article. For me, it's sometimes difficult to decide what to link, but I try to consider the differences in languages and reader's english comprehension. I would wikilink "takeover", "strikes", "United Kingdom (UK)", "United States (U.S.)-based", "grant (money)", subsidiary, (I would say fascia, because I had to go check what that was, but the article seems of no help in this instance as it refers to a component of the tissue system of the human body.), bankruptcy, front-wheel drive.
3. As far as issues with prose:

1. I also noticed the sentence "The story of the car's name is also interesting", which does not read encyclopedically to me.
2. Under "The launch", "There were three trim level available" - should that be "levels"?
3. Concerning the previously mentioned issue; "Even in spite of the ability to keep the UK business afloat, Chrysler was still making losses both in Europe and at home, and facing the possibility of complete bankruptcy, decided to sell Chrysler Europe to the French PSA." - The underlined portion does not make sense to me. I think the entire sentence needs to be reworked, possibly split into two. I think it's missing a comma after "and", at which point it makes sense. I recommend making it two sentences. I think that would help.

• Past that, I would like to see some additional images of the other versions. (This is not required for GA, I just would like to see them... I think it would improve the article. LaraLove^T/_C 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will try to deal with that ASAP, which might not be too soon due to my RL obligations. As concerns linking, apart from front-wheel drive (which, I was convinced, was linked to in the article at least, and I hope not more than, once), I am do not share your belief that such basic terms should be linked to in every article. I prefer to see a limited number of important and relevant links stand out in a paragraph rather than a sea of blue. But perhaps it's just me.

As concerns free photographs, getting them is really hard for historic cars like this one, so I wouldn't want to commit myself now to providing one. You can surely see more in the web pages I used as a source, and of course with the Google image search feature and similare. PrinceGloria 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. At that time, PSA simply stood for "Peugeot Societe Anonyme", the change to the currently-used name occured later.

• Endorse fail I've dealt with at least one article like this before, Hall Caine, and the situation for that article seems very similar to this one. As I explained to an editor on my talk page, the usage of a single reference for a topic introduces an extremely bad problem of unpredictability, how can we be sure that a single solitary reference actually is covering everything notable there is to know on this subject? I think it is extremely unlikely that a single reference on most topics actually adequately covers the subject, unless the reference is basically the acknowledged end-all be-all concerning a subject or the equivalent of one. What's in this article now may be well-referenced, but with material derived only from a single source, unless someone can justify why this source on its own is likely giving a nearly comprehensive look on the subject, I think it is better for this article to not be a GA. I also can't tell exactly who has created the webpage the reference is from, the bottom just names a "Keith Adams", and there doesn't seem to be an about page describing this website, (Following some links makes it out to be some sort of enthusiasts website) I question its reliability. Homestarmy 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you could take a moment to acquaint yourself with my correspondence with Jazznutuva, you will see why the source fulfills the necessary conditions you have mentioned. As I said, I can provide more sources, but actually I don't think anything can be added to the factual scope of the article. PrinceGloria 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think additional sources are necessary for verifiability alone. I feel it's inappropriate to base all findings on a sole source, regardless of it's reliability. Notable topics generally have plenty of sources to choose from. This article would benefit from the addition of such sources. LaraLove^T/_C 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll look at the discussion anyway. Homestarmy 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on what i'm seeing in that now-archived talk page discussion about that source, I am not yet convinced it is truly something like the end-all be-all of what could possibly reference this subject. An enthusiast organization of professional journalists doesn't even reach the top of what a Reliable source is, I can think of a rather large number of instances where professional journalists aren't necessarily trustworthy, and simply being an enthusiast organization doesn't mean they are necessarily authoritative on the subject at hand, simply having some undefined connections to sources involved with this car does not an authoritative enthusaist organization make. Surely there's more out there on cars like this besides what's on the websites of enthusiasts and what's in hard-to-access maganizes? Homestarmy 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I know this is kinda WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the Talbot Tagora Featured Article has been written largely basing on the same source (and ones of similar qualities). I assure you that, to my best knowledge, there is little more encyclopedic information about the car that is not yet in the article. As I said, I can add more references (all of them online, I am afraid), but not really much more info, if any at all. I apologize for just talking and not being bold and doing it ATM due to my RL time constraints. PrinceGloria 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the FA nom on that article doesn't appear to of even mentioned the reliance on the website in question, FA reviewers generally jump all over that kind of thing if there's really a problem, and a GA/R being tougher than an FAC just wouldn't be right. I guess there's not much to do but acknowladge this website as compleatly reliable, if it passes through FAC, it should pass through GA. Homestarmy 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

List as GA, based on the FAC on a similar article also relying solely on the website in question, it appears the reference given comes from a website of unchallenged reliability, and I see nothing else in this article that catches my eye as possibly problematic. Homestarmy 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am surprised that the FAC for that article passed based upon this limited sourcing. The FAC on this article appears to be easy compared to most FAC that I've seen.Balloonman 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was quite surprised myself, it might be attributed to the fact that the topic was not special interest to many reviewers. OTOH, you won't find better sources, I assure you. PrinceGloria 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because one article slipped through the cracks at FAC doesn't mean we should let another pass here. Regardless, I don't see that necessarily being the case here. While the FAC article mentioned does use the same source as a reference, it does not rely solely on that source. It is completely unacceptable. This article, like that one, should include additional references. And, PrinceGloria, the fact that there may be no additional encyclopedic information to be added is irrelevant. Information currently in the article can be attributed to multiple sources. LaraLove^T/_C 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like both articles use the same website for almost all of their english-language referencing, and with the FA, the only other english source used mostly appears no better than the website being used in this article. I can't tell either way myself whether or not this website truly is amazingly reliable for topics like this, so I just don't see a reason yet to doubt the FAC people in that review. If one reference can actually give a comprehensive and accurate outlook on a topic, I just don't see the reason to fail a GA for using just it. Homestarmy 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the quality of this article. The custodian has acknowledged these concerns and pledged to address them "ASAP", however, no changes have been made. For this reason, my recommendation stands. LaraLove^T/_C 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators—Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings—work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delisting.

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Manual opening steps

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
4. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one month.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
   • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
4. After at least one month, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
5. If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.

Manual closing steps

1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
   • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
   • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
     • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
     • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
     • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles above the top review 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:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Include [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] in the section heading.

Princeton University

This article has been listed as a GA for some time now, this article's history suggests that this important page has been unfortunately stagnant. After a comprehensive reorganization to bring it in line with a WikiProject Universities-suggested section structure and trimming away of former news items, boosterism, and other cruft, the article still has many rough edges that do not currently meet GA criteria. These include: several embedded lists, poor verifiability due to inconsistent and sparse citations, and inconsistent coverage of topics (prominent buildings, traditions, fictional representations merit more attention than faculty & research, current administration, schools and departments, noted alumni, important historical eras like WWII, Cold War, last 25 years). Madcoverboy 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry

The article was GA listed May 29, and on June 30, User:Meekrob delisted it without following procedure (he delisted it and then brought his concerns to the talk page). We agreed to discuss the issues, but apart from a few minor items we were able to resolve, Meekrob has not been active either in the discussion or on WP since July 1, so we're at a standstill as far as that goes. As the article was delisted outside procedure, can it be relisted and then re-reviewed if necessary so we actually have time to work on fixing any potential issues? MSJapan 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth

Failed today by Pandacomics for not being broad in detail. The article is 30kb long and the only section missing is a production section; had that been included, there would be nothing to improve on. As criterion 3a notes, "This requirement...allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed." Atropos 07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse failure. While the article looks great, I fail articles all the time (albums, movies, etc...) on lack of production information. That section is significant enough that, when missing, the article fails criteria 3a.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Commment Atropos, is the reason there's no production section because there's no available sources on it, or because it isn't done yet? Homestarmy 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because, while I'm sure there are sources for it, I haven't found them yet. I expect there is information on the DVD special features, which I do not have, and I'm sure there are some interviews that are more geared towards production than del Toro's ideas somewhere. Atropos 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Power of Nightmares

Recently failed by PocklingtonDan. The review cited especially a failure in the neutrality criteria, and recommended that the article be given a "critique" of the subject matter. From what I can tell from the reviewer's comments, their idea of such a section would constitute original research. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• List as a GA It looks like the article DOES contain critical reviews, however. It is listed right in the article, and its well referenced too. I see no obvious variance from WP:WIAGA, and had I been the principal reviewer, I probably would have passed it. A few awkward turns of phrase here or there, but this is easily GA quality writing. I say it should be listed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the GA reviewer, I should point out that the article's author has not mentioned that I failed the article not just on the grounds of neutrality but also on the grounds of stability, with both the edit history and talk page demonstrating the article's lack of stability.My issue with the neutrality f the article is that the various claims are presented as fact without stating they are the author's beliefs only or evaluating or citing them. Just as one example among many the article states "The Neo-Conservatives, with their conservative Christian allies, attempt to demonize Clinton throughout his presidency with various real and fabricated stories of corruption and immorality". Not "The documentary argues that neo-Conservatives, with their conservative Christian allies, attempt to demonize Clinton throughout his presidency with various real and fabricated stories of corruption and immorality". There is quite a difference between the two, with the former being an uncited statement uncritically repeating the film's claims. If this was an article on a fictional novel it would be fine to say "Goldilocks ate all the bears' porridge". However, when reporting claims made by a documentary I would expect sentences to read "The documentary claims... It goes on to say... Contrary to popular accepted views". If somebody made a documentary saying for instance "Clinton is a lizard", For example, in David Icke's articles outlandish claims are preceeded by "According to Icke, ", "His latest work sees George W. Bush as", "Icke's core ideas...", "what Icke calls the", "He writes that", etc, etc. In contrast, The Power of Nightmares simply states in plain prose as fact every claim of the film series. Either the statements need to be cited, evaluated, or else reworded to make clear that they are all claims. I don't think this is unreasonable to make clear this is opinion/sedition rather than established fact. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't reviewed the article entirely yet, but I did check out the talk page and edit history, and it doesn't not show me any sign of an edit war and lack of stability. The edit history shows NO SIGN of instability. Most of the discussion page is over a year old, with only the last little bit being less than three months old. There was some recent discussion about some parts of the article, but it seems to me that it's been dealt with in the proper manner. - T-75|talk|contribs 05:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have also not reviewed the entire article as of yet, however I did look over the talk page and history and I agree with Theo. There was a quite lengthy dispute on the talk page about 3 months ago. It seems to have been resolved at this point, however. The history shows no edit warring, at least none in the past few months. Recent discussions on the talk page seem civil and constructive. As far as neutrality, I'll comment on that in my forthcoming review (and by "forthcoming", I mean "in a few hours"... at the earliest). LaraLove^T/_C 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse fail
  • The lead should be a summary of the article. Currently, it does not adequately summarize Airings and distribution or include anything from Reactions or the subheading of Criticisms.
  • I feel there is a need for more wikification.
    • "America" should be wikified as "The United States of America" or "The United States" considering "America" is a colloquialism and, therefore, is not encyclopedic. Subsequent uses should be "The United States". Currently, there is an inconsistency with this as both are used in subsequent appearances as well as "U.S." and "USA".
    • I also believe Individualism (this first appears in Part 1, but is later sublinked as "individualist" under Content), Westernization, Eastern Bloc, Bill Clinton, and Jihad should be wikified.
  • Is there a reason that 'evil' in the second paragraph of Part 1 is in single quotes as opposed to double quotes?
  • Punctuation is off in the article. Commas are missing and misplaced. This is something I may correct myself at a later time. Currently, however, it needs a good copy-edit. LaraLove^T/_C 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Tried to do some work towards this, altohugh a few times replacing "America" with "United States" seemed a touch awkward. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid

• Ridiculously technical article, full of phrases like "elevated cholesterol (increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels)", "alterations in left ventricle morphology" (and that's just the lead...). History section seems to confuse anabolic steroids with allegedly performance-enhancing substances a lot: For instance "The word "doping" is thought to of originated from the Dutch word doop which means ‘sauce’ and the verb doopen means ‘to dip, or immerse.’ The Boers frequently dipped their bread into strong drinks before hardships or tough challenges." - what does this have to do with steroids? Then there's just plain awful writing, like "Anabolic-Androgenic steroids produce anabolic and virilizing (also known as androgenic) effects." An article that refuses to work its way down to laymen's level, with questionable history, and poor focus. Not, in my opinion, a Good article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• I had myself wondered why the history section starts with material that has nothing to do with Anabolic steroids, but the last review was cancelled before I said anything. Now that you mention it though, there's no reason that some of those phrases in the lead couldn't be dumbed down, many of those big words in particular have easy synonyms. (for instance, morphology could just be shape, or form and structure) "public understanding of the true risks remains limited." makes it sounds like the article is going to start warning the reader about stuff, definently a no-no. Also, are they only banned in U.S. sport organizations? Why does the article wait until much later to say that other countries make the usage of these steroids illegal? The movement for decriminalization section also seems odd, because all it names are a few people and one or two maganizes, that's a pretty insignifigant looking movement if you ask me, and the last sentence has no referenced quote for "too great". For now, Delist. Homestarmy 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Homestarmy, I question whether or not you have even read the article or even wikipedia policy for that matter. Firstly, ALL of your criticism has absolutely nothing to do with WP:WIAGA. If you read WP:WIAGA you will see that the article more than meets the criteria for being a good article. Secondly, You claim that the only sports bodies listed are American? Huh? The IOC is American? FIFA is American? UEFA is American? Try again? I urge you to change your vote. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Every single one of my criticisms has to do with the GA criteria. Myself and Adam have already demonstrated jargon, having off-topic material in articles violates 3b, my concerns over the decriminalization thing might possibly indicate undue weight if those few people named are really the end of the decriminalization movement, and by extension, be a NPOV violation, and my concerns over which countries ban what and the unreferenced semi-quote are minor, but I felt I might as well mention them since I noticed them. Homestarmy 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting. The article fits the criteria for WP:WIAGA. Nowhere in WP:WIAGA does it say that good articles can't be technical and your criticism simply doesn't warrant a de-listment from good article. Moreover, I question your assertion that "increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels" is "technical language". Do you really think "LDL" and "HDL" are technical terms? They're used in common speech everyday in the media and on commercials, most people know what it means. The history of doping is only mentioned very briefly in the first paragraph of the history area. The history of modern pharmaceutical steroids is elaborated on right after that. Anabolic steroids are very relevant to sports doping and should be mentioned in it's history. I highly suggest you read [WP:WIAGA]] to get an idea of what meets the criteria for a good article and what doesn't Anabolic steroids definitely meets the criteria for a good article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  From 1b:Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Homestarmy 15:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Criteria 1 includes Wikipedia:Explain jargon. This article violates that right and left. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Are you seriously saying that "LDL", "HDL" and "morphology" are jargon? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and changed the cholesterol terms and cardiovascular terms to more understandable terminology. The other criticisms can be voiced on the talk page as they have nothing to do with good article criteria per WP:WIAGA. You should change your votes or withdrawal your submittal of this for review. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  That's not the only examples of jargon, they were the first two. What about things like "Bone marrow stimulation: For decades, anabolic steroids were the mainstay of therapy for hypoplastic anemias not due to nutrient deficiency, especially aplastic anemia. Anabolic steroids are slowly being replaced by synthetic protein hormones (such as epoetin alfa) that selectively stimulate growth of blood cell precursors." Or "Anabolic steroids can cause many unwanted side effects. Most of the side effects are dose dependent and are caused by chemical reactions of the hormones, such as metabolism of androgens to form hormones which may interact with steroid receptors including the estrogen, progesterone, and glucocorticoid receptors, producing additional (usually) unwanted effects. The most common side effect are elevated blood pressure, especially in hypertensives,[18] and increased cholesterol levels due to the fact that some steroids can cause an increase in bad cholesterol and decrease good cholesterol levels.[19] Testosterone can also cause an increase in risk of cardiovascular disease[20] or coronary artery disease[21] in men with high risk of bad cholesterol. Acne is fairly common among anabolic steroid users, mostly due to the increases in testosterone which can cause stimulation of the sebaceous glands.[22][23] Conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) can accelerate the rate of premature baldness for those who are genetically predisposed. Other side effects can include altered left ventricle morphology and induction of an unfavorable enlargement and thickening of the left ventricle, which loses its diastolic properties with the mass increase.[24] However, the negative relation of left ventricle morphology to decreased cardiac function has been disputed.[25] Also, liver damage can be caused by high doses of oral anabolic steroid compounds that are changed (17-alpha-alkylated) to increase their bioavailability and stability in the digestive system.[26] In a few cases where high doses of steroids were used for long periods, such liver damage may lead to liver cancer."?

  (WIAGA criteria: 1a (unclear prose) 1b (MOS, including Wikipedia:Explain jargon)) Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• (unindent) LDL and HDL are indeed jargon. I don't think many people could accurately define what lipoprotein particles are or why their density is important! A good alternative would be to just say "raise the levels of harmful forms of cholesterol." The article isn't great and is still a long way from FA material. However, it is reasonably comprehensive, well referenced, well formatted and stable. In general it does a reasonable job with its prose, although there are parts where this certainly could be improved. It could also be better in terms of expanding more on the medical, rather than the sports uses of steroids. However, all those shortcomings are things I would bring up in a FA nomination - the article is in my opinion good enough for GA. Tim Vickers 15:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've made the adequate changes brought up in the criticism which are relevant to WP:WIAGA. All other criticisms should be voiced on the articles talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article has serious problems with WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. I've re-read the article and clicked through on a lot of the links, and a lot of the links don't support the arguments in the article. Often the links are to body-building websites - not exactly NPOV. There's a lot of spin - for example the bit that people taking steroids are better educated than most drug users, but it doesn't mention that the reason they are taking steroids is for body image purposes. It should also point out that that is an Australian study, which may not apply to other countries. The article also has to move away from the term "myth" - a myth is something that isn't true, whereas in many cases the argument that's being made is that there hasn't been enough research to decide the issue one way or the other. User TimVickers did some good edits recently that helped a bit, but in my opinion this article has no business whatsoever being a good article.Jmkleeberg 16:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Hi Jmkleeberg, I've made another pass through the section that I have renamed as "Misconceptions and controversies", since not all these ideas have been proven to be untrue. I have tried to remove any use of the word "myth" and make completely clear distinctions between which ideas are certainly untrue and areas where our knowledge is just unclear. Tim Vickers 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Jmkleeberg, Firstly, Your criticisms are very very vague and seem to reflect those of someone who hasn't read the article at all. You claim that links don't support the arguments being made? Examples? You claim that Bodybuilding sites aren't reliable or POV? The references to bodybuilding sites aren't being used where a POV is required, they are being used to reference specific assertions from specific people or groups and are therefore reliable since the people making the statements are the ones being referenced, moreover only a small % of the links are to bodybuilding websites, the vast majority are to scientific studies. Secondly, Please read WP:WIAGA and add criticism relevant to that. It's obvious that you have neither read the article itself nor the criteria for a good article here WP:WIAGA. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  WIAGA criteria: 2 (factual accuracy, particularly 2b, requiring reliable sources) 4 (questions about NPOV) Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Wikidudeman, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it does seem like you're attacking and belittling anyone who disagrees with you when you claim they haven't read the article, and/or don't know what a good article is. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Homestarmy, All of your relevant criticism per WP:WIAGA has been addressed [[8]]. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Adam Cuerden, I'm stating facts. WP:WIAGA says nothing about most of the criticism being brought up. You can't delist an article from being a good article because it doesn't meet criteria that isn't even required of a good article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've labelled the criteria being brought up in each complaint, except Homestarmy's, who did it himself Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yet you still have the already corrected material listed as a criticism. You need to cross it out and change your vote or remove the article from review. The LDL/HDL thing has been fixed, The cardiac thing has been fixed, The history of doping thing has been fixed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  What about the other two lengthy paragraphs I quoted in response? I said that jargon was *everywhere*, and gave examples, then gave more examples when you fixed those two and said it was done. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• *sigh* *facepalm* The history section was a copyvio of its source, and where there's one copyvio, there's usually others. I've deleted the page, as I don't see what else I can do. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  As a matter of a fact it was not. If you can elaborate on where the History section was copyrighted then please do so or simply removed the specific sentence or sentences that are copyrighted. You were totally unjustified in erasing the entire page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  History section, before my recent trimming:

  Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength. One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine. He is thought to have introduced the technique of acupuncture. One of the first written records about herbal performance enhancers, compiled around 1065–1771 BC, is Shen Nung Pen Ts'ao Ching’s "Divine Husbandman's Classic of Materia Medica", considered the earliest example of Chinese pharmacopoeia. Comments on professional athletes in ancient Greece suggest that a wide variety of natural anabolic substances were used to promote androgenic and anabolic growth. These ranged from testicular extracts to plant materials including fungi toxins. The word "doping" is thought to of originated from the Dutch word doop which means ‘sauce’ and the verb doopen means ‘to dip, or immerse.’ The Boers frequently dipped their bread into strong drinks before hardships or tough challenges.

  http://www.dopingjouren.se/page.asp?page=history

  Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial. This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine. He is believed to have introduced the technique of acupuncture. The first written record about herbal medicine was compiled in 1065-771 BC, Shen Nung Pen Ts’ao Ching, “Divine Husbandman’s Classic of Materia Medica”, the earliest Chinese pharmacopoeia.

  In ancient Greece different fungi poisons were used.

  The word “doping” is believed to originate from the Dutch language, where “doop” means sauce and the verb “doopen” means to dip, or immerse. It is known that the Boers dipped bread in strong drinks before tough hardships.

  The first paragraph of the source, plus its comments on doping, are practically identical - except the first paragraph is missourced. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  IDENTICAL??? What are you talking about Adam? The article paraphrased what the source said. This is NOT a violation of copyright. The Dutch part was already deleted and if you thought that specific aspect of the history was copyrighted then you ERASE THAT PART you don't delete the article! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Hi - Jmkleeberg again - had to go out and do some errands - but here are the sentences that I've noticed that didn't have adequate support:

  "no serious health defects have been identified that are caused by the long-term use of anabolic steroids."

  This needs a supporting footnote, and it doesn't have one.

  "While risk of death is present as a side-effect of many drugs, the risk of premature death from either the medical or illegal use of anabolic steroids seems to be extremely low."

  This sentence has three footnotes, but when I read the summaries on PubMed they don't support the contention of the sentence.

  Here are the cites:

Schroeder E, Vallejo A, Zheng L; et al. (2005). "Six-week improvements in muscle mass and strength during androgen therapy in older men". J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 60 (12): 1586–92. PMID 16424293. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Bhasin S, Woodhouse L, Casaburi R; et al. (2001). "Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men". Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 281 (6): E1172-81. PMID 11701431. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Fudala P, Weinrieb R, Calarco J, Kampman K, Boardman C (2003). "An evaluation of anabolic-androgenic steroid abusers over a period of 1 year: seven case studies". Annals of clinical psychiatry : official journal of the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. 15 (2): 121–30. PMID 12938869.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• The article also relies on a Steve Kotler article, a piece of popular journalism in Los Angeles Weekly by someone who is not a medical doctor, and is admittedly written in a "devil's advocate" tone.Kotler, Steven (July 2005). "Sympathy for the Devil". LA Weekly. Retrieved 2007-04-24.

  "While lower levels of testosterone have been known to cause depression, and ending a steroid cycle temporarily lowers testosterone levels, the hypothesis that anabolic steroids are responsible for suicides among teenagers remains unproven. Although teen bodybuilders have been using steroids since at least the early 1960s, only a few cases suggesting a link between steroids and suicide have been reported in the medical literature."

  The citation goes to an article by Jack Darkes, who is a PhD, not an MD, and is a bodybuilder and steroid user himself (on the website, Jack Darkes describes himself in these terms: "He has been an avid weight trainer for 20 years and is interested in all things related to weight training and performance enhancement through drug use, supplementation, and diet. He credits these interests and activities with helping keep him young.") The article was not published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, but on a bodybuilding website.

Darkes, PhD, Jack (2005 July). "Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids and Suicide, A Brief Review of the Evidence". MESO-Rx. Retrieved 2007-04-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• The section also quotes Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale. He is an MD in good standing - I checked the Ontario medical licensing website - but he doesn't seem to be making his living from medical work any more. [9] He doesn't have a tenured position at a university, he isn't accepting patients, and he doesn't have admitting privileges at a hospital. He is a bodybuilder. His recent work is publishing books on bodybuilding and selling dietary supplements to bodybuilders. He was previously the medical director of the World Wrestling Federation.Jmkleeberg 01:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  Concerning the sentences...

  "no serious health defects have been identified that are caused by the long-term use of anabolic steroids." The refs are identified before hand, 57-60.

  "While risk of death is present as a side-effect of many drugs, the risk of premature death from either the medical or illegal use of anabolic steroids seems to be extremely low." Sure it does, take a look at just one of them which says concerning the study "few clinically relevant changes in physiological parameters or laboratory measures were noted throughout the study"

  Concerning Steve Kotler, I don't rely on him for anything but a source for a quote. The quote from Di Pasquale.

  The article from Jack Darkes is relevant because he is Assistant Professor at Department of Psychology at the University of South Florida. Very credentialed person despite the fact he is a "bodybuilder" he has a doctorate in clinical psychology. The fact that it's not in a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean it's not reliable, it cites it's sources as well.

  P.S. Please add this sort of criticism on the articles talk page, Even the nominator of this review has decided it's GA material. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I don't think the article has enough problems anymore to warrent delisting, but there are several things that don't appear right to me. In the Movement for Decriminalization section, what's with the "it is perhaps worth nothing..." bit? There's no reference, and Wikipedia shouldn't be speculatively noting things like that unless there's a very good reference. I also still don't understand why it seems there's only a few magazines and people named, as far as I can tell, this is a really tiny and relatively insignifigant group of people. Also, something like "including lawyer Rick Collins whose book, Legal Muscle, is one of the most detailed published resources on anabolic steroids and the law." really needs a source, because without one, that's compleatly debateable OR since "most detailed" can be so relative. Also, in the Misconceptions section, there's a Lyle Alzado named as an example, but his article doesn't appear to have any references that actually back up the idea that he was rumored to of died from steroid use. Homestarmy 04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  The Movement for Decriminalization is not very notable alone by itself however in the context of Anabolic Steroids (which is itself very small) it is very notable. It cites its sources and there are only 2 paragraphs dedicated to it, which per undue weight is actually a fair amount. As for the Lyle Alzado statement, I just now referenced it. I also reworded the Rick Collins statement to get rid of the POV tone. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting - Recent major improvements in readability and citations in response to GA review have largely covered the concerns raised in the nomination. Tim Vickers 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. On the surface this should be an easy "keep": indeed the article is well on its way to FA status. However, the closer I inspected the article, fixing minor issues, the more problems I found, and maybe this is an opportunity to fix them, so that the next FAC is successful.
  • This article will constantly have to deal with the fact that its subject is controversial. Hence it needs to be NPOV++ in order to be stable. At the moment, however, parts of the article give the impression of being a guide to using anabolic steroids: advice is given on their use, users are shown to be sensible, and evidence is presented that they are effective, not harmful, and should not be controlled. These points may all be true, and I do not wish to dispute them, but this impression opens the article up to unnecessary criticism. A similar issue concerns the overuse of the term "side effect". I don't think these are major problems with the article: they could be easily fixed without significant changes to the content. However, I believe they underlie other problems with the article, because controversy and neutral point of view matters have distracted editors from other issues.
  • In fact, most of the controversial stuff is reasonably well-handled; it is the factual matters that are problematic. Recent edits have significantly improved the comprehensibility of the article, and reduced the use of jargon, but there is more to do. I am not against jargon per se, but each paragraph should be as accessible as is appropriate for its content. In paragraphs concerned with the biochemical effects of steroids, it would be foolish to eliminate terminology from biology and medicine entirely. On the other hand, the same scientific tone is unnecessary for paragraphs on more straightforward matters such as history or administration.
  • The article is well cited, but several times I found puzzlement on consulting a citation. What does Ref.6 have to do with the 1996 study? (And what 1996 study, by the way - the book?) Why cite a reference to support the vague claim that users are typically around the age of 25, after not citing a reference for the more precise claim that the median age is 27? And the 2.7% figure for high-school use is supported by a reference that is apparently unrelated.
  • My main concern, however, is that the factual content is disorganised and repetetive. What does "administration" have to do with "biochemical mechanisms", and why is the latter needed in addition to the section on "Anabolic and androgenic effects"? As for these last two terms, I would guess that "anabolic" means "stimiluting tissue growth", and "androgenic" means (approximately, in lay terms) "stimulating the maintenance and development of masculine attributes", but the article is all over the place here. I realise that that "muscle growth" is probably both, but in the lead, the muscle growth aspect is implicitly excluded "androgenic", whereas in the "biochemical mechanisms" section, it is taken as the definition! This disorganisation and repetition is reflected within the lead itself, which mentions three times that anabolic steroids stimulate muscle growth.

  I'd be happy to have a go at fixing some of this myself, because I think this article should remain GA and head rapidly for FA. However, editors more expert and/or familiar with the article (such as Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman) may have comments, or may be more able to effect such changes; I would surely make many mistakes without some support. Geometry guy 22:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  I appreciate your recent edits and improvements Geometry Guy and Lara. I consider myself very knowledgeable of Anabolic steroids and sex hormones however I am not very good at the small things such as the minor grammar errors or the fact that the wording sometime might be confusing. That is something someone else might want to take a chance at improving. I'll see what I can do with making the wording more coherent so that the sources match up exactly with the wording. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - I have posted a detailed peer review on the article talk page. It covers many issues, including some not included in the GA criteria. For this discussion I will mention only those issues concerning WP:WIAGA. In my opinion, the article fails the following criteria:
  • 1a: There are multiple areas within the article where the prose can be improved. There are also several issues with grammar and punctuation.
  • 1b: Words to avoid. I need to look at this closer, but I believe there are several instances where the use of "however" and "although" imply that one POV is favored over the other.
  • 3b: I find there are several redundancies within the article. It needs to be trimmed and focused. I also believe some of the included information is not necessarily relevant to the article/encyclopedic.
  • 4a: NPOV issues, some in connection with the above states issues regarding criterion 1b.
• Although I've noted many issues and feel that the article fails multiple criteria, I do believe that this article can easily, and even quickly, be brought up to standards. There are many issues, but they are almost all minor. If the issues are addressed I will, of course, change my recommendation. LaraLove^T/_C 06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to being far too strict for GA criteria per WP:WIAGA. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon articles

Mudkip

Similar, had a sort of review,[10] but was only removed somewhat later by another editor without further comment.[11] Gimmetrow 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ivysaur

Same situation as Charizard and Crawdaunt, [12] the original review was older than Crawdaunts but at least gave a little bit of helpful advice, once again, no comment on the talk page was given to justify the delist, just the same edit summary explanation as in Charizard. Homestarmy 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Crawdaunt

Same sitation as Charizard, [13] but seems to of been passed much more recently, and while the original review passing it seems rather lacking, there was still no comment on the talk page for delisting the article immedietly, and the edit summary didn't defend the decision to delist this article at all in terms of the GA criteria. (It was just "This is in no way even GA quality.") Homestarmy 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Charizard

This immedietly delisted article was delisted with no comment on the talk page at all, [14] and while I am aware the quality of references generally used in all Pokemon articles is considered suspect due to heavy reliance on guidebooks, I don't think that failing the very high standards of references that should be used in FAs automatically means they fail the standards of GAs too, certainly not enough to not even give an actual comment about delisting the article. I'm neutral on this article for now, as I haven't really examined it, and although i'm inclined myself to think that most of the references given for this article at least are relatively reliable, i'd prefer not to defend the references without a full story. Homestarmy 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These were all summarily delisted, and incorrectly. (I had to fix the currentstatus, etc.) Charizard has been nominated for FA a bunch of times and the same problems come up. The primary questionable reference is serebii.net, which this article uses for 7 of 58 references, which isn't bad. The other references tend to be fairly superficial, product listings and such, which relates to an issue of completeness, as the article doesn't have a lot on the creation of the character and other out-of-universe content. This is not a "great" article, but I think it's a "good" article. While I'm less familiar with the other two articles, a brief review of the references suggests the same issues. Gimmetrow 03:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction? Does serebii.net fit under that definition? -Malkinann 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relist ALL These are fictional creations. There is not going to be much in the way of secondary sources---the closest you are going to get are guidebooks. I found the articles to interesting and informative. They were written clearly about characters in a game/anime/video game. I think they meet the criteria for GA.Balloonman 04:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Added Mudkip for review, too. Gimmetrow 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that one, but the user appears to of actually said something that time, there's actually a section on the talk page, saying it was unstable. Homestarmy 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, there was a sort of a review, then someone almost two weeks later changed the template. Gimmetrow 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reslist All - I actually thought I'd already done this... possibly this is where I was when my internet went down. Anyway, I don't see an issue with in-universe in these articles. They appear to meet the criteria in my opinion. LaraLove^T/_C 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Relist all except Mudkip. They all meet the criteria except for Mudkip, which has content issues (the rarely cited 3a) and a blank footnote, in addition to the question of its stability. Geometry guy 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WorkChoices

This is a "barbeque-stopper" (controversial issue) in Australia, being a set of new industrial relations laws. This has been a GA since 2005 and now has some gaps - For example, having only one inline reference in the WorkChoices#Significant changes section, (criterion 2b) and the article not really covering what happened with WorkChoices in 2006. (3a) Was it being enacted the be all and end all of WorkChoices in 2006? There were some causes celebres in 2006 - like a 16 year old who got their paycheque cut by 30% under one of the new agreements. I'm not sure if that could go in the article without being a POV magnet, though. The references all need to be checked for non-404ing,(2b) and there's been some concern about POV in the talk page - weasel wording and the like. (4) I think it gets a bit POV in places. The references need to be consistently formatted, (2b) and the external links embedded in the text need to go.(1b) I've cleaned up the article somewhat, so now I'm submitting it for review. -Malkinann 23:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I can't really talk about the POV as I'm not familiar enough with the controversy. But the article reads fairly well. The first section, where it is all bullet points, needs some serious work---and while I would like to see some of the information updated from 2005, I don't think the problems warrant delisting as a GA. IMHO, it probably meets GA criteria---but I don't have a strong enough sense for this article to vote to keep it.Balloonman 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Several fact tags and cleanup templates, listy and stubby in multiple sections, needs a good copy-edit for wikification and punctuation issues. Citations are not consistently formatted. That's just from scanning the article. LaraLove^T/_C 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I also noted, upon looking back over the article, that the lead is not a summary of the article. Above issues have not currently been addressed. My recommendation stands. LaraLove^T/_C 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Singapore

Nomination for delisting

• the section of culture is terribly written and poorly organized.
• the section of education wrote too much unncessary details like how many foreign students are studying there, PRIME, etc.
• subheadings are not really necessary in many sections, like history, transportation, etc.
• references didn't follow MOS format properly; and also further reading mixed with that section make it very untidy.
• quite a few statements with a tag of "citiation needed" and nobody pay attention to them.
• information is not that up-to-date, e.g. GDP per capita shown in the part of economy is 2005 that is almost three years ago.
• photos are basically oversized that hurt the layout and left many unnecessary space in many paragraphs. Coloane 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• VERY VERY Weak Keep and cleanup The article needs some help as you do bring up some valid concerns. But overall I thought it was a pretty good article. The problems that it has are easily fixed by somebody willing to make any effort whatsoever at cleaning it up. The education section and foot notes in particular need to be cleaned up.Balloonman 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • re photos -- oversized? looks fine to me. there is no whitespace on my 19", whether by 1152 or 640.
  • re culture section -- the whole part in parenthesis is indeed very clumsily presented.
  • re references -- looks more like a case of inconsistent format. but for a few, most use the citeweb temp or equivalent.
  • re subheadings -- not particularly troubling to me.
  • re cit tags -- solvable problem, without first mentioning a couple of them are redundant. Chensiyuan 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - I agree with several points of the nomination, although I do not feel there is an issue with subheadings. I also don't think the images are oversized, but I do think there are an excessive number of images. It does affect the layout and spacing of the article, and I believe the article should be trimmed down to include fewer images per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images. Stagger remaining images as necessary to avoid clashing with article contents. The fact tag issue also needs to be resolved. Cite references for these claims or delete the info. There also needs to be consistency in formatting of references. The article could use a copy-edit as well. I made some minor changes, but I don't have time to go over it in-depth right now. LaraLove^T/_C 19:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Issues have not been addressed. Further recommendations are needed. LaraLove^T/_C 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delist - the 'international rankings' list needs to be prosified and explained better, and the [citation needed]s need to be taken care of. I feel it's close, but doesn't quite fit the criteria.-Malkinann 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rite of Spring

Note: This article has been delisted prematurely citing this process as the reason. However, this discussion and its recommendations do not currently warrant delisting. Therefore, this discussion should continue as normal. If no improvements are made and further recommendations result in delisting, then it shall stand. On the other hand, should improvements be made that bring the article up to standards, it should them be relisted as GA. LaraLove^T/_C 06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for delisting: Article is badly undercited, especially the more scholarly analysis. Would require someone with good knowledge and available literature to cite the stuff. The paragraph on Disney's Fantasia is very close to trivia. History needs more citations also. Centy – – 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you leave a message on the talk page of the article? That's meant to be so that people who are interested in the article (and who hopefully wrote some of it) can know about the review and address the concerns brought up in it. -Malkinann 00:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I will comment that the article cites two books, and an essay, specifically on the Rite of Spring; if any of the criticism is not from there, it would surprise me. It seems consensus at first glance. It would be bizarre to omit the section on Disney, since, even with a sequel, this is where many readers will have met it; if we delete it, it will return.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

• Please sign your comments, mate. I can completely understand the concern about sections of an article spontaneously respawning, however, as it is, the Disney section doesn't have any inline citations, and some of the information in it could be considered controversial - an argument between Disney and Stravinsky.-Malkinann 01:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - I agree that there is not sufficient inline citation. The lead is also insufficient. I recommend further wikilinking. Paris and benevolence, for example. For the articles current state, I must support the nomination. LaraLove^T/_C 15:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Easy Delist---wow, I wish all of the articles we reviewed were this clear cut. This article is woefully undercited. The lead alone would be enough to delist. This article needs a lot of help to get up to GA status.Balloonman 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Good writing, but unfortunately well underreferenced. Not an easy fix, this article makes many challengable claims that need inline cites to back them up. Also, there are numerous direct quotes that have no obvious source. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There have been some changes to the article, but the addition of only one reference. Additional recommendations would be appreciated. LaraLove^T/_C 02:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This article is a solid piece of work and it would be a pity to delist it. However, it does need some fixing. At present, the lead does not stand alone as an overview of the article. This should be fairly easy to fix: the article is sufficiently accessible that anyone could summarise it. The section on "Musical characteristics" needs some clarification. Presumably the commentary of Perle comes from his book, but the page numbers refer to the score. In the section on Disney's Fantasia, Stravinsky's comments appear to have a source, but there is no source for the rest of the material. Someone familiar with the article needs to fix these issues. If they do, I'd be happy to give the lead a shot. Geometry guy 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler Sunbeam

This might not be the best moment to post an article for GA/R, but I really need third-party opinion. This article was nominated by me and subsequently reviewed by User:Jazznutuva, who subsequently failed it for it being written basing on only one source, which he found unreliable. In my discussion with Jazznutuva, I have explained I was nto aware of any GA-related stipulation that would require the article to have multiple sources and explained why I find the source reliable. I would be grateful if you could have a look at both the article and the discussion in Jazznutuva's talk page and tell me whether you also believe this article should be failed - either for the reason stated by Jazznutuva (if you can find relevant regulations please) or for any other. Thank you, PrinceGloria 12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

New noms go on the top. LuciferMorgan 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stupid me... This only goes to show I am not that immersed in this process, but also, that sometimes rather than pointing fingers you could actually walk the talk (whatever has been said in the talk page notwithstanding) PrinceGloria 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• List as a GA I had a long review written out saing that the article should fail and why this article needed independant sources. Then I actually checked the source. It looks like an independant source to me, and seems quite reliable in that vein. It appeared from the name of the source that it was sourced to Chrysler itself (which would then be unreliable). But this looks kosher when I actually read it. Given the wealth of automotive trade publications like Motor Trend and Road and Track and the like, I find it hard to believe that NO other sources exist, but given that this source seems independent, and is thus reliable, I see no reason to fail it. As room for future improvement, though, it does need additional sources... Back issues of automotive mags from the 70's could really help flesh the article out, but this is GA quality in my opinion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you! Now, I believe that although automotive magazines from the period could give some insight, some of the more important background information only saw the light of day years later, when former employees decided to reveal the behind-the-curtain details to eager enthusiasts, which is how the site was created to some extent. So, I think I could add some hardcopy sources (if only I gained access to them, which is not that easy, at least for me), but those would mostly confirm the less-disputable details such as tech data. Perhaps some enthusiasts'/classic car magazines would contain more info, but I think most of what would be contained therein would make its way to the site anyway. PrinceGloria 14:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• PS. Oh BTW - I don't think that either MT or R&T have a UK or European edition.

• I am not familiar with UK or European automotive publications, and while those mags may not be distributed in Europe, some equivalents I am SURE are.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support as GA I am not convinced that the source cited is truly neutral---but it is more of a history and thus "ok". I think the article is well written and interesting---but the source is very weak. But at this level, I think it is adequate. You wouldn't want to go to A-class or FA-class review as is... but for GA it meets the criteria.Balloonman 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)EDIT: convinced by discussion below that this should be delistedBalloonman 15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• List as GA As per Jayron32. Source appears reliable and sufficient, but I'm sure other sources can be found (besides the two that have been added). - T-75|talk|contribs 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse fail - I find it to be inappropriate to rely on one source for an article. Although there are three references, they are all to one source. If a topic is notable, there should not be issues with finding additional sources, with few exceptions. Additionally, I find the lead missing some information, the article could use additional wikification, and clarification is needed with regards to the first sentence of the second paragraph under "The launch". The prose is off to the point that I'm not sure what is being said. LaraLove^T/_C 20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review! Great to see you reviewing again! I admit it was a bit lazy of me, but I could think of a few more sources, and they would be the ones used in both the other articles I have mentioned. Neither is as comprehensive as the one I used, so it would all boil down to adding more inline citation marks and not any actual content, FWIK. Anyway, could I have a few questions of you?

1. What information is missing in the lead?
2. What wikification? I try no to overlink, and I think I have linked to all major relevant articles along the way...
3. Mmm... What is unclear about the sentence you've mentioned? Does the comment on the prose pertain to that sentence or the entire paragraph?

• Thank you in advance for your reply! PrinceGloria 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't stay away...

1. I believe the lead would benefit from information regarding the launch and positive reception between development/manufacturing details and the takeover info. The lead should touch on the most important points of the topic. It's generally considered that each header defines an important point. With that in mind, a bit of detail from each section should be included in the lead. In this case, as mentioned above, that would include "The launch". Additionally, I believe PSA should be "PSA Peugeot Citroën (PSA)" in the lead.
2. I respect not wanting to over-link the article. For me, it's sometimes difficult to decide what to link, but I try to consider the differences in languages and reader's english comprehension. I would wikilink "takeover", "strikes", "United Kingdom (UK)", "United States (U.S.)-based", "grant (money)", subsidiary, (I would say fascia, because I had to go check what that was, but the article seems of no help in this instance as it refers to a component of the tissue system of the human body.), bankruptcy, front-wheel drive.
3. As far as issues with prose:

1. I also noticed the sentence "The story of the car's name is also interesting", which does not read encyclopedically to me.
2. Under "The launch", "There were three trim level available" - should that be "levels"?
3. Concerning the previously mentioned issue; "Even in spite of the ability to keep the UK business afloat, Chrysler was still making losses both in Europe and at home, and facing the possibility of complete bankruptcy, decided to sell Chrysler Europe to the French PSA." - The underlined portion does not make sense to me. I think the entire sentence needs to be reworked, possibly split into two. I think it's missing a comma after "and", at which point it makes sense. I recommend making it two sentences. I think that would help.

• Past that, I would like to see some additional images of the other versions. (This is not required for GA, I just would like to see them... I think it would improve the article. LaraLove^T/_C 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will try to deal with that ASAP, which might not be too soon due to my RL obligations. As concerns linking, apart from front-wheel drive (which, I was convinced, was linked to in the article at least, and I hope not more than, once), I am do not share your belief that such basic terms should be linked to in every article. I prefer to see a limited number of important and relevant links stand out in a paragraph rather than a sea of blue. But perhaps it's just me.

As concerns free photographs, getting them is really hard for historic cars like this one, so I wouldn't want to commit myself now to providing one. You can surely see more in the web pages I used as a source, and of course with the Google image search feature and similare. PrinceGloria 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. At that time, PSA simply stood for "Peugeot Societe Anonyme", the change to the currently-used name occured later.

• Endorse fail I've dealt with at least one article like this before, Hall Caine, and the situation for that article seems very similar to this one. As I explained to an editor on my talk page, the usage of a single reference for a topic introduces an extremely bad problem of unpredictability, how can we be sure that a single solitary reference actually is covering everything notable there is to know on this subject? I think it is extremely unlikely that a single reference on most topics actually adequately covers the subject, unless the reference is basically the acknowledged end-all be-all concerning a subject or the equivalent of one. What's in this article now may be well-referenced, but with material derived only from a single source, unless someone can justify why this source on its own is likely giving a nearly comprehensive look on the subject, I think it is better for this article to not be a GA. I also can't tell exactly who has created the webpage the reference is from, the bottom just names a "Keith Adams", and there doesn't seem to be an about page describing this website, (Following some links makes it out to be some sort of enthusiasts website) I question its reliability. Homestarmy 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you could take a moment to acquaint yourself with my correspondence with Jazznutuva, you will see why the source fulfills the necessary conditions you have mentioned. As I said, I can provide more sources, but actually I don't think anything can be added to the factual scope of the article. PrinceGloria 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think additional sources are necessary for verifiability alone. I feel it's inappropriate to base all findings on a sole source, regardless of it's reliability. Notable topics generally have plenty of sources to choose from. This article would benefit from the addition of such sources. LaraLove^T/_C 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll look at the discussion anyway. Homestarmy 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on what i'm seeing in that now-archived talk page discussion about that source, I am not yet convinced it is truly something like the end-all be-all of what could possibly reference this subject. An enthusiast organization of professional journalists doesn't even reach the top of what a Reliable source is, I can think of a rather large number of instances where professional journalists aren't necessarily trustworthy, and simply being an enthusiast organization doesn't mean they are necessarily authoritative on the subject at hand, simply having some undefined connections to sources involved with this car does not an authoritative enthusaist organization make. Surely there's more out there on cars like this besides what's on the websites of enthusiasts and what's in hard-to-access maganizes? Homestarmy 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I know this is kinda WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the Talbot Tagora Featured Article has been written largely basing on the same source (and ones of similar qualities). I assure you that, to my best knowledge, there is little more encyclopedic information about the car that is not yet in the article. As I said, I can add more references (all of them online, I am afraid), but not really much more info, if any at all. I apologize for just talking and not being bold and doing it ATM due to my RL time constraints. PrinceGloria 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the FA nom on that article doesn't appear to of even mentioned the reliance on the website in question, FA reviewers generally jump all over that kind of thing if there's really a problem, and a GA/R being tougher than an FAC just wouldn't be right. I guess there's not much to do but acknowladge this website as compleatly reliable, if it passes through FAC, it should pass through GA. Homestarmy 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

List as GA, based on the FAC on a similar article also relying solely on the website in question, it appears the reference given comes from a website of unchallenged reliability, and I see nothing else in this article that catches my eye as possibly problematic. Homestarmy 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am surprised that the FAC for that article passed based upon this limited sourcing. The FAC on this article appears to be easy compared to most FAC that I've seen.Balloonman 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was quite surprised myself, it might be attributed to the fact that the topic was not special interest to many reviewers. OTOH, you won't find better sources, I assure you. PrinceGloria 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because one article slipped through the cracks at FAC doesn't mean we should let another pass here. Regardless, I don't see that necessarily being the case here. While the FAC article mentioned does use the same source as a reference, it does not rely solely on that source. It is completely unacceptable. This article, like that one, should include additional references. And, PrinceGloria, the fact that there may be no additional encyclopedic information to be added is irrelevant. Information currently in the article can be attributed to multiple sources. LaraLove^T/_C 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like both articles use the same website for almost all of their english-language referencing, and with the FA, the only other english source used mostly appears no better than the website being used in this article. I can't tell either way myself whether or not this website truly is amazingly reliable for topics like this, so I just don't see a reason yet to doubt the FAC people in that review. If one reference can actually give a comprehensive and accurate outlook on a topic, I just don't see the reason to fail a GA for using just it. Homestarmy 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the quality of this article. The custodian has acknowledged these concerns and pledged to address them "ASAP", however, no changes have been made. For this reason, my recommendation stands. LaraLove^T/_C 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)