Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to list high quality articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and anyone can review nominations, passing them if they meet the good article criteria or leaving reasons for the failure. Articles may be delisted if a later reviewer feels they do not meet the criteria. Where editors disagree with a failed nomination or a delisting, discussions to find consensus on given articles' status take place here.

If you believe an article should be delisted If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it: Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself. If you can't fix it, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{DelistedGA}}. Do not use {{FailedGA}}. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles. If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below.

If you believe an article should be listed If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be re-listed as a Good Article.

Archives
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

Gram Parsons

I'm not sure how the two people who reviewed this article (one review in august I think, the oter in july or something) came to the conclusion that it is well-referenced, currently it has only one at the bottom and a single hyperlink up at the top. Also, the organization of the article seems to have led to a large amount of bloat, I really don't see how an article on this person should go into such a large amount of detail concerning his career or whatever. (And how it all could of come from one reference, unless its a copyvio). Homestarmy 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Falkirk Wheel

This article was reviewed around July-ish, as evidenced by the, well, reviewed notice on the talk page, but I feel that it is certainly not well-referenced, it only has four cites, none of which appear very general in nature, and thusly, I don't feel that this is a Good Article. Homestarmy 18:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, despite of that I was amazed of this structure. I think that this article should focus more on its design and its construction. Both of those sections are unsourced and their portions, I think, it's not enough. — Indon (reply) — 19:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree as well. De-list for lack of citations and lack of coverage. Agne 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Shinigami (Bleach)

Would anyone agree that this article is too "in-universe" to be a GA. --Tarret 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, it doesn't even feel like the article even tries to enter the real universe. Homestarmy 00:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would fail it, as it too in-comic perspective. Not an encyclopedia article. It's a bit strange as the article is reviewed to have a neutral view by the reviewer. The article should have a history, development and other out-of-comic information. I think it should be delisted as GA. — Indon (reply) — 07:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

De-list. The "in-universe"-ish is made even more clear by the fact that the only source of reference is the manga book itself. There has to be a broader scope. Agne 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Metric expansion of space

Self-contradictory: Does the metric of space change, or does the metric of space-time? The lead says the former, but the Overview says the latter. Lurk22 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't both change? Homestarmy 01:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

They do both change, though technically there isn't one unique "metric of space" while there is only one unique "metric of spacetime". I've clarified this (sort of) in the article. --ScienceApologist 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to this apparent contradiction (which is not a contradiction at all) is given at Talk:Metric expansion of space. --ScienceApologist 01:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Planet

This article has changed fundamentally since it was last reviewed, and needs to be reconsidered. Serendipodous 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you see anything wrong about it, I can't spot much on a cursory look. Homestarmy 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It has had some organisational issues; right now I'm not sure it flows very well. The nature of its topic has meant that many different angles have had to be considered simultaneously, and its beginning to groan under the strain. Serendipodous 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the organization is that bad, but the history and within the solar system sections appear to have no references. For history, maybe there's something in History of Astronomy you could use? Homestarmy 01:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ozone

I believe this article should be delisted as a GA article:

1. There is an ongoing low level edit war on the issue of the health effects of ozone. I believe there is POV pushing on this by people who support ozone air cleansers and/or ozone therapy.
2. There are many parts which are unrefrenced (especially on health but looking through it in other sections too)
3. Its too long and applications and health effects need choping into their own articles IMHO.

It therefore fails at least on verifiability and stability.--NHSavage 13:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On just a cursory glance, the "Learn more here" thing is pretty silly, just take the most important information and put it into the actual article :/. Homestarmy 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and all the citations needed tags are a cause for concern, plus some weasel wording near the end. (it is believed by....whom?) Homestarmy 14:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Crusade of 1101

Currently list as a GA article but I have doubt about whether it meets the criteria anymore. Kyriakos 22:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No inline citations, and only three references, leads me to conclude that although it's referenced, it is not well-referenced. Delist Homestarmy 19:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War

I want to know whether it can pass GA review. Kyriakos 22:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on who reviews it, and keep in mind, you can submit it for review more than once. Homestarmy 23:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So does it mean it can be listed as a GA. Kyriakos 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It means it might be listed, if you nominate it. It very often depends on who actually reviews your article. Homestarmy 02:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

John Mark Karr

This article was just promoted by Yesyoudid (talk · contribs), which I think he is one of the article's major contributor. At the talk page, there is no reason why the user passing this article. The article was also nominated and promoted at the same day (Sept. 15), which I think a little bit too soon and no reviewing at all. Also, I found the only image in the article has some possible copyvio. I want to know from others, whether the article is suitable for GA. I'm a newbie here in this project, so please let me know if this article can be delisted or keep it as GA. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, at a cursory glance the article seems fairly good, but sneaking by the system is certainly not good, and i'm tempted to just auto-fail it. The image doesn't appear to have a problem though, can you be more specific? Homestarmy 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading his talk page, there does seem to be a problem with his fair use rationale, but i'm afraid i'm not very familiar with how fair use is supposed to work :/. Homestarmy 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually about to fail it, but I was dragged away by the ongoing discussion at GAN. I am going to sleep now, but I think there are important reasons to delist it, regardless of whether the promotion was unrightful or not. Bravada, talk - 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to delist it, because of image problem, as it was apparently taken from copyrighted website [1] and no fair rationale use in the description of the image. — Indon (reply) — 23:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sacred Heart

User Homestarmy delisted this article, claiming that "four references, while they are in this case adequate to make a stub on this subject, are not sufficient to make a fully-sized article be well-referenced, and thus, this is not a GA." However, this, like many other articles of on Catholic topics, incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia. As this is the primary source for most of the material, and is well-cited itself, it is not necessary to have a plethora of other references. It seems likely that Homestarmy was not familiar with the Catholic Encyclopedia Project here on Wikipedia, which would explain the delisting, but the article really should not be disqualified. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by my decision, I don't see how a topic which clearly has wide exposure and notability would have such a small amount of refs. Did this article just re-write what the CE said? Homestarmy 13:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, yes. That's how the project works. You copy the article into WP, then start editing, adding in new info, rewording the archaic text, etc. The CE article is still the major source for most of the material. If we inline-cited every single thing that came from it, the WP article would look ridiculous. Besides, there is no required minimum number of sources for a GA article. The only requirement is that all factual information is cited, which in this case, it is. MamaGeek ^(talk/

contrib) 12:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the GA criteria states that an article must be well-referenced, not merely referenced. Having the vast majority of material come from a single source, especially one which cannot possibly be the only authoritative source on this subject, is not well-referenced. Homestarmy 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious copyvio here. The Catholic Encyclopedia is copyrighted, stated as The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. [2] When I copied some random sentences from Sacred Heart article, when there is no inline citation given both in that sentences and its section, and googling them out, here are the results: [3] and [4]. — Indon (reply) — 15:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation. Please go to the Catholic Encyclopedia Project project and read up on it. The Catholic Encycopedia was entered into the public domain in 1933. There are scores of CE articles in Wikipedia. Read up on the project, please, before making such a strong accusation. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, editors should cite the original Catholic Encyclopedia book (I don't what the citation is as you probably know better), but not other website who is hosting it. Otherwise a reader might click the link you give in the References section and see "wow, it's directly copy pasted from this site!". By the way, if the project is just rewriting about Catholic Encyclopedia, why don't you put them in wikisource? — Indon (reply) — 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to side with Homestarmy here not only for the references (I know for a fact there are many, many more sources) but also for criteria 3-broad in coverage. There is only scant detail on the non-catholic view (in particular criticism--I know Luther had a few thoughts on that type of devotion). Both of those areas can be expanded with references. As for the Catholic Enyclopedia, Indon makes an excellent point about wikisource. If it is just a transcription of the text then it really doesn't stand on its own as an article. An article is an expansion upon that transcription, pulling in other details and sources. Agne 20:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy

This should be reviewed as it clearly has a bias towards those on the side of creationism. It belittles the beliefs of the scientific majority regarding evolution. Much of what is written there has obviously been written by fire and brimstone christians. 202.164.195.56 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Mike 1:15PM 15 September

I have to say I find this attitude a bit odd given that most of the complaints about the article seem to be that it favors evolution too much (and many of the common editors are what one user accused of being a "scientistic cabal"). Do you have a specific example problem? JoshuaZ 13:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree Joshua, just giving it a cursory reading, it seems to have pretty much the same attitude all of the creationism-related articles have, "There is no dispute about evolution, and ID'ers are basically lying about this." Homestarmy 13:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, that article is distinctly on the evolutionist bent--and just a hair close to tipping NPOV because of it. What concerns me the most is the vast majority of the references seem to come from the "Pro-Evolution/anti-creationism" sentiment. I'm also not the biggest fan of the length. I'd be curious if we can get some valid content forks with section 4 : "Noteworthy participants in the controversy" and taking info from various parts into a History of the Creation-evolution controversy. Agne 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

D with stroke

I'm bringing this to review because, although I feel that this article doesn't have near enough references to be called "well-referenced", it's been through the process before several times, and I don't want to just countermand everyone. None of the sections pertaining to language uses appear to be referenced, and there's just a total of three I think at the bottom, so I feel this is not a Good Article due to low amount of references. Homestarmy 16:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I would also question if it passes the "broad in its coverage" criteria. I would think that an article on a subject such as this would have alot more information. Tarret 00:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree as well. References are particularly vital with this type of subject matter to keep it from veering into WP:OR. Agne 19:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

American middle class

This doesn't seem to be a good article.

Crtieria 1, well written? The lead paragraph is long and confusing. It talks about definitions of middle class as "ideologies", and contains much repetition. E.g., the last sentence is, "Nonetheless prominent ideology states that the income middle cannot afford the middle class lifestyle.", which is a repeat of an earlier statement. It twice states that the middle class is a minority, and repetitively states that middle class can be subdivided. The section in Middle class covering the American middle class does a better job of summarising this article than the lead paragraph, in my view.

Criteria 3, broad in its coverage? It gives no real indication of where the idea of "middle class" comes from in the first place, which has a rich history outside the U.S., and how this relates to American ideas. It should at least link to and provide a summary of the relevant ideas from Middle class. This unsigned comment was left by 203.173.164.219.

At the very least the lead needs to be split into paragraphs for sure, i'll leave a note on their talk page about it, maybe they can fix it. You're also probably right about the broadness thing, maybe an editor there can put that in too. Homestarmy 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will re-write the intro this afternoon. I also wrote the "The section in Middle class covering the American middle class" and will see to it that the intro of the American middle class article is at least as good. I will add a "Background" section describing where the two main ideologies discussed in the article come from. Shouldn't take me more than 48 hours. But please remember that this article deals with the Middle Class in the US, which is a unique ideology. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I re-wrote the intro and will add a history section later. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What we mean is that you need to have the lead be in like three or four different paragraphs of related information :/. WP:LEAD has guidelines on this sort of thing. Homestarmy 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have two and as far as I can see they are of high quality considering the WP:LEAD guidelines. That said please feel free to make any suggestions. I do appreciate your input. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 23:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just that quote is so long and the top and bottom are still so large, it just looks like the quote is separating two sections talking about the same thing to me. Homestarmy 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Homestarmy about the Lead. It still needs some work. I also feel the same issues apply to chart at the bottom here as to the one that was used in Educational attainment in the United States. Is there another way to present this info? Agne 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I down-sized the quote. I work at 1400 resoltuion so everything looks very small to me ;-). As for the paragraphs, the first states the subjective nature of the middle class and other generally important attributes of the ideology and the two most common theories attempting to define the middle class. The following two paragraph each discuss the two different theories. I am going to try and downsize them, though that's quite difficult. The template at the bottom is complex, but so is the concept of class. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions, I really appreicate your input. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the intro is still really long, but at least its more organized looking now. What about the historical background thing the original person asked about? Homestarmy 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'm quite busy in real-life and since I am the only editor I need some time. I will add a history section soon though. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Measure (mathematics)

Article completely lacks history of the subject, so I think fails 3a. --Salix alba (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, delist. Homestarmy 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the de-listing. In its current capacity it is nothing more then a Cliff note. This article can do better. Agne 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Wrath of God

In this article "eliminate" is used as a euphemism. In my opinion this adopts the POV of the operatives and dehumanizes the victims. I suggest the word "killed" is neutral and should be substituted. Brainfood 20:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and either used the word "assassinated" or "killed" instead of "eliminated". Brainfood 19:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If that was the only problem, can we consider this dispute closed? Homestarmy 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would second a closure. It looks resolved. Agne 17:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria example of natural selection needs to emphasize HGT rather than mutation(Natural selection article)

The topic of natural selection give bacterial antibiotic resistance from mutations as an example. It is a good example, but needs an adjustment. In order to make my stance more clear I provide these abstracts for quick review: Five point mutations in a particular ß-lactamase allele jointly increase bacterial resistance to a clinically important antibiotic by a factor of 100,000. In principle, evolution to this high-resistance ß-lactamase might follow any of the 120 mutational trajectories linking these alleles. However, we demonstrate that 102 trajectories are inaccessible to Darwinian selection and that many of the remaining trajectories have negligible probabilities of realization, because four of these five mutations fail to increase drug resistance in some combinations. Pervasive biophysical pleiotropy within the ß-lactamase seems to be responsible, and because such pleiotropy appears to be a general property of missense mutations, we conclude that much protein evolution will be similarly constrained. This implies that the protein tape of life may be largely reproducible and even predictable. Science, Vol. 312, Issue 5770, 111-114. 2006.

The emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria is a phenomenon of concern to the clinician and the pharmaceutical industry, as it is the major cause of failure in the treatment of infectious diseases. The most common mechanism of resistance in pathogenic bacteria to antibiotics of the aminoglycoside, beta-lactam (penicillins and cephalosporins), and chloramphenicol types involves the enzymic inactivation of the antibiotic by hydrolysis or by formation of inactive derivatives. Such resistance determinants most probably were acquired by pathogenic bacteria from a pool of resistance genes in other microbial genera, including antibiotic-producing organisms. The resistance gene sequences were subsequently integrated by site-specific recombination into several classes of naturally occurring gene expression cassettes (typically "integrons") and disseminated within the microbial population by a variety of gene transfer mechanisms. Although bacterial conjugation once was believed to be restricted in host range, it now appears that this mechanism of transfer permits genetic exchange between many different bacterial genera in nature. Science, Vol 264, Issue 5157, 375-382.1994.

When research labs began churning out the genome sequences of a multitude of microbes in the late 1990s, microbiologists got a big surprise: Many organisms seem to be swapping genes with abandon from strain to strain, even across species. Astonishingly, for example, about 25% of the genome of the gut bacterium Escherichia coli turns out to have been acquired from other species. The realization that gene swapping, or horizontal gene transfer as it is called, is a common phenomenon has thrown the field into a tizzy. The implications, says microbiologist Matthew Kane of the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia, "are very, very broad." Borrowed genes can spread antibiotic resistance from one pathogen to another or help an organism survive new or stressful conditions. And it happens often enough to alter the dynamics of microbial communities and even affect the course of evolution……Science, Vol 305, Issue 5682, 334-335.2004.

Microbial resistance to antibiotics currently spans all known classes of natural and synthetic compounds. It has not only hindered our treatment of infections but also dramatically reshaped drug discovery, yet its origins have not been systematically studied. Soil-dwelling bacteria produce and encounter a myriad of antibiotics, evolving corresponding sensing and evading strategies. They are a reservoir of resistance determinants that can be mobilized into the microbial community. Study of this reservoir could provide an early warning system for future clinically relevant antibiotic resistance mechanisms. Science, Vol. 311. Issue 5759 374-377. 2006

It would seem that HGT should be mentioned as a significant factor or the major factor in antibiotic resistance.GetAgrippa 14:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, what is this for? Homestarmy 14:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! It is for the natural selection topic. I like the example and HGT would serve the same purpose, but I think we need to be accurate of the possible likely mechanism.GetAgrippa 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to take off good article listing, however I believe this minor point needs addressing. Perhaps I should just go ahead and rewrite and add references? Since evolution and related topics are often hashed out, I don't want to be too bold. GetAgrippa 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So do you mean the Natural Selection article? Homestarmy 23:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Homestarmy, it is for the Natural Selection article. It may be best to follow the motto "Keep it simple stupid", so just leave the example and then as an addendum add HGT as a mechanisms of growing interest and reality.GetAgrippa 23:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, i'm not gonna lie to ya, this looks like a review for specialists :/. I'll call some people. Homestarmy 13:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a rather fine point that is made. Mutations are still the basic source for antibiotic resistance and the Natural Selection article makes this point quite clear. Your arguement touches upon a different topic of antibiotic resistance. Once it is originally aquired by an organisms through mutation, how is it passed on. The obvious answer is inheritance (ie: through clonal reproduction in bacteria). The less obvious answer is horizontal gene transfer, which you mention. So I disagree that HGT needs to be emphasized more than mutation. It is still mutation that provide the original resistance; mutation is the mechanism for this resistance to originate. Inheritance is how these mutations are passed on and HGT can be mentioned there as a novel way to pass on the resistance.--Roland Deschain 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming the originator was questioning the GA status of the Natural Selection article based on the emphasis of mutation over HGT. After reading Roland's explanation and seeing how it is presented in the article I will have to disagree with the originator and still consider Natural Selection fit for GA status. Agne 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Drum and bass

Article has gone through some major reworking, I'd like to know what else could be changed to improve it. --Dustek 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to come back to give it a more thorough review but right off the bat I think the quotes throughout the article need to fall within the guidelines of WP:MOS -see both the Italic section and section 8. However, my advice would be to jettison them. They don't really offer any substantial benefit to the article and to the contrary seem to throw off the flow of reading it. Agne 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotes add context. They illustrate the change in lyrics that reflects the change in the style or illustrate the music's characteristics ('a different drum'. I.e. earlly ecstacy praise -> rather mindless ragga chants -> more intelligent lyrics -> main stream songs known to many. I've changed the style.

Slight quibble over the ... also known as jungle. in first line: the Oldschool jungle page has There is significant debate as to whether Jungle is a separate genre from drum and bass as some use the terms interchangeably. so it seems odd to imediatly say they are one and the same. --Salix alba (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether "jungle" is the same as "drum and bass" is one that raises very heated arguments amongst fans of the genre. Current text is a compromise. --Dustek 10:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed there are too many wikilinks and have removed some.

Educational attainment in the United States

This article was just failed as GA because the sources were not broad enough and because it does not provide historical context. I, the author, beg to differ with both objections. First, the article covers a narrow subject as defined by the title-the only and best source on the educational attainment of the American population is the US Census Bureau which has been keeping track of these figures since record keeping began. Second, the article does provide historical references. The article clearly describes how the educational attainment of the US population has changes; the most prominent graphic in the article along gives the educational attainment for the US population since 1949. I do request an impartial review. Thank you. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

renom On quick review, I'd say the article contains a lot of good information, is thorough and is a good essay to have in wikipedia. I would have probably passed the article, but would also have suggested the following: I'd like to see more interpretative essays brought into the article and citation mix. I haven't checked the lead thoroughly, but I suspect it could use some attention re: WP:LEAD. The prose is also a little difficult to read for the average reader. I'd recommend that the article avoid passive and participial constructions, shorten sentence length and do something to break up long sections into smaller paragraphs. The graphics at the end confuse my poor old eyes as well. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I second both the comment on the prose as well as the graphic at the bottom. There has to be a better way to present the information. In addition to being hard on the eyes, it's not very easy to follow. Agne 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

This is my first time here, so I figured it'd be good to get another opinion before delisting this. I have multiple questions or concerns just sbout the second section, "Biography". For example:

1. It's not clear whether his family members are still alive.
2. It's not clear which sister is 18 months younger than he is.
3. How could math not be available for him to study in college?

I listed a couple other questions on the article's talk page. Maurreen 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It really looks like your call, I can see this article going either way depending on how strict a reviewer holds articles up to being well-referenced and being thorough. Homestarmy 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some serious reservations about this article, but I'll just mention two. First off, we get 8 paragraphs about his disease and a measly 3 about his research achievements. Granted, many readers are probably interested in his condition; that's not my issue. But how can his scientific contributions be treated so peremptorily? He is a famous physicist - the physics should be dealt with more seriously. Also, the section on the bet he lost has its own article. It could just be replaced with something like "he famously lost a bet with ...." and then cite the daughter article. Ok, one more. There's a section called Recent Comments which has stuff that shouldbe embedded into the main text; it mitigates against stability and looks amateurish. Eusebeus 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

De-list for failing Criteria #3. It no where near covering all the major aspects of Hawkings work snd as reader coming to the article to learn more about Hawkings very signifigant contributions, you are left sorely lacking. As a side, it also needs an expanded lead section. Agne 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lithium Aluminium Hydride

There is a diagram showing the reaction of this reagent under the 'Use in organic chemistry' header, and i am reasonably sure that when reacted with a ketone, the product formed is a secondary alcohol, not a tertiary as shown. Does anyone else wish to verify my concern? Olly2282 09:55, 14 August 2006 (GMT)

I don't think the GA system can handle non-existant articles like Lithium Aluminium Hydride :) Homestarmy 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is Lithium aluminium hydride. I added a redirect.--agr 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, im no expert in Chemistry, but it does look odd because a hydrogen atom seems to dissapear in that section :/. Do you by chance have any sources about what would happen with Lithium Aluminium Hydride if it reacts with a ketone? Homestarmy 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have dropped a note on the talk page of the user who apparently created in the image in question to help clarify matters. I would say even if the image is incorrect (and an accurate replacement couldn't be found), the article still meets GA standards--just absent an image. Agne 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly error, I've fixed it. I'm surprised one of the chemists hadn't spotted it before now! I'll watch this page in case there are any more issues, but hopefully that resolves it. Walkerma 21:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

American Meat Institute

My main concern with this article is that it does not have "compelling prose" (it offers fairly dry coverage of the topic) and it is not "broad in its coverage" (it doesn't cover anything beyond basic structure, functions and two events but no controversies). Cedars 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cedars, delist. Homestarmy 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I passed it becuase it may not be entertaining but it covers the subject, is NPOV, well-referenced and has good lead-in. It seems to meet all criteria IMHO. Signature^brendel 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I stopped by as I thought Gerd was saying something about the other article :D From what I can tell, this is hardly the most brilliant article around, but perhaps it does say all that it is to say about a less braod topic in a concise form - that's what GA's were originally meant to be about. BUT, if you can prove there is something about the topic that actually WAS omitted, then it's a sure reason for removal (unless someone can quickly fix it and add an appropriate section). Bravada, talk - 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression that this article pretty much said everything there is to be said-if I was mistaken than this article definitely needs to be expanded. Signature^brendel 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Delist unless these question are resolved :

• Doesn't talk about the creation too much (like who created this ... I want to see names or business names).

  They seem to have yearly or over the years publications? this could be mentioned.

  They try to avoid BSE (mad cow), any research on that is necessary for the article/about banning imports from Canada. Lincher 01:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delist per Lincher and I would also like to see an expanded lead section. While not an absolute lead, I would be interested in an image of some sort. Is it possible to get a fair use image of the logo? Is there a quality stamp that members puts on their products? Agne 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Black Isle's Torn

According to reviewer, article was failed for being "[l]onger than the subject warranted." As the page has not even reached 30 kb, and attempts to be comprehensive, I am requesting a review. JimmyBlackwing 04:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs more wikilinks to relevant subjects, many paragraphs mention game stats and whatnot that non-gameplayers might not fully understand, and other subjects. But once that's fixed, the only real issues I see is that some parts are not very well-referenced, though that interview mentioned at the bottom might have all the information in there or something. Homestarmy 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is GA material IMO. I just have 1 question : why isn't there a criticism section ... did everybody like this game? Lincher 01:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning is simple: the game never saw the light of day. It was cancelled some months after its announcement. I believe the article makes mention of this in the first sentence, though it may need to be made more obvious. JimmyBlackwing 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, it's all good, I had seen that but was just surprised that not even the alpha testers gave comments on the game. That's all. That is why I think it is of GA status (Though having been away from GA/Review for a while I don't know who has the final decision for the status). Lincher 02:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. There is a little comment in "Development history" about its E3 2001 reception. I think that's about as much as possible for this game, though. JimmyBlackwing 04:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups

This is not a dispute per se, but is still a review request. Richardshusr nominated Google Groups, an article I wrote, for Good Article. Samsara failed the article, citing "Unsourced section" as his reason. Although I agree that the nomination was premature, I intend to do more extensive work and polishing of the article in August, followed by a Peer Review, so that it will become a good article by September. As the article was written by me completely from scratch, and until now almost all of the content comprises my contributions, the article may still reek of newbie mistakes. Therefore, I wish to know whether the unsourced section is the only reason for failing the article, and hope to get feedback which will help me improve the article in August. To quote Richardshusr: "I would have hoped for a more expansive analysis of the areas where the article needed improvement to reach GA status. If one unsourced section is the only deficiency, then that should be easily addressed." In addition, determining whether the unsourced section is the only problem will decide whether Google Groups becomes an unreferenced GA. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the delisting was initially unclear, if the software is in development, I dunno what guarentee of stability that could give the article, safer to just leave it delisted for now. Homestarmy 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Solid GA material to me too. Lincher 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fujiwara no Teika

As far as I can see, the only objection to this article was that its footnotes are clumsy. (It is fully noted; but the full citation for each reference is repeated each time the book is cited.)

They are clumsy, and they should be fixed before the article is featured. I have suggested a method of doing this, and the main editor has put it on his agenda. But this isn't, and shouldn't be, a good article requirement; this is the sort of detail that peer review is for. JCScaliger 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be correct, citation format means nothing unless it's so horrible nobody could make heads or tails of which citation goes where even if they spent a few minutes trying to use it, because then nobody could tell if it was well referenced or not. This article should be a GA unless something else comes up. Homestarmy 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A week should indicate that there is no other objection; I will consult with the original objector, and then list. JCScaliger 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page there makes it sounds like that overall there are two for and two against, that's not enough to relist, we need more opinions. Homestarmy 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

One of those objections entirely, and the other largely, makes an invalid objection, as Homestarmy admits. I'm new here; please explain. JCScaliger 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the GA disputes page is supposed to work by a fairly simple consensus, because normally the answer to whether an article should be a GA or not should be fairly obvious. We don't have any clauses which could strike out inactionable objections, so more people would have to chime in on this dispute for there to be a majority vote. Homestarmy 18:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the referencing format is that bad ... I've seen worst. For my part, there is a necessity to have all the criteria and then I check if there are references (reliable sources that is) and decide to pass the article if there are some (that pertain to the subject. In that matter ... there are loads and they are necessary, clumsy or not. So PASS. (PS : We are working on making a well-written encyclopedia not a well-written bibliography of a subject) Lincher 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And they have now been revised, in a form which makes the notes lighter. JCScaliger 03:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Pass I agree that the particular style of the reference shouldn't be a "make or break" factor for GA but a valid area for suggested improvement. As long as there is good, reliable references that pass WP:V then it should be GA. Agne 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)