Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masem (talk | contribs) at 12:19, 20 October 2007 (→Koenigsegg CCX). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
"WP:GAR" redirects here. For For the guide to abuse reports use WP:GTAR, see WP:GAR (disambiguation).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Shortcuts
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
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 reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)

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

John Herivel

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Listed as a result of current GA sweep (Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force). Whilst this article meets many of the GA critera, I believe its coverage of - and focus on - its subject are questionable. The majority of the article relates to a single event in John Herivel's life (in considerable detail); further biographical information is sparse. IMO not GA standard for a WP:BIO article, but I'd like further opinions ;) EyeSereneTALK 13:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am leaning toward "Keep" as GA since the article's subject -- Herivel and his role in Cryptanalysis of the Enigma -- are noteworthy. Also, the Herivel article contains useful material not found in the Cryptanalysis of the enigma article. Majoreditor 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would a name change+redirect be the way to go then? If a person is only notable for one thing I understand that it's difficult to write about him/her without writing about that thing, but my feeling is that this article takes it too far. EyeSereneTALK 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (Fair warning: I'm the primary author on this one). Firstly, I don't believe there's much extra published material that could be added to give more details about John Herivel's life; the biography is "complete" in that sense, at least for the time being, although EyeSerene is quite correct to point out that it's not very detailed. And yes, the article does essentially deal with two interrelated topics at once. That was a conscious decision, and I would argue that it's not necessarily a bad approach. You could split out the article into two stubby articles, but I think it makes for a better encyclopedia article to treat both together — indeed, that's always how the topics are treated in the sources. — Matt Crypto 10:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facing the Giants

Restarting old GA/R. Although many of the previous GA/R's issues have been addressed a few remain. Namely, a short lead and poor plot section. Drewcifer 03:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia ni Cristo

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

See Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo#Coffeemaker's Rant. Issues concering the use of references, lack of vital information and structuring has lead a contributer to doubt its GA status wL<speak·check> 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for delist. In addition to your points, I also want to mention that it is not a stable article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article should be delisted. While I do not agree that "too many references" (one of the points brought up on the talk page) is really a valid reason to delist this article, there are clearly many other issues, particularly reference verifiability and neutrality, stability, length of lead, scope and the need for cleanup. However, the article was delisted two days ago, so at this point this debate should be closed and archived, or the article should be relisted, at least until this discussion is closed and a clear decision is reached. However, it seems to me that this article could have been outright delisted without being listed here, as it has several problems that cause it to easily not meet the GA criteria. Rai-me 15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Perreault

This is a very unusual nomination. I have nominated several things here for lack of references. In this case, I am nominating an article that has had editorial disagreement. I did a lot of work in late July and early August to get this article promoted to WP:GA. Then, User:RGTraynor started removing a lot of the details in the article. Most of the disagreement relates to how heavily an article should be cited. If I cited multiple points from the same source separately he removed many of the multiple citations. I did not totally disagree and relented to many of the changes. However, as he continued this, I began to feel he was taking destructive action. We have gone back and forth on our talk pages. The debate provide great fodder to derail my WP:RFA on WP:OWN issues. We agreed to accept outside opinions but neither WP:WPBIO nor WP:HOCKEY gave any feedback on their talk pages. We then posted at WP:PR and got one response that supported my opinion that greater citation detail was a positive for our international audience. I am bringing the article here to get some consensus regarding edits like this September 24th edit made after the September 21st feedback at PR. In its current state (which I consider vandalized by User:RGTraynor) it is not the greatest GA. If I was using a scale where 95 is a WP:TFA, 90 is new WP:FA promotion, 75 is a new WP:GA listing or a WP:FAR keep, and 65 is a WP:GA/R keep, I would rate this article as about a 70. Basically, I am calling for support to revert the removals in the edit documented here and make some sort of clear statement that removing these kinds of details degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. I am calling for consensus on the debate about the direction of this article and have exhausted my avenues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep with support to revert removed citations as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my statements made on the talk page earlier and the nom. Bring back the removed citations because most if not all of them fall under Wikipedia:When to cite. T Rex | talk 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The dispute doesn't seem to of resulted in any recent article instability, and even without more citations, it still looks pretty well-referenced. However, as long as the details you want in this article are, indeed, well-referenced and useful for mentioning in the article about this subject, I don't understand why they should be excluded.... Homestarmy 01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore citations. The only time I could imagine an article with too many citations would be when one fact is cited with 5 different sources, or when every single sentence is cited. Removing a fact's only reliable citation borders on vandalism. Jeff Dahl 04:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will restore the citations this weekend if User:RGTraynor (or someone who agrees with him) does not present a reason why I should not by then.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tony is misrepresenting the situation. I removed no citations; I simply trimmed back an overwhelming number of inline citations that were as thick as every sentence in spots, each and every one an item of uncontroversial statistical fact already referenced below in a list of citations that I very properly did not touch. Tony's overeager inline citations flout official policy: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). (By contrast, Wikipedia:When to cite is an essay with no force as policy or guideline, and in any event does not focus on inline citations.) That he characterizes this as vandalism verges on personal attack -- given that I was editing this article a year and a half before he ever noticed it, should I claim that he vandalized my work? -- and if he feels that this issue impacted his RFA, his ambitions would be better served by correcting those actions of his which caused a raft of Oppose votes than by forum shopping. A GAR nomination on an article for which he pushed for GA status in the first place smacks of WP:POINT.  RGTraynor  19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this forum process is not the place to resolve editorial disputes. The GA criteria set a minimum standard for citation, and this article meets them. Beyond that, they do not specify how much inline citation there should be. Please use Requests for comment or similar, not GAR. I intend to archive this discussion. Geometry guy 15:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this forum?? Wikipedia is not a forum. Davnel03 19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting that, and sorry for using the wrong word. This is most definitely not a discussion forum, but that serves only to emphasise further the point that it is not the place for this discussion. Geometry guy 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Night Stand (2006)

Sandstein gave an inappropriate reason for why the article was speedy failed. Several users have stated both on the article talkpage and here was unfair. Given the problems that we at WP:PW have with sourcing, and what is considered reliable and not reliable, I am asking for a re-review of this article to get a wider opinion on whether Sandstein's decision is justified, or whether the article should be listed as GA. Thanks, Davnel03 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what the phrasing would be for Weak Not Endorsing Failure but that would be my vote (for now). I commented on both the talk page for WP:GAN and the article's talk page, so my comments can be read there but, to grossly oversummarize, I think that quickfailing was a little excessive and a misreading of the WP:RS policy, but I am open to being proven wrong. If it's true, at least one or two more current nominees will have to be failed, and one or two previously passed ones will have to be delisted. Having said all that, I haven't gone over the article properly, and I'm not sure if there are other aspects about it that would fail or put it on hold. I do think, however, that it deserves a proper and full review. Cheers, CP 15:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see types of sources. The WWE site qualifies as a primary source as it is "people very close to the situation being written about." This is not say that primary sources can't be used, but the article should be supported more by secondary sources. Understandable, WWE wrestling is not something that is reported in your average newspaper and secondary sources are going to be a problem. This brings up the issue of notability: is this event sufficiently notable (as defined by Wikipedia, not by fans) to really be its own article? (I'm not trying to call for its deletion, I'm trying to help explain what needs to be done to help it). If you can find information about ticket sales, or number of viewers, or anything else "meta" about the event, and consider not focusing so much on the wrestling aspect, but that it was a pay-per-view event and thus has possible notability through ratings. An extreme measure is that these WWE event articles may not be appropriate for WP and should be moved to a different Wikia, but a summary page of WWE events would still be quite valid -- however, I don't think you need to go that direction just yet. --MASEM 15:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and find extra sources to do with the "meta" as you put it about the event. Deletion isn't a viable option, see here. We have had this discussion about possible deletion over at WP:PW see here. Davnel03 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not trying to call for deletion, but one issue it looks like is that most of the people that responded to that deletion call were editors involved in the WWE project. It's preaching to the choir. Remember that notability on WP is not the same as the more common definition of notability (typically defined by "fame" or "importance"); what is important to WWE fans may not be important to the whole world, which is why there's the secondary sources requirement. --MASEM 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by reviewer: I stand by my decision. The sources are all by the producer of the event; they are self-published sources and as such not reliable. For comparison, would you accept an article about George W. Bush that is exclusively sourced by links to White House web pages and press releases? If articles of this sort cannot be reliably sourced - with third-party sources - we should not have them at all. Sandstein 15:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can have third-party sources, but they are considered "dirtsheets" in professional wrestling. I've left a note on the WP:PW talkpage, so hopefully some will come over him and give their opinion. Davnel03 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think something critical is being missed here. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, citations are important for several reasons. This article complies with the intent of every one of those reasons. The analogy of the White House doesn't fit. No, I wouldn't necessarily trust the White House to give a completely transparent report on internal matters. But that's not the case here. A better analogy is trusting MLB.com for the scores of the latest baseball games. They give a recap and the score--what reason would I not have to trust them?
Pay per view results are the same as baseball scores. It is not controversial material. It is not likely to be challenged. It is not original research. It is not in conflict with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. WWE.com is, in many cases, the best place to get accurate results and recaps of weekly shows and major pay per view events. Nothing in the One Night Stand article makes use of editorial opinions or questionable statements from WWE.com. I've gone through the article and I see nothing controversial backed up with a citation to WWE.com.
To address one final point, I think that pay per view results are definitely notable enough to warrant individual articles. They may not be considered particularly noteworthy to people with no interest in wrestling, but most of the articles on Wikipedia would fit the same criteria. I'll never read the articles on Standesamt Samotschin, Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect or, perhaps slightly closer to the topic at hand, Super Bowl XIV. I do, however, understand that they deserve a place in the encyclopedia because they will be of use to someone. GaryColemanFan 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Opinions on different things

  • Well, I see that the problem is the reviewer of the article. I checked Sandstein's contributions (Special:Contributions/Sandstein) and basically, he has [***apparently] absoulutely no interest in professional wrestling. I have no idea why he wanted to review the article. Well, I believe that someone who is going to review a WP:PW article, should be a member of WP:PW, because then he'd know what and how things go here.
  • I believe that it is completely unreasonable for any user (member of WP:PW or not) to fail an article for GA, just because it is headed to the main source. Obviously, any other source could be just lying or making a mistake, and will also be filled with internal commentary. WWE.COM will obviously have the exact RESULTS, exact EVENTS, exact STATISTICS, etc. Its just pointless.

Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 02:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Black Marsh

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The content of this article does not adhere to WP:FICT – it does not contain any development information or what the developers envisioned, its impact on the real-world. Although written well, I am led to believe that it is not broad in its coverage. hbdragon88 03:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Have to agree that it pretty much only using primary sources with only a few hints of how development came about. Was passed last year, so more recent changes would likely have invalidated it. --MASEM 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Entirely in-universe, therefore completely lacking in broadness. Not to mention the red-linked picture. Drewcifer 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Civilian

This article was failed for

  1. Having a red link
  2. A reference had the same name as the other - so a small formatting error (fixed it in a second)
  3. Also because i have references covering entire paragraphs the reviewer did not take the time to read the sources and believes that the article requires more sources. I don't see the point of having the same source five times in a paragraph when one can go at the end. I'm not renominating it at GAC to wait a month for another review... M3tal H3ad 12:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was about to vote keep because none of the reasons given represent real failures of the GA criteria, but after checking one of the websites of several references, I have another concern. Live-metal.net describes its authors as "...a web site run by some dudes who love metal.", and the articles cited don't seem to have any references themselves, so I really question how reliable this site is. I can't even figure out who writes Blabbermouth.net, also a bad sign. However, rock bands aren't really an area of articles that i'm very familiar with, so I thought i'd mention my concerns first before making an opinion one way or another. Homestarmy 15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Live-metal is the source. It is an interview done for the actual website. Blabbermouth is run by Borivoj Krgin and Roadrunner Records staff. M3tal H3ad 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List as GA Those sites sound fairly decent as references then. And, as I said before, the review doesn't really seem to of revealed any deficiences of the article related to the GA criteria. Homestarmy 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List as GA Initial fail didn't seem to be based on GA criteria at all. Drewcifer 03:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List as GA Seems to meet GA, and the nominator is willing to address any valid concerns editors may have. LuciferMorgan 11:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List as GA I can see NOTHING wrong with the article in the state that it is in. Redlinks are never an issue unless the article is OVERLINKED per WP:CONTEXT, and this does not appear to have been so. The referencing looks fine, the article is broad enough. This seems GA worthy easily. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List as GA per above comments. This article meets criteria. Rai-me 02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theobromine

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article has problems as noted in its peer review last week. The article is not well organized, consisting more of a list of facts rather than a smooth flow of prose, and many sections seem too short. Some pieces of information are repeated several times in different places, contributing to reader confusion. The article should follow wikipedia's medical manual of style for drug-related articles, and topics such as the drug's metabolism and biosynthesis are not covered. Terminology such as "lesser homologue" are not explained, and more than one reviewer has asked for clarification. No significant changes to the article have been made since it was listed for peer review. Formatting of the article needs improvement as well. Jeff Dahl 05:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was the person who passed this article at GA (my first review). I notice that at the peer review you object to the use of explanations in parentheses for terms such as vasodilator. I insisted on these being inserted during the GAC. The medical manual of style suggests this very step.--Peter cohen 15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this was your first review, you might want to have reviewed an article you didn't contribute to. I know you didn't do any heavy work on it and were only fixing things by being bold (Thanks!), but it is probably better to have a fresh set of eyes for the review. Jeff Dahl 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My contributions took place after I had reviewed it and placed it on hold as part of the process of making it reach my requirements for passing it.--Peter cohen 14:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that jargon should be explained, but I don't agree that technical terms should be "dumbed down." The problem is that "blood vessel widener" is really not quite accurate, precise, or professional. It would be like describing Viagra as "making your penis larger" which is sort of true, but is not precise. A vasodilator is a drug that makes the blood vessels relax, lowering blood pressure. I agree that 'vasodilator' needs explanation, but shouldn't mis-represent the facts. Another problem is that there is a wikilink to diuretic, but with the vague, piped phrase "aid in urinating". This wrongly implies that a diuretic is somehow used for incontinence, or to help people go to the bathroom, like finasteride. A diuretic simply increases the body's production of urine. Let's stick to the facts and write something like: "Theobromine acts on such and such a receptor to increase the body's production of urine, making it a useful diuretic." This would be much more accurate and precise. Good articles shouldn't misrepresent or "dumb-down" the facts, and this article has problems with this in more than a few places, where some things are dumbed down and other terms, like "lesser homologe," are left unexplained. I still don't understand what this term us supposed to mean. Jeff Dahl 22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might want to do something about Vasodilator whose first sentence explains the term as something that widens the blood vessels. No doubt the main author if the article had found the term "lesser homologue" in one of his/her sources.--Peter cohen 14:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this, added a ref, and nominated for pharmacology collaboration of the week. I was surprised to see such an important topic have so little material and no refs! Jeff Dahl 22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a GA. I don't see any obvious variance from the GA standards as spelled out in WP:WIAGA. While the writing is not as "briliant" as may be required as an FA, there are no obvious grammar or spelling or organization issues, so it seems well written. It is well referenced, which is the most common objection to GAs, and again while not of the "comprehensive" as commonly required of FAs, it does seem to meet GA requirements of being "broad"; that is touching on all of the major topics a casual reader may expect to see. While detailed biosynthesis and metabolic information are not covered in exhastive detail, there IS information on metabolism (pharmacology section and effects section) and om biological sources. I would never support this article for an FA, but it seems to be easily GA standard.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is mainly organization. What difference is there between Effects and Theraputic uses, at least in this article? Under Theraputic uses, we get the sentence: "Theobromine has also been used in birth defect experiments involving mice and rabbits. A decreased fetal weight was noted in rabbits following forced feeding, but not after other administration of theobromine. Birth defects were not seen in rats." This is not a theraputic use, which implies it is being used as a treatment for patients. Under Effects, there is a lot of material that should belong under Theraputic uses. Under Sources we get poorly integrated metabolism information of caffeine: "In the human liver, caffeine is metabolised by enzymes into 10% theobromine, 4% theophylline, and 80% paraxanthine." The reason I suggest delisting is because there are quite a few places that are confusing, poorly written, and no one has responded to peer review comments which would have corrected the problems. Jeff Dahl 22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think its unusual to need to reorganise GA articles before going for FA. Mother Teresa is an example of an article that has been agreed to be GA by people including myself, but where I think extensive reorganisation of material is needed for the highest grades of assessment. Theobromine is similar in needing some thought on how it is best structured before going goign for A or FA. The more specific issues can be corrected by the reviewers.--Peter cohen 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article certainly needs a lot of work, but the only deviation from the GA criteria that I can see is that the lead does not summarize the article. Concerning technical vs imprecise terms, one possibility is to use an informal term, but wikilink a more precise one. Geometry guy 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More comments are needed here. I was tempted to archive as no consensus, but the article now has a clean-up tag. Do others agree that the lead does not summarise the article? Geometry guy 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist struck thru prior vote. The article is OJ, but I concur with Geometry Guy on this; the lead does NOT summarize the article. There are several sections (uses and effects sections) that are not even covered by the lead. If this were fixed, I would change my vote back, but given the length of time this has been here, it looks easily delistable now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koenigsegg CCX

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Content issues primiarily PrinceGloria 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am bringing this up for review mainly to gather others' opinions. I am really happy to see every automotive article getting promoted to GA, but at the same time, having been involved with the GA process rather intensely earlier in my Wikipedia career, I am also concerned about standards. The major issue I have with this article is one that is slipping throught the cracks of the WIAGA, but nonetheless very important IMHO - I believe the article's content is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article on the subject. If you look at the article, for the most part it consists of a description of technical details of the car, which, even being interested in automobiles above all else, I find hard to digest and relate to. I believe a casual reader might find it very hard to digest through it and get any meaningful message. The other part is a collection of statements made by reviewers, chosen on a purely arbitrary basis (not that I have issues with the choice - you just cannot choose them in an objective manner). This might be hearwarming to enthusiasts, but IMHO isn't really encyclopedic due to its subjective nature.

A secondary issue I have with the article is the quality of prose, which I find questionable at times. For example:

The CCX is also available as the CCXR, which is the same car except that the engine is tuned to run on biofuel.

For me, it is a rather clumsy way of putting it. There are also spelling problems, like "existance" at the beginning of the second paragraph.

I've sad bad things, now for the good things - the article is very rife with references, which is still a rarity among Wikipedia article, and at first sight it appears that those were done correctly. For me, this would be a perfect article for a car enthusiasts' Wiki (I don't know if there is a reliable one), but unfortunately it fails on being encyclopedic. I see a lot of effort put into the article, and I guess I'd have to agree that a truly encyclopedic article on the subject would be much more boring and less satisfactory for the car's enthusiasts than this one is. But, I still believe that Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature should take precedence... PrinceGloria 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Two formal issues - in the infobox, the standard is not to include information on whether a transmission is "optional" or not. Secondly, the CCXR is listed as "successor", while it is at the same time described in the article as a version of the same car.

Weak Keep - Yes the writing is poor at times, and yes it is a little overly technical, but what else would you expect in a car article? Unless the car is culturally significant or had a recall or something disastrous, what else is there? I don't think it's a crime to go into too much detail. Drewcifer 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I won't voice an opinion here because I am the one who re-wrote the article, but the point that Drewcifer brought up is why the article is almost all statistics; there's not much more too the car. Also the reviewer comments are from every magazine/website etc. that I could find that actually drove the car. There are many copies of the Koenigsegg press-release and some websites add extra words like a Wikipedia article, but the quotations are from people who have driven the CCX. James086Talk | Email 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can think of at least half a dozen articles on the CCX that are not included (and given that I only read in a few languages, there are bound to be more), so how do you determine which are to be included and which are not? IMHO, reviews are unencyclopedic. I also believe you can write an article on a car not limiting yourself to listing specs - please see such automotive GAs as Mitsubishi i, Simca Vedette or Autobianchi Primula. PrinceGloria 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - the whole article is legitimate in that the subject IS encyclopedic, there's no doubt about it. Besides, the least encyclopedic part got promptly removed. I just believe this shouldn't be a GA, because it is not quite a good example of an article in this area. PrinceGloria 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just so that you know - unencyclopedic content is creeping back. Is anybody really interested? I'd hate if the article would just "fall through" just because nobody cared to read it and comment... PrinceGloria 20:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is something inbetween a general encyclopedia and a car enthusiasts wiki, and that is a specialist automotive encyclopedia. According to Pillar one Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopedia, but (in my favourite phrasing of the idea) a nested family of overlapping specialist encyclopedias. So the question before the house is whether:
  1. The topic of this article is suitable for such a specialized encyclopedia; and
  2. The current content of this article would be suitable for such a specialized encyclopedia.
I have the impression from PrinceGloria's comments that it is 2 that is in doubt, not 1, but I hope this perspective brings the question into sharper focus. Geometry guy 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist (but not delete) - The car specs are great and all, but as Geom Guy notesclarifies above, being all just about car specs and not how the topic relates to the world at large begs the questions is if this is just indiscriminate information. There must be reviews on the car - safety or whatnot - that can be added to help make it less techie. Unfortunately the other GA car articles are not useful for guidance. There's a couple that cover a series of cars so that the specs change between them and the articles are more focused on the series, and I believe that Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina falls exactly into the same case as this one - minimal non-specification details that help to establish why the rest of the article is notable. Obviously I don't think either should be deleted, but both have the same problem with being too detailed (and worth noting both were passed by the same reviewer). --MASEM 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest any confusion arise, I have not yet noted anything about this particular article, but have only made general comments. (I've added the word "specialized" to my two points for additional clarity.) Geometry guy 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, sorry, I was pointing to your breakdown of what the question is that we should be looking at. --MASEM 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries... now, my view on the article itself is... Geometry guy 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I'm not qualified to comment on what is encyclopedic content for a specialist automotive encyclopedia, but my impression is that most of the article's content is actually encyclopedic, since it is sourced, notable, and neutral. However, I do feel confident to apply the good article criteria, in particular criteria 1b and 3. The lead does not summarize the article: it does not say anything about the specification, or mention the (apparently notable) Top Gear appearance. Further, in criterion 3, the article is neither broad (3a), nor focussed (3b). Examples of lack of breadth: no market data, no critical reception (I believe the latter was removed from an earlier version); and what about the Nardo trial, is that not as notable as the Top Gear test? Lack of focus has already been discussed: unnecessary detail on the specifications. Further, there is a US bias here: the cited references do not support the claim that the car was developed for the US market, only that changes were made to the CCR to comply with US regulations. The goal was to target a global market, but no mention is made of other countries in which the car was marketted. What about the production figures? How many cars have been made in the last year, and where have they been sold? I know this car was only revealed officially in 2006, but stability is also an issue for GAs. Geometry guy 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - subject's notability was never in question, just to make sure. The notability of "media appearances" and "reactions" was - I love TopGear I do, but I really don't think we have to comment on every car's (mis)adventures during their appearance on TopGear. About the only cars I can think of where mentioning TopGear might be encyclopedic are the Liana and Lacetti, as they have become long-running parts of the popular show. Otherwise, we could go on and on about each and every media outlet's experiences.
    What is more important, however, is that IMHO any Wikipedia article, while it might be broader in its coverage than one in a general encyclopedia, should be accessible to the "casual reader", i.e. non-specialist. I think there are many better forms of storing and preseting technical specs than encyclopedic prose, and many sites that do a better job of that than Wikipedia. What Wikipedia can do, however, is to give a good overview and explanation of the subejct to a person that knows nothing about it - and to do so, it has to be accessible and digestible. There used to be an explicit criteria stating that in the WIAGA a long time ago, if memory serves me well, I cannot find it now, but I believe it is still valid. PrinceGloria 07:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree to some extent with PrinceGloria, particularly concerning overuse of media appearances. I do believe some critical reaction is important, just as it is for films, and if this car is the fastest at something, that fact is probably notable: I leave it to the content experts to decide whether the Top Gear trial or the Narda circuit performance is more notable. I also agree that an article like this should have content accessible to the general reader. However, I disagree that the entire article needs to be of casual reader interest. I also disagree that content should be removed because "other sites do a better job": we are after all, aiming to present the sum of all human knowledge here, and have our own guidelines (WP:NOT and WP:N) for what this includes. For me, the indigestibility of the details is partly a broadness (3b) issue and partly a readability (1a) issue. There should be fewer details, and it should be easier to read parts of general interest and skip over parts of more specialist interest. Anyway, I continue to favour delistment, per 1a, 1b, 3a and 3b. Geometry guy 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to Geometry Guy. I have looked for sales figures, (see here) and there are only vague figures relating to the total number of cars Koenigsegg has produced (ie, including the CC8S and the CCR), rather than a solid number. Forbes says there are 12 this year and less than 20 cars available each year in the US, but nothing specific nor worldwide [1]. The Nardo speed record was not performed in the CCX, it was in the CCR, an earlier car, and while closely related to the CCX, it is a different car so it shouldn't really be in this article. There was originally a critical reception section but I removed it per the nomination of the article for re-assessment (see the last version before it was removed [2]). Oh and Ferrari P4/5 was also written by me so it will probably have similar issues. James086Talk | Email 07:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest restoring a short version of the critical reception section, which does not revolve around Top Gear, but gives equal weight to several independent reviews. The "12 cars sold this year" is interesting and reliably sourced information, so I would include it. Sorry for the mistake with Nardo: I struck out those remarks. Geometry guy 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you decide which reviews are "worth" inclusion and which not? As I said, such "reception" sections are extremely unencyclopedic in their inherent POVness and, I believe, totally redundant in case of cars. PrinceGloria 11:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reception sections have to be strongly sourced so that editors report on what others' non-neutral POVs are, but in a neutral POV way. Many articles on a consumer product do include this (movies and video games require such sections). I don't see why not for cars: specs from the car maker are one thing, but post-market evaluation is almost always a good secondary source to build on the car. However, it can be difficult to know what to source, since anyone can make a blog and thus publish a review this way or that. To me, you need to choose sources that someone with reasonable knowledge of that field would be considered an authority. Even though I'm not an expert, I would say that magazines like Car & Driver or Consumer Reports would be respected critical sources to pull reviews from -- though in this specific case of the CCX, I very much doubt these will have them. Hopefully that gives you an idea of where to look for such. --MASEM 12:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angolan Civil War

Angolan Civil War (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I don't believe this article received an adequate review. There is a copyright image which lacks a fair use rationale, and a movie poster that is inappropriately being used in this article (the copyright on the image clearly states it is only appropriate for fail use when it is used to provide critical commentary on the film in question or the poster it self; additionally, the fair use rationale for this image should be specific to each article in which it is used, not a blanket FUR for all uses), the years are not wikified in full dates and some dates are not wikified at all it's very stubby in places with many one-sentence paragraphs, there is a main article link to a redlink article, there are inconsistencies in formatting voting results (ie. 54-22 vs. 12/91), I believe the use of dashes needs to be corrected, it is in need of a good copy-edit, and the references are not consistently formatted correctly. LARA♥LOVE 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nomination. The footnotes/citations in particular are a mess.Drewcifer 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Seems much improved. The references are still a little messy, but other than that the article seems decent. Drewcifer 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lara's points are valid. However...
    • Copyright image: gone
    • Dead link to a main article: fixed
    • Vote style: Consistent
    • Dashes: fixed
    • Year wikifying:fixed
  • Still to be done:
    • Merging stub-paragraphs
    • Converting refs to Cite format

Perspicacite 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=165825341"