Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:GAR" redirects here. For the Good article criteria, see WP:GA? and WP:RGA. For the guide to abuse reports, use WP:GTAR.
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced Wikipedia good article reviewers.

The old nominations in need of additional reviews are:

Great Barrier Reef • National Popular Vote Interstate Compact • York Park • Britney Spears •
Shortcuts:
WP:GAR
WP:GA/R

Good article reassessment is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article status, whether former good articles have been improperly delisted, or whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed. It also allows feedback to be given for delisted articles or failed nomination when the explanation for delisting or failure was inadequate. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.

There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination; it is primarily used to reassess the status of current good articles. A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review and individual reassessment. In that case, an editor requests a discussion on the good article status of the article, and that discussion is listed on this page. When consensus is reached, the discussion is closed and the status of the article is updated accordingly. edit guidelines

Individual reassessment

When to use this process
  • Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria.
  • Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
  • If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
  • Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself.
How to use this process
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (this is a subpage of the article talk page, just like a review of a good article nomination).
  2. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article.
  3. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window.
  4. Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for this purpose, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages.
  5. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. To do this, remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and then remove the {{GA}} template from the article talk page.
  6. To close the reassessment, replace the date in the {{GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted".

Community reassessment

When to use this process
  • Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved.
  • If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises.
  • If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
  • It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it.
How to use this process
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page).
  2. Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour.
  3. It is also courteous to notify the most recent GA reviewer.

See below for how to contribute to a community reassessment, and how to close one. Depending on the situation, reviewers may move mountains to list an article as a GA, or they may simply endorse a fail, or suggest that the article be renominated.

Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 42) →


Contents


[edit] Articles needing community reassessment

[edit] Hurricane Frances

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

I initially passed this article several months ago but after several discussions with other editors, this article is not up to GA standards. For this article, being a retired hurricane, the lead is too short, the Meteorological history is choppy, not enough preparations or impact, and the article is lacking aftermath entirely. The overall scope of the article needs to be greatly expanded as there is too little info to match up with the $12 billion damage total. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it would require too much work to keep it at GA status. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Santosh Subramaniam

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

I feel that this article conspicuously fails the "well-written" criterion, which the reviewer appears to have narrowly interpreted as requiring only that all of the words are correctly spelled. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than re-assess, why don't you just help improve it? Jeez. Universal Hero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Because I have neither the time nor the interest. Why don't you improve it? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Typical. I'll dot when I have time. What do you want me to do? Check for spelling/grammatical errors? I would love an inch more clarity. Maybe a discusiion topic rather than a GAR? Think about it. Universal Hero (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Typical of what? If you have something you'd like to say, best spit it out and get it off your chest. In the meantime I would point to a representative sample of sentences to support my proposition that this article needs a substantial amount of work to meet the GA well-written criteria:
  • "The film primarily revolves around a father and son relationship with the father's dote on his son ironically leaving a bitter taste with the latter."
  • "When inquired about his disgust ..."
  • "He cites instances where his choices of dressing, hairdo and many others are stashed away by his father’s".
  • "When asked for his reason to like Hasini ..."
  • "After saving their grace, Santhosh admonishes Hasini for her antics at the marriage."
  • "The choice of Genelia was due to her performance in the original, for which she was critically praised and gained stardom with."
I'm afraid that if you can't see what's wrong with this article then there's very little chance that you'll be able to fix it by editing it into idiomatic and correct English. It is not enough that each individual word is correctly spelled. They have to make sense when they're put together as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It'll be complete by the weekend, don't worry. Typical, as in hypocrisy and civil laziness. Universal Hero (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If I cared about your observations on my work ethic or integrity I might have considered opening a WP:WQA to remind you of how you are expected to conduct yourself. As it is though, I really couldn't give a toss what you think. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tsunami

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

This article does not appear to meet the GA criteria. I'm not familiar with this process, so I'm bringing it here rather than boldly delisting (which I considered). The article is not well written and is woefully undercited. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article will benefit from in-line citations. The prose needs to be sharpened in places. Majoreditor (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Needs significant improvement in references. Lacking citations in many places where statistics and opinions are given. References need to be properly formatted, with titles, publishers and access dates at the very least. What makes "abelard.org" (the first bullet point in the References section) reliable? The See also and especially the External links sections could use a trim. There are a couple of dead external links, see here. The bold formatting in the Terminology section should be removed. Has had a disputed statement tag in place since November 2008. Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Route 180

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

The main source, "Alps' Roads", is a personal site and not a reliable source. --NE2 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about notability, both this and New Jersey State Route 72 are related by history, per the leads of both articles. As both are short articles, IMO they should be combined.Dave (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - According to this discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Alps' Roads, along with a bunch of other road sites, were cleared for use in Good Articles. Steve Alpert uses the state statutes on his site, and they can be cited as a more reliable source. I also have some old road maps that show NJ 180, and I can use them to provide additional verification. As for the notability, I had suggested in the GA review that the article be moved to County Route 50 (Ocean County, New Jersey), as I thought it would be better to present the information about a current county route with a detailed route description and the historical information about NJ 180 in the history section rather than as a decommissioned route that defers to describe the route as it is today. If the article can be rewritten to present detailed information about the route today as CR 50, with additional citations from the state statutes as well as old road maps, then it should be kept as a GA; otherwise, it may need to be delisted and possibly merged back to NJ 72. Dough4872 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That discussion didn't "clear" anything. I also don't see any state statutes for NJ 180, and there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/History notes. --NE2 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Then research the statutes and cite them.  — master sonT - C 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Alps' Roads does provide state statutes for the creation of NJ S40 in 1927 and the renumbering to NJ 72 in 1953; those individual statues can be used in verifying those renumberings. As for the creation and removal of NJ 180, old road maps probably need to be used to verify the information. I have a 1969 road map that shows NJ 180. If anyone else has a collection of old maps and can verify the information, then it can be added to the article as a reference. If no one can turn up good information in this regard, the article may not be able to remain a GA. Dough4872 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        • The state statues can be very tricky. Some are marked as ROUTE NO. - rather than the number. If I remember correctly, that is often done with decommissioned routes. Route 158 was an example of it, or its original designation is not in the statues at all. :| - I would see if we can find the description of the statues on the actual statues site.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I have searched Google, the New Jersey Legislature's statues, and Ocean County's website and could not find any relevant information pertaining to NJ 180. Maybe it would be better if there was a way to contact one of the government authorities in order to find information about NJ 180. Dough4872 (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Did you read the descriptions of the statues?Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 23:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
              • I went to the New Jersey Legislature's website, clicked under "statutes", and found several useful links at the top (FAQ, help, etc.) which can provide a description of the statutes. However, I don't think they would do any help for this article as I searched "route 180" and nothing relevant came up. Legislation for the creation and removal of this route may have been through a bill, of which only bills from 1996-1997 on can be found online. Dough4872 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
                • Then I do not support this remaining a good article. If I recall, I reviewed an article earlier and put it on hold because I was not satisfied with only Alp's Roads being the sole source for these histories. This article even further is just a case where notability is questionable Is there enough important history (political, etc) to warrant an article for routes this short?  — master sonT - C 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • At this point I am beginning to feel that this article was split from NJ 72 just to make an additional article that could qualify for GA status. I had reservations with listing the article as a GA all along, see the GA review. It may just make more sense to merge NJ 180 back into the history section of NJ 72 as all the information in this article can efficiently be presented there, therefore making NJ 72 a better article. Many former New Jersey routes redirect to the article that they were a former alignment of, as New Jersey Route 153 redirects to New Jersey Route 3. Dough4872 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
                    • This is why we can't have silly games. --NE2 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
                      • You are somewhat true in that regard. Both Mitchazenia and I were involved in the USRDCRWPCup at the time the article underwent its GA review and both wanted to get credit for the article passing. In addition, Mitchazenia is involved in the WP:CUP and is trying to get points for GA's there. Dough4872 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not so sure that Alp's meets GA criteria for being a reliable source. That's not to say that it isn't a nifty website. However, this description of its sourcing doesn't inspire my confidence that it meets Wikipedia standards for a "reliable publication process"; rather, it appears to be more of a self-published source. Majoreditor (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Some of the material on the website, such as realignments of highways, may need to be field-checked with historical road maps. However, a significant portion of the information on the site comes from the New Jersey state statutes, which are reliable. It would probably help if we could find out how the contribuitors to Alps' Roads got the material that is used in the website. Dough4872 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist — This article should be delisted as a GA. Its sourcing does not follow WP:RS so the article does not meet the GA criteria, specifically criterion 2b on reliable sources. If the information on the site is reliable, then it can be verified in other sources. These other sources should be used to reference the material included in the article, instead of a self-published source. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist and merge to New Jersey Route 72 - With all the recent discussion at WT:USRD, I changed my mind and feel the information in this article would be better presented in the history section of the NJ 72 article, as the former route is not notable enough and does not have sufficient sourcing to have its own stand-alone article. Dough4872 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per the RS concerns I mentioned above. Majoreditor (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deus Ex

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

This article became a Good Article in 2007. Now it has numberous problems to it. Problems include:

The Synopsis is too long and doesn't cite any references or sources.
The Development history section is short and has an expansion tag on it.
Two of the references,ref 7 and 8, need to be fixed up.
There's a possibility I may have missed some other problems, but these problems might show that Deus Ex fails the Good Article criteria. Thanks lots. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Refs 7 and 8 fixed right quick.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've attempted trimming the synopsis to bare essentials (and doing that makes me want to go play that game again :-) --MASEM (t) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Generally, it's thought to be unnecessary to cite synopses, unless they contain interpretative statements. --Malkinann (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not usually necessary to cite synopses. My concern with this synopsis is that it wallows in unnecessary details which may cause the article to lose focus. Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Great Barrier Reef

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review
Result pending

I nominated this article as a GA in 2006. I do not know if it still adequately meets the GA criteria, especially the "broadness" criterion, which was questioned in its failed FAC. Please note when assessing that this article is regularly vandalised. --Malkinann (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Its not an obvious delist imo, and seems broad enough. I do think it would benefit from a thorough copyedit to rearrange and merge some of the short paragraphs, and some of the single sentence paragrphs do not have sources - i assume from the structure that they are not sourced from other citations. Basically, i would add citation tags to every paragrph without a cite at minimum. Weak delist, but i do think it can be brought up to GA if someone has the time and sources.YobMod 08:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral at this point. I wouldn't give this an automatic pass if it were at GAN today, but it's not that far from GA status. Here are a few thoughts:
    • There are a bunch of deadlinks. See here.
    • The lead is on the short side for an article of this length.
    • There shouldn't be external links in-line, as there are in the Ecology section. These terms really should just be wikilinked - I'm confused as to why they're not.
    • References should be formatted with titles, publishers and access dates at the very least. For example, 83 and 84 are just bare links and 43 is missing an access date.
  • Overall, it looks like a nice article. I'm not seeing the referencing issues that Yobmod mentioned above, but that issue may have been corrected over the past few days. And I'm not seeing the concerns with broadness that were addressed in the FAC. Part of that may be the differences between FA and GA criteria - GA requires broadness, while FA requires comprehensiveness. And you weren't kidding about the vandalism - have you considered acting for semi-protection of the article? It would make all the IP vandalism go away... Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
A lot of referencing has been done since it got listed here, hence it looking better now.YobMod 15:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Response: YobMod, I've had a go at reshuffling the geography/geology section to better tell the story of the origins. Does that read better? Are there any other surprising facts that strike you as needing a citation? Dana, I've fixed the deadlinks and unbared the links that I added in response to YobMod's concerns. That's a neat tool. Which sections of the article do you think get short shrift in the lead, Dana? The Great Barrier Reef is prominent on the Australian school syllabuses from at least when you're eleven right up until you leave school - so of course the article is a perfect place to broadcast whatever. As such, I was highly impressed when someone said "adding external links to redlinked articles per WP:EL" - the links to the red bass and red-throat emperor. I wasn't sure exactly how they met that guideline, but as it was evidently a good faith edit rather than "HI JESSIE", I was happy. Not sure what I should be doing with those links. I don't think WP would go for permanent semi-protection for the article. I don't even try to do much in the way of vandal fighting on the article - everyone else seems to beat me to it. --Malkinann (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you on this. The dead links look good. Human uses could be bulked up a bit in the lead, and it just feels short to me - it doesn't compare well in length to the article. Partly personal preference here, I think, so I won't fight over it. On the external links, IMO they directly contradict the section of WP:EL that says "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." should be avoided. My suggestion would be to leave them as red links. Red links can be good, since they encourage other editors to create new articles and redirects on useful subjects. Again, IMO, this article would be a great candidate for semi-protection. If you would like, I can request the protection, if you don't feel comfortable doing it. If you're against it, I won't butt in of course, but I think it would be a good idea.
    • At this point, I am going to change my vote to Keep. To be FA, it probably needs expansion, copy editing and a peer review, but it should stay as a GA. Dana boomer (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've put some stuff in the lead about human uses and have created the fish redlinks. I agree that the human uses of the reef is shorter, but I gather that the Bowens' book could be used to expand that section (to which I have no access). The article has been previously semi-protected, and this is relatively low-volume vandalism. I gather that vandalism on this article really heats up around exam-time. --Malkinann (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

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

This article should have never been given a "good" rating. It gives undue attention to a trivial topic and is assembled in such a way that it appears to not only actively promote the subject, but also acts as a primary and central source of information on the subject under the guise of neutrality. In actuality, this article could be summarized in 2-3 paragraphs or contained entirely within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Arguments_against_the_Electoral_College

This is not AfD, and the article has plenty of secondary sources. Which GA criteria do you believe it fails and why? Geometry guy 11:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly fails neutrality, it is full of weasel words which mostly promote the topic and, to a significantly lesser extent, argue against it. Several "sources" used to back these weasel words are repetitive newspaper editorials or links to organizations that are actively campaigning to pass the legislation. Additionally, a significant majority of the non-biased sources are contained within the chart that takes up over half the article. Aside from the chart, scientific and actual news sources are few and far between. There is no mention of the sample size in the opinion poll illustrated because it is so small (about 2000) it would detract from its implied significance. The entire article is composed in such a way that wikipedia is being used to give it legitimacy, rather than simply recognize what legitimacy it has. This article contains little information that is not featured on nationalpopularvote.com and is designed to simply gives those ideas the appearance of neutrality. Averyisland (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Seems to be a very important idea, and is well enough referenced (even ignoring the primary sources). The nominator seems to dislike the idea, and thinks writing an informative article about it is somehow taking sides, which it is not. As a foriegner, such articles are very informative. Strong, if not speedy keep.YobMod 12:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    I agree that the article is a valuable one to have. As for its good article status, I would note that comments should primarily be based on whether the article meets the criteria or not, rather than agreement or disagreement with the nominator. Geometry guy 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article fairly represents the issues and debates surrounding National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It accurately portrays the most common arguments both in favor and against the compact and no item in this section has been the subject of controversy. The section presenting these arguments is the most informative section of the article, but Averyisland would have that section eliminated because in the process of summarizing these arguments it cites "biased" articles that take either a position in favor or against the compact. Averyisland's argument is a perversion of the Neutral point of view which explicitly suggests that both sides should be described in a balanced fashion WP:NPOV#Balance. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article raises some POV concerns by starting off with a section named "Background" which opens with this sentence: Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority of Americans support the idea of a popular vote for president. A better way to structure the article would be to open with the section on "Details of the compact law", followed by "History of the compact". It's best to begin with the most relevent facts and then introduce arguments for and against later, after first describing the proposal. This should be an easy to implement fix. Majoreditor (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    I agree that some restructuring would help address neutrality concerns, and would encourage editors to follow independent advice such as Majoreditor's. Geometry guy 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] York Park

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

I reviewed this article for FAC and found significant issues that I feel also disqualify this article from retaining its GA status. However, I am not a regular GA reviewer, and I feel that my FAC review is likely a conflict of interest, so I think additional opinions are necessary.

Among the issues I found:

  • The article uses many unreliable sources, including a large dependence on http://www.tastadiums.8m.com/yorkpark.html.
  • Much of the history section is copied almost verbatim from http://www.tastadiums.8m.com/yorkpark.html One example is listed below
    • Source: In 1960 it hosted one of Tasmanian football's greatest moments when a Tasmanian team (mostly made up of Northern players) defeated Victoria's second 18 by 7 points before a long standing record crowd of 15,163.
    • article: In 1960 the ground hosted one of Tasmanian football's greatest moments, when Tasmanian defeated Victoria's second 18 by 7 points in front of a long standing record crowd of 15,163
  • Some of the information in the article is not included in the citations which are intended to verify it. For example:
    • You cannot source York Park is a 15–20 minute walk north of the Launceston City Centre to Google maps
    • The source for this sentence Because of near capacity crowds, it was announced that the Tasmanian Government would spend $2 million in roofing for an additional 6,000 seats, resulting in almost all the seating areas being protected from the weather. mentions nothing about the cause being near capacity crowds
    • The source for these sentences York Park's interior is an oval bowl surrounded by several different stands. The largest is the two-tier Gunns Stand on the ground's Western side. This stand originally had a capacity of 2,500 and was increased to 6,000 after a 2005 extension. The $12.5 million Gunns stand now has two corporate box areas; the Gunns Function Centre and the Corporate Function Centre mentions only two corporate box areas; there is no mention of any of the numbers given here.
  • There are unsourced sentences that need citations in the Structure section and the Northern Staid development section - these include information on prospective costs, motivations, capacities, etc.

Karanacs (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't open the tasttadiums link (it says server upgrading). Why is it unreliable?YobMod 12:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was the reviewer who passed the article. In my review I specifically asked for http://www.tastadiums.8m.com/yorkpark.html to be removed as a source, and the passed version of the article did not include it. As long as this source is being used, I would say the article does not meet the GA criteria. The article is only vaguely above the GA criteria, and small changes could pull it down from the throne. There are also some references that seem to be 404, that were working on the review. Personally I do not have a problem with the article loosing its GA status. Arsenikk (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    The source has been removed. I would ask reviewers to check for material which needs citation per the GA criteria. Geometry guy 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    I removed the source. I'll try and find other sources. Possibly North Launceston fc history? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 04:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    Nearly there. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 05:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "::I aprreciate that the tastadiums link has been removed and the wording has been massaged, but it is still very close to the original text. In a few cases, words have been exchanged for synonyms, but the major structure of the sentence is identical to a sentence on the tastadiums page. More work needs to be done on the history section. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    Some stuff will have to be removed without a ref. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 20:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending
The article have a lot of "citation needed".
Looks like a write-fan-article and is not clear in all.
The principal autors put reference which says things totally different in the article to create a bulo.
Has a lot of lies. She is not a soprano, and i change that, so an autor undid my revision.
A good article has a good references. Have a good write (o prosa, cómo se diría en mi idioma). This article doesn't all of that.

Thanks. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments
  • First, please recheck the article thoroughly if it did fail to meet the Good Article criteria. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There's only one "citation needed" in article, specifically in this line "Spears's parents would often argue, and they eventually divorced in 2002", in which case the first clause might be an original research and the second clause could be sourced. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The article was revised and perhaps you could also be clear in what instances it looks fancrufty. Please cite lines lines where ambiguity lies. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "The principal autors put reference which says things totally different in the article to create a bulo." A singular case which can be removed anytime. Please do not generalize it. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Has a lot of lies" The same issue which can be addressed by opening a discussion at the talk page and not by edit summaries. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "A good article has a good references. Have a good write (o prosa, cómo se diría en mi idioma). This article doesn't all of that." General comment. The article boasts 185 inline citations and an additional further reading. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To summarize it all, Keep the article unless the nominator could prove it fails to meet the criteria. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, nomination is poor on specifics. I do agree that the article needs a face lift, but it doesn't need delisting. — R2 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll make some suggestions we should ideally work through. Note, I do not believe the article needs delisting at this stage.
  • The lead is a little on the slim side for an article of this size.
  • The products and endorsements section should be integrated into chronological positions in article.
  • The filmography section needs cleaning up. Surely she can have an article created for this, with just a link to the article.
  • No need for Grammy Award grid at bottom.
  • 2008-present section is too long, needs trimming, smell recentism.
  • Quite a lot of unformatted references.
    Comment Its not a requirement but would be good if uniformly formatted. --Efe (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Those are some observations. I'll try to do some myself. — R2 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep (full keep if improvments acutally done). Seems comprehensive and informative. Not perfect (agree about filmography needing reformatting, and grammies should be removed, but generally good enough to be Good. Diagree about products and endorsements, having the perfumes al togehter is better than spreading them throughout the article.YobMod 10:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment"
Personal tools