Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Page 10

Good article review (archive)

(Page 8) →

To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximatly even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion.

Articles reviewed (add archived ones at the top)

Agrippina (opera)

Result:Promoted

There's been a lot of discussion about Agrippina (opera). I do not consider the language of it in its version to be enough to pass it as a GA. I find the sentences and the paragraph too long for it to be "compelling". Can someone else comment?

Fred-Chess 12:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines say nothing about optimum paragraph or sentence length, which are almost wholly subjective matters. If such a policy existed, it would mean contributions by Ernest Hemingway would be allowed to achieve GA status, but not those by Edward Gibbon, for example. Swedish literature passed GA when large sections of it were barely comprehensible, let alone "well-written". I'm becoming seriously concerned about the seemingly arbitrary nature of the whole GA selection process.--Folantin 12:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is in the wrong place - no one has actually either passed or failed the article yet = but are we going to preclude, say Henry James from writing WP articles? IMO - of course, I wrote it - there are no outstanding issues: the prose is more than adequate and in places flows quite nicely. GA is not meant to be a huge deal: prose perfection is not required. Moreschi 16:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, had Fred failed the article, you would have brought it here anyway :) In any case, no one would argue that this is not the proper place for an editor/reviewer dispute.

Someone else may comment on the article, but here are my thoughts. I think the main problem is the English. It is not even yet on the level where one can discuss about the quality of the prose. It needs a copyedit. There are too many uses of comma-delimited elements and sometimes the ordering of the clauses seems unusual (possibly due to a writer whose native language is not English). In my opinion, the content is fine and with a good copyedit, it should pass GA, but not now as it is. I helped out on another article that passed through here recently that was written mainly by non-anglophones (it is now on its way to FA). I will be willing to help copyedit this one. But I would request that you take it off the nomination list and then after some more work is done, you can resubmit it again. --RelHistBuff 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I see on your page that you are a native English speaker. I am not trying to insult your English. This is only my opinion on reading the article. --RelHistBuff 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken - the username is of Italian origin, though I am not - but no way am I going through the GA monster queues again when the article is so close. That's just crazy. Ive just split up several overlong sentences. I'll do a blitz on them and hopefully have the article fixed by this evening GMT/Wikitime. Any help would be appreciated, but I strongly believe this should be done now. Hell, the backlogs are bad enough as they are without unnecessary additions. Moreschi 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This is just getting ridiculous. Why do some articles get the ultra-pedantic treatment here, while others like Swedish literature pass with the most glaring problems uncorrected? Example: "One of the rebels of the 1970s were Ulf Lundell (1949–) who abandonded the grass root movement for rock 'n roll. In 1976, he broke through in literature with the debut novel Jack, a beatnik novel that came to representation a whole generation". I've spent hours weeding stuff like that out of that article and it still has major problems, yet it achieved "good article" status when I had barely started to sort out the language problems. The whole GA process is, frankly, a joke. --Folantin 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Before everyone gets out the pitchforks, lets hold up a minute here. The Good Article review page is here to handle situations in which people object to the way people choose to review an article, since it is of course arbitrary. Everyone can make mistakes, and if any GA reviewer makes a bad call or something, then this is the right place where everyone can get together and discuss it and where a majority decision can be reached. (Which is not so arbitrary due to the amount of people involved) There's no need to get so angry over the situation, throw up a Swedish Literature article dispute too and if the language is that bad we'll probably fail it, but just because you had one bad experience with trying to get an article to get GA status doesn't make the whole system bad. Homestarmy 18:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I've been observing complaints from other editors about the way the GA process is heading for quite a while now. This is simply the most blatant example I've personally encountered of the system not working properly. Please don't attribute my concerns to supposed "anger". --Folantin 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Saying that the GA process is "a joke" may help you relieve your frustration, but it isn't helpful in addressing any perceived problems.
• I might be wrong, but there does seem to be a culture-shift afoot here at the GA process. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that the standards are becoming stricter than they were in the past. This may cause distress for some. It is all, however, intended for the best of the encyclopedia.
• Having said that, it is true that the lack of bureaucracy here means that articles get passed sometimes which are problematic (not pointing fingers at Swedish literature, which I deliberately have not looked at). We also have extremely diligent contributors who comb thru the list of GA articles looking for just this sort of case, and delisting them or bringing them here to WP:GA/R
• I personally am not gonna vote. I thought the contributors to this article were borderline incivil on the talk page. I personally felt insulted, even tho at times the remarks were directed towards another reviewer. I recuse myself.
• This lack of civility also indicates that their opinions are biased, and therefore this "talk" of it being a "joke" means little or nothing to me.--Ling.Nut 19:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all the comments. While I agree that stricter referencing is a good thing, (Yeah inline cits!!) nitpicking over perceived prose concerns - there's zero wrong with grammar, spelling or style by normal standards - is not helpful. Some room - at least at GA - should be allowed for individual style. In my case this is Latinate (is that word?) - I am a decent Classicist by training - with lots of subordinate clauses. I cannot see as this is a real problem, particularly when for this article I have heavily simplified my usual style, and indeed IMO my last set of revisions fixed most of the prose concerns: FredChess's diff at the top is now somewhat out of date - please look at the current revision. What is more, the extent to which nitpicking has gone meant that people are now searching for imaginary concerns, as in Homestarmy's last edit, which was quite rightly reverted by Folantin as completely unnecessary and absolutely wrong - no offence intended. All I am saying is that the article is more than adequate for GA, and applying prose standards I would expect - and hope to see - at FA and peer review is silly. If so, GA might as well be abolished altogether and FA would stand alone. Moreschi 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: FredChess has just failed the article, citing over-much bickering. BTW, did you actually check the revisions I made a few hours ago? Therefore I contest this here. Moreschi 20:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - "too much bickering" is not a reason to fail anything. Nor, for that matter, is prose nitpicking and/or not telling people what it is needs correcting. I've sliced up most of the longish sentences to make people happy: seemingly this has been ignored.

Moreschi 20:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Agreed. Especially if "too much bickering" means holding a GA review. This doesn't inspire much confidence. --Folantin 20:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on other matters I am not a major contributor to the Agrippina article, therefore I don't understand the bearing of Ling Nut's last remarks, which I hope are not aimed at me. The only GA article I've made a reasonably substantial contribution to is, in fact, Swedish literature. I have spent hours of my time trying to fix the language problems on that page. The main author of that GA happens to be User:Fred Chess, the very person who raised stylistic objections to Agrippina. With all due respect, I don't think he's qualified to make such judgements. You can perhaps understand why I have concerns that criteria are being unevenly applied now. I'll discuss the general issues about the way GA is going elsewhere. Let's just say a lot of people think the distinction between GA, FA and doctoral thesis has become incredibly blurred. Finally, as a general observation, I think GA reviewers should not complain too much when their reviewing is itself reviewed.--Folantin 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, my offer of assistance for Agrippina (opera) still stands. I do see some very basic English problems within the article. The reason why I ask to renominate it later is because it may take some time to do the fixes (maybe a few days). I mean, the weekend is coming and we all have to lead our real lives, well, at least I would hope everyone does ;-) --RelHistBuff 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer - but the prospect of the queues at GA do not appeal. May I ask what the specific "very basic English problems" are? A few examples would be nice. I feel like I'm having to dance in the dark all the time. Moreschi 20:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did not mean the bit about "incivility" to refer to you, Folantin. I looked at Talk:Agrippina (opera) again, and it appears that the remark I considered explicitly insulting was not made by anyone participating in this discussion. the overall tone of disdain, however, was carried by more than one person on that talk page.
• I was referring to you when I said that your characterization of GA as "a joke", while perhaps serving to release your frustration, does not in any way resemble constructive or helpful criticism. It offers no information that can be considered reasonably, discussed reasonably etc. That is not "reviewing the reviewers," it is instead "insulting the reviewers." Again, that may make you feel better. But it does not help anything.Insults do not inspire respect for your assertions. -Ling.Nut 20:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I can regard GA as a "joke" if I so choose. I thought GA was a system and systems don't have feelings to be hurt, but apparently you can't criticise it without "insulting the reviewers". Here's some constructive criticism: how about instead of complaining about attacks on the GA as it stands, self-selected GA reviewers try to win over the sceptics by making the process work fairly? Reviewers with limited competence in English should refrain from commenting on stylistic matters. All reviewers should also avoid "psychologising" those with different viewpoints to themselves as a way of dodging the points they make. Cheers. --Folantin 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The main problem throughout has been that nobody has provided any examples. Nobody has given me specific examples of poor prose - so that I know what to fix - and in this case nobody has provided any evidence of incivility - uh, where? Tone of disdain? Any diffs for me to look at? Criticism of this kind without comments and evidence is worse than useless. And Folantin has every right to say that GA is a joke, just as tons of other users have the right to say that RFA is horrifically broken, or that FA is a joke or that peer review is hopelessly useless. It is not incivil to comment on a perceived problem with a system. Moreschi 21:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the attacks on the edit I perceived as justified, (I already said all I had to say on the talk page of the article.) Moreschi is right, it would help if somebody could copy to here a few problematic sentences of prose. (I'll take a look myself though, i'll come back and post anything I find, though remember, we're look for Good Articles, not Perfect Articles of Sparklingly Brilliant Prose :D ) Homestarmy 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• No evidence of Fred's lack of competence provided; phrase "limited competence in English" suggests bias against non-native speakers.
• Diff here; felt that the stress on "GA" was belittling. The tone of other remarks seemed disdainful as well. NOT NEARLY enough to drag someone off to WP:AN/I. Of course not! But disdainful...

• Moreover, calling someone a "joke" is not constructive criticism; not in this world or any other. It is flatly incivil. No mistakes. I haven't heard a whiff of an apology yet.

• --Ling.Nut 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Various prose problems in "Swedish literature" have been pointed out above by both myself and Folantin. And no one was called a joke. A system that Folantin views as overly subjective was called a joke. That is not problematic. If you have a problem with that diff, take it up with the user in question. Personally I cannot see a problem - what, 2 letters bolded - probably out of exasperation about a point made about 3 times before. Take that to ANI and...Moreschi 22:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NB I'm addressing Ling Nut. Your first point makes no sense to me. If I call GA a "joke", then I'm calling a system a joke. How can this be uncivil? If I have lost my respect for the GA process, then I should be free to express that. I think the GA process is woefully arbitrary and events today have hardly helped improve my opinion of it. Secondly, please read what I wrote. I said "reviewers with limited competence in English should refrain from commenting on stylistic matters". I did not specify non-native speakers. Some of them are sufficiently qualified. However, judging by Swedish literature in its original state, Fred Chess is not among that number. By "psychologising" I mean attributing certain psychological states (such as anger or frustration) to another person, usually as a way of deflecting the point of their arguments. This is not very constructive and verges on a failure to assume good faith. Cheers. --Folantin 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said quite clearly, there was nothing remotely near WP:AN/I-sh about anything that has been said. It is simply disrespectful. It is not a personal attack. But it is not good form to be disrespectful and then hide behind the fact that it was not done to a degree that would warrant any admin attention. Good manners is good manners, and if people don't wish to have them, they can simply expect to find others insulted by their behavior.

It is not a breach of assume good faith, nor even on the verge of breaching it, to interpret someone's remarks as expressing frustration. --Ling.Nut 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep claiming I called someone a "joke". I think that is a failure to assume good faith. You should withdraw the accusation.--Folantin 22:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK then, should I be the one to apologize? I'm sorry that your reference to the GA process as a "joke" was mildly insulting to me. I'm sorry that some of the remarks by more than one person on the talk page of the opera were also mildly insulting to me, with one standing out as seeming deliberately insulting. I'm sorry that I interpret these things as a lack of civility; obviously your standards and mine regarding the definition of good manners and civility are incompatible. I'm sorry that I believed you were frustrated; if that is a lack of assuming good faith, then I am guilty. I'm sorry that I interpreted the "joke" remark as directed at reviewers rather than at an impersonal system; obviously I was wrong to do so. In fact, I have been utterly and completely wrong from the beginning of this conversation, and you have not erred in any possible way, not even with respect to a lack of respect shown to others. Please forgive me. I was wrong at every turn, and there is no room for any different interpretation.
• I will leave now... I'm not contributing anything here, and am not receiving any respect either. Nothing gained in any manner. Cheers! --Ling.Nut 22:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bye bye then. I'm sorry, I didn't realise the GA review was intended as a venue for editors to pick up their quota of respect. I thought it was a process for discussing articles. Perhaps I've hurt its feelings again. I'll refrain from psychologising though - there's too much material. --Folantin 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i'm back, with a few remarks to make about some sentences.

• "Having received an invitation to come to Italy, Handel took the opportunity." Who was the invitation from, and was the opportunity granted to him the opportunity to have the opera be performed?
• "As already mentioned,...(a few lines down from above)" Self references bad, even if they don't explicitly name "the article".
• "This would have been considered an extraordinarily long run at that time. It was Handel's last opera to be written in Italy, and is, in fact, believed by some to be the last composition of his time there." No ref for the first part, but the references used seem so comphrehensive in nature, perhaps one of them already covers it? The second is weasel wording because of "some" and isn't referenced either, being more specific would help. Also, if only some people believe it was Handel's last composition there, what do other people think his last composition was?As for that last comment, I ain't got a clue. Nor have my sources. The rest is fixed. Moreschi 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• "-a privilege that Handel rarely enjoyed-...(in reference to Grimani writing Handel a libretto for the opera)" seems fairly POV with the high minded language, is this declaration necessary?
• "Handel himself never revived the opera after its initial run, although it saw productions at Naples, Hamburg, and Vienna during 1713-1719. This is not, however, to say that Handel abandoned the music: Time and again he used his Italian compositions as food for the London operas, and Agrippina was no exception." This sounds like something a music critic would write. Not that writing things as a music critic is bad mind you, but its not an encyclopedic tone. (Well, ok, maybe its Britannica's tone since its often used as a reference in the article, but Britannica's problems don't have to be our own)

I'll stop here for now. Homestarmy 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Folantin, you have not said anything that anyone could interpret as being rude. I am completely in the wrong. No one owes me or anyone else any apologies. No one has been disrespectful at any time.

Cheers --Ling.Nut 22:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K, everything fixed. Anything else anyone wants doing? Moreschi 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(remove indents) Sorry, Moreschi, I know you think we are being overly pedantic.. but "few rivals" for its "sheer freshness of musical invention" are direct quotes, and needs another "Dean." I am still looking.. this is minor but still needs to be done. Cheers. --Ling.Nut 23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I added another "dean" ref at the necessary spot. Good night. --Ling.Nut 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• O.K. I have seen one or two people complain about that "Dean says Foo"+cite construct: the cite is redundant as I've already said that it's Dean saying Foo, but as you wish. No one is really going to mind. Thank you for the help. Best, Moreschi 08:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not gonna wrangle about it. But.. please understand.. the fact that people complain is irrelevant. Peoples' tastes, preferences, likes and dislikes, are completely irrelevant in copyvio questions, and that is a simple fact. I'm not being arrogant, I'm stating a fact. Granted, in a noncontroversial article such as this, and a noncontroversial quote like this, in the real world no one is gonna complain about copyvio. Also granted that this article is so full of quotes from Dean that anyone would know which Dean was being referred to. But it's the principle of the thing.. direct quotes get cited, period, end of story. I apologize if you perceive that as pedantic. I'm not being sarcastic; I am genuinely sympathetic. I am more lenient than you may believe about citations; I see stuff all the time that I grit my teeth and let slide. But a direct quote is a direct quote, and direct quotes always get cited.
• I wanna say publicly, to the world at large, and for the record: the bigshots at Wikipedia are constantly making statements about the need to improve citation. That includes the apparently revered Jim Wales (who I think is just another techie guy, but that's another story). I would like to say, for the record, that there is a shift in the culture at GA taking place, and citations are receiving more emphasis. We are simply taking GA more seriously than others may perceive is necessary. And I don't wanna sound... snooty or whatever... but I can only think that this is a good thing. I know it distresses people. I apologize. But we want a GA to be somewhat less than an FA but much, much more than a userbox. I am aiming for GAs to be roughly 80% of an FA; but that's my personal goal. Others are more strict than I am; still other are less so.
• I believe GA is in a time of transition. Transition implies instability, and instability implies inconsistency. I apologize that the way we are doing things now is inconsistent with the past; I apologize even more strongly that the way we rate some articles now is sometimes inconsistent with the way we rate other articles now. That is all a part of the (in this case, mild) "trauma of transition." Transition upsets pre-existing equilibria; and for a short time, no new equilibrium exists.
• Everything I said goes for the writing of the article as well, although probably to a somewhat lesser degree.
• I've already recused myself on this particular article. Good luck with it. It has in fact improved a lot since the first time I laid eyes on it.
• --Ling.Nut 12:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, whoah, whoah!! You've read way to much into what I said. Actually, I didn't know that direct quotes get cited - something similar cropped up at Concerto delle donne - I'd assumed there was ambiguity. This a minor thing, I couldn't care less. Inline cits are good. I love them too. 80 per cent for refs sounds fine by me. What I do think is unnecessary, however, is bizarre nitpicking over prose. If it were up to me, the WP:WIAGA would be reworded to say "adequate prose" - no grammar and spelling errors allowed, but beyond that it's O.K. Best, Moreschi 13:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was replying to the entire thread above; the entire set of comments (and yes, borderline insults) raised by the people who have contributed to this particular opera article, the "GA? FA? Doctoral Thesis?" edit summaries, the description of GA as a "joke" — the whole nine yards.
• Good luck with your article. There has been much positive change in it in recent weeks. I hope the GA process has made some small contribution to that fact. However, it was the editors (notably you, but others as well) who deserve the most credit.--Ling.Nut 14:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still find this borderline insults business very hard to swallow. There is nothing wrong with bolding 2 letters, expressing your views with a modicum of force, or sardonically commenting on perceived problems with GA - damn it, it's a process, not people. "GA reviewers are morons" is incivil. "GA is a joke" is not. The process is being questioned, not the people. Moreschi 14:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(remove indents). OK. Good luck with your article. It has improved a lot in recent weeks. I apologize if the GA process does not meet the standards that the contributors to your article feel are appropriate. --Ling.Nut 14:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may say so, Ling Nut, I think you're overidentifying with the whole GA process. You need to stand back and not take criticism of the way it functions so personally. In other words, you need to get some sense of perspective. In fact, what's lacking here as a whole is a wider perspective, which is why the GA quality control seems to have gone haywire. Candidates like this are subjected to unnecessarily microscopic attention, while other candidates with major and obvious problems are slipping under the radar.--Folantin 14:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Folantin, for your comment on my behavior. I will consider it. Personally, my opinions are that I have erred, but not in the manner you suggest. But that is a matter for my own personal reflection.
• You know -- this article has received tremendous attention, and you know what else -- I'm having a hard time seeing actual votes in the mess above... I sincerely believe it and its contributors deserve closure. This problem is complicated by the fact that many people may be eating leftover turkey at the moment. :-) If I may be so bold, I'm gonna drop notes on several peoples' talk pages asking them to explicitly vote. You deserve to see your concerns addressed in that manner, atthe very least, and perhaps through other forms of feedback as well. --Ling.Nut 15:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote pass then. --Folantin 15:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Final opinion: Promote/List for several reasons. Firstly, the article was more than adequate in the first place - especially so now that it has been extensively gone over and corrected/simplified. Secondly, it was inappropriately failed in the first place - "too much bickering" is not a reason to fail anything, and the article was stable. Moreschi 15:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• I recuse myself. Please note that I requested that Folantin and Moreschi vote. While of course it would not be appropriate for a major contributor to an article to unilaterally promote that article (which they did not do; I am speaking hypothetically), they do and should have every right to vote. Cheers --Ling.Nut 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note I am not a major contributor to "Agrippina". Therefore my vote is as good as that of any other uninvolved party. Please change your statement accordingly. --Folantin 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct. My language was vague 'cause I didn't want to specifically name Moreschi. I know you are not a contributor; you said so in your first comment. --Ling.Nut 16:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Further note In fact, I already made my choice clear on Talk:Agrippina (opera) yesterday: "I would pass this article for GA status. I have made no major contributions to this page. I do not believe there are any outstanding stylistic problems with it". At that point Fred Chess called for this GA review, before later failing the article for no valid reason. --Folantin 16:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(remove indents) OK. I have given several blanket apologies. I have recused myself. In my message on your talk page (and others' as well), I noted that if you vote, your vote might be a repeat of earlier comments (as in this case, it was). The article is here now, and should be processed. I have asked a few people to vote in one way or another. I'm reaching the point where I feel I have bent over backwards to accommodate your needs. Good luck with the article!--Ling.Nut 16:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That "further note" was a general piece of information for the benefit of all editors making an assessment here. It wasn't addressed to you specifically, Ling Nut. Once again, I feel you are taking the whole GA process a bit too personally. Relax a bit! --Folantin 16:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have some more concerns about the article now, this time about the notes. Several of them don't appear to actually be referenced, which technically speaking isn't a bad thing, but some of the notes are making very OR conclusions, such as note eleven: "Apparently a priest." (according to who exactly?) note 12: "Carli evidently was able to utilise an exceptionally wide range; the part descends to C below the stave." (what evidence? The reader doesn't have to of heard the opera) note 7: "Further examples of this looking back to the previous century might be the fact that many arias are accompanied only by the continuo, and the presence of two short ensembles in addition to a quartet and trio in which the voices are never heard all together (all in Act One)." (This is especially problematic as the note is given on a sentence making a POV conclusion which needs good referencing, "in many ways Agrippina is a backwards-looking work", but once again, the note itself is not referenced.) With all these notes not actually being referenced and the sum of all references being just three things, I have misgivings about this article being called "well-referenced"; by using the same three references over and over, I have the feeling many of the POV sounding sentences in the article which would ordinarily be fine in my opinion if they were backed up with extensive references aren't actually well-backed at all. Homestarmy 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delist Lack of inline cites (some notes are parading around as cites but actually are not). LuciferMorgan 18:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And the difference between an "inline cite" and a "note" is what exactly? By the way, this article has never been listed, so it can't be "delisted". Also, just out of interest, any particular reason why Ling Nut invited this user here, since he/she doesn't appear to have been previously involved in the debate before either here or on the article talk page? AFAIK this does not apply to every other invitation Ling Nut sent out. Just curious, no offence. --Folantin 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Lack" does not mean "none", and I suspect Ling invited other editors to comment because this is a long debate and might not be forming an actual decision. I've asked editors to come comment on reviews before myself from time to time, its nothing illegal. Homestarmy 21:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked what the difference between "notes" and "inline cites" was. I've also been reading WP:WIAGA, with special reference to Section 2, and I can't really see why this article fails to meet the criteria there. It references all its sources.--Folantin 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but Lucifer apparently is of the opinion it is not referenced well, which is what the criteria calls for, "well-referenced". Homestarmy 22:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good granny! I invited all the regulars and anyone I could think of. I was explicitly trying not to "stack the deck." If you think I was.... which makes my head hurt to think you think that... see Fred's talk page; I asked him to recuse himself. [He is free to do whatever he wants]. I need a beer stroll around the block.--Ling.Nut 19:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment for informational purposes.
• Folantin asked what's the diff b/w notes and refs.
• I'm not gonna argue or debate any points at all. Y'all talk amongst yourselves. I'll go along with whatever you decide. Perhaps (I'm not sure) Lucifer was talking about the notes in the notes section that refer to refs in the refs section (see next point).
• It's OK to just put the the name of the source plus the page number in a footnote, as long as there is a full reference in the References section (which there is in this case) as per [Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations|this]]:
  • Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section, then just the page number and book name can be given in each note, following Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• This article doesn't have any page numbers in the footnotes, but I'm not gonna be the one to argue about it. Y'all talk amongst yourselves.
• I kinda think the naming conventions are a bit mixed up. The notes that say "Grove" had me looking for a ref "Grove," which I didn't see at first, then saw it was "Hicks." They should be consistent, one way or another.
• I have no idea what to do about the synopsis. That is a huge stretch of unreferenced material. But perhaps that is considered OK. I don't know if there is a convention regarding opera syopses. I actually don't wanna argue this one either. I'm just wondering aloud.
• --Ling.Nut 21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

About the behavior of some users

I have done nothing but going out of my way to improve this article, and help the editors of the article to improve it. After I made a thorough review, where I said that sentences and paragraphs should be shorter, user:Folantin told me "Oh, come on [...] There's no obligation to write sentences of Hemingwayesque simplicity on Wikipedia.".

I gave two examples of problems. I said "there are examples". Yet, only those two points where fixed by Moreschi, who then unfortunately could not draw conclusions that other things might need fixing. He started soliciting me on my talk page. Eventually I took the time to reformulate the entire lead section, to again show him what was wrong with the atricle, as seen on user_talk:Moreschi. Unfortunately, again he did not realize that it wasn't just the lead section that was at fault, and again I was solicited why the article couldn't pass. Apparently it was not accepted that I was a reviewer, and not a copyeditor.

When I brought the article up here, I was insulted with comments such as "reviewers with limited competence in English should refrain from commenting on stylistic matters". Some [non-native speakers] of them are sufficiently qualified. However, judging by Swedish literature in its original state, Fred Chess is not among that number (comment by Folantin)

It is apparent that some users have a lack in their wikiquette, and I will try to make sure that doesn't repeat itself because threatens the integrity of the GA project... I made a post at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. If you continue, I will proceed to higher Wikipedia instances.

Fred-Chess 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

More clouded crystal balls. To claim that I have only worked on 2 sentences is downright wrong. Please check the page history: a lot more than 2 edit summaries have "split up long sentences". I have worked very hard to simplify the prose standards, and do not appreciate FredChess's claims to the contrary, which smack of just not bothering to look about what has actually happened. I refuse to accept your model of short, stubby, one-sentence paragraphs, as seen at Swedish literature. In my opinion this lacks any flow whatsoever. Just because I will not conform to your aesthetic standards in this regard should not be a problem for GA. As already said, I have split up the over-long sentences. I personally could not care less about how good your English is. What I do throughly object to is your attempts to impose one completely homogeneous writing style for paragraphs on the rest of Wikipedia. That is objectionable and should be resisted. To a certain extent, when it comes to this point of style there is little right or wrong. Ask George Orwell, Henry James, and Chris Brasher - "short, Anglo-Saxon words" for some different viewpoints.

Oh, and your lead. Stubby paragraphs, no flow. Cut the singer details, which I'd been told to include by another reviewer. This is what I mean by subjectivity and inconsistency. It's infuriating. Moreschi 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've been trying — unsuccessfully — to back out of this discussion for a while now. My most recent post was motivated by the simple fact that I believed Folantin deserved some answer to his questions (even if my answer isn't the correct one). I guess it will probably be taken as yet another move in an argument; I can only assert that it wasn't. I am done arguing.
• I'm stepping away. I'm taking this page off my watch list for a couple days. Please feel free to drop a line on my user talk if you have any further comments/questions.
• --Ling.Nut 22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Fred, this is what I said in full: "Oh come on, Fred. Your article on Swedish literature achieved GA status even though it still contains passages like this: "One of the rebels of the 1970s were Ulf Lundell (1949–) who abandonded the grass root movement for rock 'n roll. In 1976, he broke through in literature with the debut novel Jack, a beatnik novel that came to representation a whole generation". Yes, your article truly deserves GA status, but a great deal of the prose still needs fixing. Whereas I can't see anything wrong in the examples from "Agrippina" above. There's no obligation to write sentences of Hemingwayesque simplicity on Wikipedia." That's hardly offensive. In fact, I praised your article, except for the use of English, which I spent hours of my time trying to improve (check the edit history long before this dispute arose) because I thought it was worth having on Wikipedia. Some thanks I've had for that. You then blocked Moreschi's article, which had greatly superior prose with no spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, for totally subjective stylistic reasons. Following that, you failed his article on the basis of some completely made-up criteria. I made valid complaints about the lack of objectivity and even standards in quality control in the whole GA process and instead of action all I get is touchy defensiveness from the small group of "regulars" here who seem to think they are some kind of elected committee. This is exactly the kind of thing that is bringing the GA process into disrepute. I want to see some clear, objective criteria and I want to see them applied evenly to every reviewed article.(Oh yes, and another example of the subjectivity on display here: no other editor appears to have any clear idea what LuciferMorgan's remarks may mean).--Folantin 10:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that there are a few weasel words in the article but otherwise I would say that this article is going in the correct direction. Tarret 23:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to various people - the POV/OR footnotes have been referenced. Moreschi 10:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the synopsis. Surely it doesn't need referencing. Basically, y'know, it's just a synopsis. It's not an interpretation or anything. You might as well start asking for facts like "Newton existed" or "Hitler killed rather a lot of people" to have inline cits. Blatant fact - truth without dispute - hardly needs referencing. Moreschi 13:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on your second example, you forgot about Holocaust denial, Holocaust Deniers demand much more than just a few inline cites :D. Of course, we'd still hopefully revert them all instantly should they try to mess with Wikipedia, but still. Homestarmy 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K, that's actually quite funny, but no one is going to argue over the verity of the synopsis of Agrippina. I haven't tried to explore the depths of Grimani's libretto or do a character analysis. There's no interpretation - it can't really need refs. Cheers, Moreschi 17:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I've been busy in real life recently, so I haven't had a chance to notice this dispute. Since I'm not an opera fan, I haven't actually reviewed the article. 8-) In fact, I can't understand why you all would go to the mat over it. I've deliberately not read much of this discussion. If it would help, I would be happy to review the article and enter into a new discussion with me on board. If it would help, my rule of thumb is readability. If in the words of the standard it "is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers" (and I'm as non-specialist as it gets!), I'm content not to let style issues stand in the way of GA. I do suggest breaking up sentences, avoiding passives, pariciples and gerunds (oh my!) but leave it to the editors if they wish to go there. I do suspect that such issues would be FA status breakers, but I do not think they should ordinarily stop a GA milestone. Anyone want to take me up on this? If so, I'll go back to my day job... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Several of the prose problems seem to of been fixed, the conversation seems to be starting to lean more towards references now :/. Homestarmy 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The POV/OR footnotes have been fixed, and more refs have been added from a separate reputable source. Just so everyone knows. Moreschi 20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like, dare I say it, cooperation! 8-) Would you all find my review helpful. This is pure altruism on my part, since I have no interest one way or the other in the article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify - by "review" you mean review the article for GA, and then pass or fail it? Moreschi 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Since several of us would be reviewing this, I would not pass or fail the article without consensus of the project members. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. As far as I'm concerned, you can review away to your heart's content. Best, Moreschi 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts: I do think the article could be a bit better written in places (and will try to do so later), however, I think a little more guidance would have got the issues addressed much more quickly. It wasn't at GA quality when nominated. It's at or near it now, and has gone through improvements during its GA review. The failure was probably premature. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Adam's sentiment that the article has improved quite a bit since it was first brought to this page. However, my concern lies with the Synopsis section which seems very OR-ish. (I feel the same way about Movie articles "plot summaries" and don't consider them GA for the same reason). I do see a distinct potential for this article to be of GA quality but something needs to be done with that section to alleviate some of the OR concerns. Wouldn't some of the references provide some context and description of the synopsis that could be cited? Agne 05:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely in all such cases the reference is the work in question, in this case, Agrippina? It's not OR to condense material accurately from a longer work, so long as nothing new is added. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The 20th-century revival of the work "[began] with a production at Halle in 1943." Halle is a mere disambig page (and I don't know which of these Halles is meant), and the 20th (and 21st) century performance history could perhaps be expanded. The synopsis is rather painful to read, but that's the fault of the librettist and not the WP author. Various other little things could be improved elsewhere. Since the start of the bickering above (little of which I have read), the article has improved a lot; it may well not have deserved GA status just three days ago but I think it does now. -- Hoary 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the synopsis can be regarded as OR. Any alternative would be in danger of leading to copyvio problems. I have resolved the ambiguity concerning Halle and have added more performance history plus the relevant reference. --Folantin 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The synopsis. Original research?? Forgive my incredulity, but it's just a synopsis. It's NOT an interpretation. It's just straight reportage. It's my paraphrase of someone else's condensation of the libretto. But, if you like, I will reference the synopsis to the Gardiner recording, if that will make you feel any better. Moreschi 10:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Original Research" has a rather jargon-like meaning on the wiki. It means: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." (see WP:OR) So it's another way of saying that the ideas, concepts and data of an article have to come from a published source. In the case of the synopsis, we could put a note in each section referencing the libretto itself or the the summary of the libretto. Frankly, I don't think its absolutely necessary, since I do not know who would go to the mat to dispute the interpretation of an opera, but would look for it in FA candidacy. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(Outdent) Friends, I reviewed the article, and I believe it is at GA state, especially since there are editors who are committed to improving it further. If no one objects, I'll pass it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Result:No Consensus

Fails 5; currently the dispute over Jefferson and slavery is to the point of a {{totally disputed}} tag. Also fails 2d; for example, it is currently being abused by a crank who believes that Wikipedia must say "Jefferson founded the Republican Party". (compound diff) Septentrionalis 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Has it resulted in several edit wars recently, there doesn't appear too much activity in the history. (Just a side note, Jeffersion definently was a member of the Democratic Republican party, I trust my history book more than I trust some random editor :D ) Homestarmy 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Did this one come to a conclusion? OK to archive? --Ling.Nut 15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a consensus here :/. The dispute seems to be mostly on the talk page anyway, it sounds like they'll resolve it eventually. Homestarmy 17:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New Coke

Result: No Consensus

I'm nominating this for review because I believe it lacks references to key assertions (e.g., that New Coke failed due to a "vocal minority" that managed to kill it) and because it was not written from a neutral point of view (numerous examples of this). -- Jim Johnson 19 November 2006.

I agree that the article should be delisted. Near the end of the article there seems to be lots of lists. Tarret 20:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this nomination should be taken seriously. First, it was made by an anon who hasn't even bothered to sign any of the six edits he has made, despite being reminded several times. We don't allow anons to make the GA promotions; they shouldn't be allowed to put them on review either IMO.

Second, this came in the wake of some abusive posts he made on the article's talk page. His main complaint is that the way he remembers things should trump the facts as revealed by the research some of us have actually done. When I explained this to him (granted, I was not as patient as I should have been), he basically pulled a Cartman: "Screw you guys, I'm going home". He seemed far more interested in finding things to argue about and make himself look the injured party than discussing the issue at hand.

This is not a good-faith delisting. If someone else wants to put it up in good-faith, such as Tarret, then by all means end this and relist. I'm always interested in what could be done to improve this, and indeed there have been some crufty contributions near the end of the article. I'm the first one to admit it isn't finished.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 11-20-2006.

Comment for 71.164.135.161: Your assertions of NPOV violations will have much more credibility if you provide evidence. --Ling.Nut 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

While I may of supported the idea that anon's shouldn't be able to nominate or pass or fail articles and whatnot, I definently don't agree that they shouldn't be allowed to call for reviews, several of the reviews recently have been opened by anons or very new users and many times they are garnering support for delisting. Anonymous and new editors can look at an article just as well as anyone else can, and since there's probably more readers than editors, it gives us some more valuable eyes to spot sub-par GA's. Homestarmy 02:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, I think anons should be able to nominate for GA and nominate for review, but not pass or fail a GA. In this case, however, my gut tells me I'm feeling a bit used. I personally have no desire to play nanny to peoples' squabbles, and don't think GA/R is a place to administer spankings. I wait for further comment from others; I'm inclined to vote "keep" for that reason, but could change my mind (don't count that as a vote; it's an observation).--Ling.Nut 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was inclined to vote for delisting the article as there are several {{fact}} tags and while reading the article, I saw several other statements that should have citations. I will put my comments on the article's talk page. If they are not addressed, then I will delist the article myself. --RelHistBuff 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put comments on the article's talk page and Daniel Case has acted on the comments and toned down some of the prose (thank you, Daniel). I believe prose-wise it has improved. However, I had only covered half the article and perhaps it would be better if the article is reviewed by someone else as well. For the moment, my vote is neutral. Despite the improvements, I cannot vote keep. --RelHistBuff 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Did this one come to a conclusion? OK to archive? --Ling.Nut 15:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No one else has really spoken about it, so it's fine to archive it. What's the result? No consensus? Daniel Case 16:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be 2/1/1, looks like no consensus to me :/. Homestarmy 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time

Result: 4-0 Relist

Was reviewed and failed by User:Cocoaguy on 22 November 2006 (link). The reviewer left no explaination on the talk page as to why it failed. I contacted the reviewer asking why it failed (link) and got the following response (lnik):

I Failed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time beacuse the information was vage and un-interesting. lastly i could not understand a thing beacuse i do not follow the show or own the game.

Clearly, this reviewer did not follow the Good Article criteria, and he did not leave any comments that could help improve the page. I believe his fail decision should be cancelled and the article should be relisted. -- Ritchy 17:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I did that, and also relisted all the editors other reviews. He never gave any reason for any of the articles he promoted or failed. Also made a note at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates#user:Cocoaguy. / Fred-Chess 17:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Can't discuss — sorry sorry sorry! Many papers to write. But would like to know if there is a centralized list somewhere of who nom for promote/promoted/nom for delist/delisted what. Have wondered this for a long time. A one-stop shopping list would be highly convenient IMHO. I know we are against bureaucratization, but....--Ling.Nut 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A subject of an article not being interesting is hardly grounds for failing a GA. Now, if the article was too hard to understand through words being too complicated that would be another story, but I looked at this article since we had a discussion on one of the GA talk pages about its formerly unique format, and it didn't seem uncomphrehnsible at all to me. (And I haven't played the game either.) I think this should be relisted for someone else to review. Homestarmy 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I understood from comments above that it was in fact relisted; didn't look tho. Agree Relist. --Ling.Nut 19:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I had relisted that article and all other reviews by Cocoaguy, since he clearly did not understand the GA reviewing process, and no GA review should be better than an improper one.

Fred-Chess 11:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Homotopy groups of spheres

Result: 5 to 1, Keep

I'm nominating this for GAR because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?'. It has no inline citations. I'm fully aware of the maths / citations debate, so there's no need for that to be continued here. It fails the criterion, which cannot be disputed. LuciferMorgan 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, actually, several science type editors have insisted that we leave a "Disputed" note next to the criteria in question, so they have disputed it :/. Homestarmy 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if they dispute it. Inline citations was created to remove such hacks with their crackpot theories. Criterion 2. b. is there in black and white, so should be enforced. LuciferMorgan 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Algebraic topology doesn't sound like a crackpot theory to me, it sounds like mathematics :/. However, when the first review notice was given on the talk page, an editor conceded that rather little history of this topics development was presented, and there don't appear to be many edits to it lately fixing that situation. I think it should be delisted for not covering that kind of thing. Homestarmy 21:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Is anything ever delisted based on the "readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers" section of 1(a)? 'Cause I'm a linguistics PhD student, which doesn't make me special, but does mean I have at least one or two living brain cells. And that article is not "readily" comprehensible, at least not to me. Just wondering.--Ling.Nut 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a common reason for delisting articles, but we've had one or two jargon-related reviews come up, though one was actually a list and became a Featured List anyway I think, and the other concerned a biological article, I think over a certain plant. I think in the end there wasn't a consensus, because even though the article itself didn't define any terms, if it had, it would of been very off-topic, and everything was wikilinked to the right place. I've also reviewed one article which I had serious jargon concerns over, (It was some sort of disease with...ah...unpleasant symptoms) but once again, everything was wikilinked properly. (And, personally, I think wikilinks count as being readily at hand for readers to click on.) Homestarmy 21:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain, with comment. I'm gonna take a pass on all science-related reviews until I have time to go through and read all or most of the current GAs in that area (Christmas-ish). I think I need a sense of perspective. The reason is because I an sorely tempted to vote to delist this based on 1(a) as mentioned above, but I am not sure that would be consistent with the history of GAs... will consider this.--Ling.Nut 22:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to look through past reviews, the archives aren't that large in size, you should be able to find the articles I was talking about. Homestarmy 22:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• After a cursory look through it, I can't find a place where inline citations would be useful. Regarding "readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers", I'm not sure how strict this should be interpreted. The importance of the topic lies in the Hopf fibration, which is a surprising way in which a four-dimensional hypersphere can be divided in three-dimensional spheres. Four-dimensional stuff is hard to visualize, and it would probably take me a day to understand the Hopf fibration even though I have a PhD in maths. In my opinion, the article makes a very good effort of making the topic comprehensible, but I don't think it makes it "readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers", nor do I think that to be possible. The biggest issue in my opinion is whether the article is complete (criterion 3a). I don't feel I can really answer this question, but I'd like to have seen more details on how to compute these groups (e.g., the simplest case, π₁(S¹), requires some degree argument I suppose?). Where do the finite cyclic groups come from? Perhaps some more history? On the other hand, I feel that the article has a nice length, so we can't add too much more stuff. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• The inline citation question does need to be re-examined. The mathematics and physics projects have been working on the Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines which have broad support among the comunities. This is creating a problem as the guidelines only require inline cites in certain places. Both communities seem to be holding back on submissions of good articles candidates until the issues is resolved, which is a shame. In mathematics we now have a holding cell Category:Bplus-Class mathematics articles of articles which could be GA standard but may not meet 2b. Hopefully a way round this problem can be found.
• The fact that the article is not a crank is well suported by the existing references at the bottom. All the mathematical statements in the article can be verified using the first reference.
• The article does go to considerble lengths to explain mathematics in an understandable way, compare Homotopy group which is much more technical.
• As to how to compute the groups, there is some mention in the article in the stable homotopy section. Some application can be made to homology theory, in particular the Hurewicz theorem shows $\pi _{n}(s^{n})=\mathbf {(} Z)$. I'll add a mention of that in the article. I don't think there is any particular easy way to calculate the groups in general, the first reference PDF mentions a number of special cases.
• I do agree that the article lacks in history, and it could use some more illustrations. I'll try and add some. --Salix alba (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It does warm my heart that there is broad support among the scientific community for skimpy inline citations. This shows an admirable degree of collegiality. But the big elephant in the room that no one seems to be mentioning is COPYVIO: How do I know this isn't pure copyvio, word for word for word?? What checks are there against people (well-intentioned or otherwise) lifting whole paragraphs or even whole articles from their favorite textbook? THAT is the problem I have with the warm, collegial agreement among the scientific community. The barn door is wide open, and any kind of critter can get in. --Ling.Nut 13:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just about as much as any other article. Check the edit history, put the text into a search engine. Inline cites are no protection against copyvio. --Salix alba (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the moment that guideline passes we should put it into the criteria. Homestarmy 15:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep . If the Math WikiProject think it is OK, I also think it is OK. Also note that Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines doesn't make inline citations mandatory.... Now, I would like to argue about why criterion 2b is wrong, but this is the wrong place, and I can't find the page where this criterion was discussed and voted about.... / Fred-Chess 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  If I understand how the guideline works, the citations are necessary, its just you only have to quote them at the very beginning of a section and that's it. Unless it changed of course? Because if all it will do is maintain the status quo now, then I can't support that. Homestarmy 15:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  That is my understanding of the guidelines, based on this part. The word required isn't used, but the guidelines ask that general references should not only be listed at the bottom but should be given an inline reference at least once. CMummert 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  There is discussion, largely questioning it, on Wikipedia talk:What is a good article. It appears to have been inserted by a small group of regulars on this page, without much discussion anywhere. Septentrionalis 20:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - Articles are reviewed according to GA criteria, so until the criteria changes this should be delisted. LuciferMorgan 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Fred-Chess said, "If the Math WikiProject think it is OK, I also think it is OK." The people involved in tis GA process treasure their lack of bureaucratic red tape. But the only answer I see to this clash of cultures is mildly bureaucratic one. [I say "clash of cultures" 'cause if I tried to hand in stuff uncited like this, I'd get it handed back to me, smoking. Maybe it's a Social Sciences thing.] If we can get some sort of sign-off and official okey-doke from known and recognized Wikipedians in the relevant field, I would sleep better at night. :-) It's the "known and recognized" bit that causes bureaucracy. I'd wanna list somewhere in a public place of people who volunteer to vet articles. There shouldn't be any process for getting on the list; just sign up. There should be a way to have people's names taken off the list -- if no one knows who they are.
• Ahhh, please forgive my unsightly excursion into FARC-land. But before my current linguistic geekiness, I was a computer programmer. And every good C/C⁺⁺ programmer knows that "With every privilege comes an attendant responsibility." If the people in the sciences field get a pass on inline cites, they should take up the responsibility of self-monitoring. :-)--Ling.Nut 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• OH PS sorry to talk so much, but in my opinion an official okey-doke from the Science People would get an article a pass on 2b only. We can still catch and throw it back for any other reason. Note especially that I believe we are undermining the importance of 1a, and for example also note Homestarmy's comments about lack of breadth of coverage (he mentioned there's a lack of discussion of th the history of this particular article). --Ling.Nut 18:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a classic exampole of why 2b should have exceptions. The article is sourced from three sources, not, put together, much longer than the article itself. Two are used throughout; the third supplied the table, as is clearly indicated. A footnote from the table to that reference would add nothing to the article.

On 1a: this is the clearest writing on algebraic topology I have ever seen - and I have seen more of it than I care to. The only point I can see to clarify is an explanation that the 2-sphere, for example, is a hollow sphere, like a balloon or the surface of a globe; and I'm not sure how to phrase that. What would be genuinely helpful is if those readers who find this confusing would explain on the Talk Page exactly where they stop following, and what (insofar as it can be explained) their confusion is. Septentrionalis 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The objections so far aren't just references and lack of comphrehension, the lack of broadness which was even admitted by an editor on the talk page when this page was warned is a problem too. Homestarmy 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Salix Alba's researches are encyclopedic, but they really are a different subject, requiring different (if overlapping) expertise, from the article itself. History of Mathematics (where it is studied) is, and ought to be, a separate department from Mathematics. Except for a few dates, the result should be another article. Septentrionalis 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"History of Homotopy groups of spheres"? I don't think you'll get enough content out of that for a really good article. And even then, you'd probably still need to use summary style on the history to mention it in the actual Homotophy groups of spheres article. Homestarmy 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(side comment) If we were to do a history it would be history of algebraic topology. Theres plenty of material there, the notes I've collected come from a 56 page history of one branch of the topic, [1]. I think there is good reason to put a sumarised history in the article, as it shed light on the combined effort of a lot of people and a lot of other machinary which has been combined to calculate these groups. Ling Nut, does raise the reoccuring problem in any article about 20th centuary mathematics, in that a lot of prerequsites are required. The 1, 2, and n-spheres really require an understanding of Manifolds, itself a full length article. To really be able to apreciate the article will also require a grounding in group theory and topology. To understand at a deeper level requires knowledge of homology theory, cohomology theory spectral sequences, and a host of other articles. It will be impractable to expand all these and keep the article at a reasonable length, so the question is to what level do we need to expain all our terms? --Salix alba (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it. But I don't see why it should be required for GA. Septentrionalis 23:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm changing to Delist based on comprehensibility. Too much unexplained jargon and too many unelucidated observations.. I'll put some on the article's talk page now; I'll try to put a full list on the talk page tomorrow.--Ling.Nut 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Salix alba asks, "...so the question is to what level do we need to expain all our terms?" I may be in the minority on this one, but I would suggest that the answer to this question is in WP:WIAGA (1a): to the level that is "is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers." [Please note that I am not being facetious or sarcastic at all; that is an honest and neutral reply.]
• I invite comment from other reviewers; I am wondering if I am far in left field on this one. --Ling.Nut 18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that's what WP:WIAGA says. On the other hand, if we stuck to those criteria, I doubt that any specialist mathematics articles, and many specialised science articles, would ever have a chance of making it to GA status. Quite simply, the article is written at the level at which it needs to be written in order to properly address the subject. This is certainly problematic for the GA process, but I would hate to have to penalise people for choosing complicated topics to write about. These topics do need to be addressed on Wikipedia. Maybe there should be a separate GA process for science/math articles? MLilburne 19:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• More importantly, an effort to make them universally intelligible at all costs would make them bad articles. I value Ling Nut's comments on the talk page; this is a useful effort. But some subjects are just tough. Septentrionalis 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• MLilburne said: "Maybe there should be a separate GA process for science/math articles?"
• Eeeek! The dreaded fork! Run away! Run away! :-)
• In all seriousness, I would hope to avoid the dreaded spork. --Ling.Nut 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion, once that Scientific citations criteria guideline thing passes (And I think it should), we should make it explicitly part of the inline citations criteria, that way, we can still call badly referenced articles badly referenced articles, (Since, of course, they probably won't have the general references at the beginning of sections) yet won't cause Science type article editors the exaperation they apparently have concerning citing everything. Homestarmy 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• FA is a fork of GA; there's no problem with another one. Septentrionalis 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Err, actually, when GA first started it had a rather different goal to just look at very short, excellent articles, but gradually GA became like a fork of FA. Homestarmy 14:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(remove indents) Homestarmy: then what about the whole jargon soup issue? I have a suggestion, but I'm doubting it will attract support....--Ling.Nut 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure i'm the best person to make a call on about jargon, because specialized articles like this can make the question about jargon complicated. For instance, how easily presentable is easily presentable? In my opinion, wikilinks are quite easily presented here to lower order topics that a reader could learn about. I'm afraid for higher level math or science type articles like that, that's sometimes as easily presentable as its going to get :/. Homestarmy 21:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Key point The key point to the intelligibility discussion is this: The article as it exists serves the purposes of, and is useful for, all and only the set of mathematicians in the world who read Wikipedia. The evidence is, in my mind, indisputable.
• The key question, then is this: Is the community OK with that? [Here.. I actually mean the greater community of Wikipedia, though probably less than a dozen folks are reading this exchange. I'm asking your opinions about the greater community.] I ask in all sincerity. If it is, then I defer to consensus and will retract my vote.--Ling.Nut 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• The silence is deafening. I've spent enough time arguing with the pro-schools people to know where this discussion is not headed. I am changing my vote to No vote; I retract my suggestion to delist.--Ling.Nut 00:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If your question is whether it is accepted that Wikipedia articles may be about a topic which is so specialistic that the average reader cannot be expected to understand it, then I think the answer is yes. Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible starts "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience." This implies that some articles are unavoidably not accessible to a general audience.

If your question is whether it is accepted that Good Articles may be about a topic which is so specialistic that the average reader cannot be expected to understand it, then I'm less confident about the correct answer, as I don't follow GA a lot. However, I do seem to remember that one of the reasons for starting GA was to cater for those articles which due to their topic would not have a change to become a Featured Article (the main reason was that FA is too bureaucratic, if I remember correctly). It would follow that all topics in principle can be the subject of a Good Article, including very specialistic topics,

By the way, I suggest that next time you ask a question you wait longer than one hour and a half. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(remove indents). Thank you for setting me straight on all points. :-)

• Keep. Re 1a, the article is sufficiently comprenhensible given its topic. Re 2b, it hasn't been explained where inline citations are needed; finally, the article does have inline cites at the moment. See my remarks above for details. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep . Some history stuff has been added. Math articles are immune to any requirements regarding inline cites. Math articles are also immune to any requirements that would call for an article to be accessible to non-mathematicians. No other objections.--Ling.Nut 05:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I currently see 4 keeps and 2 delists. Homestarmy, have your stipulations regarding the history of the topic been addressed?--Ling.Nut 05:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, well, it looks good enough now, unless somebody else catches some critical aspect missing from the article. Homestarmy 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Labor Day Hurricane of 1935

Result: 3 to 0, delist

I am putting this up for review. It doesn't seem comprehensive enough to pass GA under today's standards. It was nearly an FA in the past, but the standards have increased greatly. CrazyC83 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delist as per 2b too few inline cites.. Interesting article though.--Ling.Nut 04:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Delist. --RelHistBuff 12:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

Result: 3 to 1, keep

I'm nominating this for GAR because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?'. It has insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 17:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This one is a borderline case. I vote Keep for now. The sections that require citations are "Military career" and "Family life". Some "citations needed" tags should be added and the editors should be allowed to improve on the article. I just put one in there now. If there are a number of these tags and there are no improvements, then someone will eventually propose to delist it. --RelHistBuff 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind helping fix the article, but my problem with this is: Why was it nominated on 8 Nov for GAR and the article not tagged at that time so people know it needs attention? I only know of it now because of the ref tags put on it. We'll get to work on it. Rlevse 03:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You raised a good point. An article could get placed here for review without the editors of the article knowing that it is under review! In the case of FA, the {{FAR}} (Featured Article Review) template is placed in the talk page so that the editors are aware that a review is proceeding. As GA is more informal (and in any case, anyone can just simply delist an article), I do not think we need a template, but let's discuss this on the talk page. --RelHistBuff 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

10 refs are now in those sections. That should take care of this. Rlevse 11:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't perfectly referenced, but no article has to be. I think its well-referenced enough anyway, enough to be a GA. Homestarmy 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then delist it. Rlevse 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If I wanted to delist it, I would of said "I think it is not well-referenced, not enough to be a GA anyway", yet I did not. Homestarmy 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant delist it from the GAR. Rlevse 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, most reviews stay up for a week past when discussion has died down. (The only exception I can think of is with the Special relativity review, since the second review opened on it was basically just disruption at that point and there was a pretty big supermajority for speedy keep.) Homestarmy 03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• FYI folks, the number of cites has gone from 9 to 20. Rlevse 11:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Algeria

Result: 4 to 0, delist

Sections of this article have clearly been translated with software and it reads really badly. It needs serious work including comparison with the original article in French because sometimes it is impossible to know what is meant. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.219.176.154 (talk • contribs) 16:28, November 20, 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. An example paragraph exhibiting what the nominator is referring to:
  • The French Army subjected village after village, whereas it was enough to sign some agreements to impose a protectorate on Morocco and for Tunisia but it should be specified that what characterizes the colonization of Algeria and holds place of characteristic is that it acts of a colony of settlement.

Unfortunately, there are many more examples like this and it will take some work to make the article readable again, much less GA-quality. Neil916 (Talk) 18:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For an article of this kind of topic, I think it very doubtful that it was always filled with poorly translated sentences everywhere, i've left a note on the talk page asking about this. Homestarmy 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delist, as per In 1827, the dey of Algiers still discovers a fact much more serious, at the end is Regency in Calle, France had the concession of a commercial warehouse. This may have been a GA-quality at one time, as Homestarmy seems to suggest, but if so then it has undergone regrettable content-rot.--Ling.Nut 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delist - Looking at the history, it seems a lot of new content was added rather than edit decay. --RelHistBuff 08:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Millennium Challenge Account

Result: 1 to 2, no consensus

Article was listed for review for over a month, and was failed due to NPOV, but was extremely vague and did not review the rest of the article. As I worked a lot on it in the last two months taking it from a stub to GA nomination, I would like more comments at the very least. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Additional review comments left on the article's talk page. Neil916 (Talk) 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the referencing is stupendous, but as per Neil's comments on the talk page, it could use some more work :/. In general however, re-writing sentences to attribute the information to the sources given will probably fix many of the problems. Homestarmy 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Horse

Result: 1 to 4, keep

This got recently GA'd, which I would dispute. Certain parts have listy sections, while in parts whole paragraphs remain uncited. LuciferMorgan 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I passed it, with multiple admonitions to improve its citations. I'm strongly pro-verifiability. I sincerely appreciate LuciferMorgan's commendable delisting of many uncited articles. However, there's an element of subjectivity or "judgment call" involved here. I think the article is 80% of an FA as it stands, which is my rough criterion for GA. Plus the main contributor seems quite committed. I am saying that GA is not FA, plus assuming Good Faith in the main contributor's commitment to tackle the missing citations.--Ling.Nut 02:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - GAs should be passed when they reach GA standard, not before. When the main contributor had tackled the missing citations, only then should it have been passed. LuciferMorgan 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless, its here now for review, and at present, it seems well-referenced enough to be a GA. Homestarmy 03:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Criterion 2b is largely satisfied. If there are additional statements that need citing, then {{fact}} tags should be placed. --RelHistBuff 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am the "main contributor." I'd like an opportunity to improve the article rather than having it delisted. I already have made a number of improvements to the article based on both comments while it was a GA nominee, and peer review (which was much less useful, actually, I didn't get much other than an automated response and a suggestion to find better pictures, which, while helpful, was not as helpful as Ling.Nut was here!). Anything put on the talk page will be looked at. Some things (like citing every paragraph) are going to take some time (I do have a day job..) but I sincerely wish this article to be as good as it can be! Montanabw 04:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Montanabw, right now, its 1 to delist and 4 to keep, I think you'll have plenty of time to improve the article heh. Homestarmy 18:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)