Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 6

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 7

Good article review (archive)

(Page 5) →

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.

Marcel Lefebvre

Result: 4 to 1, Keep as GA

This is currently listed as a good article, but the footnote style is a serious liability. They are in a very non-standard format (this is the only article I have seen on Wikipedia to extensively quote each source in the footnotes.) In addition, some of the sources are excessively repeated, resulting in footnotes on nearly every sentence, making the article much harder to read. dryguy 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources seem to come from speeches, and I suspect there isn't an easier way to use those citations. They can use the <ref=soandso> thing to get around re-quoting everything, but I don't see it as mandatory in the GA rules, it'd just be an improvement you'd probably need to make for FA. Homestarmy 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that we ask for footnotes/inline citations, the way it is rendered is really unimportant unless it clashes with the structure of the text. Lincher 15:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me. Admittedly, having the quote for each source seems like overkill, but the fact that the authors put that extra effort doesn't detract from the article. RelHistBuff 10:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there should be encouragement for more tact in the footnote style in order to limit the repeats. It doesn't merit de-listing though. Agne 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween

Result: 3 to 0, delist

The article's page starts by saying that it needs a cleanup. Good Articles don't need cleanup. Should it remain a Good Article?Dogface 16:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well there are entire sections without a single reference. That's not good but to the best of my discernment they seem to be related to additions after it was tagged as a GA. I wouldn't consider it very stable of late with some significant deletions and expansions. However, that seems to be due to a recent POV edit war between a few users--part of which is directly connected to the clean up tag. "Clean up tags" normally refer to format and style issues in accordance to WP:MOS. It would probably be more appropriate to put unreference tags in the areas that need it and take the POV discussion to the talk page. Agne 17:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cleanup tag is gone, but looking at where things are referenced, it does seem a bit sparse, just below a level i'd expect of a GA of approximetly this length. Homestarmy 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perl 6

Result: 3 to 1, keep delisted

User:Indon reviewed this article with some pretty harsh criticism, but not all of it was easy to understand given that he is not a native english speaker. I've tried to address Indon's concerns as best I can (adding a History section, reducing examples, etc. as noted in his review[1]), but at his suggestion, I'm also requesting that someone who has a more fluent grasp of English help me out by reviewing the article's status and commenting on any areas where I may have failed to resolve the outstanding issues. Thanks! -Harmil 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native English speaker but I'm not a computer programmer. I do have to agree that the article seems overtly technical and tough for a non-programmer like me to follow compared to the technical presentation of articles like ASCII and PaX. Following the article, I get completly lost in the Major changes from Perl 5 area. Example: I have no clue what a "Slurpy parameter" and in that section on parameter passing mode, I can't really see what the exact change from Perl 5 to Perl 6 is and how that affects the overall program. I think part of it is the nature of the article being about a beta program which tends to lead itself to more a technical presentation. I don't feel that I am in the best position to give suggestion for improvement. I don't I fall into the "target" audience who would come searching for this article. However, I do see teenagers with an interest in pursuing programing being interested in this article and that "novice" level of expertise would be the type of targeted audience to write for. I'm going to fish around for some other editors who have more of a computer background to chim in to help. Agne 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have written programs in perl, but I also would agree with Indon not to pass the article. I won't argue that about the quality of the writing, citations, etc.. The main problem is it's suitability in an encyclopaedia. It is equivalent of a current news item which will change as the program develops toward the final version. If the article was on perl 4 or perl 5, it makes sense to have it in Wiki (there is an article on perl in general). Writing on a beta version is equivalent to writing on the under-development, but yet-to-be-released Star Trek movie or next year's Eurovision song contest (someone did try doing that). Nice information to have but not encyclopaedic. Why not wait until perl 6 is finished and then write the article? RelHistBuff 19:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I am a programmer and I got lost at the discussion of slurpy parameters. JulesH 10:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the idea of having an in development anything become a GA unless development is slow or has stalled, or its in a very late stage that isn't prone to much change. Looking at some of it though, I also agree it's too technical, and Lincher's review appears to be thorough, I don't disagree with it. Homestarmy 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky

Result: About 3 to 2, no consensus

I am asking a review of my own fail of this article to get some objective third party insights on the matter. My main concern with the article was the inclusion of what I feel are irrelevant background details that tips the article into OR "synthesis" and being a memorial. I also felt the article wasn't broad enough in coverage in that the article was kept after an AfD because the particular reaction to this young girl's death was notable. I felt the article should be focused more on that reaction, in particular the "How" and "Why" of it. However the article editors do make countering points that are worth considering in our discussion on the article's talk page. I want to make sure these points are fairly considered and I invite my fellow reviewers to take a look. Agne 23:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does seem somewhat limited in coverage to me......it sounds like with the references given, there should be even more in the way of reaction to this person's death that can be referenced. Homestarmy 00:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article for the first time ever before reading this motion and the talk page and I must say what I was thinking was "with all due respect, it is more of a shrine than an article", so I guess you are not alone in your feelings, Agne. I've had a similar problem with Fulla (doll) - my feeling was that the article needed a rewrite rather than simply correcting some details I nitpicked, because it did not give the right overall "feeling" (inadvertently, the editors made it display very strong POV to first-time readers). This can be tricky and hard to explain, and users might get angry when we do not provide them with "what they just need to correct to make it a GA", but I believe that your review is very good and accurate, and that the decision was fully justified. Regards, Bravada, talk - 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the article is a like a memorial service. I'd fail it also. By the way, I'm feeling more and more that WP articles are further away from what encyclopedia is suppose to be. Well, that's my only general feeling. — Indon (reply) — 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the extra opinions. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the editors on the article can be persuaded to that view. As high of hopes that I have for what this article could be, I'm content to leave the matter be until the article is either renominated for Good Article status or put up for AfD. Agne 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad as a diplomat

Result: Err, On-hold status is not something the review process was meant to change per se...

Initial comments by the reviewing admin lead me to question the neutrality of the process. Without presupposition or accusation, I post this only to ensure a broader community review than might otherwise be forthcoming.Proabivouac 10:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is On Hold status. It's still not reviewed yet. I don't understand your intention. If you have objections about reviews of an article, then go to WP:GA/R with the article that has been reviewed. Otherwise do it in the article talk's page, as you are doing it now. All right, as you want to make your issue broader, let me raise your intention in WP from your contribution here [2], that makes me hard to assume good faith from you. — Indon (reply) — 10:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you want the article listed, the instructions at the top of this page read: If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination... not an unfavorable "On Hold" status. We can always wait to see if its failed, but still, there's nothing much to decide on here now. Homestarmy 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Americanism

Result: Case closed three times over, article is failed

This article has just been passed by The duck (talk · contribs). I don't object quality of the article (except maybe for the stability criterion), but I raised my suspicious to the reviewer. If you read his contribution page, it seems that he only created a new account to pass this article. The user account was created in Sept. 21st, then he passed this article at the same day. I'm sorry to be nitpicking about the reviewer, but, I think, it is a bad practice for GA. — Indon (reply) — 14:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there's already a discussion about GA status there anyway, I say it should be speedy relisted on the nom page to where it was before. Homestarmy 15:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see RelHistBuff has renominated it again. Case closed. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to put it back in the nomination queue again because the nominator took it off the candidates list again. Case closed a second time. RelHistBuff 10:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed and failed it. See its talk page. --Tjss(Talk) 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falkirk Wheel

Result: 4 to 0, delist

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

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

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

Agree. When I was looking through the various articles in the category for citations, this one stood out to me as not being up to GA quality. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing

Result: 4 to 1, keep delisted

Sceptre did not pass this article. He cited a lack of images and a short article length. However, the GAC says that "a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status" and the only notation about length is if the article is too long, which this article is not. Hbdragon88 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article indeed is very poor, with loads of POV and OR, but the "review" Sceptre provided is just as bad - indeed it simply cracked me up :D Bravada, talk - 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any POV in the article is probably deserved, (I'm familiar with the stories behind this game, if there's anything on Wikipedia deserving to countermand NPOV, this is definently somewhere up at the top.) but since the review didn't have really any merit at all, I think it should just be relisted right back to where it was so someone else can give a real review. Homestarmy 19:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between presenting opinions and POV. The author of the article obviously had trouble distinguishing and wrote "a summary of reviews" rather than an encyclopedic article. I am still unable to get past the review of Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines, as some current events constantly distract me from completing it, so I unfortunately cannot do a full review of this article yet. I cannot see any way it passes, though. Bravada, talk - 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, but still, it really is a horrible game :). Homestarmy 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article an expanded review on its talk page. Agne 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a good review, and one I can agree with. Homestarmy 00:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flow-based programming

Result: Err, wait, this isn't a dispute over status....is it?

I don't actually disagree with User:Indon's comments, but part of my intent in nominating this article for GA was to encourage technical feedback (as opposed to formatting comments) from experts in the field, and so far there hasn't been any. Re his comment that there should be some criticism presented, I regularly Google this topic, and there hasn't been any criticism in the time that it has had a presence on the Internet (except for the usual one about multithreading being difficult!). Instead, the book is regularly cited in academic articles and blogs. So more specific feedback would be much appreciated, and I will endeavour to incorporate any suggestions, or indeed other editors should feel free to enhance the article as they see fit - even if it never makes it to GA status. Jpaulm 14:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, GA review isn't the best place for expert technical feedback. You might get lucky and find someone who knows a lot about the exact field here, but it's really hit or miss. Generally you'll have your article reviewed by someone who's knowledgable enough in the area to understand the article and make intelligent comments about the quality of the article from a WP:GA perspective. You might have more luck finding an expert at the Wikiproject on Computer Science. I wish I could help more, but the closest I've ever got to the subject matter is one grad-level class on dataflow programming. Good luck! --- The Bethling^(Talk) 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to write a lenghty reply but it got deleted after I made a few clicks too much :D , so I will just express my belief that Indon was justified in his decision to fail the article, and that I also have concerns about the possibility of self-promotion here - especially the, totally unnecessary, repeated mentioning of the book does not fit in an encyclopedic article, IMHO. I would generally have concerns about an article authored almost solely by the creator of the concept described. If no other user found it appropriate to create such an article, I would even have doubts about the notability of the subject. Bravada, talk - 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try Wikiproject on Computer Science - maybe we can get other people involved in polishing the article. This would also help to offset the apparent concern about single authorship. For now it is not a GA! Jpaulm 19:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vakhsh River

Result: 4 to 0, Keep Delisted

Compared to other articles concerning bodies of water, this article is quite poor. The main problem is that the article in no way broadly covers the topic (criteria 3). The articles briefly covers geography, dams and blockages, but is missing information on the watershed, geology, history, wildlife, ecology and the river's course. These subjects need to be addressed in depth before the article becomes a GA again. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta agree, there's no way its long enough to cover the subject adequatly. Also, if the inline citations thing passes, this would fail that too. Homestarmy 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support delisting: And the lead section should follow WP:LEAD. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been de-listed and I support that decision but I also think the other articles in our "Bodies of water" area are a little weak in various areas Great Salt Lake, Lake Kariba and Trabancos River. Agne 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metric expansion of space

Result: 1 to 1, no consensus

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

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

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

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

Cretan War

Result: Err, wait, this isn't contesting anything....

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

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

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

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

I've looked at it and if it were nominated and if I reviewed it, I'd ask for a citation in the Prelude section, but would otherwise be content to pass it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gram Parsons

Result: 2 to 0, delist

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

Support: And the lead isn't wp:lead compliant either. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart

Result: 4 to 1, keep delisted

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

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

For the most part, yes. That's how the project works. You copy the article into WP, then start editing, adding in new info, rewording the archaic text, etc. The CE article is still the major source for most of the material. If we inline-cited every single thing that came from it, the WP article would look ridiculous. Besides, there is no required minimum number of sources for a GA article. The only requirement is that all factual information is cited, which in this case, it is. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a serious copyvio here. The Catholic Encyclopedia is copyrighted, stated as The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. [3] When I copied some random sentences from Sacred Heart article, when there is no inline citation given both in that sentences and its section, and googling them out, here are the results: [4] and [5]. — Indon (reply) — 15:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Let me jump in here. It is fair to begin an article from a public domain source such as the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1915. It is most definitely public domain. The electronic copyright is misleading, since you cannot recopyright something by reformatting it. At most, the only thing copyrightable are the links, look and feel and navagation. There is a lot of dispute as to whether or not that is sufficient originality to be copyrightable.

On the GA front, I concur. While its OK to seed an article from such a source, that is only a beginning quality article. To make it GA, I would expect multiple sources, covering the whole history of the devotion, how Protestants respond to it and so on. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Isle's Torn

Result: Problems fixed, article passed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikilinks seem to be in the right places now, I think this is sufficient to be a GA. Homestarmy 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Minister

Result: Speedy re-nominated, it was passed anyway

While we are at it, this promotion is highly suspicious. A user added it at 21:46 my time, and another user promoted it just 6 minutes afterwards, without any comment on the talk page. I believe this article now needs a full and in-depth review to see whether this article actually meets the criteria, and to discourage such practices in the future. Bravada, talk - 20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Stamping bad, speedy relist it back on to the nominations page. Homestarmy 20:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, renominate ... remove tag. Lincher 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone

Result: two to zero, delist

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

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

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

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

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

Crusade of 1101

Result: 2 to 0, keep delisted

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

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

D with stroke

Result: 3 to zero, delist

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

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

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

Planet

Result: two to zero, delist

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

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

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

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

American middle class

Result: Lead seems fixed, history may still be lacking, but article has been expanded a good bit anyway, no consensus

This doesn't seem to be a good article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drum and bass

Result: Wait a minute, were we even voting on anything?

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Mark Karr

Result: 3 to 0, delisted

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

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

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

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

All right, I'm going to delist it, because of image problem, as it was apparently taken from copyrighted website [6] and no fair rationale use in the description of the image. — Indon (reply) — 23:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measure (mathematics)

Result: 3 to 0, keep delisted

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

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

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

Operation Wrath of God

Result: problem fixed, keep listed

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

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

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

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

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

Result: 2 to 1, no consensus, keep listed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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