Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

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

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

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

Archives
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

Christianity

The stated reason for delisting the article was an objection to some of the references on the grounds that they weren't books published by university presses. Consensus appears to be running heavily contrary to this understanding of a "reliable source", so I'm putting it here for review.

The article may fail other criteria, notably stability. A.J.A. 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Article was not delisted properly, (People have to leave a note on the talk page), speedy relist, though a real review can probably continue here. Homestarmy 18:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Neil Young

I feel this article should be reviewed as;

1) It has a mere 7 inline citations, all of which provide insufficient info regarding the sources, ie. author, retrieval date etc.

2) Tons of sections have no citations and make critiques on albums, which is actually considered original research and isn't allowed in a Good Article.

4) "Instruments" and "Trivia" sections are listy, which disrupts prose. This violates the demand that the article should be "well written".

This article isn't up to GA standards at present in my opinion, namely for the reasons cited. LuciferMorgan 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

A recent BLP noticeboard alert posted by the man himself has led to a major overhaul of the text. There's an AN thread regarding the issue. I think this article has become unstable (if it ever was stable, as I imagine that it would be a prime target for vandals and trolls) and should be delisted as stability is a key component of the GA criteria (it's the reason why PS3 is still at a B-class). Hbdragon88 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're right, there seem to have been a few major changes over the past few days, it might not still be a GA by the time its done :/. Homestarmy 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So should it be delisted, or should we wait until the dust settles? Hbdragon88 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If the dust settles quickly it should be fine, but you could delist it now if you feel that would be best. Most reviews stay open for around a week....Homestarmy 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Microsoft

On 6 June 2006, I nominated this article for Good Article. The nomination passed. However, on 11 September 2006, someone moved the article from Criticism of Microsoft to Analysis of Microsoft. The move was deemed unhelpful, and the article was moved back to Criticism of Microsoft. However, in the process of the article being moved and moved back, the Good Article template was somehow removed from the talk page. The article does not appear in the list of good articles either. The talk page does not contain a {{FailedGA}} or {{DelistedGA}} template. As the delisting of Criticism of Microsoft was unjustified and out of process, I request that the Good Article status be reinstated to Criticism of Microsoft. If you believe Criticism of Microsoft should not be a good article, please add an appropriate template to the talk page, indicating your reasons, as the article was a former good article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Were the history or talk page archives deleted, or do you think we could see the diff showing it being passed? Homestarmy 12:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the history of Talk:Criticism of Microsoft. That's where I got the dates (6 July and 11 September) from. Look for edits made on those dates. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I see it now, Lincher seems to of promoted it, this should be relisted unless somebody sees a major problem. Homestarmy 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Relist : I went through it fast and it didn't change much so I still back up my earlier promotion. Lincher 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, shouldn't this have ran for slightly longer than 21 hours?-Localzuk^(talk) 06:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer in a nutshell, this edit [1] requested a removal of GA (I had awarded [2]) upon changing title. The title change didn't occur and so I re-evaluated the article in the same manner I had done earlier. If you find enough reasons to delist it, then go ahead but leave the reasons on the article's talk page, if not, just leave your comments on the talk page and they will fix the minor criticism you could have. Lincher 12:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

This article was recently delisted due to the claim that the "writing is bad". There is some pre-existing discussion on the talk page. I would appreciate some input from others, as I believe this is a Good Article. -- BlueCanoe 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the last line in the hiking section reads like an advisory and should probably be removed, but I don't think the writing in that section is half bad, let's wait and see if the delister has anything else to say. Homestarmy 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Overthrow of Sukarno

This was delisted with the sole stated reason being a lack of photos. Yet this, in my interpretation, is against WP:WIAGA. Ie:

6. (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status..

It was actually proposed to be delisted in July [3] but not actually delisted. it came to my attention when another editor actually delisted it a few days ago: [4]. There is also some discussion of the issue on Talk:Overthrow of Sukarno. I suggest it should be relisted as point (3) above suggests. Ie:

3. However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be re-listed as a Good Article.

regards --Merbabu 07:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be de-listed because of Criteria 6. While images are always more ideal, this topic is one that doesn't particularly need images in order for the reader to be able to fully understand the subject matter. However, I do think the article needs some work with Criteria 2, especially in-line citations. There is also subtle POV tones but nothing too alarming. Agne 07:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

GAAH!  :-) OK point taken - i kinda knew that having been incorrectly delisted it could well find obstacles for relisting against other criteria. On thing to remember though (and I am not trying to excuse the need to be accurate) is that this time in Indonesian history is HOTLY debated with numerous versions of the period flying around. By the subject matter's very nature, "accuracy" is difficult to ascertain. Indeed, the following president, Soeharto spent much of his 32 year presidency pushing his view of events right down to compulsory film screenings and school curriculums. The only alternate theories are often fanciful conspiracies (as is often the case when discussion of the subject is shut down or censored). I will review the article and see what can be done (if indeed anything is required)--Merbabu 07:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

From my experience most images of events and characters from this era - where they are available are such poor quality, and usually 'photo' of 'photo' that they are practically uselesss in any context of an online encyclopedia article SatuSuro 09:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also POV oozes through the whole subject- as Merbabu says - Soeharto's regime was sustained by its deifinition of events of 65 66. The title of this article was also problematic as for a title that did not exude any POV (viz talk for this article) many did not consider it was a civil war - (the original title being Indonesian Civil War) - and the test is what tapols and local populations might remember it as - but the crux was that the suharto regime insisted upon educating generations of indonesians about the event as 'G30SPKI' - so in the end to ascertain a NPOV title, and grounding for this article - the reviewer has to understand that POV will always crop up as there is in the end - no "final word" on a number of issues SatuSuro 09:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I had been requested a comment on my talk page pertaining to my delistment, I will answer here.

When one is reading criterion 6, 6a intends that if there are pictures in the article, they out to be well tagged and if they are fair use images, then adding a fair use rationale is necessary to be GA; 6b states that an image isn't necessary unless the editor finds one. In that case 6a overrules 6b because there is an image in the article.

Everything else still seems to be in GA accordance in the article so just adding a fair use rationale to the picture would have given the GA status back then. I'm sorry I overlook that article and thanks for bring it back to my attention. Lincher 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the article have no inline citations....? If it was only that there's an image with no Fair Use rational, I think it wouldn't be too bad to give the article a little bit of time to fix it and give it back GA status, but the total lack of inline citations would require much longer than a little bit of time to fix. Homestarmy 16:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360

Article has been rewritten and problems from last review fixed. Would like rereview to fix any further problems and get suggestions on how to get the article into GA status and later FA.123wiki123 06:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want a re-review, the place for that is to put it back on the candidates page.... Homestarmy 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vince Young

This article was listed as GA on 10 October. I didn't recall that this article was renominated again. However, I see in the talk page that there is a discussion about its renomination, but alas there is no GA review for the 2nd nomination. Seeing the content of this article, esp. at the beginning, it is not GA, IMO. What are other opinions? Keep or delist? — Indon (reply) — 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I wont even start mentioning how this article fails to meet GA standards. Delist on sighting, as I'm about to do. Lincher 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep Delisted, as per Lincher, and because it looked pretty bad NPOV wise when I looked at it a bit. Homestarmy 18:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Support delisting per Lincher. I agree with NPOV issues. The Rose bowl performance was amazing but the article goes a bit far in its overall presentation of the subject. Agne 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Special relativity

The math and science description at the following address shows an undeniable error Einstein made in his math and science description. The errors make relativity impossible to be true science. So, if you want correct science descriptions this should be reviewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenCrum

....Well, I have to say, this is new. I'm afraid however that I don't quite have the education necessary to be messing around with trying to deny fundamentally accepted laws of the universe, i'll ask a few other people what they think. Homestarmy 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, two things to note concerning this situation are that all of the fundamentally accepted laws of the universe (that resulted from relativity being true) aren't true if the synchronization foundational truth is not true first. So, the synchronization calcs have to stand on their own in math and science. The second thing is this is incredibly easy math and as low in physics as it gets. A high school physics student can see the calculations and science presented is true. The point is don't think this is huge science logic and math. It truly is not even close to that. StevenCrum 19:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The math concering basic relativity is probably fairly easy, but trying to disprove it probably isn't. I've never actually learned much about really defending the theory, because proofs for some of the stuff dealing with relativity certainly are not within a high school education level. Homestarmy 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For truth in science and the issue here Eistein based his entire proof for relativity on the single, first synchronization part. He then developed everything else based on the critically needed first part being true. The point of this is that your statement "proofs for some of the stuff dealing with relativity certainly are not within a high school education" is factually not truth in science. There are no higher elements that are involved in the proving of his error. This isn't opinion, but just plain undenaible fact. The paper written here proves undeniably that Einstein mad a huge killing mistake, and not one competant scientist in the world can deny this truth. So, the error is fact, and whether anyone wants to actually look to see that fact is another issue.StevenCrum 3:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

StevenCrum, we don't have to go into your arguments before you are able to get them published. That's how wikipedia works.... Count Iblis 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis, thanks for the comment, but I cannot figure out how to get from the user page I am on to it being published here. I also don't know where it actually fits either. In the end, since relativity is wrong science once you know the situation written, it should actually replace relativity and relativity being a history of a past mistake. But, that is a bit drastic, and I thought it best to discuss it first. So, I would truly appreciated any good suggestions. StevenCrum 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

StevenCrum - You cannot publish your work in Wikipedia as doing so would violate the No original research policy. By publication we mean outside of Wikipedia and in a mainstream scientific journal. Only after your work has become accepted by part of the mainstream scinetific community would it have a place in Wikipedia. Note that this requirement is in place because we often have people coming by who wish to present novel but mistaken viewpoints here. --EMS | Talk 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point about publishing. The issue here though is only secondary about publishing. What doesn't seem to be understood here is that the paper written here is not a new theory. And, it is not an opinion. Instead, the math and description show an undeniable truth about Einstein making a factual error, and because of that the article for relativity is not TRUE science. And, the article as written in Wikipedia is stating relativity is truth in science. In truth since the error is now known, the situation is relativity isn't even a reliable theory anymore, and all because the undeniable math and science truths in the paper show the truth of the statement. The math and science in my written proof cannot be proven to be anything other than factual science. So, my writing doesn't need to be included in Wikipedia if that is the decision, but the undeniable truth is that Wikipedia will not have its credibility if it willfully describes information in it that is factually proven to be wrong. So, it's your choice. Either truth, or wrong descriptions. What you likely don't understand is that the written paper showing the math and logic is factually true, and cannot be disproven by even one scientist in the world. So again, either truth or leave the relativity lie just as it is. StevenCrum 3:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep Article meets all criteria of a good article, the objection, which seems to fall into a particular category from new editors here, notwithstanding. FeloniousMonk 20:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If there are issues to be discussed about the article's content or validity, it should be discussed on the article's talk page. The GA review is only concerning the GA status and deals with conformance to WP and GA policies and guidelines. Please take the discussion to the Special Relativity talk page. RelHistBuff 20:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Buff, GA's have to be factually accurate.... Homestarmy 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And, the factually accurate part is precisely the situation. Relativity is proven by the paper math and description to be factually wrong. The situation here is that the GA should be considered very strongly to be changed to something that is correct.StevenCrum 3:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep and speedy close - This person has not shown that this article fails to meet the GA criteria. Indeed this person's complaint is against the topic itself and its acceptance in the scientific community. It is not our job to rule on the "truth" of relativity. Instead, it is our job to document it as it is currently understood by the mainstream scientific community, and this article does that. --EMS | Talk 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The math and science description in the paper prove without any doubt at all that the error exists, so the proof is factually there. That proof is also unprovable to be anything less than the truth to every single sciencetist in the world. If truthful examination of the math and facts are completed, the facts of the proof will be confirmed.StevenCrum 4:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Although criterion 2 mentions the article has to be factually accurate, our judgment on that accuracy is based on solely on the individual criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d. What has been presented is a separate paper, possibly original research arguing against the article's accuracy. We (the GA project) have not been presented any arguments based on 2a-d. Therefore the GA status for the article should be retained until such arguments are presented here. In the meantime, StevenCrum should take his arguments to Talk:Special_relativity and convince the editors there if his material is relevant to the article or not. RelHistBuff 09:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will check 2a-d and present the information in the location you described. I haven't even seen 2a-d, but it should be good to note that no matter what is written there it still won't change the facts of relativity being proven false by Einstein's killing error. And, as soon as I write in the new location that will be seen fully. It shouldn't take more tahn about thirty minutes to get 2a-d described truthfully there. StevenCrum 4:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

HistBuff - I checked 2a-d and found the incredibly odd situation that something can comply with all four of the items listed and still be completely wrong as far as being truthfully "factually accurate". That is because the four item do NOT describe factually accurate as it exists in full truth, but instead just being assumed as accurate because of the sources it comes from, which is this case entirely. The source is wrong even if it complies with being a credible source. So, the 2a-d are the description of "accuracy" here, and that is fine, but there is no truth involved as far as real accuracy and truth. It's your choice and that is fine also, but I would think the standars would be higher here.StevenCrum 01:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is good reason for that. Wikipedia documents the current state of human knowledge, and the current state is of the opinion that relativity is correct. Steven's claim is brand new, unpublished, and not yet accepeted by science (if it even will be, which I strongly doubt). As such it is subject to the No original research policy, and should not be permitted to be a consideration as to whether the this article deserves GA status. --EMS | Talk 00:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There are three other "human knowledge" truths that also fit the description here, and the first is that at the beginning of the QA section is a location that had a statement about the MATHEMATICS was confirmed and had PASSED the test for accuracy before relativity was then considered true science. It is an undeniable fact in real math that the so-called passing in math did NOT occur. That was a failure of Wikipedia in finding the real math truth involved. And before you start denying the fact of my written article shows the factually true math and even a high school student can figure it out, it is still factual math TRUTH no matter if you have integrity enough to stand up for truth or not.

Number 2 is that Wikipedia also obviously from the above statement of yours, has the low-integrity level of just diplaying whatever the public wants to read INSTEAD of what is actually TRUTH. That is hypocritical and only shows the farcical so-called standards that don't actually exist. Your standards are nothing more than a sham.

Number 3 the math and science description I wrote is not original research in any way as you described and is instead ONLY shwoing your failure in your not being able to use the math in the first place to find the fault of relativity. It is pointing out your error and the FACT that the QA wasn't appropriate for relativity. THAT is NOT research and is precisely instead exactly what a QA review is all about. With your inability to have the integrity to understand or act on this factual truth that fully shows the full level of hypocrisy as well.

And, I have better things to do than mess around further with fully proven hypocrites. Wikipedia is nothing more than a pathetic disgrace for any kind of credibility at all, and you have proven that fact PERFECTLY.StevenCrum 00:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

StevenCrum, there are several things that you need to keep in mind that might help you understand our position and the reason we cannot include your findings. What you are proposing is Original Research, despite what you claim, and it doesn't matter if it's true or not, seriously, per the founder. WP has to protect itself and so we cannot be the first publisher of anything, period. If your findings are indeed basic, then you should have no trouble getting them published in a peer review journal. Then we'd be able to source it, etc. --plange 00:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Plange, how about I delete my written article and then your proclaimed situation of publishing is then all gone. The situation following that will THEN be the truthful one here, and that is that this QA discussion is NOT about publishing even one single thing. It is THEN all about WIKIPedia's failure to make a CORRECT math examination that shows relativity is WRONG in it's MATH. Math which Wikipedia is stai8ng here that the math check found relativity to be mathematically correct. IT IS NOT CORRECT, and this is FACT no matter how much you try to squirm around the dges of truth here. Tis discussion about TRUTH is now all about whether or not Wikipedia has any credibility at all, and the ethical professionalism to stand up and correct its own mistake. So, concider my written article gone and we will then see who are the hypocrites here. If you still don't see the factual truth about this would relativity have been incuded on Wikipedia IF it had FAILED the math checking? And, before you answer that question it is a FACT that it would have failed if the math check would have been done CORRECTLY and TRUTHFULLY. So, do you include articles on Wikipedia based on only what is popular and so everyone will think of you as just peachy, OR include them here because they are professionally truthful and correct? Make a choice, hypocrite or professional with credibility.StevenCrum 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, surely you must of realized that Wikipedia probably wouldn't be amazingly favorable of views which would effectively destroy a tremendous number of articles based on views that aren't even published? Homestarmy 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, obviously I did know that, but I would like to mention a few things that are truly pointed out by your extremely good point. And, that is that you likely don't know just how much science damage has been caused by the dead-end alley of relativity. Your reference to all the articles is only a small part of the total damage that has occurred. You see Homestarmy, I know a whole lot of science taht is factually above world-class physics and astrophysics, and all because the false relativity has led scientists into an incredibly ignorant, false-science direction. So yes, I do know what my article would cause, and I also know the true science situation that it is ignorant to keep going down a dead-end alley and butt heads in the solid brick wall of impossibility at the end INSTEAD of finding the truth in science and then going in the correct direction that leads to unimaginable true science that is light years beyond the errors that are being made now. Just an example is do you know that they don't even need to find water on Mars or anyother planet before going there? Oxygen either. I know the real science of how to change the dirt on any moon or planet into the lower density water and oxygen, and by the tons of both. I also know how the atom operates continuously and under their own self-operating power situation. Have you noticed atoms don't have little extension cords on them to make them run? And no, I am not deceiving myself in the slightest, and factually do know how their operation exists. The point of this is a motor that operates under the same science can then provide endless energy to make water and oxygen anywhere inside the universe. So, to answer your question, which is then better? - to continue in farcical and insane ignorance in science OR get it corrected and going right that then leads to unimaginable true science discoveries and advancement? So, the answer is whether people are going to remain totally ignorant or stand up like professionals in true intelligence and truth and get the ignorant slop changed to right. The ignorance has gone on for 101 years, now how much longer does it go on before it starts going in the factually true direction of correct science? If you still don't get this information, quantum mecghanics is all farcical and proven to be exactly taht, along with practically all of p-article physics, and 50 of the past Nobel Prizes were actually given out for BAD SCIENCE. This even includes three of the recent 2006 prizes, in physics, astrophysics and medicine. The medicine prize was given for gene silencing, whic actually kills a gene instead of just silencing, but what the developers of that method don't know is that it FACTUALLY causes a form of cancer to start that is not curable by any science method. Regualr cancer is curabble and that one is not. What they don't know is that two times out of three the gene gets "silenced", but when the gene is dead their gene killer is NOT. It then goes into other healthy cells and attaches to genes there. The point of this is that two out of three times it will keep on attaching to only the killing of the cells. The third time, which is inevitable, it will attach to the DNA "rung" instead of the "rail" as described above, and the rung attachment is the cancer direction. Once it attaches to the rung, the cell does NOT die and helicase cannot kill the attached object. The situation then is the tumor growth where all attached "objects" that cause the cancer are then replicated in every single cell that grows and divides each time. So, THIS is a truly good example of what happens when slop science like relativity is used instead of REAL science truth. So, all of this is an answer to your very good question. And, you would likely be amazed at hundreds of other real science things I know. One is how to instantly transport objects to Mars or any other planet, and even people. WITHOUT having to travel in space ships for numbers of years. And yes, there is real science that factually shows this to be truth in science. I also know how time travel factually exists and how to accomplish that either into the future or the past. So yes, I know exactly what my writing could have caused. Instead, it's the normal human ignorance of rejection of truth and hypocrisy. And no, I am not even SLIGHTLY surprised by the rejection of truth situation. I also knew THAT fully in advance also.StevenCrum 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the 50 Nobel Prizes is not a rough rounding to the number 50. It was factually 47 until the recent 2006 announced prizes. They nicely rounded it off to the total of 50. And, if you don't want to beleive the 50 - don't. It still doesn't change the truth of the 50 fact one single bit. Truth in real science doesn't depend on voting or any opinions other than what is factual science truth as it exists in reality.StevenCrum02:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Please see What Wikipedia is Not, and specifically WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought I think this will greatly help. I have no way of judging if the math is wrong, or even judging whether the math mistake necessarily dictates that his theory is wrong. Publish it somewhere reputable and then we can use it. Wikipedia is not the publisher of last resort for anyone. --plange 03:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

After writing this reply I am going to delete the article I wrote in my user space so we can finally get the EXCUSE publishing thing ended. The situation will THEN no longer be in the excuse area of publishing, in ANY resort. With that FACT then established and then getting back to the TRUTH that is still fully involved, the MATH cehck is still FACTUALLY the situation that relativity would have FACTUALLY been rejected in the math check IF the math check would have been done mathematically correct. THIS is NOT opinion at all, and the absolute fact situiation taht no mathematician on earth can deny the mathematics described in the article that I had written. So, you might not understand this UNDENIABLE MATH FACT, but in real scienec and math truth relativity is NOT a MAYBE it would have failed, but instead a COMPLETE FACT in that it absolutely would have failed the math check in real truth and math done correctly.

So again, you either stand up for credibility and truth as professionals having and maintaining those traits, or you don't. And, you can continue the obvious denial concerning the publishing excuse. An excuse that is going to be completely gone as soon as I get there in about twenty seconds to do the deleting. THEN, there is no such excuse and an easy out for you as far as the professional credibility problem, huh? Well, whether you understand the fcat or not, you don't deserve an easy excuse out, and factually because of your continued denial of the math checking and the simple situation that a high school science student would be intelligent enough to figure out. The obvious truth is you don't want to be seen as going against the Einstein slop EVEN IF it is obviously all a total lie. You want someone else to print that and then you can safely protect your butts in having it then printed here. So yes, I truly do understand what you are all about totally. It is also a solid, dead-on right fact that THAT your farcical math checking WASN'T done competently. As in failure on your part, and factually seen in truth to be precisely THAT. So, you can spout the endless publishing slop and remain being total hypocrites all you want. The truth of the matter is fully known in any case.

You FULLY deserve to have me tell the world all about "marvelously fantastic Wikipedia and how they are this paragon of incredibility in having such outstanding truths in their encyclopedia" when all the slop about Einstein fully comes out in front of the world soon now. I put that in quotes for sarcasm, and you FULLY deserve the exact opposite that is then the factually the truthful version. And, which would be complete justice as far as truth and integrity as well.StevenCrum 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Derivative

Given the rather long discussions we have had concerning math and physics articles, I would like to see improvement in the reviews of these articles. I hope I have done so with Hilbert space. Unfortunately, the review of Derivative is not a good review example. In my opinion, just by glancing at the article there are other issues to improve such as a better lead section and introduction section. It may deserve a GA, but in my opinion, we lose credibility with the math and physics authors if we give such "light-hearted" passes. I am interested in other opinions. RelHistBuff 13:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I felt the same way too, when I was reading the article's review. I've been watching this article, actually, giving the lengthly disscussion with "scientific" editors, but I waited for more experienced GA reviewer than me to judge it. I've been waiting to learn how to tell these editors about inline citations. However, the result dissapointed me. Worse that the reviewer did not say any words at all, but icons. Since when GA reviewing becomes icon voting? I think this is a good time to start again subpage GA review in an article talk page, isn't it? So passing/failing an article without proper review will result automatic renomination to the candidate page. Oh, for the article, I definitely want it to have inline citation, and per WP:WIAGA it has been said as a requirement. — Indon (reply) — 14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Although it is an oddly unspecific review, i've always felt that if an article actually is good, then its fine :/. I mean, we are all editors, we can offer suggestions to any article at any time. However, the internal citations are problematic, we need to decide once and for all whether we can really say thats its disputed or not during reviews. Homestarmy 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I concure that the review was a bit light. I'm not sure on broad in its coverage although there are links to other pages which address topics like history and generalisations in more depth.

As far as inline cites are concerned this is a case where they are absolutely bloody pointless. This material is covered in thousands of different books. All statements are verified by all the different reference works cited, indeed starting with the definitions the statements are verifiable by the reader using first principles. We serve the reader better by providing a variety on print and online references. Page references are useless, no understanding of the topic is gained by simply citing a result without the reader reading a hundred pages beforehand to put the result in context.

Maybe your process is broken - to award a status and immediatly take it away again - does not inspire others to have confidence in the system, (there are certainly elements of WikiProject maths who want nothing to do with the GA system). Perhaphs you need to eloborate on how to assess articles, the guidelines for assessors are very brief and AzaToth did as much as the guidelines suggest. Allowing single person reviews will always leed to inconsistancy. --Salix alba (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor point: GA reviews don't normally end up in immedietly taking away status. Besides, I looked up stuff on derivatives recently since we had a test on it, I know there's stuff out there that doesn't need page numbers on the internet. Homestarmy 15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to get away from focussing on citations. I am mainly concerned with GA credibility. Our job, IMO, is to help improve articles. The Derivative article really needed improvement and unfortunately the GA review did not help in that at all. To make up for this (and to close this issue), I will add some comments on the talk page later today. Salix alba has a good point. We do need better guidelines for GA assessors. However, I don't think the process is broken. It just needs to be improved. RelHistBuff 08:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I am bit disturbed that a GA reviewer would consider any part of the GA criteria "void" and not applicable to a review. This goes beyond "subjective interpretation" of any aspect of the criteria and sets a very bad precedent. In addition to the very valid points that RelHistBuff makes (and thankfully included on the article talk page), we do need to think about something that can be done to curb bad reviews. Agne 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter

It looks like someone has gotten into the article, especially the first part, and mucked it up---is it for real, or supposed to be funny or something? Sorry, I don't see how else to report it.

75.80.189.131 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just vandalism, it should be fine now. Homestarmy 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The sourcing of a lot of things in this article (other than the news stuff) is based on fan sites. This is acceptable, I guess if nothing else is available, but over the past few years a lot of serious scholarly papers have been written about the cultural and literary impact of Harry Potter. For instance, this is a good compilation of scholarly articles on the Harry Potter phenomenon, and a Google Scholar search turns up many more. Hence, this article fails WP:RS, and thus Good Article criteria 2c. Borisblue 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify "a lot of things." TonyJoe 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire "themes and motifs" section. At present, they draw on primary sources (the books themselves) when there exists a lot of reliable secondary-source papers studying the themes of the book. There is a paragraph about "prejudice" which is uncited, which shouldn't be, since there is material covering that theme in scholarly literature. Borisblue 18:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thunderstorm

In my opinion this article fails WP:WIAGA criteria 3a (it addresses all major aspects of the topic). Alot more could be added about the topic such as how they are detected and possibly a section on how thunder storms affet cities and people. Would anyone else agree? --Tarret 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it does appear to be missing important aspects like the one's you point out, unless of course its trying to say the only way we detect them is when storm chasers go after them in the midwest....(which is wrong). Homestarmy 01:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the detection area is probably the most glaring ommission. I'm also curious for more details on why areas like Midwest (and other areas of the world) are more prone to thunderstorms then others. I would support de-listing it until more info on the subject could be fleshed out. Agne 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Technomancer Press

Is this article up to our standards? I think it is a borderline case, with few references, a heavy focus on products rather than the company and a comparitively long discussion of the company's criticism of the D20 system. All the recent discussion about quality made me decide to err on the side of caution and list it for review. Cedars 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the one reviewing the article. I know what you mean but after having looked around a bit (Internet, books & Games manual), I agree with the editor that the article can't really have more material in there (the publisher only started in 2005). All that was added before and all that the editor and I talked about adding was superfluous or non-notable for the article's broadness. I think that for now, it might not meet brilliant prose (it isn't required anyway), but it is still decent. It reminds me of the planetoid articles. Lincher 01:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To me its mainly an advertisement for the various products. I also wouldn't say that its "broad in its coverage", it has a history section that can be expanded alot. Tarret 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know such a subject? If so, lead me to references, I will bring the article up to par. I have searched for such references but haven't found any. Lincher 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Added in the history department. Lincher 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Does it look ok now? Lincher 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the expanded History section. Is there anything that can be done to flesh out the Business Model section? Agne 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me more details as to what you want to see in there as this is a somewhat new company and it doesn't really have much to say. Lincher 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, after looking on Google to see what kind of info that there could be I agree that there is not much to say here. When I first commented, I was mostly curious if there was a "Walmart influence" or model type that maybe they were trying to follow giving the similarity in their goals and the slogan they adapted. Agne 13:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)