Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:04, 8 December 2007

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/backlog

• WP:GAR
• WP:GA/R

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
   • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
   • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
   • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
     • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
     • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
     • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)

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

Morocco

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Similar to the article below, citations are needed in:

• Culture - no citation

Although other sections have citations (e.g. 1 or up to 2 citations), they are still extremely weak.

It seems to me these sections didn't write down anything (then why not put them to the list of " See also"?):

• Military
• Technology
• Universities
• Sports

These sections needed to be removed or re-write rather than simply putting the tables or list:

• Affliations
• Bilateral and multilateral agreements

References didn't follow MoS. e.g. 8-12 16-22. Coloane (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article needs more citations before putting back on the GA list.

• The section of Geography - no citation is given
• The section of Ecology - no citation is given
• The section of Economy - no citation is given
• The section of Land tenure - no citation is given
• The section of Sport - no citation is given
• The section of Religion - no citation is given

These sections do need to provide more information in order to become more comprehensive:

• The section of Geography
• The section of Culture
• The section of Transport - only couple sentenses were given.

Actually they are still in a rudimentary stage and poorly organized.

The section of demographics is pretty vague. Can the editor(s) provide clear ethnics percentages (stats. or figures) that is composing the general population of Papua New Guinea? Coloane (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delist Article was passed back in mid-2006 before current standards of required inline citations. This article could even be boldly delisted for the reasons listed above. It's for articles like these that I'm glad we're doing sweeps. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Force

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was quickfailed recently for lack of citations, but the nominator reverted the fail template and the GAN page removal. It was then placed on hold for dubious reasons, and the nominator left a message on the GAN talk page. However, some references have been added, and assuming good faith regarding the reversions I think we can treat this as a disputed quick-fail... hence GAR. EyeSerene 10:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. I don't believe that this article should have been quick-failed. Although there are maybe still a few issues with it, including use of citations, none of them seem to be show-stoppers. But quick-failing on a general rule such as that at a minimum every paragraph must have a citation in an article like this one was inappropriate, and the result now looks faintly absurd. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. In its current form the article should not quick-fail. Majoreditor (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Carnivàle

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I disagree with the fail (Talk:Characters_of_Carnivàle#failed_GA) in both points.

1. The fatal flaw here is the extensive problems with WP:INUNIVERSE - If you look at e.g. the recently FA-promoted Characters of Kingdom Hearts, you see that character sections are summaries for what happened with the characters (i.e. bios). The bios of the drafts were rarely addressed in the show, so I summarized them for creation&development of the character. It's not my fault that these draft bios read like "bio of a real person"; all I could do was label the sources in an out-of-universe-tone in the text ("in his original biography"), and so I did. I kept the re-iteration of what happened in the show to a minimum (a few sentence to one short paragraph), more than what other GA and FA character lists (or articles) usually do. There were 18 main characters who competed in plot attention and also in press/media attention, with thin media coverage as a result, so I summarized real-world information in separate yet in-depth sections for Casting, Make-up and costumes, and Reception at the end of the article. I already tried to present the information like the GA reviewer likely had wanted once before, but attaching two real-world-content sentences without context at the end of each character section is just plain ugly.
2. The references - what's wrong? It's the creator of the show posting online (because that's what he did... mostly) and the show creator and actors in interviews that are hosted in blogs (because the interviewer was a fan in out-of-proportion-good contact with the creators and some actors, and she happened to publish her couple of dozens interviews in her blogs... before she organized a major fan convention that many show creators and actors attended). The show creator and the actors are reliable sources, no matter where they commented, and I would have used other/better sources if any were actually available (e.g. there were no companion books for this short-run show, there were only few DVD extras, and the media mostly focused on the show's convoluted mythology and inaccessability instead of the characters). In FAC, this would be called "non-actionable opposition".

I wouldn't mind a hold, but failing is IMO completely inappropriate. – sgeureka 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I hope this isn't gonna sound nasty... but... I hate to say this, but as time goes on I'm becoming less and less (and even less) impressed with arguments based on comparisons to an existing FA article, and in particular a recently-promoted one. Everyone gripes about GA being broken... well, welcome to FA, which is broken as well. Due to a lack of knowledgeable reviewers, articles can be (and are) passed on the strength of fan-club votes. I haven't delved into the names of the reviewers of FA offered as an argument above (and probably shouldn't). I'm only trying to say this: Show me a substantive argument that sets aside my concerns about WP:INUNIVERSE. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you present the content of a given biography, if not by saying, "in his original biography" and then summarizing the biography? And, as I stated above, I chose the format BIO-BIO-...-BIO-BIO-OOU-OOU...-OOU-OOU (out-of-universe) instead of BIO-OOU-BIO-OOU...BIO-OOU-BIO-OOU because it makes for a better article flow instead of a choppy mess. I feel the article violates nothing in WP:INUNIVERSE#Contextual presentation. There are also no WP:INUNIVERSE#Notability and undue weight problems. There is currently no GA list article for TV show characters (forget FAs), so it's not like there are some set precendents that I could follow, and I could only draw from FA and GA video game character lists. This article is about the characters (obviously), so I can safely skip the "X is a fictional character in Carnivàle" bit for each character section. If you feel like

Samson

• Played by Michael J. Anderson (Seasons 1–2 main cast)

Samson, in earlier drafts also called Edgar Leiber or Edgar Leonhardt, is the dwarf co-manager of the Carnivàle. Per his original biography, blablabla... At the beginning of the series, blablabla...

should be written like

Samson

Samson is the dwarf co-manager of the Carnivàle. He was played by Michael J. Anderson in seasons 1 and 2 as a main character. Earlier drafts gave his full name as Edgar Leiber or Edgar Leonhardt. His original biography gave his background as blablabla... At the beginning of the series, blablabla...

then I consider that a personal preference of limited practicability because it makes it harder for the reader to find the actors' name, the durance of the character, and avoiding spoilers (a major issue with this show). If this doesn't convince you, I could do a rewrite in four hours. A Hold however would give me time until next Wednesday. If you want to anticipate fan-clubbish behaviour by Failing except for Holding, I'll point you to the Carnivàle FAC which actually suffered from a lack of fan-club votes. – sgeureka 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• (Note by) All character section have been tweaked/rewritten. I left a note at Ling.Nut's talkpage. – sgeureka 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse promote Or whatever the commonly accepted terminology is these days. :-) The editor has sufficiently addressed my in-universe concerns. I acknowledge that I made a mistake failing this article rather than putting it on Hold, but the mistake was an honest one: I simply thought it would take much more time to address the in-universe issues than it did. As for the weakness of the sources, I searched Google Scholar and Academic Search Premier (didn't do JSTOR; probably should have) and came with very meager pickings. This is simply the nature of the beast when working with pop culture topics. I suggest this should be promoted to GA. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Promoted - Very good article, fulfills the requirements of verification, and notability for fiction. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Close discussion. The reviewer, Ling.Nut has recommended promotion of the improved article (and I agree with him). I leave it to him to archive this discussion and promote the article. There has been no objection at GAR, and further messages of support are unnecessary. Geometry guy 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Disagree with decision not to list this as a good article, as per comments at Talk:Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)#Good article nomination (2). Chrisieboy 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

York Museum Gardens

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Someone promoted the article while I was reviewing it; totally my fault as I suffered immense delays. However, now I've reviewed the article, I've come to the conclusion it contains too much repetitive language (i.e. "dates back to the"). The article also suffers from bad grammar. There's so much of it, that I can't correct it all in one go. Even if I could, some of the sentences have an ambiguous meaning. The article also has some statements that while I expect they're sourced, said source isn't next to the sentence in question (and not at the end of the paragraph either). I believe this article should be delisted until it has been copyedited. -- Mgm| 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

*Delist. I agree that this article ought not to have been promoted, and it is seriously in need of a thorough copyedit before it could be considered to be well-written. I've started to make corrections to it, but there are a lot still required, as Mgm suggested. I don't see anything major though, so it's quite possible that everything will be fixed before this nomination is closed, in which case I'll strike my delist and support it.--Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that just about enough work has been done on this article now to warrant its GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice work Malleus. I was going to call in Lara, but you've done the business. Geometry guy 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just hate to see articles that are obviously loved fail GA. But in all fairness I can't take the credit if this article manages to keep its GA listing. User:PamD put in a lot of work as well; I suspect that she may be a Yorkshire lass. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As per the message left on the article's talk page, I believe the sections "The Holocaust" and "Raoul Wallenberg's mission neither manage to stay on topic nor cover their subject in a neutral fashion. I think the article does not merit GA status.–Joke 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It will take me some time to carefully review the article, but my first impression is that it's a borderline case. In its current form I would lean toward failing it because:

• The introduction is clipped and needs further development, per WP:LEAD.
• The section titled "Raoul Wallenberg's mission" is far too long, lacks citations for key facts and needs a proper copy edit and prose refresh.

Perhaps someone can spruce up the article. Majoreditor 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less and less I think that the article can be in any sense described as "borderline". The major contributor to the article, Attila Lajos, is someone who wrote a PhD thesis trying to reinterpret Wallenberg's story . That's fine – it's great to have subject matter experts contributing to an article – but certainly if his point of view is to be represented, it has to be done as a contrast to the many other sources (on the internet and elsewhere) that tell an entirely different story. That story has been systematically removed from the article, although it was visible in the article before Attila started editing . I am going to summarily delist, it is in no sense a "good article." –Joke 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Japan

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Broad coverage & reliable sources: The article as it stands omits an extensive amount of news coverage and academic literature regarding controversy surrounding the 1999 law regarding adopting the Hinomaru (Rising Sun) as the national flag.. A school principal committed suicide & many teachers brought (ultimately unsuccessful) lawsuits against the government after the gov't ordered all school teachers etc. to fly the flag & sing the national anthem. There are also inaccuracies regarding the flag chosen to represent the period of the Allied Occupation — that flag is a naval ensign, not a national flag. There was no national flag from 1885 until 1999. Finally, the sources used are of questionable reliability & at least one key source is in Japanese. I would be happy to retract this GAR if dedicated editors would add the requisite info & references, but I'm afraid it will take more than a week to do so..Ling.Nut 12:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Notification left on article's talk and on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan. -- Ling.Nut 13:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ling.Nut. The article omits the controversial aspect of the flag. It's not just about the law mentioned by him, but, for example, the use of the flag in a graduation ceremony. While the article is lengthy, it is, in essence, a mere stub. -- Taku 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with most of what Ling.Nut writes, having a major source in Japanese is NOT a reason to delist an article. ···日本穣 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Hi Nihonjoe, thanks for the comment. Certainly a non-English link is not in itself a reason to delist the GA, but it is another facet that needs to be improved if at all possible. The two main points for this GAR are "broadness" and "reliable sources." I question the reliability of the the English-language websites used as primary sources. And even if those are argued to be reliable, the lack of braoadness alone is cause enough for great concern (plus delisting, in my opinion). Ling.Nut 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on the controversy of the national flag and dissected parts of the post-war flag section. I clearly stated in the article that it is just a civilian ensign (I had it before, but I guess I needed to make it bolder) and added some Japanese links as references. Honestly, if more Japanese links are needed, just tell me what good ones are and I will include them. User:Zscout370 20:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also began to phase out some of the FOTW links in favor of links to Japanese Government based websites. User:Zscout370 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Analytical Marxism

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article doesn't appear to meet criteria 2a and 2b. Sections such as "Justice and Power" and "Denoument" have no in-line citations. For example, statements such as "Most of its practitioners agreed that the Marxism that in the beginning they had set out to interrogate and, to an extent, defend, was not theoretically or politically defensible" lack any cites. Additionally, all of article's in-line citations lack page references. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist This has been a GA since Dec. '05; things have changed. I think it simply got a GA tag slapped on it... didn't check GAC.. not sure if GAC even existed then... It does have good content but needs a rewrite in the new GA zeitgeist. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist. Because of the paucity of citations and the use of weasel words. "Many Marxists would argue ..." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. I reviewed the article last week and left the article on hold for a week to address the issues I raised here concerning inline citations, but none were added. There are other statements that could be sourced as well, but I believe the statements I mentioned should at least be sourced. I don't know if this is just my obsessive desire for more referencing within articles (see Battle of France below), so I need alternate opinions on the status of the article. Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only a small way into the article, but am already finding exactly the same kind of sensational language (i.e., matters of opinion) unsupported by citations as I found in Battle of France. Example: "More shocking to the German pilots was the newer Spitfire Mk I, which was quickly recognised as a nimble, world-class fighter." By whom? And who says the German pilots were shocked? I notice that you mostly focus on uncited facts in your analysis, but it is the opinions that really need inline citation in my view: facts can be supported more easily by general sources. Anyway, I suggest you follow your instincts and continue the delisting process that you started. There's no need for a GAR on this in my view. Geometry guy 20:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist Again, this smells a bit like a GA in places, but many statements are uncited, including statistics and expressions of opinion; some sections lack any citation at all. It doesn't need a WHOLE lot of work, but it is still not GA in its current state. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hey Nehrams, good work on all the sweeps. I won't post a hopelessly distracting beer image here, but here's a link: Image:Lager beer in glass.jpg. :-) Hey, have you been posting at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history about any GAR's and delistings in this area? Those people are (sometimes) good about getting on top of problems like these.... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of the project/task forces when the article was on hold, but I didn't mention the GARs, so I'll do that right now. Thanks for the heads up. By the way, thanks for the picture, because I can't drink the actual thing for another six months! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Pikachu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Speedy delisted with no notice on talk page, and edit summary of "lacks real world information". However, unlike most pokemon articles, this particular one does seem to have information about the real world, in the cultural impact section. Most of the article seems referenced, though a few of the links might be questionable. I'm on the fence about this because some of the references I just don't know about, but one thing I do know is that this article definently has real world information in it. Homestarmy (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - does the real-world content in this article meet the updated WP:FICT? -Malkinann (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated? Man, nobody tells me these things anymore.... Homestarmy (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But to answer the question, it does seem notable per that guideline, a float appeared in a Macy's day parade, and there's something about a plane. Of course, that's the first time i've read the "updated" WP:FICT, so I might not be understanding it right... Homestarmy (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or it might have been WP:WAF - I forget which one, but one of the fiction guidelines has been made more stringent of late. I note that the "biological characteristics" section is still very in-universe.-Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - lede needs additional sourcing to support assertions about the character's notoriety and status as mascot and the source of the name. Sex differences in the bio-characteristics section needs a source. If there must be a pop culture section then the bit about the first balloon being retired and the new balloon need sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that "pop culture sections" are supposed to show the cultural impact/influence of Pikachu, and that's supposed to be the "meat" of the notability of the article?? -Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, it would be nice if that's what they were used for, wouldn't it? But that's a conversation for another day... Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. Doesn't show the notoriety of the character, and written in a very in-universe style for the "Biological characteristics" section. bibliomaniac15 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist until Sweeps come and do a detailed review. Read the whole article, and you'll see that it does relate to real-world (such as trading card game, parade mascot). Even an airplane featured pikachu (Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg, so do you think it's important? OhanaUnited 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohana, this is the detailed review. The main problem is that text itself isn't hugely convincing. I know that puff phrases aren't allowed, but have you tried Google Scholar? As Pikachu featured in the anime there might be a few sources out there that examine Pikachu in particular. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dante's Cove

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

Listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

GA was failed claiming that the episode summary section violated WP:OR. While it appears that WP:WAF allows for the use of the episodes themselves to write summaries as long as the summaries are factual and not a synthesis, the reviewing editor disagreed, stating that WAF is "a controversial element of policy that may or may not have consensus." Regardless, per his direction I relocated the episode summaries to a sub-page but now the reviewing editor is on break for the next week. I'm hoping since the summaries were the only objection that the article can be listed quickly. Otto4711 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will get a quick answer here: just renominate, and archive this discussion when you do. Geometry guy 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest we 'promote - I'd rather just have discussion here, and not in two places. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman (1989 film)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I'm doubting this statusdue to the following concerns:

1. The lead section is far too sparse to be a concise overview of the article.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Plot section is too long.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I will get to work on the other three problems.

1. The non-free images in the article besides the identifying image have insufficient fair use rationales.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Box office performance section is too sparse to warrant its own section.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no Critical reaction section from independent perspectives to comment on the film.

Hopefully these concerns can be addressed. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist especially per a lack of rationales for fair use and a critical reaction section. Very poor article. VanTucky 19:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman Forever

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was concerned to see that an editor who has only been editing since November 3, 2007 passed this as a Good Article. These are the following issues:

1. Non-free images in the article besides the identifying poster image lack sufficient fair use rationale.

Done I'll get to work on the other two improvements later. Wildroot 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The "Critical analysis" section barely has any reviewers talking about the film. A lot of the content is from people involved with the film itself. It would be appropriate to have more independent perspectives -- see Road to Perdition#Reception for such a section.

Done I think you should see for yourself. I wrote it in the same format/style that you wrote in Road to Perdition#Reception. The reason why I included quotes from Schumacher were because of his reaction towards the reviews, so to speak. Now, I'm just trying my best to find those articles you listed. They are of course hard to find, but I did purchase two magazines off EBAY with a total of three dollars each. They were original published material specifically from Warner Brothers. I'm going to see what I can dig up, catch you later. Wildroot 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Purely online sources are not sufficient for shaping an article's content. Take a look at User:Erik/Batman Forever for many sources that should be used in the article. Even Good Articles require some research beyond what's accessible via Google.

Hopefully, these improvements can be made. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I make no comments other than to refute the above single claim; that online sources alone are not sufficient. There are many online sources that are reliable enough to pass WP:RS. If individual online sources used by the article are not reliable, please note which references need replacing. However, one cannot summarily reject all online references as inherently unreliable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Denmark

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I think this article should be reassessed before putting on the list of GA at the moment. Very weak citation:

• 1) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Pre-Christian Denmark.
• 2) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Medieval Denmark.
• 3) Only one citation can be found in the paragraph of Recent history.
• 4) Only one citation can be found in the section of politics.
• 5) some statements in the section of economy need citations:
  • The government has met the economic convergence criteria for participating in the third phase (the common European currency - the Euro) of the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU), but Denmark, in a September 2000 referendum, rejected The Monetary Union.
  • In the area of sickness and unemployment, the right to benefit is always dependent on former employment and at times also on membership of an unemployment fund, which is almost always -but need not be- administered by a trade union, and the previous payment of contributions. However, the largest share of the financing is still carried by the central government and is financed from general taxation, and only to a minor degree from earmarked contributions.
  • The Danish welfare model is accompanied by a taxation system that is both broad based (25% VAT and excise) and with high income tax rates (minimum tax rate for adults is 39.6%).
  • Denmark is home to many well known multi-national companies, among them: A.P. Moller-Maersk Group (Maersk - international shipping), Lego (children's toys), Bang & Olufsen (hi-fi equipment), Carlsberg (beer), and the pharmaceutical companies Lundbeck and Novo Nordisk.
• 6) No citation AT ALL in the section of transport.
• 7) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Cinema of Denmark.
• 8) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish sport.
• 9) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish Food AT ALL.

Several sections need more information:

• Transport
• Religion
• Military

Many references seems not to follow the format of reference (MoS).

• 1
• 14(?)
• 23
• 32-34
• 40-42

No English sources AT ALL provided in the section reference, only Danish and Swedish were given. How about See also?? Coloane 05:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delist I guess it could use some more citations for a few surprising/contentious facts, but in general it seems ok. A paragraph-by-paragraph run-down seems like overkill though: there's no rule that says every paragraph should have a citation. The citations are also poorly formatted, and a few sections are choppy/short. Definitely close to GA, except for those few issues. Drewcifer 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per the nomination. I agree that citation is a problem here, but there are also other formatting discrepencies with mid-prose external links and images. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Several sections, particularly those on history, need references. Statements such as "It is believed that Denmark became Christian to prevent invasion by the rising Holy Roman Empire in Germania which was a constitution by Charlemagne, that made Harald Bluetooth build six fortresses around Denmark..." need in-line citations. With some work this article can be a great GA-class work. Majoreditor (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per referencing and citation problems. VanTucky 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Call of Duty 2

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As I see it, fails the 'broad in coverage aspect', giving only a brief bit about anything besides gameplay and plot. The lead reflects this lack of information- it talks about mobile phone versions, but I haven't seen anything in the article about it. David Fuchs 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Woah, I guess I was biased in looking at it when I wrote it...anyways, I'll go add to the reception (etc.) sections now. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I added a bit about the mobile version. --Mika1h (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. Although multiple sources have been added since the last recommendation to include them, I don't believe it to be sufficient for the length of the article. Nehrams2020 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Much of the article is well-referenced; I count a total of 62 in-line citations. However, two sections lack any citations. The Prelude section would be stronger if it contained a citation on Hitler's peace overtures. The section on Dyle Plan also needs citations. Majoreditor 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the casualties section (which deals with hard numbers) had inline citations for the figures, i'd say this article would be well-referenced overall, neither unferenced section seems critically important, and there are general references at the bottom which probably cover some or most of the material in those sections. Homestarmy (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist It is not the number of citations that matters, but how they are used. Most of the citations here are to specific pages to support specific facts, but which facts get citations seems to be a bit of a lottery. Ironically, one of the few examples of multi-page citation (footnote 45) seems to support only a quotation (probably it is supporting the whole paragraph). The article might benefit from some general cites to its sources to support paragraphs containing uncontroversial material such as "Because of a low birthrate that had even further declined during the First World War, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to the total population — which furthermore was only half of that of Germany." On the other hand, there are also matters of opinion that really need specific citations which do not have them. One example is the section on "Allied reaction", which is full of such unsourced opinion statements. In the next subsection, there is also the assertion that "The Allies seemed incapable of coping with events." which surely needs a source. Geometry guy 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tofu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was found during sweep process. It carries a lot of information, but I feel that it's a little too much (per criteria 3b). The references are not uniform. Also, trivia section was found. It definetely doesn't deserve a bold delist, so I want others' opinions. OhanaUnited 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It clearly does not meet WP:LEAD at the moment. Although this doesn't deserve a bold delist, it might be appropriate to use a regular delisting procedure, as described in the guidelines at the top of this page: i.e., list your concerns on the talk page, maybe try to fix some of them, wait a week or so, and if the article still does not meet the criteria, delist it. Geometry guy 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Yes, the lead is definently too short, it can't possibly be summarizing most of the article. Homestarmy (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist lead is too short for an article this long. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
• Comment - I've expanded the lead, how does the lead look now? -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  Better! I've done a copyedit and some reordering. I suggest reviewers take another look at the article. Geometry guy 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I am not personally involved in the article, and am actually not sure whether the article should be delisted or not. However, one user has delisted the article without giving any time for concerns to be addressed, and I think it is much better that a consensus be reached (especially as it is not 100% clear this article should be delisted). Some of the concerns can be found at Talk:Opus Dei#Delisted the article as GA. Shudde 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the GA list. I honestly don't see the POV problems the delister is complaining about. The article is comprehensive, indeed an excellent overview of the subject, and it DOES present both well publicized positive and negative perceptions of the organization. The sources are approrpriately used; it cites both secondary and primary sources as approrpriate. While I would agree that for obvious cases, it is quite allowable for an article to be delisted without discussion, this was right to be brought here. I see no major issues with this article as it stands now. Indeed, I would recomend an FA run in the future. This seems quite close to meeting the requirements of an FA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. I do think that there's a neutrality issue with this article, as noted by the editor who pre-emptorily delisted it. I'm particularly concerned about the Replies to criticism section. If whatever's important in that section was distributed elsewhere in the body of the article then I might be persuaded to change my mind, but as it stands it does look a bit like "set 'em up and shoot 'em down". --Malleus Fatuarum 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the article meets GA criteria and is well-balanced. I'd prefer to see the criticism and the rebuttal integrated into, rather segregated from, the rest of the article -- but that certainly isn't grounds for de-listing. Majoreditor 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Well this is a first Of all the articles I have ever read and come away knowing no more than before I began, this is by far the longest and most meticulously documented. I lean toward Delist, because I have no idea why O.D. is so powerful, and the criticisms were glossed over in a hurry. Please feel free to persuade me to Keep... --Ling.Nut 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are definately some problems with the article. The introduction is very choppy and should be smoothed out. I saw a lot of criticism of O.D. throughout the article. The controversy section used a lot of weasel words (name critics and supporters.) The controversy section was also where the article was its weakest. The criticism section should be strengthened, while the rebuttal section should be shortened. But overall, I thought the article is clearly a Good Article. I do not, however, agree with Jayron in thinking that it is "quite close" to becoming an FA. Too many sections where the prose wasn't quite there.Balloonman 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nowhere near FA; still very questionable on GA. I think it's a diligently created puff piece, frankly. Glossed over everything. To repeat, I learned nothing except what I could have learned if I had bothered to find some pamphlet in some Catholic library somewhere or other. --Ling.Nut 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Diligently created puff piece would be a good summary of my opinion of the article as well. Nowhere near FA, and very dubious for GA. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I shall have to remember "Diligently created puff piece" as a possible GAR recommendation! Although I have seen worse, I would have to agree. I read through the article, trying to imagine I'd never heard of the topic. By the time I reached the "Controversy" section, I was thinking "How dare they criticise such a wonderful organisation! Okay, some of its members may have strange personal practices, but look at all the good work they do."

Controversy sections are not a great idea at the best of times: when they are of the form "Criticism - Rebuttal" they are particularly unhelpful at achieving NPOV. This is yet another article (cf. Freemasonry) which is written from the internal point of view of an organization that feels more widely misunderstood. Consequently, it fails to achieve a neutral tone: where criticism is discussed, the article is defensive, and uses loaded words and sentences. Words not avoided include "claim", "point out", "although", "despite", "report", "allege", "maintain", and "contend". Also, although "while" is not mentioned at WP:WTA, it is misused in several places, including a particularly flagrant abuse in the lead no less. As a result, the lead clearly fails to summarize the article, with all of the controversy swept under the carpet in that loaded sentence.

After my own review, I went to the talk page to read the case for delisting made by Jaimehy. While I cannot verify some of the individual points made, I tend to agree overall with the analysis there.

WP:NPOV is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood of Misplaced Pages policies. I have said this here many times before: NPOV is not primarily achieved via a contest between pro- and anti- viewpoints, it is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the entire article from a neutral perspective. There is a beautiful and eloquent description of this by Gosgood in my talk archives.

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article, but I cannot support the continued GA listing of an article which is riddled with sentences like "Despite his praise, the relationship between Paul VI and Opus Dei has been described by one Opus Dei critic as "stormy"." Delist. Geometry guy 14:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies I apologise sincerely for preemptorily delisting this article. In my astonishment that it should have been listed in the first place, I didn't stop to understand the accepted procedure. However, given that the article is, on the one hand, very important in its category and, on the other, astoundingly misleading, incomplete and biased that it should be urgently delisted. In tone and content, it is exactly the description of Opus Dei would have made of itself. Considering the controversial nature of the organisation, it is very inappropriate that this should be the case. Please delist as soon as possible Jaimehy (talk)

• Keep. I agree with those who voted "keep" based on GA criteria. I believe this piece follows actual Misplaced Pages statements on NPOV: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." The word "proportionately," I believe, is more often than not forgotten when WP:NPOV is discussed. This word goes with another word "expert" that is also usually missed: "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." John Allen, Jr. and Vittorio Messori are highly respected professional journalists and are not Opus Dei members. Marax (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply This sort of argument from authority has no place in Misplaced Pages. Besides, while John Allen and Vittorio Messori are both highly respected journalists, they are prominent apologists for a variety of flavours of Roman Catholic conservatism. Extraordinarily, even the mild criticisms of John Allen fail to be addressed in the article. Delist urgently Jaimehy (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Jaime, arm-waving comments such as Delist urgently aren't going to help you reach consensus. Calm, civil discussion works best. Majoreditor (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is good advice. Note that Jaime is relatively new to WP, so we need to allow a bit of slack per WP:BITE. In any case, it is the substance of the argument that is important, and no one has addressed the issues, for example, that I raised above. Geometry guy 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reply. Even if the article does represent all significant views fairly and proportionately (which I very much doubt), this only means it satisfies part of the neutral point of view policy (described mainly by WP:UNDUE). The NPOV policy requires that articles are written from a neutral perspective. The clue is in the name of the policy. Representing all significant views fairly and proportionately is but a part of that (otherwise the policy would be called ASPOVFP). As for the criteria, I see no counterargument to my assertion that it also fails 1b (via WP:LEAD and WP:WTA), although I am pleased to see that both Jaimehy and Marax are making efforts to improve the article. Geometry guy 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps they can take a crack at re-phrasing the "while" in the lead. Majoreditor (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but one of the reasons that the good article criteria flag up WP:WTA is that it is a strong indication that an article has not been written from a neutral perspective (which, as WP:NPOV boldly declares, is "non-negotiable"). So fixing the "words to avoid" alone is unlikely to solve the problem. The article needs quite a bit of rewriting, and then the lead will need to be rewritten to summarize the article. I've usually found it is pointless to fiddle with the lead until the article is in good shape. Geometry guy 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. The WTA you mentioned were placed there by Alecmconroy who did a major rewrite (see here please). You might want to look at his his user page. He has been suspected of being an atheist and a Jesuit. He was suspected by a pro-Opus Dei editor of planting a number of straw men arguments (see here) so as to put Opus Dei down. I believe Alecmconroy did a good job in structuring the article so as to include a lengthy coverage of criticisms. I also believe much of Jaimehy's concerns are covered by that generous section and other criticisms found throughout the article. While the section can be improved, I have not seen another article with such generous coverage of criticisms. I do believe Alecmconroy’s use of WTA was balanced. Those words were placed strategically on both sides of the dispute. Balance has always been his main concern. However, in deference to clear Misplaced Pages consensus on WTA, I am helping bring back the "he state", "he said" and "he wrote" that was in an older version before the major revision by Alecmconroy. All this is to show you that great efforts were expended by editors here to write the article from a neutral perspective. Marax (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome for the comments, and thanks for the fascinating answer. First you pin the article's problems on an editor and report vague accusations about him, questioning his good faith (excuse the pun). Then you say that you believe he did a good job. Then you suggest that you are helping to undo his edits in deference to consensus on WTA.

Let's unpick that a little. First, the religion of an editor is irrelevant: what matters is the quality of their edits. Second, I can see that Alecmconroy inserted several "claims" for the criticism he added, but the two oldid's given in your link do not support the idea that Alecmconroy is responsible for the words to avoid, loaded sentences, and lack of neutrality in the current article. The pre-Alecmconroy oldid contains plenty of words to avoid and loaded sentences, while many of the problems I noticed with the current text cannot be found in the post-Alecmconroy oldid.

It would be rather odd if the article's bias towards an internal Opus Dei and/or Catholic point of view were directly caused by an editor adding external criticism, especially given your accusation that this editor was hostile to Opus Dei. Instead there seems to have been a defensive response to the added criticism.

Neutral point of view is not primarily achieved by being "generous" in the coverage of criticisms, it is achieved by writing the entire article from a neutral perspective (how many times do I have to say this?). And if you have not seen as "generous" an article, I recommend Homeopathy and Parapsychology. Geometry guy 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Parapsychology article you draw attention to is an excellent example of writing about a potentially controversial subject from a neutral POV. No matter how good the rest of this Opus Dei article was, the mere presence of a Replies to criticism section gives the game away. There is absolutely no question in my mind that it is not written from a NPOV and ought to be delisted as a consequence. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying further the problem you see -- the replies to criticism, and for bringing up two examples of neutral writing. These examples, I believe, strengthen my previous point about proportionality and expertise. With regard to homeopathy and parapsychology, the majority of experts or neutral writers about the field find the criticisms valid. In the case of Opus Dei, the majority of third party experts who have studied it have concluded that the criticisms are not valid, they are myths.

In deference to the fact that the findings of these experts on Opus Dei have not cascaded down to the majority of readers, unlike those of the experts on homeopathy and parapsychology, the replies to criticism section is almost the same length as the criticism section. In fact, if we are to follow the logic of proportionality and expertise on homeopathy and parapsychology, this article would have to be re-written to provide more space to the replies to criticism so as to explain Opus Dei further according to Misplaced Pages standards of WP:RS.

John Allen, Jr.'s book was published in 2005 and was said to be "widely considered as the definitive book on Opus Dei", and was praised by Opus Dei critics. John Allen, Jr. is CNN Vatican analyst (once described as "maddeningly objective") and his independent work agrees with the findings of other investigators, e.g. Vittorio Messori and Patrice de Plunkett.

I hope I was able to understand your position well and reply accordingly, if not I'll be glad to know your position better. Marax (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my view that a Replies to criticism section is completely inappropriate, unless you also have a Replies to replies to criticism section, and a Replies to replies to replies to ... section. It appears to be apologists having the last word. You present the case, you present the criticism. You don't then try to refute that criticism. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem then is how to include the findings of studies done by reputable writers such as CNN's Vatican analyst, John Allen, and an encyclopedist of religion, Massimo Introvigne. In the article on parapsychology, there is a whole section with three subsections containing the findings of objective studies on the topic. The research findings of Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Plunkett, et al are worthy of a serious encyclopedia, and perhaps even worthier than the scientific criticism of parapsychology. I believe this matter has to be addressed squarely. Marax (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuarum, I've thought a lot about your suggestion of moving out the replies to another spot. I've attempted to do it mentally but was not satisfied with the results. I believe that (1) it is difficult to write about replies to criticism in some place where criticisms have not been fully expounded, (2) the writers for the replies have clearly greater expertise and notability than the critics, and so deserve number two slot to the discussion; this might be debatable, so am referring you to (3) Alec's defense of this structure here, on giving equal space to responses to Opus Dei. Scroll down a bit and you'll see his argument.

So, in response to your concern that the replies are an "apparent refutation of the previously stated criticism," and to these 3 reasons, what I have done is to change the subtitles to Critical Views and Supporting Views. I've also tweaked the previous section title to "Statements of Catholic leaders." What do you think? Marax (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Delist. I've seen enough. See my comments above. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist Mainly sticks to a factual breakdown of Opus Dei, but a bit spotty in its coverage/handling of its controversial nature. Much of the content necessary for a neutral approach seems there, so perhaps a reorganization of the article would do the trick. But as it stands it reads a little too positively. Drewcifer (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• WP:GAR
• WP:GA/R

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
   • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
   • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
   • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
     • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
     • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
     • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)

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

Morocco

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Similar to the article below, citations are needed in:

• Culture - no citation

Although other sections have citations (e.g. 1 or up to 2 citations), they are still extremely weak.

It seems to me these sections didn't write down anything (then why not put them to the list of " See also"?):

• Military
• Technology
• Universities
• Sports

These sections needed to be removed or re-write rather than simply putting the tables or list:

• Affliations
• Bilateral and multilateral agreements

References didn't follow MoS. e.g. 8-12 16-22. Coloane (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article needs more citations before putting back on the GA list.

• The section of Geography - no citation is given
• The section of Ecology - no citation is given
• The section of Economy - no citation is given
• The section of Land tenure - no citation is given
• The section of Sport - no citation is given
• The section of Religion - no citation is given

These sections do need to provide more information in order to become more comprehensive:

• The section of Geography
• The section of Culture
• The section of Transport - only couple sentenses were given.

Actually they are still in a rudimentary stage and poorly organized.

The section of demographics is pretty vague. Can the editor(s) provide clear ethnics percentages (stats. or figures) that is composing the general population of Papua New Guinea? Coloane (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delist Article was passed back in mid-2006 before current standards of required inline citations. This article could even be boldly delisted for the reasons listed above. It's for articles like these that I'm glad we're doing sweeps. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Force

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was quickfailed recently for lack of citations, but the nominator reverted the fail template and the GAN page removal. It was then placed on hold for dubious reasons, and the nominator left a message on the GAN talk page. However, some references have been added, and assuming good faith regarding the reversions I think we can treat this as a disputed quick-fail... hence GAR. EyeSerene 10:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. I don't believe that this article should have been quick-failed. Although there are maybe still a few issues with it, including use of citations, none of them seem to be show-stoppers. But quick-failing on a general rule such as that at a minimum every paragraph must have a citation in an article like this one was inappropriate, and the result now looks faintly absurd. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. In its current form the article should not quick-fail. Majoreditor (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Carnivàle

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I disagree with the fail (Talk:Characters_of_Carnivàle#failed_GA) in both points.

1. The fatal flaw here is the extensive problems with WP:INUNIVERSE - If you look at e.g. the recently FA-promoted Characters of Kingdom Hearts, you see that character sections are summaries for what happened with the characters (i.e. bios). The bios of the drafts were rarely addressed in the show, so I summarized them for creation&development of the character. It's not my fault that these draft bios read like "bio of a real person"; all I could do was label the sources in an out-of-universe-tone in the text ("in his original biography"), and so I did. I kept the re-iteration of what happened in the show to a minimum (a few sentence to one short paragraph), more than what other GA and FA character lists (or articles) usually do. There were 18 main characters who competed in plot attention and also in press/media attention, with thin media coverage as a result, so I summarized real-world information in separate yet in-depth sections for Casting, Make-up and costumes, and Reception at the end of the article. I already tried to present the information like the GA reviewer likely had wanted once before, but attaching two real-world-content sentences without context at the end of each character section is just plain ugly.
2. The references - what's wrong? It's the creator of the show posting online (because that's what he did... mostly) and the show creator and actors in interviews that are hosted in blogs (because the interviewer was a fan in out-of-proportion-good contact with the creators and some actors, and she happened to publish her couple of dozens interviews in her blogs... before she organized a major fan convention that many show creators and actors attended). The show creator and the actors are reliable sources, no matter where they commented, and I would have used other/better sources if any were actually available (e.g. there were no companion books for this short-run show, there were only few DVD extras, and the media mostly focused on the show's convoluted mythology and inaccessability instead of the characters). In FAC, this would be called "non-actionable opposition".

I wouldn't mind a hold, but failing is IMO completely inappropriate. – sgeureka 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I hope this isn't gonna sound nasty... but... I hate to say this, but as time goes on I'm becoming less and less (and even less) impressed with arguments based on comparisons to an existing FA article, and in particular a recently-promoted one. Everyone gripes about GA being broken... well, welcome to FA, which is broken as well. Due to a lack of knowledgeable reviewers, articles can be (and are) passed on the strength of fan-club votes. I haven't delved into the names of the reviewers of FA offered as an argument above (and probably shouldn't). I'm only trying to say this: Show me a substantive argument that sets aside my concerns about WP:INUNIVERSE. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you present the content of a given biography, if not by saying, "in his original biography" and then summarizing the biography? And, as I stated above, I chose the format BIO-BIO-...-BIO-BIO-OOU-OOU...-OOU-OOU (out-of-universe) instead of BIO-OOU-BIO-OOU...BIO-OOU-BIO-OOU because it makes for a better article flow instead of a choppy mess. I feel the article violates nothing in WP:INUNIVERSE#Contextual presentation. There are also no WP:INUNIVERSE#Notability and undue weight problems. There is currently no GA list article for TV show characters (forget FAs), so it's not like there are some set precendents that I could follow, and I could only draw from FA and GA video game character lists. This article is about the characters (obviously), so I can safely skip the "X is a fictional character in Carnivàle" bit for each character section. If you feel like

Samson

• Played by Michael J. Anderson (Seasons 1–2 main cast)

Samson, in earlier drafts also called Edgar Leiber or Edgar Leonhardt, is the dwarf co-manager of the Carnivàle. Per his original biography, blablabla... At the beginning of the series, blablabla...

should be written like

Samson

Samson is the dwarf co-manager of the Carnivàle. He was played by Michael J. Anderson in seasons 1 and 2 as a main character. Earlier drafts gave his full name as Edgar Leiber or Edgar Leonhardt. His original biography gave his background as blablabla... At the beginning of the series, blablabla...

then I consider that a personal preference of limited practicability because it makes it harder for the reader to find the actors' name, the durance of the character, and avoiding spoilers (a major issue with this show). If this doesn't convince you, I could do a rewrite in four hours. A Hold however would give me time until next Wednesday. If you want to anticipate fan-clubbish behaviour by Failing except for Holding, I'll point you to the Carnivàle FAC which actually suffered from a lack of fan-club votes. – sgeureka 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• (Note by) All character section have been tweaked/rewritten. I left a note at Ling.Nut's talkpage. – sgeureka 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse promote Or whatever the commonly accepted terminology is these days. :-) The editor has sufficiently addressed my in-universe concerns. I acknowledge that I made a mistake failing this article rather than putting it on Hold, but the mistake was an honest one: I simply thought it would take much more time to address the in-universe issues than it did. As for the weakness of the sources, I searched Google Scholar and Academic Search Premier (didn't do JSTOR; probably should have) and came with very meager pickings. This is simply the nature of the beast when working with pop culture topics. I suggest this should be promoted to GA. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Promoted - Very good article, fulfills the requirements of verification, and notability for fiction. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Close discussion. The reviewer, Ling.Nut has recommended promotion of the improved article (and I agree with him). I leave it to him to archive this discussion and promote the article. There has been no objection at GAR, and further messages of support are unnecessary. Geometry guy 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Disagree with decision not to list this as a good article, as per comments at Talk:Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)#Good article nomination (2). Chrisieboy 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

York Museum Gardens

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Someone promoted the article while I was reviewing it; totally my fault as I suffered immense delays. However, now I've reviewed the article, I've come to the conclusion it contains too much repetitive language (i.e. "dates back to the"). The article also suffers from bad grammar. There's so much of it, that I can't correct it all in one go. Even if I could, some of the sentences have an ambiguous meaning. The article also has some statements that while I expect they're sourced, said source isn't next to the sentence in question (and not at the end of the paragraph either). I believe this article should be delisted until it has been copyedited. -- Mgm| 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

*Delist. I agree that this article ought not to have been promoted, and it is seriously in need of a thorough copyedit before it could be considered to be well-written. I've started to make corrections to it, but there are a lot still required, as Mgm suggested. I don't see anything major though, so it's quite possible that everything will be fixed before this nomination is closed, in which case I'll strike my delist and support it.--Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that just about enough work has been done on this article now to warrant its GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice work Malleus. I was going to call in Lara, but you've done the business. Geometry guy 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just hate to see articles that are obviously loved fail GA. But in all fairness I can't take the credit if this article manages to keep its GA listing. User:PamD put in a lot of work as well; I suspect that she may be a Yorkshire lass. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As per the message left on the article's talk page, I believe the sections "The Holocaust" and "Raoul Wallenberg's mission neither manage to stay on topic nor cover their subject in a neutral fashion. I think the article does not merit GA status.–Joke 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It will take me some time to carefully review the article, but my first impression is that it's a borderline case. In its current form I would lean toward failing it because:

• The introduction is clipped and needs further development, per WP:LEAD.
• The section titled "Raoul Wallenberg's mission" is far too long, lacks citations for key facts and needs a proper copy edit and prose refresh.

Perhaps someone can spruce up the article. Majoreditor 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less and less I think that the article can be in any sense described as "borderline". The major contributor to the article, Attila Lajos, is someone who wrote a PhD thesis trying to reinterpret Wallenberg's story . That's fine – it's great to have subject matter experts contributing to an article – but certainly if his point of view is to be represented, it has to be done as a contrast to the many other sources (on the internet and elsewhere) that tell an entirely different story. That story has been systematically removed from the article, although it was visible in the article before Attila started editing . I am going to summarily delist, it is in no sense a "good article." –Joke 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Japan

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Broad coverage & reliable sources: The article as it stands omits an extensive amount of news coverage and academic literature regarding controversy surrounding the 1999 law regarding adopting the Hinomaru (Rising Sun) as the national flag.. A school principal committed suicide & many teachers brought (ultimately unsuccessful) lawsuits against the government after the gov't ordered all school teachers etc. to fly the flag & sing the national anthem. There are also inaccuracies regarding the flag chosen to represent the period of the Allied Occupation — that flag is a naval ensign, not a national flag. There was no national flag from 1885 until 1999. Finally, the sources used are of questionable reliability & at least one key source is in Japanese. I would be happy to retract this GAR if dedicated editors would add the requisite info & references, but I'm afraid it will take more than a week to do so..Ling.Nut 12:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Notification left on article's talk and on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan. -- Ling.Nut 13:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ling.Nut. The article omits the controversial aspect of the flag. It's not just about the law mentioned by him, but, for example, the use of the flag in a graduation ceremony. While the article is lengthy, it is, in essence, a mere stub. -- Taku 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with most of what Ling.Nut writes, having a major source in Japanese is NOT a reason to delist an article. ···日本穣 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Hi Nihonjoe, thanks for the comment. Certainly a non-English link is not in itself a reason to delist the GA, but it is another facet that needs to be improved if at all possible. The two main points for this GAR are "broadness" and "reliable sources." I question the reliability of the the English-language websites used as primary sources. And even if those are argued to be reliable, the lack of braoadness alone is cause enough for great concern (plus delisting, in my opinion). Ling.Nut 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on the controversy of the national flag and dissected parts of the post-war flag section. I clearly stated in the article that it is just a civilian ensign (I had it before, but I guess I needed to make it bolder) and added some Japanese links as references. Honestly, if more Japanese links are needed, just tell me what good ones are and I will include them. User:Zscout370 20:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also began to phase out some of the FOTW links in favor of links to Japanese Government based websites. User:Zscout370 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Analytical Marxism

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article doesn't appear to meet criteria 2a and 2b. Sections such as "Justice and Power" and "Denoument" have no in-line citations. For example, statements such as "Most of its practitioners agreed that the Marxism that in the beginning they had set out to interrogate and, to an extent, defend, was not theoretically or politically defensible" lack any cites. Additionally, all of article's in-line citations lack page references. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist This has been a GA since Dec. '05; things have changed. I think it simply got a GA tag slapped on it... didn't check GAC.. not sure if GAC even existed then... It does have good content but needs a rewrite in the new GA zeitgeist. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist. Because of the paucity of citations and the use of weasel words. "Many Marxists would argue ..." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. I reviewed the article last week and left the article on hold for a week to address the issues I raised here concerning inline citations, but none were added. There are other statements that could be sourced as well, but I believe the statements I mentioned should at least be sourced. I don't know if this is just my obsessive desire for more referencing within articles (see Battle of France below), so I need alternate opinions on the status of the article. Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only a small way into the article, but am already finding exactly the same kind of sensational language (i.e., matters of opinion) unsupported by citations as I found in Battle of France. Example: "More shocking to the German pilots was the newer Spitfire Mk I, which was quickly recognised as a nimble, world-class fighter." By whom? And who says the German pilots were shocked? I notice that you mostly focus on uncited facts in your analysis, but it is the opinions that really need inline citation in my view: facts can be supported more easily by general sources. Anyway, I suggest you follow your instincts and continue the delisting process that you started. There's no need for a GAR on this in my view. Geometry guy 20:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist Again, this smells a bit like a GA in places, but many statements are uncited, including statistics and expressions of opinion; some sections lack any citation at all. It doesn't need a WHOLE lot of work, but it is still not GA in its current state. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hey Nehrams, good work on all the sweeps. I won't post a hopelessly distracting beer image here, but here's a link: Image:Lager beer in glass.jpg. :-) Hey, have you been posting at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history about any GAR's and delistings in this area? Those people are (sometimes) good about getting on top of problems like these.... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of the project/task forces when the article was on hold, but I didn't mention the GARs, so I'll do that right now. Thanks for the heads up. By the way, thanks for the picture, because I can't drink the actual thing for another six months! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Pikachu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Speedy delisted with no notice on talk page, and edit summary of "lacks real world information". However, unlike most pokemon articles, this particular one does seem to have information about the real world, in the cultural impact section. Most of the article seems referenced, though a few of the links might be questionable. I'm on the fence about this because some of the references I just don't know about, but one thing I do know is that this article definently has real world information in it. Homestarmy (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - does the real-world content in this article meet the updated WP:FICT? -Malkinann (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated? Man, nobody tells me these things anymore.... Homestarmy (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But to answer the question, it does seem notable per that guideline, a float appeared in a Macy's day parade, and there's something about a plane. Of course, that's the first time i've read the "updated" WP:FICT, so I might not be understanding it right... Homestarmy (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or it might have been WP:WAF - I forget which one, but one of the fiction guidelines has been made more stringent of late. I note that the "biological characteristics" section is still very in-universe.-Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - lede needs additional sourcing to support assertions about the character's notoriety and status as mascot and the source of the name. Sex differences in the bio-characteristics section needs a source. If there must be a pop culture section then the bit about the first balloon being retired and the new balloon need sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that "pop culture sections" are supposed to show the cultural impact/influence of Pikachu, and that's supposed to be the "meat" of the notability of the article?? -Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, it would be nice if that's what they were used for, wouldn't it? But that's a conversation for another day... Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. Doesn't show the notoriety of the character, and written in a very in-universe style for the "Biological characteristics" section. bibliomaniac15 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist until Sweeps come and do a detailed review. Read the whole article, and you'll see that it does relate to real-world (such as trading card game, parade mascot). Even an airplane featured pikachu (Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg, so do you think it's important? OhanaUnited 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohana, this is the detailed review. The main problem is that text itself isn't hugely convincing. I know that puff phrases aren't allowed, but have you tried Google Scholar? As Pikachu featured in the anime there might be a few sources out there that examine Pikachu in particular. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dante's Cove

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

Listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

GA was failed claiming that the episode summary section violated WP:OR. While it appears that WP:WAF allows for the use of the episodes themselves to write summaries as long as the summaries are factual and not a synthesis, the reviewing editor disagreed, stating that WAF is "a controversial element of policy that may or may not have consensus." Regardless, per his direction I relocated the episode summaries to a sub-page but now the reviewing editor is on break for the next week. I'm hoping since the summaries were the only objection that the article can be listed quickly. Otto4711 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will get a quick answer here: just renominate, and archive this discussion when you do. Geometry guy 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest we 'promote - I'd rather just have discussion here, and not in two places. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman (1989 film)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I'm doubting this statusdue to the following concerns:

1. The lead section is far too sparse to be a concise overview of the article.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Plot section is too long.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I will get to work on the other three problems.

1. The non-free images in the article besides the identifying image have insufficient fair use rationales.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Box office performance section is too sparse to warrant its own section.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no Critical reaction section from independent perspectives to comment on the film.

Hopefully these concerns can be addressed. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist especially per a lack of rationales for fair use and a critical reaction section. Very poor article. VanTucky 19:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman Forever

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was concerned to see that an editor who has only been editing since November 3, 2007 passed this as a Good Article. These are the following issues:

1. Non-free images in the article besides the identifying poster image lack sufficient fair use rationale.

Done I'll get to work on the other two improvements later. Wildroot 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The "Critical analysis" section barely has any reviewers talking about the film. A lot of the content is from people involved with the film itself. It would be appropriate to have more independent perspectives -- see Road to Perdition#Reception for such a section.

Done I think you should see for yourself. I wrote it in the same format/style that you wrote in Road to Perdition#Reception. The reason why I included quotes from Schumacher were because of his reaction towards the reviews, so to speak. Now, I'm just trying my best to find those articles you listed. They are of course hard to find, but I did purchase two magazines off EBAY with a total of three dollars each. They were original published material specifically from Warner Brothers. I'm going to see what I can dig up, catch you later. Wildroot 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Purely online sources are not sufficient for shaping an article's content. Take a look at User:Erik/Batman Forever for many sources that should be used in the article. Even Good Articles require some research beyond what's accessible via Google.

Hopefully, these improvements can be made. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I make no comments other than to refute the above single claim; that online sources alone are not sufficient. There are many online sources that are reliable enough to pass WP:RS. If individual online sources used by the article are not reliable, please note which references need replacing. However, one cannot summarily reject all online references as inherently unreliable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Denmark

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I think this article should be reassessed before putting on the list of GA at the moment. Very weak citation:

• 1) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Pre-Christian Denmark.
• 2) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Medieval Denmark.
• 3) Only one citation can be found in the paragraph of Recent history.
• 4) Only one citation can be found in the section of politics.
• 5) some statements in the section of economy need citations:
  • The government has met the economic convergence criteria for participating in the third phase (the common European currency - the Euro) of the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU), but Denmark, in a September 2000 referendum, rejected The Monetary Union.
  • In the area of sickness and unemployment, the right to benefit is always dependent on former employment and at times also on membership of an unemployment fund, which is almost always -but need not be- administered by a trade union, and the previous payment of contributions. However, the largest share of the financing is still carried by the central government and is financed from general taxation, and only to a minor degree from earmarked contributions.
  • The Danish welfare model is accompanied by a taxation system that is both broad based (25% VAT and excise) and with high income tax rates (minimum tax rate for adults is 39.6%).
  • Denmark is home to many well known multi-national companies, among them: A.P. Moller-Maersk Group (Maersk - international shipping), Lego (children's toys), Bang & Olufsen (hi-fi equipment), Carlsberg (beer), and the pharmaceutical companies Lundbeck and Novo Nordisk.
• 6) No citation AT ALL in the section of transport.
• 7) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Cinema of Denmark.
• 8) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish sport.
• 9) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish Food AT ALL.

Several sections need more information:

• Transport
• Religion
• Military

Many references seems not to follow the format of reference (MoS).

• 1
• 14(?)
• 23
• 32-34
• 40-42

No English sources AT ALL provided in the section reference, only Danish and Swedish were given. How about See also?? Coloane 05:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delist I guess it could use some more citations for a few surprising/contentious facts, but in general it seems ok. A paragraph-by-paragraph run-down seems like overkill though: there's no rule that says every paragraph should have a citation. The citations are also poorly formatted, and a few sections are choppy/short. Definitely close to GA, except for those few issues. Drewcifer 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per the nomination. I agree that citation is a problem here, but there are also other formatting discrepencies with mid-prose external links and images. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Several sections, particularly those on history, need references. Statements such as "It is believed that Denmark became Christian to prevent invasion by the rising Holy Roman Empire in Germania which was a constitution by Charlemagne, that made Harald Bluetooth build six fortresses around Denmark..." need in-line citations. With some work this article can be a great GA-class work. Majoreditor (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per referencing and citation problems. VanTucky 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Call of Duty 2

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As I see it, fails the 'broad in coverage aspect', giving only a brief bit about anything besides gameplay and plot. The lead reflects this lack of information- it talks about mobile phone versions, but I haven't seen anything in the article about it. David Fuchs 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Woah, I guess I was biased in looking at it when I wrote it...anyways, I'll go add to the reception (etc.) sections now. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I added a bit about the mobile version. --Mika1h (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. Although multiple sources have been added since the last recommendation to include them, I don't believe it to be sufficient for the length of the article. Nehrams2020 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Much of the article is well-referenced; I count a total of 62 in-line citations. However, two sections lack any citations. The Prelude section would be stronger if it contained a citation on Hitler's peace overtures. The section on Dyle Plan also needs citations. Majoreditor 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the casualties section (which deals with hard numbers) had inline citations for the figures, i'd say this article would be well-referenced overall, neither unferenced section seems critically important, and there are general references at the bottom which probably cover some or most of the material in those sections. Homestarmy (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist It is not the number of citations that matters, but how they are used. Most of the citations here are to specific pages to support specific facts, but which facts get citations seems to be a bit of a lottery. Ironically, one of the few examples of multi-page citation (footnote 45) seems to support only a quotation (probably it is supporting the whole paragraph). The article might benefit from some general cites to its sources to support paragraphs containing uncontroversial material such as "Because of a low birthrate that had even further declined during the First World War, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to the total population — which furthermore was only half of that of Germany." On the other hand, there are also matters of opinion that really need specific citations which do not have them. One example is the section on "Allied reaction", which is full of such unsourced opinion statements. In the next subsection, there is also the assertion that "The Allies seemed incapable of coping with events." which surely needs a source. Geometry guy 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tofu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was found during sweep process. It carries a lot of information, but I feel that it's a little too much (per criteria 3b). The references are not uniform. Also, trivia section was found. It definetely doesn't deserve a bold delist, so I want others' opinions. OhanaUnited 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It clearly does not meet WP:LEAD at the moment. Although this doesn't deserve a bold delist, it might be appropriate to use a regular delisting procedure, as described in the guidelines at the top of this page: i.e., list your concerns on the talk page, maybe try to fix some of them, wait a week or so, and if the article still does not meet the criteria, delist it. Geometry guy 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Yes, the lead is definently too short, it can't possibly be summarizing most of the article. Homestarmy (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist lead is too short for an article this long. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
• Comment - I've expanded the lead, how does the lead look now? -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  Better! I've done a copyedit and some reordering. I suggest reviewers take another look at the article. Geometry guy 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I am not personally involved in the article, and am actually not sure whether the article should be delisted or not. However, one user has delisted the article without giving any time for concerns to be addressed, and I think it is much better that a consensus be reached (especially as it is not 100% clear this article should be delisted). Some of the concerns can be found at Talk:Opus Dei#Delisted the article as GA. Shudde 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the GA list. I honestly don't see the POV problems the delister is complaining about. The article is comprehensive, indeed an excellent overview of the subject, and it DOES present both well publicized positive and negative perceptions of the organization. The sources are approrpriately used; it cites both secondary and primary sources as approrpriate. While I would agree that for obvious cases, it is quite allowable for an article to be delisted without discussion, this was right to be brought here. I see no major issues with this article as it stands now. Indeed, I would recomend an FA run in the future. This seems quite close to meeting the requirements of an FA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. I do think that there's a neutrality issue with this article, as noted by the editor who pre-emptorily delisted it. I'm particularly concerned about the Replies to criticism section. If whatever's important in that section was distributed elsewhere in the body of the article then I might be persuaded to change my mind, but as it stands it does look a bit like "set 'em up and shoot 'em down". --Malleus Fatuarum 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the article meets GA criteria and is well-balanced. I'd prefer to see the criticism and the rebuttal integrated into, rather segregated from, the rest of the article -- but that certainly isn't grounds for de-listing. Majoreditor 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Well this is a first Of all the articles I have ever read and come away knowing no more than before I began, this is by far the longest and most meticulously documented. I lean toward Delist, because I have no idea why O.D. is so powerful, and the criticisms were glossed over in a hurry. Please feel free to persuade me to Keep... --Ling.Nut 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are definately some problems with the article. The introduction is very choppy and should be smoothed out. I saw a lot of criticism of O.D. throughout the article. The controversy section used a lot of weasel words (name critics and supporters.) The controversy section was also where the article was its weakest. The criticism section should be strengthened, while the rebuttal section should be shortened. But overall, I thought the article is clearly a Good Article. I do not, however, agree with Jayron in thinking that it is "quite close" to becoming an FA. Too many sections where the prose wasn't quite there.Balloonman 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nowhere near FA; still very questionable on GA. I think it's a diligently created puff piece, frankly. Glossed over everything. To repeat, I learned nothing except what I could have learned if I had bothered to find some pamphlet in some Catholic library somewhere or other. --Ling.Nut 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Diligently created puff piece would be a good summary of my opinion of the article as well. Nowhere near FA, and very dubious for GA. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I shall have to remember "Diligently created puff piece" as a possible GAR recommendation! Although I have seen worse, I would have to agree. I read through the article, trying to imagine I'd never heard of the topic. By the time I reached the "Controversy" section, I was thinking "How dare they criticise such a wonderful organisation! Okay, some of its members may have strange personal practices, but look at all the good work they do."

Controversy sections are not a great idea at the best of times: when they are of the form "Criticism - Rebuttal" they are particularly unhelpful at achieving NPOV. This is yet another article (cf. Freemasonry) which is written from the internal point of view of an organization that feels more widely misunderstood. Consequently, it fails to achieve a neutral tone: where criticism is discussed, the article is defensive, and uses loaded words and sentences. Words not avoided include "claim", "point out", "although", "despite", "report", "allege", "maintain", and "contend". Also, although "while" is not mentioned at WP:WTA, it is misused in several places, including a particularly flagrant abuse in the lead no less. As a result, the lead clearly fails to summarize the article, with all of the controversy swept under the carpet in that loaded sentence.

After my own review, I went to the talk page to read the case for delisting made by Jaimehy. While I cannot verify some of the individual points made, I tend to agree overall with the analysis there.

WP:NPOV is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood of Misplaced Pages policies. I have said this here many times before: NPOV is not primarily achieved via a contest between pro- and anti- viewpoints, it is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the entire article from a neutral perspective. There is a beautiful and eloquent description of this by Gosgood in my talk archives.

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article, but I cannot support the continued GA listing of an article which is riddled with sentences like "Despite his praise, the relationship between Paul VI and Opus Dei has been described by one Opus Dei critic as "stormy"." Delist. Geometry guy 14:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies I apologise sincerely for preemptorily delisting this article. In my astonishment that it should have been listed in the first place, I didn't stop to understand the accepted procedure. However, given that the article is, on the one hand, very important in its category and, on the other, astoundingly misleading, incomplete and biased that it should be urgently delisted. In tone and content, it is exactly the description of Opus Dei would have made of itself. Considering the controversial nature of the organisation, it is very inappropriate that this should be the case. Please delist as soon as possible Jaimehy (talk)

• Keep. I agree with those who voted "keep" based on GA criteria. I believe this piece follows actual Misplaced Pages statements on NPOV: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." The word "proportionately," I believe, is more often than not forgotten when WP:NPOV is discussed. This word goes with another word "expert" that is also usually missed: "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." John Allen, Jr. and Vittorio Messori are highly respected professional journalists and are not Opus Dei members. Marax (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply This sort of argument from authority has no place in Misplaced Pages. Besides, while John Allen and Vittorio Messori are both highly respected journalists, they are prominent apologists for a variety of flavours of Roman Catholic conservatism. Extraordinarily, even the mild criticisms of John Allen fail to be addressed in the article. Delist urgently Jaimehy (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Jaime, arm-waving comments such as Delist urgently aren't going to help you reach consensus. Calm, civil discussion works best. Majoreditor (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is good advice. Note that Jaime is relatively new to WP, so we need to allow a bit of slack per WP:BITE. In any case, it is the substance of the argument that is important, and no one has addressed the issues, for example, that I raised above. Geometry guy 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reply. Even if the article does represent all significant views fairly and proportionately (which I very much doubt), this only means it satisfies part of the neutral point of view policy (described mainly by WP:UNDUE). The NPOV policy requires that articles are written from a neutral perspective. The clue is in the name of the policy. Representing all significant views fairly and proportionately is but a part of that (otherwise the policy would be called ASPOVFP). As for the criteria, I see no counterargument to my assertion that it also fails 1b (via WP:LEAD and WP:WTA), although I am pleased to see that both Jaimehy and Marax are making efforts to improve the article. Geometry guy 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps they can take a crack at re-phrasing the "while" in the lead. Majoreditor (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but one of the reasons that the good article criteria flag up WP:WTA is that it is a strong indication that an article has not been written from a neutral perspective (which, as WP:NPOV boldly declares, is "non-negotiable"). So fixing the "words to avoid" alone is unlikely to solve the problem. The article needs quite a bit of rewriting, and then the lead will need to be rewritten to summarize the article. I've usually found it is pointless to fiddle with the lead until the article is in good shape. Geometry guy 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. The WTA you mentioned were placed there by Alecmconroy who did a major rewrite (see here please). You might want to look at his his user page. He has been suspected of being an atheist and a Jesuit. He was suspected by a pro-Opus Dei editor of planting a number of straw men arguments (see here) so as to put Opus Dei down. I believe Alecmconroy did a good job in structuring the article so as to include a lengthy coverage of criticisms. I also believe much of Jaimehy's concerns are covered by that generous section and other criticisms found throughout the article. While the section can be improved, I have not seen another article with such generous coverage of criticisms. I do believe Alecmconroy’s use of WTA was balanced. Those words were placed strategically on both sides of the dispute. Balance has always been his main concern. However, in deference to clear Misplaced Pages consensus on WTA, I am helping bring back the "he state", "he said" and "he wrote" that was in an older version before the major revision by Alecmconroy. All this is to show you that great efforts were expended by editors here to write the article from a neutral perspective. Marax (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome for the comments, and thanks for the fascinating answer. First you pin the article's problems on an editor and report vague accusations about him, questioning his good faith (excuse the pun). Then you say that you believe he did a good job. Then you suggest that you are helping to undo his edits in deference to consensus on WTA.

Let's unpick that a little. First, the religion of an editor is irrelevant: what matters is the quality of their edits. Second, I can see that Alecmconroy inserted several "claims" for the criticism he added, but the two oldid's given in your link do not support the idea that Alecmconroy is responsible for the words to avoid, loaded sentences, and lack of neutrality in the current article. The pre-Alecmconroy oldid contains plenty of words to avoid and loaded sentences, while many of the problems I noticed with the current text cannot be found in the post-Alecmconroy oldid.

It would be rather odd if the article's bias towards an internal Opus Dei and/or Catholic point of view were directly caused by an editor adding external criticism, especially given your accusation that this editor was hostile to Opus Dei. Instead there seems to have been a defensive response to the added criticism.

Neutral point of view is not primarily achieved by being "generous" in the coverage of criticisms, it is achieved by writing the entire article from a neutral perspective (how many times do I have to say this?). And if you have not seen as "generous" an article, I recommend Homeopathy and Parapsychology. Geometry guy 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Parapsychology article you draw attention to is an excellent example of writing about a potentially controversial subject from a neutral POV. No matter how good the rest of this Opus Dei article was, the mere presence of a Replies to criticism section gives the game away. There is absolutely no question in my mind that it is not written from a NPOV and ought to be delisted as a consequence. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying further the problem you see -- the replies to criticism, and for bringing up two examples of neutral writing. These examples, I believe, strengthen my previous point about proportionality and expertise. With regard to homeopathy and parapsychology, the majority of experts or neutral writers about the field find the criticisms valid. In the case of Opus Dei, the majority of third party experts who have studied it have concluded that the criticisms are not valid, they are myths.

In deference to the fact that the findings of these experts on Opus Dei have not cascaded down to the majority of readers, unlike those of the experts on homeopathy and parapsychology, the replies to criticism section is almost the same length as the criticism section. In fact, if we are to follow the logic of proportionality and expertise on homeopathy and parapsychology, this article would have to be re-written to provide more space to the replies to criticism so as to explain Opus Dei further according to Misplaced Pages standards of WP:RS.

John Allen, Jr.'s book was published in 2005 and was said to be "widely considered as the definitive book on Opus Dei", and was praised by Opus Dei critics. John Allen, Jr. is CNN Vatican analyst (once described as "maddeningly objective") and his independent work agrees with the findings of other investigators, e.g. Vittorio Messori and Patrice de Plunkett.

I hope I was able to understand your position well and reply accordingly, if not I'll be glad to know your position better. Marax (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my view that a Replies to criticism section is completely inappropriate, unless you also have a Replies to replies to criticism section, and a Replies to replies to replies to ... section. It appears to be apologists having the last word. You present the case, you present the criticism. You don't then try to refute that criticism. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem then is how to include the findings of studies done by reputable writers such as CNN's Vatican analyst, John Allen, and an encyclopedist of religion, Massimo Introvigne. In the article on parapsychology, there is a whole section with three subsections containing the findings of objective studies on the topic. The research findings of Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Plunkett, et al are worthy of a serious encyclopedia, and perhaps even worthier than the scientific criticism of parapsychology. I believe this matter has to be addressed squarely. Marax (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuarum, I've thought a lot about your suggestion of moving out the replies to another spot. I've attempted to do it mentally but was not satisfied with the results. I believe that (1) it is difficult to write about replies to criticism in some place where criticisms have not been fully expounded, (2) the writers for the replies have clearly greater expertise and notability than the critics, and so deserve number two slot to the discussion; this might be debatable, so am referring you to (3) Alec's defense of this structure here, on giving equal space to responses to Opus Dei. Scroll down a bit and you'll see his argument.

So, in response to your concern that the replies are an "apparent refutation of the previously stated criticism," and to these 3 reasons, what I have done is to change the subtitles to Critical Views and Supporting Views. I've also tweaked the previous section title to "Statements of Catholic leaders." What do you think? Marax (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Delist. I've seen enough. See my comments above. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist Mainly sticks to a factual breakdown of Opus Dei, but a bit spotty in its coverage/handling of its controversial nature. Much of the content necessary for a neutral approach seems there, so perhaps a reorganization of the article would do the trick. But as it stands it reads a little too positively. Drewcifer (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• WikiProject Good articles