2375:. Since you are writing for an audience of people who are unfamiliar with the man, his works, and their proper context, it is vital to establish that context with specific references. When fantastic claims (and they may be true) are made such as "Anaximander was the first ever to think X, Y, and Z" or "Anaximander's work had a profound influence on A, B, and C", such claims may be plainly evident to people who know Anaximander well; but to the average reader of the article they have no means to verify the claims. What you are saying, essentially, is "we are the experts, so trust us, this is true". For other venues, that may be adequate, but Knowledge (XXG)'s unique place in scholarship, in that it is freely edited, carries an additional burden. Look, let's say 4 months from now someone comes along and adds some false claim to this article, next to another true (but unreferences) claim, what gives THAT editor less right to include it? I mean, you have offered no verification to back up several claims made about Anaximander; so we have no way to judge whether or not one claim is correct and the other is not, since there is no specific reference to look them up. The problem is that Knowledge (XXG) is different and unique and thus has its own level of requirements.--
5131:
fix anything". Many of us here spend a LONG time reading and carefully critiquing articles, and to have our suggestions summarily ignored or rejected with throw away statements like "I don't see that fix being expressly required by the standards page so I am not going to fix it" misses the point. We are working hard to find inadequacies in the articles, and trying to list specific problems that are actionable and that we honestly think will make the articles better. That is my primary goal, not some blank adherance to a set of standards. When someone says "It isn't in WIAGA so I don't have to do it" it's like saying to me "The time you spent reviewing this article isn't worth it because I am not looking for ways to improve the article, I just want that little green plus..." I understand that is not what you were after now. Thanks for all your help in improving the article, and as you should note, I did change my vote to support. This is REALLY getting close to FA. Taking it to peer review is a good next step. --
558:
such a strong lack of consensus, is a good enough reason to wait some time before attempting something major with this article. We've already had neutral opinions before and we reached no definitive conclusions. Again, have some patience on this one. We can revisit the issue later, but even better, we can revisit the issues right now in the talk page, not here. It does not matter that you specifically were not here. There was plenty of feedback from others; many people participated in that GA review. It also does not matter that you refuse to believe what I'm saying; GA reviews are not bestowed with power and authority simply because someone creates them. This review has no legitimacy whatsoever. Furthermore, as was stated before, you are hurting your own cause it seems. We can talk about all of this in the talk page of the article. There is no need to heighten tensions by creating an unnecessary GA review and imposing loose time limits and forcing an issue at an uncomfortable moment.
412:, and I will be glad to endorse this as a GA when the time comes, but it is my honest opinion that this article should NOT be listed as a GA in the state that it is in. It's isn't about "winning". Its about the fact that having substandard articles on the list degrades the entire project, and that can't be tolerated, if only to say "I won this battle two weeks ago, so we must wait longer before we have it again." There are concrete reasons why this article should not be a GA; there are fixes that need to be made to get it there, I have listed many above. The problems are not minor, they are legion, and I see no reason to keep this substandard article around simply because there was a deadlocked vote two weeks ago. --
731:
specifics. The lead does perhaps the main thing that a good lead should do: explain the significance of the subject. Bear in mind that
Michael Jackson is a living person, so unfortunately many of these supposed problems (especially relating to length), but some actual problems too, will persist until after he dies. Beyond this, I largely agree with Lara's other comments. This article has problems with reference formatting and lack of citations in some areas. We will get to all of those in due time. But, again, this is a debate that should be occurring in the talk page of the article, not in a GA review, at least not in light of what just happened with the last review closing only two weeks ago.
5082:"Please follow the style used by the article's existing citations". Look, if it is important to you to have an article that is not as good as it could possibly be, just so you can feel that your one particular interpretation of WIAGA can be right, go ahead. These external links are making the article less than perfect, and it is an easy fix. I am sorry that mediocrity is OK with you, but I am in the interest of making every article at wikipedia better. Poor quality is never "good enough" especially when the fix is easy. Look, I fixed it myself, and it now looks much better. I don't really understand what the insistence is on refusing to improve articles. It just flabbergasts me.--
4711:
him the "Governator" (referring to The
Terminator movies, see above) and "The Running Man" (the name of another of his movies), and calling the recall election "Total Recall" (ditto) and "Terminator 4: Rise of the Candidate" (referring to his movie Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines). At first Governor Gray Davis refused to debate or talk about the issues with Arnold, instead only making a flippant reference to the way Arnold pronounced California. As the election came near and Gray Davis realized that Arnold was a force to be reckoned with, he tried to change his policy, but Arnold had already become a strong candidate.
3811:.It is the preferred method for GA and there doesn't appear to be any real justification not to do it. There are problems with the refs that could be corrected if the template were used. For example, many of the works (i.e. Rolling Stone) are not italicized as they should be. In fact, there are three instances of Rolling Stone magazine being cited, each time is formatted differently. Author credits are missing, for the most part. Page specifications are not present. Article dates are missing from most refs. Retrieval dates are also missing. This is important for finding archived pages once links have expired.
4352:
quote from
Antonio Damasio's book comes from? Do you have access to some of Macmillan's works on Gage? This passage makes me a bit uneasy: "It was Harlow's account from 1868, eight years after Gage's death, that introduced the now-textbook changes. Later writers began to embellish even more, adding drunkenness, braggadocio, a vainglorious tendency to show off his wound as part of Barnum's Traveling Exhibition and an utter lack of foresight — all unmentioned by Harlow." The citations are only to Harlow's earlier work, so you can't really see who the other people are, or what Harlow said later on. Thanks.-
94:
even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves disputes which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.
3132:
in the civil war, but he must have done something else with his life. I know that information is often hard to find for people like this who lived hundreds of years ago, but what about other literary works or internet sources? Five sources is not a lot. If that is all that can be found after a lot of searching, then I hold my hands up to the decision being off. I'd happily see it passed as a GA article if this is all the information that can be found. What is there is very well written, but I just wasnt sure that this was all that could be found about James F Robinson -
641:. That person was then banned and could no longer participate. Where did you get 6 weeks from? I don't want to insinuate anything, but again: did you look at the GA review? Just as many people came down on my side as did against (4). When the Supreme Court hands down a 5-4 decision on a controversial issue, it doesn't take up the matter two weeks later. The analogy has flaws for obvious reasons, but the larger point remains: a GA review now is the wrong thing at the wrong time for this article. Your concerns would be much better served in the talk page, and there only.
5121:. I was not involved in the article before it came to GA/R (so I am not a "custodian"), but I noticed it was close to GA standard, and so I have improved it quite a bit as part of this review, by fixing the lead, finding a tricky citation, removing trivia and eliminating some OR. So I don't understand how you can be "flabbergasted" by my "insistence on refusing to improve articles": I've improved the article far more substantially than you have. I hope you will reconsider the accuracy of your accusation and apologise if you feel you were in error.
441:). After a fairly quick renomination, some reviewers explicitly told the nominating user that more time has to be allotted to address the concerns that were raised in the previous discussions. The same thing has to happen here now. We can't just have a GA review two weeks after we closed a fairly thorough one. What is all this stuff about "winning"? Please leave that out of here. It has nothing to do with improving the article or the arguments that you and I are making towards that end. I am more than happy to address all of these concerns in the
2485:). Most citations should come from secondary sources because those sources are written by experts in the field who have experience interpreting Anaximander's text within its historical context. Almost every section lacks references to secondary sources. Readers can only assume that what is presented in the article is OR since no authority is given for these facts and interpretations. If the editors have indeed read the books in the "References" section they should find it easy to cite the claims they are making from secondary sources.
1280:- I think that separating personal life from the main article makes it weak and way too categorized, far too much for a wikipedia article anyway. The article was BETTER before this change occured, and I believe that, since that change seems to have occured as a direct result of this GA review, that it would be better for that change (the separation of personal life from the main article) to be reverted and the article kept as GA. that's my opinion anyway. it's just way to thin and meaningless if we categorize it like that. --
160:). I think we should revert to the GA status version of November linked to previously within my statement, although I would still advocate its delisting in that case until it really does meet the criteria which the November version also did not. That is not a condition of delisting (as if I am in a position to dictate, or to care to), although if you would support that move I'd ask that you state it, so we're in the clear, consensus wise on my idea to perhaps move forwards (even if it does seem like moving backwards). --
4325:
later, after Gage's death. (I've only read an extract of the later paper, but I've read the full text of the original paper.) In the wikipedia article, a fair amount of weight is given to
Macmillan's idea that the doctor and other writers (who??) embellished the account. There isn't much discussion of the possibility of a deterioration in Gage's health. (whether Macmillian considered it and dismissed it, for example.) Is there any such information available? -
4338:^ Harlow, J.M. (1848). "Passage of an iron rod through the head". Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 39: 389-393. (Republished in Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience., 11, 281-283) pp.2 of the republished edition. ^ Harlow, J.M. (1848). "Passage of an iron rod through the head". Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 39: 389-393. (Republished in Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience., 11, 281-283) pp.3 of the republished edition.
2371:
material and leave it at that; others require multiple citations so that scholarly concensus is apparent from the referencing. I am only asking that where a statement seems to be making a superlative claim, or offering an interpretation of facts, that there be a reference to who is making that claim or that interpretation. Look, every world expert on
Anaximander may agree that every statement made in this article is generally agreed upon, the problem is
2896:. But it has great potential. I think a summary of necessary changes should be left on the talk page to inform the main contributing editor(s). They may be able to bring it up to standards within a few days. The article is extremely well-written from what I saw (although I've not read it all the way through), and it's layout is impressive. It's a bit lengthy and could benefit from some trimming, but overall, it's definitely a high quality article.
4726:
unions began to oppose his various initiatives. Key among his reckoning with political realities was a special election he called in
November 2005, in which four ballot measures he sponsored were defeated. Schwarzenegger accepted personal responsibility for the defeats and vowed to continue to seek consensus for the people of California. He would later comment that "no one could win if the opposition raised $ 160 million dollars to defeat you".
66:
5065:
one: "Archer
Daniels Midland, are lobbying the FDA to change " contains an external link that would be better served as a reference, with a footnote at the end of the sentance. That is the purpose BOTH of the external links are serving; they are there to back up statements made in the article, thus are references, and thus belong with the other references. Consistant referencing style IS a requirement of WIAGA.
31:
2119:"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.
784:
right now because her's were the most specific, although I am also changing a lot of things that I thought were problematic. I'll give a final assessment here and on the talk page when I'm done with my changes. Right now, the lead has been shortened significantly I would say. Obviously anyone and everyone is encouraged to help me, but please discuss anything and everything in the talk page. Thank you.
4433:
second report; 20 years after the accident. However what I have found is an article in which the 2 most cited pages of this second report appear as an appendix. (If anybody wants it: Kotowicz Z (2007);"The strange case of
Phineas gage" History of the Human Sciences 20(1) 115-131). Whith it I can confirm that the long quote in "effect on gage" is from this second article. I procced to change it.--
2098:
and I second checked them all to ensure they were accurate. What sometimes seems like OR is usually Marcel Conche's analysis. I don't have the books at hand, but I will try to get them back so I can provide the exact secondary sources for the points mentioned above. However, as Argo's Dad suggests, the article is not in nomination for FA, but for GA. Sourcing every sentence is not necessary. —
1260:- Ubercryxic seems to be working hard on the concerns addressed above. And looking at the history, I wouldn't call it an "edit war", although there are disputes at times. The original complaint in the article is still vague to me, but I feel it still satisfies GA criteria, and if Uber and Manboobies can work together to address the aforementioned concerns, the article should remain GA.
5156:, I really appreciated you taking the time to reply to my comment, and for explaining where you are coming from: I can understand your frustration with the "I just want the little green plus" attitude! As for this article, a peer review for it has just closed, with very few comments, unfortunately. As I mentioned above, I think the main "gap" is some material on chocolate in society.
470:
hope you take my above suggestions to heart and use them to help improve the article. If you would like, please paste them (or I can) to the talk page if you feel that is more appropriate. I want to see this article improved, and I am sorry that I made it seem that you had motives that you did not. It was inexcusable for me to do so, and I offer no explanation beyond my apology. --
622:
good summary of the article" and "The problem seems to be the lead for most delisters. Note that the article is over 100k, meaning that the four-paragraph lead really isn't too long given the article's size." The person who made the latter comment is, of course, absolutely right. This is a long article and almost demands a relatively long lead (relative to other articles, that is).
4519:- Although it is a well-written article, it is in need of cleanup. There appears to be quite a bit of OR. Although it has an impressive layout of references that isn't often seen, there are still issues, like lack of page specifications for books, newspapers, and PDFs. I think this article has a lot of potential, but it will need to be renominated after being worked on. --
1788:"Filming" section, second paragraph makes critical analysis of the style of the film. From where does this analysis come?:See i am not aware this is a critical analysis of the style of film, most of it states facts i.e. a single camera, no cutaways, no score etc.. - surely facts such as these are not analysis and the best reference is the film itself.
227:"I think we should revert to the GA status version of November linked to previously within my statement, although I would still advocate its delisting in that case until it really does meet the criteria which the November version also did not" as you can see I clearly said that it should be delisted and reverted. Not that it should be
2336:: Most of the statements about Anaximander cited in this discussion are consensus among the scholarship; it would probably have been useful to check some other secondary source to avoid being colored by Conche's particular PoV. That being said, this is a perfect example of why it is better to write good articles than Good Articles.
1741:, Thanks to you all for your feedback, i knew that the original feedback i got was not correct and of little use to me. At least i have a better understanding of where i can change things and how i can improve the article. I will leave this now and spend some time on the article before i re-submit for GA status. Thanks Again.
2623:- The lead definitely needs expanding and, according to the to-do list, it is not as comprehensive as it could be. I don't feel there is an issue with the question posed in the lead, considering that is the topic of the article. Images are also not required for all articles, and for this one I believe it passes criteria 6b.
1669:
is included in the criteria. Many references are used multiple times in articles and are named for clarity (also in the criteria, as you mentioned. ;) Thanks!). But, as mentioned above, in this instance there is one for which this hasn't been done. I also, if you'll notice, offered to help them with it if they so desired.
4719:
Schwarzenegger defeated
Democrat Cruz Bustamante, fellow Republican Tom McClintock, and others. His nearest rival, Bustamante, received less than 30% of the vote. In total, Schwarzenegger won the election by about 1.3 million votes. Under the regulations of the California Constitution, no runoff election was required.
4151:
books and journal papers talking about
Phineas Gage as bibliography. Of course it doesn´t have as many as electroconvulsive theraphy since the information written about this topic is very small while there are journal dedicated only to electroconvulsive... and the fact that is shorter doesn't mean is not good. --
3005:- Much of this article has been plagerized from a British website that takes liberties with the history. There are a few contradictions as well. I was overwhelmed trying to correct the quotations from the Latin texts. A good project now that the term is over and while the article is still vandal protected.
2396:
Footnotes do not prevent or control that; statements can be added without attribution to an article with many footnotes as easily as with one. Text can be, and often is, reversed, leaving a footnote in place. And it is quite frequent for biased editors to include a footnote to a source which does not
2307:
Though some cosmetic fixes have been done to this article, I still endorse its failure as outlined above because it still remains underreferenced. There are MANY statements that it makes which offer interpretation of Anaximanders work (he was bold to do this, or he was the first to do that) where we
2166:
Still, which ever method of referencing is most appropriate for this article, anytime a statement makes a superlative claim or expresses an interpretation, it is likely subject to challenge and should be referenced to a specific location where such a claim or interpretation is made, either a specific
2097:
Thanks you Jayron32 for these precisions. As a major editor to the article, I'm very familiar with the subject. I can assure that the references provided cover the article. I mainly used Marcel Conche's book, which provided all primary sources and some secondary sources, all listed in the references,
1970:
If you're familiar with this article, would you say the references given at the bottom cover most of the article? The problem with a lack of internal citation is that its quite impossible for a non-involved reviewer to know how much of an article is supposed to be referenced by the refs at the bottom
1819:
Not sure you read this section, i have just re-read and cannot see a single critique of their roles, the brief biog seems standard for many Good articles about films and is not referenced as each actor is linked and their own article has all the relevant information regarding previous roles. Unless I
1498:
So, please could someone tell me exactly which of the reasons i was given for failing this article fit into any of the above guidelines? If I had been told it had failed because it was badly written or not neutral or anything that falls into the above then i would say thanks for reading it and giving
625:
I thoroughly addressed the arguments of people who wanted to trim the lead and I even complied partially, eliminating a lengthy quotation. As I explained to the main protagonist pushing for a shorter lead, however, the length of the Michael Jackson lead was not that much bigger than the length of the
403:
Really, so your arguement is "No one has to listen to you because you lost last time..." Nice attitude. I am sorry you are not interested in seeking the honest opinions of GA reviewers, and instead are only looking to "Win" something. It is my honest opinion that this is NOT a Good Article, and it
5064:
And with regard to the external link in the article: In every case, the external links belong somewhere other than the main text: In the case of this one: "(2007P-0085, Copy of 2007P-0085 Appendix C -- search for cacao)" it's a reference and would be better served set off with ref tags. Also this
4823:
This has been on the books here for far too long: it has not been good article collaboration of the week since 3 June. Some parts of the article are so littered with footnotes (even on adjectives) that they are unreadable. In other places, significant facts are unsupported, as pointed out above. The
4710:
As a candidate in the recall election, Schwarzenegger had the most name recognition in a crowded field of candidates, but he had never held public office and his political views were unknown to most Californians. His candidacy was immediate national and international news, with media outlets dubbing
4692:
Large amounts of improvement, especially reference-wise, and I can't tell exactly why there are dispute tags over one section. Might want to remove this sentence though, "Schwarzenegger scrambled toward the political middle, determined to build a winning legacy with only a short time to go until the
4432:
I have tried to get the original 3 papers from people that had direct contact with Gage. The 2 from Dr Harlow and the one from Bigelow. I now that the 3 of them appear in McMillans book; but I dont have access to it. Does anybody have it? I have the first report from Dr. Harlow; but not the original
4324:
I think I see a POV concern in the article. The original doctor first said in his 1848 report that once Gage recovered, barring some memory loss, he was remarkably alright, even going shopping and remembering the people around him. The doctor then later changed his mind, in a paper written 20 years
3589:
While that may be true, consistent referencing style IS required. Once the article has an established referencing style (be it links, footnotes, or parentheticals) further additions should be referenced in the same way. Since other refs us the citeweb template, the fact that there are some that do
3158:
Giant Puffin is actually correct in his reply / fail - I was merely stating that being short isn't relevant, and that it depends on the notability of the topic. He is correct in saying it's relative to what sources are available, and in doubting that the article doesn't use all the available sources
2942:
If there isn't significant progress over the next couple of days, I will change my vote. But I feel that, considering the only real issue is referencing, this can be addressed in a matter of hours. Reference what can be and delete what can't. If the contributing editor(s) take the initiative, it can
2864:
It should be noted that the rest of the article is VERY well referenced. Since the article passed almost a year ago, this would lead me to two conclusions: The article was passed under a different set of GA standards, and as the standards have changed the article no longer qualifies as a GA, OR the
2137:
Where an entire paragraph gives a straight set of facts from one source (So-and-so was born on XXXX to John and Jane Doe. He grew up in Anytown USA, where he attended Anytown State University and majored in Criminal Justice...) it is quite appropriate to reference the entire paragraph with a single
1870:
The existance of another substandard article does not excuse this one. The release date MUST have been written somewhere before it was added to this article. How hard is it to note WHERE this information comes from? If it wasn't invented out of whole cloth, it was written down somewhere before it
1106:
This organization has the benefit of separating the public Michael Jackson persona (as a recording artist, performer, and actor) from the private Michael Jackson (personal life). You'll see that most GA and FA Biographical articles do this kind of organization, since really there are two narratives
730:
Just to clarify for those reading this: please refer to Lara's talk page and read my explanation regarding the user whose comments I crossed out. On the lead: for the article as it is, the lead does a very good job at summarizing the subject. Lara posits that there is "too much detail" but offers no
436:
Please no strawmen arguments. Don't try to get an upper hand in this process by throwing around wild claims. I am more than willing to seriously consider a GA review at the appropriate time. Now is clearly not the appropriate time. It is a long-standing tradition in Knowledge (XXG) that if something
281:
I see no reason NOT to have another GA review, since the result of the last review was NOT "consensus keep". It was kept as a default. There was NO CONSENSUS, which is not the same as a "keep". The result was keep, but the discussion was deadlocked and thus closed and kept by default; not because
245:
While I too think the lead is laughably overlong, this article really shouldn't be here for the reasons Uber stated. I've never liked the idea of blanket reverting back to another version it basically undoes all the work people have done to an article over a course of time and is disrespectful in my
216:
This is all not mentioning the fact that the original version that was promoted to GA status was quite atrocious, stylistically, encyclopedically, and in every other way. Ample evidence can be found in the archives of the talk page detailing the reasons for the changes. The original version became a
177:
a GA review, no less than two weeks or so ago I believe. The result was to keep its GA status. As such, this second effort so quickly is completely null and void. Wait a few more months, preferrably three or four, before you renominate so as to give the editors a good opportunity to grapple with the
125:
I personally feel the article's main editor (UberCryxic) is resisting all change other than he himself makes, whilst this is... unhelpful, I don't (to be honest) care. The fact (and my only grievance) is it makes the article non-GA worthy in this case. The editor seems to be charged with a polarised
5130:
Sorry I was not AGFing there. I should have. Please accept my humble apology for that. Lately, there has been a lot of contention at this project by MANY people who feel that since this is NOT FA, it is OK to ignore any suggested improvements to an article with "This ain't FA, so I don't have to
5113:
Thanks for doing that. I didn't realise you were asking for such an easy fix as I thought you would have fixed it immediately (instead of complaining about it) in that case. I'm not interested in mediocrity either, but perfection can only be attained in stages and if an article needs to be so close
5038:
There is a remaining GA issue: ideally, the "Chocolate in popular culture" section should be replaced by a section on "Chocolate in society" which elaborates on the final paragraph of the lead. However, if this section (and the corresponding lead paragraph) were deleted, then the article, while not
4725:
Schwarzenegger enjoyed a large degree of success and victories in his early governorship, including repealing an unpopular increase in the vehicle registration fee as well as preventing driver's licenses being given out to illegal immigrants, but later began to feel the backlash when powerful state
4494:
I actually think this article could be a relatively clear GA with just a little bit of work, the thing about his heart valve that isn't referenced can just be removed, the few other things with citation needed templates don't seem very important either, the Bodybuilding section appears to obviously
4150:
Added one of the links at the botton as a citation for that piece of information; since it talked about the topic.Apart from that I think that you can´t really compare a topic like electroconvulsive therapy to the biography of a person like Phineas Gage: I believe the article has the most important
3566:
Why does it need citeweb? Because everyone else who's got GA has worked their ass off by adding citeweb, so why should this one be an exception? The violation is under "Reception and criticism", and if the editor was actually as thorough as he should've been he would've spotted this. The line says;
3131:
Yes, a lack of information and sources were the main reasons for failing the article. The article in itself is not very long. I agree that length is not a crucial factor in GA status, past a point. But it does not seem to cover a lot of his life. It does have a lot of information in his involvement
2920:
Note my comments on Tupac Shakur review as well. The article may be in process of become a GA, but unless the fixes are made in the next few days, I see no compelling reason to keep a substandard article on the list simply because it shows promise. If the article is at standard within a week from
2663:
I do think the article would benefit from an image of a union of rectangles, although more than this is certainly not required. I could add my voice to the votes here, but instead I am going to practise what I preach and take responsibility for delisting the article. If I do delist it (which I will
2112:
Well, I never said once that each sentance needed to be referenced. An article that sourced every single sentance would be resoundly rejected at FA as excessive anyways. Also, don't disparage GA as a somehow inferior process where standards should not be upheld. GA's standards of referencing are
1668:
More proof that you're just trolling me and not actually reading anything. And another example of you backing my point while opposing it. I didn't recommend that they use the cite web template. They already use it. I am merely recommending that they be consistent, as you so kindly pointed out above
1564:
There you go. As I said above, it appears that the article does meet the "broadness" requirement of GA (Criteria 3), so the initial reason for failure seems to be void; however the article is poorly written in places (Criteria 1) and has serious referencing problems (Criteria 2) and so should have
1533:
Though not necessarily for comprehensivness. The GA requirement is broadness (hits all relevent points) not comprehensiveness (complete coverage of everything). The article is formated like any good film article, and hits all the points adequately. So, for that reason I would NOT have failed the
1142:
Under the section "Music video and MTV" consider changing the opening sentance to say "Some say that Michael Jackson was the first to..." rather than just "Michael Jackson was the first to..." Unequivocal statements of greatness like this sentance implies that Knowledge (XXG) endorses that opinion
1016:
It looks as though the lead has greatly improved. I still recommend changing the organization of the article to a more logical layout: Maybe this heading organization might work better for readability. Reorganization could do much more than random cutting in making the article easier to read and
869:
Well if what I said is true, then what you said in the beginning, that what Paarduag wrote was "not a keep vote," has to be false. Yes what Paarduag wrote is unconventional, but not amazingly unique or anything. I myself have had plenty of instances when I've voted on something and then gone off on
843:
While that is true, complaints following comments don't generally contradict the vote. If you will notice, all votes from regular GA/R editors are followed by some sort of justification or explanation. That is the expectation of those voting. Even those who apparently only vote when this particular
832:
18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) There's no set standard on what a "Keep" or "Delist" vote should look like in terms of explanation. People complain all the time in their voting comments. If the person says "Keep," he or she means keep the article as a GA, or at least that's what we have to assume if we're
535:
upon the article and, although we do appreciate the interest, you are encouraged to ignore it." You basically told potential reviewers that their views would not matter and procedure means nothing. Where are you pulling this from? You know for a fact that if enough people say this article should be
368:
Jayron, your initial argument is absolutely irrelevant. Even if you try to sugarcoat the result as "no consensus" or whatever, you're still left with the fact that....there was no consensus. In light of that fact, it is best to wait some time before making such a quick renomination. We are all more
4394:
page 282 of this article) was what Garrondo was questioning. Perhaps I was getting a bit overeager by citing the page numbers of the sources that I can get my grubby mitts on. But as Damasio's book is substantially longer than your average journal article, we should get a page reference for that,
4076:
If you dont want to use citeweb, then so be it. However, each web source needs a date: either when it was published or when it was last accessed (this is so that if the link ever dies, people can use webarchive.org to see it). Also, the citations need to be consistent, so make the link in cite 2 a
2040:
Anaximander's bold use of non-mythological explanatory hypotheses considerably distinguishes him from previous cosmology writers such as Hesiod. It confirms that pre-Socratic philosophers were making an early effort to demythify the genealogical process. Anaximander's major contribution to history
1594:
Additionally, I found that there are issues with the referencing concerning placement and naming. These are minor issues, however. Citations should be placed outside of punctuation; this includes quotations. References 1, 4, and 5 are the same reference. It needs to be named so that it will appear
1182:
even though it is a strange "keep" given my feelings that this GAR is irrelevant. Anyway, Criteria 5 is definitely in danger of being violated here, although I wouldn't rush to judgment that quickly Jayron. This article was quite stable for months until just recently. Articles always have disputes
880:
Your comment being correct does not make mine false. Just because it's not a written standard does not mean there is no expectation. If you are going to have all the MJ article contributors come sway the consensus, there should at least be some justification behind it. We go to the trouble to list
783:
I've begun an extensive process with the aim of taking this article below 100 kb. Right now, my edits have taken it from 115 kb to 108 kb. I'm informing people of what I'm changing in the article's talk page under the "Improvements and Suggestions" section. I am mainly focusing on Lara's proposals
557:
A majority of those involved in the last GA review voted to keep this article's status. The user's characterization of what happened at the last review is completely incorrect as most of those who participated shared my opinions. Refer to what I told Jayron above; the lack of consensus, especially
469:
I apologize. I was jumping to conclusions about your motives, and I appreciate that you want this article improved. I was wrong to make it appear as though you were making arguements when you weren't. Please accept my humble apology. I still feel that the article needs some serious work, and I
338:
The image in the lead MAY be a problem, since it is NOT the image made by the US government. It is a derivative image, edited from a US government work, and I am not sure how it works. Its inclusion MAY be kosher, but the liscencing tag implies that THIS image is a work of the federal gov't. It
334:
As a whole, the article is QUITE bloated. Much of the information on individual albums should be confined to the ALBUM articles rather than the ARTIST article. Plus, the organization is hard to follow as it doesn't really segregate his personal life from his professional one; they are really two
121:
Lead is too long, given the amount of time the article's editors have had to fix this issue since it was last raised. Removing extraneous text is simple and this article has been like it for what I would say was an unacceptable time-span for how long an article should be allowed to sit with issues
93:
To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately
5241:
Struck through vote above. The article now meets all GA criteria, and is quite good. I would highly recommend taking this article to Peer Review in preparation for future FA status, as it is pretty close. Some more relatively minor fixes are needed for FA, but for an article of this length and
5226:
Indeed: in fact the citations in this section instead support the statement that chocolate is a stimulant, or has other chemical effects on the body. But hey, hang on a minute, apart from the title and opening sentence, this is all the section is claiming. Title changed. Opening sentence tweaked.
4238:
Yes. Instead of delisting, I will go to the library, check out all of the cited books, read them and find all cited sentences, then reference each properly citing the page numbers. Yes. That is what GA/R is for. That's what we do... Seriously, knock it off with the ridiculous, harassing comments.
3720:
The template improves verifiability - for example, retrieval dates indicate when the article was retrieved, and if the article link goes dead it can be retrieved using the Wayback Machine. Also, the name of the magazine / source and author helps other editors make a judgment on whether the source
3470:
The original rationale for failing WAS correct, and so does not need to be reviewed here. The person who failed it was right to do so. If the fixes HAVE been made, then the article has changed siginficantly from what was reviewed, and should be resubmitted for another review. It should also be
1509:
The main reason for failing is that it is not comprehensive enough, and does not have a lot of information. Now I appreciate that it is a low budget film, and if there is no other information on the internet or in books, then fine. I apoligise if made it sound like the article was bad, because it
906:
Well of course it makes your comment false. If a person can just say "keep" or "delist," which is what I'm saying, it doesn't matter what they follow that up with. Doesn't matter if you consider it an "explanation" or "justification" or whatever. All that matters is the "keep" or "delist" for the
621:
to see the last GA review of this article. First of all, there were four delists (one "weak") and five keeps. Let's just make certain we understand that. Secondly, plenty of people commented that they were happy with the lead. Some of those who voted keep made statements like "the lead gives me a
492:
Thank you for your kind words. No harsh feelings and apology accepted. Process is very important though, especially in Knowledge (XXG). We should give your recommendations, and that of every other person here, every ounce of effort once this GA review closes, and yes posting them in the talk page
258:
I agree with Quadzilla99. If this is not about delisting the article, as you state, then this is not the place for it. I would have liked to have seen this brought up on the talk page, discussing your opinions and remedies, before bringing it to here. I also feel that more time should be given
5032:
The expected standards in this case seem to me to be a touch on the high side. This is not FAC, after all (I know this expression is rapidly becoming a cliche — apologies!). I have adjusted the lead so that it refers to the physiological effects section, and also added a reference for one of the
4364:: As someone who has actually checked journal references, I will add that page numbers, when available, are somewhat helpful in online journals, and irreplacable in hard copy journals. Often they are the only determinant which physical issue the paper is in. (You often don't need to specify page
4351:
I've fixed the page numbers, but I guess we'll have to wait on someone else to see if we really need the page reference for the (3 page long in the reprint) journal article. Can you shed any light on where the quote from Harlow comes from, (it's not in the paper that's cited) and which page the
4164:
Several direct quotes are uncited. These need inline citations to the specific book and page number where they appear. The lead could also use to be expanded to more fully summarize the article. Some more treatment in the lead needs to be given to Gage's specific neurologic problems and their
3199:
The article appears broad enough. The man was Governor of Kentucky for 1 year. He wasn't President of the U.S. The article is of an appropriate level of coverage given his historical importance; he was ultimately an important, but minor, political player in the Civil War and gets his just due
1540:"Featured cast" is unreferenced. Insofar as it only reports the characters and actors names, the film credits would be the implied source. HOWEVER, this section goes much farther than that, giving bried biographies of the actors and critiquing their roles. As such, that analysis needs sources.
626:
lead of the Michael Jordan article, an article that the user had recently taken to FA status. Instead of attacking me for not paying attention or something to that effect, I sincerely urge you to review my arguments against your position, which are quite detailed. Nevertheless, the point is that
390:
And for something else: we can actually use this "GA review" as a vehicle for improving the article (kind of like a peer review), but bear in mind that there will be no such things as votes or what have you. It's too soon for that. The votes have no authority with this GA review because its very
2370:
Some more comments: You will find several good, experienced editors who will respectfully disagree with you on the level of referencing needed here. I think the level of referencing I have indicated above represent a fair middle ground; some editors are happy to fill articles with unreferenced
458:
of the nominator, despite reminding the user that many of these claims have been thoroughly addressed before, I still treat them as "very legitimate." I am not trying to dismiss anything. This is just the wrong method to go about improving the article. That's essentially all I'm arguing, as are
5068:
References (including external links) can be made in the text. There is no requirement that they should be footnotes (aka ref tags). If you disagree, please educate me in wikipolicy with a link! Please also point me to a link which explains the extent to which consistent referencing style is a
4287:
Changing the inline citation method (from template to plain text or vice versa) isn't something that should be done without consensus. I've done some fixes myself, above and beyond the call of duty, because in my initial look through the article, I thought it would be easy to fix up, with the
1955:
states that "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." As best I can tell, any fact open to challenge in this article is sourced. Not every line has to be sourced. The GA standard is different from the FA standard, and while I am
633:
You then stated that "everyone" is attacking the "unsourced" information. Generally, they are not. You are the only one doing that. Know why? Because this article is heavily cited, and one could even successfully argue it's overly cited in some parts. One of the people in the review stated the
1814:"Featured cast" is unreferenced. Insofar as it only reports the characters and actors names, the film credits would be the implied source. HOWEVER, this section goes much farther than that, giving bried biographies of the actors and critiquing their roles. As such, that analysis needs sources.
155:
Homestarmy, Nehrams2020, Quadzilla99 and LaraLove all pointed out the overlength of the lead in the previous review. This was not rectified. I previously ceased editing May 06 - May 07, on the basis I would make an more balanced attempt to take wikipedia forward on my return. This article has
4748:
Overall, the organization could use some clean-up, especially the end, where we jump from issue to issue with no sense of context. This may not be a GA issue, but an article of this size is easily FA ready with some work; and that WILL eventually come up, so there is no reason not to fix it
4718:
On October 7, 2003, the recall election resulted in Governor Gray Davis being removed from office with 55.4% of the Yes vote in favor of a recall. Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California under the second question on the ballot with 48.6% of the vote to choose a successor to Davis.
2943:
be done in a day. It was promoted with nothing. To be at the point it is now shows that someone has taken enough interest in it to bring it up to a good quality without the goal of GA. If whoever has that passion is still active, I definitely think it can be brought up to standards quickly.
2127:
It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:(a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and (c) contains no original
1514:
merging the two sections is because the release dates section isnt long. Again, thats not your fault, you can only have so much information about release dates. But, seeing as reaction is also to do with the film's release, it is possible to merge the two together. Its only a possibility. -
2010:
According to whom? This fact should be referenced to someone who said it, as it is an interpretation, and if the author of the article is the only one making the assertion, it is OR. Statements like this, that present an interpretation of something, need to be referenced to WHO made the
4789:
Given a week to make the fixes needed that I noted above, nothing appears to be done. I am left with no choice but to vote delist here. Its a shame, since parts of this article are well written and well referenced, but the last third is such a mess that it drags the whole article down.
3176:
that I have consulted all available sources. I know I have done a Google search for both "James F. Robinson" and "James Fisher Robinson" and used pretty much everything I could find. I also work at a community college in Kentucky, and have searched our card catalog as well as that of the
1134:
Consider splitting early life from the Jackson 5 section. Keep the Jackson 5 section on the music only and move the birth, early childhood, and relationship with his parents and religion to its own section under Personal Life. Also, all of that information, on his early life, is as yet
379:
His initial comment is more than relevant. You are stonewalling any changes you do not want made and using the "I need more time" excuse to perpetuate a rubbish article as one of our best. It needs delisting. Also, please do not contact me on my talk page to give the mistaken idea we are
1391:
for GA status and i am not sure why? The reasons he gives do not seem valid reasons for failing a nomination for GA and they seem to be purely based on the subject matter not having lines and lines of trivia and non essential references. I have pasted his reasons and my respone below.
4733:
Schwarzenegger then bucked the advice of fellow Republican strategists and appointed a Democrat, Susan Kennedy, as his Chief of Staff. Schwarzenegger scrambled toward the political middle, determined to build a winning legacy with only a short time to go until the next gubernatorial
1894:"Interpretation" section is very unencyclopedic in tone, and presents critical analysis of the film which is unreferenced. The quote is referenced, but the analysis that precedes it (which is a mess, and not well written at all) has no source at all, and looks like original research.
1632:
does not require any particular style of footnote format; merely clarity and consistency. The style with LaraLove would impose upon the article has disadvantages; which become obvious if one ever chooses to reorder an article with notes in that style. Editors are free not to use it.
4728:
Needs many references. There is a direct quote, which is unreferenced. There is critical interpretation ("enjoyed a large degree of success" - according to WHOM?) which is not attributed to anyone. Other terms of opinion, like "unpopular" or "backlash" or "Key among" also need
1146:
Consider a minor reorganization of the personal life section to gather the non-controversial sections (early life, marriages, and humanitarian work) at the beginning and the controversies (physical appearence, child molestation charges) at the end. More consistant narrative that
1445:"most of the articles sections rely soley on one or two references each"!Count again dude, there are two main sections with three refernces in each, and the other sections are references where needed and only when needed, again do you want me to add stuff in for the sake of it?
634:
following, also in relation to the lead: "I think it could be trimed down though , and leads generally shouldn't need that many references." Once again, your suppositions above are highly incorrect. Just out of curiosity: did you read what people wrote in the last GA review?
151:
is nothing like this version either (notice the much shorter, definately more neutral lead - although that article also does not meet GA status requirements). The majority of editors to that version appear to have left editing duties of the article after UberCryxic joined.
670:
I have left a lengthy list of changes that need to be made from what I have read of just the first part of the article and the references section (which I didn't get very deep into, either). I plan to review it further when I have more time. My basic issues are as follows:
1441:
The Project Film Style Guidelines suggest that the Distribution (i have used the heading release dates) and critical reaction sections are separate sections, you are suggesting that i merge them now, so to be a Good Article i need to ignore the style guidelines? now i am
519:
This article does not represent our best. It needs to go from the list. You are delaying the inevitable. You had 6 WEEKS to improve the article while that GA review discussion went on and you argued incessantly with everyone and did nothing of the sort that would improve
1546:"Interpretation" section is very unencyclopedic in tone, and presents critical analysis of the film which is unreferenced. The quote is referenced, but the analysis that precedes it (which is a mess, and not well written at all) has no source at all, and looks like
3725:. Of course the template was a recommendation, and other templates offer the same resource. Criterion 2. of GA criteria says "It is factually accurate and verifiable", and in using retrieval dates etc. I feel this goes to further satisfy that criterion. As concerns
141:(note how this reversion of his reintroduces completely unsourced libel material about him being a part of a circuit involving prostitutes that has no source). Previous attempts to delist article (by another editor) were also stonewalled by by the same contributor
4480:
especially on point 2. There are numerous missing references, many citation request tags and above all an entire section which is under dispute and requires cleanup. The article is on the whole written to a good standard but at present I do not think it meets GA.
754:(Read the article). Entice the reader. Give them the basic information, but make them WANT to read the rest. And trim the article down so they don't lose interest or get discouraged when they see that four seconds of scrolling only dropped the bar down one inch.
798:
The article now stands at 105 kb and is getting shorter and shorter fairly quickly. Again, I'm trying to detail my changes in the talk page of the article for as much transparency as possible. This process should take a few days, so please be patient. Thank you
2027:
He is the first philosopher to employ, in a philosophical context, the term arkhế (ἀρχή), which until then had meant beginning or origin. For Anaximander, it became no longer a mere point in time, but a source that could perpetually give birth to whatever will
4404:
I did refer to the saying twice the page. I think the correct thing to do would be to only cite once the text and link the different citings to that only reference. I´ve seen some pages that do it with letters but I don´t know how to do it. Does anybody know?
3775:
There is an inconsistency in stating chart positions. Some are written out while others are not. Second paragraph of lead, for example. I recommend that none be written out, instead numerical listing as #24, #6, #1, as this is what I see used most in music
1899:
I agree this needs rewriting, though i am not sure this could be called original research, the film does not answer any questions and this is fact. it is obvious from the film this is the case and i even referenced a quote from the director saying this was
335:
narratives that need to be told separately and the way this article is organized makes it hard to follow. The way it jumps from paragraph to paragraph intertwining album and song reviews with personal life story makes it difficult for the reader to parse.
4137:. Lack of citations is why I think that GA status should be removed from this article -- while there are sufficient sources listed at the end, the information in the article itself is not sufficiently tagged with citations (as it is in an article such as
539:"It is a long-standing tradition in Knowledge (XXG) that if something fails to gain consensus, it is best to wait some time before making another major push" Traditions mean nothing, this is wikipedia, and I choose to IGNORE ALL RULES on this one, which
4189:
per Jayron's assessment. Additionally, related texts, references, and external links are messy and inconsistent. Reference 4 does not use the cite template as the rest do. Reference 7 has a future retrieval date and is also included in related texts.
1433:
You have asked me to extend the featured cast section, great, shall i call the director up and ask him to re-shoot the movie and add some extra parts this time because Knowledge (XXG) say that a film with less than 5 characters in it cannot be a Good
4311:, and fixed the future retrieval date. I'd suggest that the reason why the Related texts section (now called Further reading) looks messy is because they're a mix of books and a journal article, but they are at least ordered by author's last name. -
1971:
and how much is OR just by looking at the article if there are no internal citations. By internal citations alone i'm sort of on the fence, but if the references below really do comprehensively cover this article, then i'd support it for GA status.
1474:(a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and (c) contains no original research.
2475:
Themistius, a 4th century Byzantine rhethorician, mentions that he was the "first of the known Greeks to publish a written document on nature" and by this very fact, his texts would be amongst the earliest written in prose, at least in the Western
1830:
was very different than it is now. Since this has been cleaned up, it is no longer a problem. I would have preferred, rather than removing the extra material, that it was assigned a reference again. This solves the problem, but not in an ideal
1437:
The alternative version is a stub? okay, so once i have explained what the extended version is about what else should i say? Should i make it up? just write any old crap just to make the section long enough? what happened to be concise and to the
3263:- I found one minor MOS issue, which I corrected. Otherwise, it reads like a good article to me. However, I do believe that United States should be included with his location. Does anyone know off-hand if there is a policy that includes this? --
4495:
be covered by like the first five references in the bibliography, and the personal life section doesn't seem to have an active discussion on the talk page, i'm inclined to conclude its not really being disputed by any editors there at present.
1486:
5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
5060:
I agree that in the form it is in, the Pop Cultue section needs to go. It is a trivia section in disguise. If it can be prosified (turned from list into writing) it may make a better section, but as it stands now it is a black mark on this
4705:
I am still avoiding voting on this one, as it seems like it is still in process, and the first few sections on body-building and acting are quite good; however the entire article from "Political career" to the end still has major problems:
2211:, the hyphen needs to be removed from 4th-century; hyphens used in the third paragraph of the same section need to be changed to —s; Anaximander is over-used — "he" should be used in place of his name more frequently than it currently is;
2003:. The reviewer's comments are quite inadequate, as they give NO guidance for improving the article so it can be renominated, but I would have failed it for the same reason, and left the following list of sentances that require sourcing:
741:
I really don't think it's that difficult to figure out what needs to be removed from the lead considering it's been said multiple times between the two reviews. Possibly read back over the suggestions from both reviews. Also reading over
2133:
Back to my point: where a superlative claim is made (So-and-so was the first to....) or where an obvious interpretation of data is done (It is believed that so-and-so did this because...), sources ARE needed because these statements are
5217:. There's a section named "As an addiction"? I highly doubt that this is true (not that it isn't humorous to ponder rehab clinics for chocolate). There are no citations to support the fact that the compounds listed can cause addiction.
606:
Additionally I have struck through the text from you implying I have given this a time limit. There is no time limit for discussion. I have said repeatedly now is a perfect time. It is you who said on my talk page we should wait until
4141:: if you compare the quality of citations in the two articles and consider the extremely high standards that a "good article" is expected to meet, then it's a wonder why Phineas' article has GA status and the ECT article does not). --
3995:
Does citation 5 cover the entire first paragraph of Writing and creation? If so, you should probably put it both before and after the Kiedis quote so that readers will know that it doesn't only cover the quote. If not, it needs to be
493:
would be best. Right now, this review itself is the cloud hanging over the actual improvement of the article, amazingly ironic since improving the article is precisely what it's trying to do....it's just going about it the wrong way.
1107:
here, and the way they are intertwined now does not do service to the article. I am glad to see this article improving, and hope to see it reach GA status real soon. I am looking forward to changing my vote if this can improve. --
2580:
This short article was reciently given a maths rating of start, indicating that there was considerable amount which could be added. As such it fails 3a, the article could also benefit from some illustrations so 6 is questionable.
1183:
creep up here and there at certain times; not a good reason at all to remove their GA status. What you mentioned would normally be a problem for an article on President Bush or someone like that. Criteria 1 and 3 are not violated.
2072:
Thats a start. When interpretations of data are offered, a source for such interpretations are required. When superlative claims are made, sources for such claims are required. Both of these kinds of statements are easily
4273:, which is completely invisible to the reader. If you think it important, feel free to put it in. The retrieval date is not completely trivial; but it's been fixed. Where in this do you have to step away from the computer?
523:
You are doing your best to insist that the GA review will not reach a consensus because you say it won't. I refuse on this one. This article will be removed from GA status. You refuse to allow me to improve it, reverting my
2229:
Also, I don't see where the moon crater comment from the lead is expanded in the article. Notes and references need to be cleaned up. There are references in the article in parenthesis, these should be made into notes and
4693:
next gubernatorial election.", as it is compleatly meaningless to people unfamiliar with American politics, and it isn't referenced, and "scrambled" indicates to me a lack of neutrality went into this sentences creation.
5033:
unsourced segments. I think the tags could now be removed, and the wikification is acceptable. It would be nice to format the citations consistently (maybe someone here can do it), but I don't think this is a GA issue.
5039:
comprehensive, would still have the coverage needed for GA. Yet, I'm reluctant to delete content, and potential for improvement, just to pass some tick boxes: GAs should have potential for improvement, shouldn't they?
921:
Tangental debates above threaten to derail what should be the point of this discussion. Below this header, I simply want to focus the discussion to the salient point at hand. What is your response to this question:
5184:. Please expand this to full bibliographic information. Either do it manually or use a template like cite web as you prefer, but it needs to include full information like author, title, work, publication info, etc.
2047:
Anaximander was the first astronomer to consider the Sun as a huge mass, and consequently, to realize how far from Earth it might be, and the first to present a system where the celestial bodies turned at different
697:
References are not accurately formatted and several lack all information. Many are missing credit to the author and date of publishing. Many work fields have been inaccurately filled (wrong capitalization, lack of
4442:
As for the Damasio quote: Gage's story "was the historical beginnings of the study of the biological basis of behavior" I'm reading the chapters from the book and I can´t find it although there are similar ones.
4292:. However, I have also found a seeming POV problem with the article that can't be resolved without the help of people who maintain the page, because hopefully they've read Harlow's later papers, and Macmillian.-
1143:
wholeheartedly. Knowledge (XXG) does not endorse opinions (even widely held ones); it reports the opinions of others, and prose should reflect that. Look through the article for other places where this happens.
3358:
I'm willing to pass short articles like this if I'm certain there aren't sources to expand the article. I'm sure there aren't any or that they haven't been found yet after an exhaustive search for this subject.
508:
It did not pass the last GA review. It failed to recieve enough support either way. It was a defacto pass by total lack of consensus, as the editor who removed the article summarised in his close-of-discussion
143:"discussion closed in next edit with comment "Michael Jackson - Archiving Michael Jackson: Current discussion shows no hope of consensus. Vote is 5-4 after SIX weeks of discussion. Maintain status quo (keep).)"
678:
states that articles over 100KB (which this one is) should be divided. Although this article is divided (with every section in the first half having it's own main article), it has not be sufficiently trimmed.
3901:, feel free; until then, this is not actionable; in fact, most of these are not. The last two are genuine, if minor, concerns; the rest are FA nitpicks, not impediments to a decent or satisfactory article.
1221:
3b: There is a large amount of unnecessary detail. The point of main articles for subtopics is to keep the article of the main topic trimmed down to a readable length. This is not the case for this article.
4824:
footnotes create a false impression of authority: I counted that 56 of the footnotes were just links to Schwarzenegger.com. This is not verifiability, but travesty. I suggest that the article be politely
4452:
As I say is almost sure that the citation is from the 1968 text of Dr. Harlow; I tried to change it but I couldn´t do the thing of the letters so not to have twice the same citation. Can anybody fix it?--
3932:, the lead should be a summary of the article. The third paragraph should be moved to the criticism section since it is a specific review, and should be replaced with a summary of all reviews of the song.
1298:
The organization is much easier to follow; the professional life narrative is now separate from the personal life, as is standard in nearly every biographical article out there; it is much easier to read.
987:
It is not stable. An edit war by proxy is going on here and other places. Until an agreed-upon version of this article can be put forward as the version we consider "Good" we should not list it as such.
1138:
Not really required for GA, but consider a seperate bullet list section of "Awards and honors" listing major recording awards (AMAs, Grammys, etc) or important citations. The article could benefit from
4713:
It would help if we had a reference or two where the nicknames are quoted. They say only "media outlets". Well, if there use as nicknames was so widespread, references should be easy to find. Get on
1490:
6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.
617:
I am not mistaken at all, and I can easily show why. Let's roll through these statements one by one, shall we? Ok. You stated, "everyone has commented the lead is too long." That's plainly absurd. Go
3017:
The way I see it, if this article is plaugerizing, then it can't be one of Knowledge (XXG)'s Good Articles if it isn't even compleatly our article in the first place, irregardless of its quality.
4077:
number like the other ones. Citations also need to conform to the MOS, so italicize magazine names and de-italicize article titles. Citation 1 needs to link to an actual review, and not just the
1468:(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
1311:
Great job. It should be noted that an article of this length and comprehensiveness is really on the GA list in holding for FA status. It still needs work, but I highly recommend listing it at
3121:, I concur with LuciferMorgan's concerns that article length and lack of available sources may be the only reason for this article's failure of GA. I would like additional opinions. Thank you.
1499:
some feedback and i would go away and try to fix it. But i feel that my article has been failed only because the subject does not have enough bloat to fill a few more lines with. I am confused
1319:
to get more eyes on it and put some polish into it to get ready for eventual FA nomination. Its still rough around the edges, but I could easily see this being an FA some day in the future. --
657:
The last result was 4 regular reviewers voting for delist, plus the delist recommendation of the nomination. Then we have UberCryxic's keep vote, and four additional keep votes from users who (
3149:
that explicitly states that Robinson shunned politics in favor of his career for most of his life. Apparently he was well-liked, but did very little else that was notable to any great degree.
437:
fails to gain consensus, it is best to wait some time before making another major push. In fact, I would just like to direct your attention to this article's FA nominations (the third one is
4616:
I also think it is very close to a GA. I think with minor work it could pass. I think it is pretty well cited in general although maybe slightly less than important incumbent politicians.
4414:
I've done the dual citing, but there are still other problems with the referencing (worst perhaps is that the long quote in "Effect on Gage" isn't in the source it says it is) to be fixed.-
881:
the prodigious issues with the article that disqualify it for GA. There can at least be a paragraph of explanation as to why all of that should be ignored so that the article can keep GA.
527:
I am making requests for editors because I feel we need neutral opinion. You posted on each one of my requests for outside users that: "users should be aware that the above GA review is
289:
Lead isn't well written. There shouldn't be new information in the lead, which is not covered elsewhere in the article, and this one has MUCH of that. The lead isn't really a summary.
2438:
So does a general reference to Conche's book; I presume it has an index. Checking in both cases is about equally difficult; and I observe that noone from GA seems to have done either.
4634:
3322:
You know, you're right! We should removed the country from ALL articles based on the fact that anyone can just click on the state or township or whatever for that respective country.
3704:. Demanding the use of a particular template on an otherwise good article is irrelevant; our readers can't tell. But I will link to this example of ownership and disruptive editing.
3580:
I've just never seen the necessity of citeweb before is all, it was my understanding that even lowely external links were acceptable for internal citations in regards to GA status.
2921:
now, I would obviously vote keep, but given the sheer number of references that are needed, it may be best to delist it and let it be renominated later when it IS up to standard.--
2650:- I am the editor who gave this article a maths rating of start (and other editors have supported this rating). Regarding its GA status, I believe it falls short mainly on 3a and
2865:
unreferenced sections were added after the original well-referenced article was passed, making the article substandard. Either way, this article needs to be fixed or delisted.--
2503:
The direct quotation is of course sourced, to Themistius ; by implication as quoted by Conche. I see that this is another GA reviewer who has not read even the discussion above.
3768:. It's also not really a summary... information in the lead needs to be less specific. It also introduces new information that is not expanded upon in the article (paragraph 4).
1944:
Please add more sources. I just had a brief look at this. Many sentences are not sourced. Please source them and renominate this for GA. Thanks" --Aminz 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
3409:
The instructions are in the archives, normally someone who frequents GA/R archives things, it used to be just me, but nowadays other people jump in to do it for the most part.
339:
isn't. The images was created by someone else by modifying the work of the gov't, and thus is the work of THAT person. Something needs clearing up to make that more clear.
3729:, that's total rubbish since I don't even bother to edit RHCP articles. As concerns disruptive editing, I don't wish to reply to that other than saying it's simply untrue.
1784:
Can you help me then please to understand what is expected of a good article, some of the points made i agree with in places but other points seem to make no sense at all.
5266:
Jayron and I have fixed some of the problems the article had which brought it to GA/R. It's still not perfect, but it is pretty good. Let's hope it continues to improve!
2749:- Several sections completely unreferenced - 12 references for ~16 sections, discounting refs/see also/ext links. Low frequency of refs for even the referenced sections.
1598:") and will show in the inline citations that it is reference 1 being used multiple times. If you need help with this, feel free to drop a line on my talk page. Regards,
5042:
The most compelling reason I can think of for delisting this one is that it provides a torment for those who love chocolate, but don't have any immediately available :)
2755:- Need expansion and clarification of leadup and which organizations took part and which countries tried to stay out of it, which non-members, if any, might have helped.
207:
of the article, which is what I suggested to the user. Everything aside, however, this article simply should not be here at this moment; that is, undergoing a GA review.
4335:
A question of style: when you cite a journal article the pages should not be included since they are not usually longer than 10 pages. That applies to this two citings
3611:
Oh, well, I didn't see that it wasn't in a consistent style :/. However, back to this review, Zeus is probably right, the article should be re-nominated for GA status.
2205:
per most of Jayron's review. Additionally, I noted the small things, as I always do. They don't fail the article in themselves, but while we have our attention here:
3178:
1992:
1956:
strongly supportive of sourcing (and have failed articles for weak or missing sources) I believe that this article should be listed. I ask that you review and list
3371:
If that's all the material the available references have on this guy, then that's that, and the material that is this article doesn't appear to have any problems.
138:
Personal attempts to shrink the lead/effect basic changes due to lack of attribution for the claims made were reverted by the main current contributor (UberCryxic)
1510:
isnt. If you truly cant find any more information to add, then thats fine. But at the moment, it looks like more general information could be added. The reason I
1408:
Release dates and Critical reaction could do with merging, with the latter being placed as a type-3 header. Interpretation could also be merged as a type-3 header
2041:
was writing the oldest prose document about the Universe and the origins of life; for this he is often called the "Father of Cosmology" and founder of astronomy.
870:
some tangent that really wasn't related to the vote. That doesn't make votes illegitimate at all. The only thing that matters is the "keep" or "delist" labels.
3400:
I agree it should be speedily kept... is that something that admins are expected to do or is it something that anybody can do? If the later, how do we do it?
1152:
I know I am getting nit-picky here in some places, but since we are doing this, we might as well do it all the way. This article is doing SO much better. --
3204:
look fine. This kind of article, for a subject that is unlikely ever to be FA, is what GA is supposed to honor and this one appears to be a model article.--
2141:
Also, where an entire SECTION of the article is referenced to a SINGLE source, it may also be appropriate to simply indicated such in the reference section:
135:. Is this article GA status? I don't feel it has that neutral quality it once possessed, it's got too many album covers and other non-free images. It sucks.
42:
of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
4847:
Result: no consensus to delist, and possibly a recent (9 June) consensus to keep due to article improvement; no further comments for over a week since then.
2491:
The lead is not a summary of the article. The "moon" tidbit, for example, is just sitting there, all alone, with no context and is not part of the article.
3391:
Technically, at what seems to be a 6 to keep and 1 to delist discussion, it could be speedily kept right now, but I wasn't going to do it because I voted.
2017:
Really? You just said in the sentance before we could not make such statements, as the documentary evidence does not exist. Who is making this assertion?
2481:
Primary sources should be used sparingly. An article that relies almost exclusively on primary sources for its citations appears to be original research (
654:- Can we please not do this again? This is the second time a GA/R on this article has gotten out of hand to ridiculous proportions. So everyone is clear:
618:
115:
76:
58:
4779:
Would be very easy to source and cite everything to bring this up to scratch. Someone more invested should do it because it is a decently written article
2599:
Looks like Math Wikiproject people don't think its even close to compleate, the lead is not sufficient, and it has a question to the reader in the lead.
2397:
in fact support them. (I believe, but cannot prove, that this is often googling the key words in their claim, without actually reading the paper cited.)
1905:
In addition, the lead is inadequate, as it does NOT cover all aspects of the article, see WP:LEAD. Production gets NO treatment in the lead, for example.
1295:
The lead now adequately summarizes the article. It is still fairly long, but it should be noted that to summarize all parts of the article it should be.
3638:
Citation templates are unnecessary. As long as the references are in a consistent format it doesn't matter if its done using templates or manually. See
2043:
Again superlative claims. Who calls him these things? Who has called him "bold"? Who has noted that these ideas of his are noteworthy to report here?
4341:(and even if they were included the page numbering should be the one of the journal being page 2 page 282 and page 3 383 of the republished article)--
5189:
For the record, the fixes this needs now are small, and if the above three fixes are made, I would support this remaining a GA, and change my vote.--
2130:
Don't imply that GA reviewer should let things slide because well, "It's only GA". Our standards are real, even if different in some areas from FA.
1859:
Again every single film article on wikipedia has unreferenced dates of release, this information is very hard to reference, and for an example see
369:
than happy to consider all of your points and those of Manboobies, but in the talk page of the article, not in a hasty and inappropriate GA review.
2021:
It is very likely that leaders of Miletus sent him there as a legislator to bring forth a constitution or simply maintain the colony’s allegiance.
694:
Referencing is also inconsistent. Some statements of a certain topic (i.e. chart positions, award wins, etc.) are referenced while others are not.
1480:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
38:
2034:
However, it is generally accepted that this quote is not Simplicius' own interpretation, but Anaximander's writing, in "somewhat poetic terms".
4648:
4548:
3832:- Link being exposed is inconsistent with other refs. Additionally, the link merely leads to the main site page, not to the page of reference.
2685:
for further details. I will archive this discussion once I figure out how to do that - or maybe one of the regulars can do it for me. Thanks
4754:
If these fixes are not made soon, then I will have to vote delist. This seems a well cared for article, so I hope to see the fixes made. --
4024:"The curious character 'Dani'..." and " Although it is barely notable... the main riff plays throughout as an underlying tone" are both POV.
3571:, and the embedded link is to an mp3 file with no proof that the copyright holders of both songs have given the site permission to do this.
1964:
813:, not a keep vote. Comments following your vote should be a justification/explanation of your vote, rather than a complaint or suggestion.
1224:
5: It seems all attempts to make corrections to the article get reverted. This is unacceptatble. Edit wars fall under quick-fail criteria.
4973:
Is work progressing on this article? At a quick glance the lead looks comprehensive. what's left out? I'll look this over more later on.
4580:
If you feel this article would benefit from being the WikiProject Good Articles Collaboration of the Week, please vote at its nomination
1988:
in it. The sentences that are not sourced are not in doubt. The bulk of the article and any thing that sounds extraordinary is sourced.
674:
The lead is too long and the length of the article, as I stated in the first GA/R, does not justify it considering it, too, is too long.
531:. This article just passed a GA review about two weeks ago. It should not have been renominated so quickly. The current review will have
380:
communicating saliently on this one. You are reverting any changes I make, and this article sucks, it needs delisting, and reverting. --
4626:
2611:
per above and discussion on the article's talk page. Incredibly short lead and incredibly short article- not at all comprehensive. --
2276:- If the moon crater comment is not necessarily encyclopedic and can't be smoothly worked into the body, it needs to be deleted. The
934:
If you wish to answer this question, please do so below. If you wish to leave other comments, please do so in the above section.--
2664:
do soon unless substantial improvements make the case for delisting unclear) then I will return here and archive this discussion.
4630:
4982:
Reply: An entire section of the article deals with Physiological Effects of Chocolate; this isn't even mentioned in the lead. --
3063:
tag. This does not excuse us from removing the copyvio here; but that's a legal and moral requirement, not an intellectual one.
2777:
dates aren't wikified and some end in -th (on October 16th, 1973). Good informative article overall though just need some work.
1975:
438:
17:
3145:
I did some more searching and found one book at Google Books that allowed me to clarify some family information. I also found
1984:
I did not have much involvement with it before I nominated it, but I have done some work on this article and I do not see any
5253:
5200:
5142:
5093:
5015:
4993:
4945:
4887:
4801:
4765:
4666:
4596:
4566:
4531:
4251:
4202:
4176:
3873:
3601:
3485:
3337:
3275:
3215:
2990:
2955:
2932:
2908:
2876:
2635:
2529:
2426:
2386:
2319:
2292:
2246:
2178:
2084:
1882:
1842:
1802:
1762:
1681:
1656:
1644:
Removed, considering it in no way addresses the issues with the article and implies that PMAnderson did not even look at it.
1610:
1576:
1330:
1243:
1163:
1118:
1000:
945:
893:
856:
825:
766:
717:
481:
423:
357:
3163:
use all the available sources per consensus, then fair enough and the decision will be overturned then per that consensus.
1693:
It would be nice if LaraLove would at some point reply to what I actually wrote. My comment above does not say - or mean -
3113:
failed this article because it was not broad enough and suggested that additional images would help. Within half an hour,
1537:"Filming" section, second paragraph makes critical analysis of the style of the film. From where does this analysis come?
1534:
article. HOWEVER, that being said, the article is NOT GA quality. Several sections have NO apparent sources whatsoever:
637:
Your characterization of my interactions with the banned user are also vastly exaggerated. We talked for one or two days;
2682:
1402:
Although the references are properly formatted, most of the article's sections rely solely on one or two references each
191:
Man's proposel isn't about delisting or keeping as much as it is proposing to revert this article to an earlier form.
2709:
Has several tags in the article, and some sections have no inline references at all. Promoted as GA in 2005, btw.
2590:
1948:
2545:(36, 317)"; the quotation has been made into a paraphrase. The formating here could be improved, and I will do so.
1128:
WOW has this article gotten better in a short time. A few small things I spotted since the recent reorganization:
1952:
408:. These violations exist irregardless of prior votes on this. If you wish to improve this article to GA status,
4138:
3308:
if she does not, she should click on it anyway, and the second line will tell her that Kentucky is a U.S. State.
2478:- All direct quotations, such as this one, need to be sourced. I saw several unsourced quotations in the article.
981:
The article does not stay focused on the subject. It does not obey a summary style as required by the standards.
3824:. <- Billboard.com - Why is the external link to Billboard.com when it states the ref is from their fan site?
2066:
Anaximander, surely aware of the sea's convexity, may have designed his map on a slightly rounded metal surface.
2062:
Was he the first to do this? If so, and it is important, who says it is important. Again, superlative claim...
5078:"It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting" from footnote 2. Also, from
3441:
4133:
There's really very few citations in this article at all. One specific uncited piece of information is shown
2569:
4308:
3118:
4622:
2263:
2103:
4142:
2015:
Anaximander would have reached the pinnacle of his career around the time of Polycrates, tyrant of Samos.
1915:
4462:
3448:
3133:
3110:
3006:
2280:
is a summary of the article. No information should be in the lead that isn't expanded upon in the body.
1516:
1415:
1399:
The article is not comprehensive enough, particuraly concerning the sections near the end of the article
1384:
3629:
You know, looking at WIAGA, it looks like a consistant referencing style is just highly recommended...
4554:. If passed, it will be over a week before work begins as another article is set to take this week. --
586:
consensus. Previously you drew it out for 6 WEEKS with another user who has now been banned for abuse.
4377:
4278:
4229:
3967:
is a magazine, so it should always be italicized. Also, one of the Grammys is improperly capitalized.
3906:
3709:
3437:
3313:
3301:
3068:
3035:
2586:
2550:
2508:
2443:
2411:
Yes, but one thing that footnotes DO that the lack of footnotes do NOT is allow anyone to check, and
2402:
2359:
2341:
2259:
2099:
1725:
1638:
455:
2835:. Of specific concern, the,many sections are ENTIRELY without references. These sections include:
5270:
5258:
5231:
5221:
5205:
5160:
5147:
5125:
5098:
5073:
5046:
5022:
4998:
4977:
4963:
4950:
4919:
4907:
4894:
4818:
4806:
4770:
4697:
4682:
4673:
4639:
4603:
4573:
4538:
4511:
4499:
4485:
4456:
4447:
4437:
4418:
4409:
4399:
4381:
4356:
4345:
4329:
4315:
4296:
4282:
4258:
4233:
4209:
4181:
4155:
4145:
4114:
4103:
4046:
4018:
3989:
3954:
3910:
3880:
3854:
3798:
3752:
3748:
3733:
3713:
3666:
3654:
3633:
3624:
3615:
3606:
3584:
3575:
3561:
3552:
3509:
3490:
3461:
3451:
3413:
3404:
3395:
3385:
3375:
3363:
3344:
3317:
3295:
3282:
3255:
3237:
3233:
3220:
3185:
3167:
3153:
3140:
3125:
3092:
3072:
3048:
3039:
3021:
3009:
2997:
2962:
2937:
2915:
2881:
2805:
2794:
2781:
2733:
2717:
2689:
2668:
2642:
2615:
2603:
2554:
2536:
2512:
2498:
2447:
2431:
2406:
2391:
2363:
2345:
2324:
2299:
2266:
2253:
2197:
2183:
2106:
2089:
1918:
1887:
1847:
1807:
1769:
1745:
1729:
1688:
1663:
1617:
1581:
1523:
1503:
1422:
1366:
1362:
1349:
1335:
1284:
1272:
1250:
1187:
1168:
1123:
1005:
950:
911:
907:
vote to count....and, obviously, other important issues, like credibility of the user and so forth.
900:
874:
863:
837:
803:
788:
773:
735:
724:
645:
611:
599:
562:
551:
536:
removed from GA status it will no matter what time span and you are trying to delay the inevitable.
497:
486:
463:
449:
428:
395:
384:
373:
362:
271:
250:
235:
221:
211:
195:
182:
164:
3743:—meets the GA criteria. Dislike the reference style being used, but that's not in the criteria. —
3146:
1231:
A thorough list of issues, as I find them, is being compiled on the article's talk page. Regards,
675:
30:
5247:
5194:
5136:
5087:
5012:
4987:
4939:
4904:
4884:
4815:
4795:
4759:
4663:
4593:
4563:
4528:
4507:
Only the first part of the article is referenced. It needs a lot more to be considered GA class.
4267:
4248:
4199:
4170:
3870:
3730:
3621:
3595:
3572:
3549:
3506:
3479:
3334:
3272:
3209:
3164:
3114:
3089:
2987:
2952:
2926:
2905:
2870:
2632:
2526:
2420:
2415:
that the statements are correct. Is not Verifiability a cornerstone policy of Knowledge (XXG)?--
2380:
2313:
2289:
2243:
2194:
2172:
2078:
1876:
1836:
1796:
1759:
1678:
1653:
1607:
1570:
1324:
1240:
1157:
1112:
994:
939:
890:
853:
822:
763:
714:
475:
417:
351:
4956:
4829:
4477:
4372:
of pages which make up the article is part of standard scholarly convention and should be left.
3898:
3201:
3026:
Many of our articles, and most of the decent ones aren't "ours in the first place"; they're the
2832:
2787:
2122:
2114:
2060:
Anaximander's innovation was to represent the entire inhabited land known to the ancient Greeks.
1717:
1713:
1629:
961:
929:
405:
750:, the readers will wonder... (Read the article). He's won awards and sold millions of records!
5267:
5228:
5157:
5122:
5070:
5043:
4960:
4833:
4617:
3808:
3647:
3099:
2791:
2686:
2665:
2258:
All corrected except for the cleanup in the references and the location of ref to the crater.
1301:
The language has been largely neutralized; there are no more POV problems from my perspective.
5079:
4859:
4651:
4581:
4551:
3929:
3765:
2774:
2651:
2492:
2277:
1935:
I believe this article meets the GA criteria. It was failed today for the following reason:
1554:
1316:
1205:
409:
5057:
The "unreferenced" banners can be removed: These sections look appropriately referenced now.
4974:
4721:
Stats do not arise from the head of Zeus fully formed. These came from somewhere. Where???
4679:
4218:
3891:
3663:
3651:
3519:
3499:
3445:
3360:
2802:
2778:
1938:
1697:
512:
I and many others had no say in the previous GA review, and I consider the complete lack of
247:
65:
4053:
2486:
2482:
1131:
There is a tag next to a direct quote that needs resolving. We need a ref for that quote.
682:
44:
4916:
4694:
4496:
4482:
4373:
4274:
4225:
3902:
3705:
3659:
3643:
3630:
3612:
3581:
3558:
3424:
3410:
3401:
3392:
3372:
3309:
3064:
3045:
3031:
3027:
3018:
2698:
2612:
2600:
2582:
2546:
2504:
2439:
2398:
2355:
2337:
1989:
1972:
1961:
1742:
1721:
1716:, and it is not clear that it is desirable for all editors and all articles. Going beyond
1634:
1553:
In addition, the lead is inadequate, as it does NOT cover all aspects of the article, see
1500:
1346:
1184:
925:
908:
871:
834:
800:
785:
732:
642:
608:
596:
559:
548:
494:
460:
446:
392:
381:
370:
232:
218:
208:
192:
179:
161:
103:
4929:
4065:
3722:
2975:
1985:
1547:
1312:
3228:—article meets the criteria. Please note that this isn't featured article candidates. —
2054:
The map probably inspired the Greek historian Hecataeus to draw a more accurate version.
4928:
per all of the above, AND I spoted a few external links in the main text, violation of
4415:
4396:
4353:
4326:
4312:
4293:
3745:
3639:
3288:
3246:
3230:
3159:
he was correct in failing. If you can prove otherwise though that the article actually
2714:
2215:, fourth paragraph, ref 10 should be outside of parenthesis; end of first paragraph in
1359:
1281:
667:
Past that, the issues addressed, as stated above, have not been sufficiently addressed.
3291:
took a beating before it passed, but that was never mentioned as one of the concerns.
2412:
5243:
5190:
5153:
5132:
5083:
5004:
4983:
4935:
4876:
4791:
4755:
4655:
4585:
4555:
4520:
4508:
4453:
4444:
4434:
4406:
4342:
4289:
4240:
4191:
4166:
4152:
3862:
3591:
3475:
3458:
3326:
3264:
3205:
3057:
2979:
2944:
2922:
2897:
2866:
2831:: I believe the article does NOT meet the GA requirements of referencing as found in
2817:
2624:
2518:
2495:
2416:
2376:
2309:
2281:
2235:
2168:
2074:
1872:
1832:
1792:
1751:
1670:
1645:
1599:
1566:
1320:
1263:
1232:
1153:
1108:
990:
935:
882:
845:
814:
755:
706:
471:
413:
347:
262:
746:
may help. Remove specifics. He's inspired and influenced a generation... fantastic!
5218:
5114:
to FA standard to achieve GA, then GA loses a lot of its value as a stepping stone.
4654:. I recommending letting this discussion sit until they have completed their work.
4120:
4111:
3382:
3292:
3182:
3150:
3122:
2726:
1388:
1373:
3590:
not (and even to a questionably copyvio song file at that) should raise concern.--
2743:
and the embargo's impact on countries outside of Western Europe and North America.
1707:
article. Rather, it is that LaraLove insists on the use of <ref "notename": -->
1380:
Result: Relisted at GAC by custodian before consensus. Votes were Endorse fail 2-0
691:
Referencing is inadequate. There are many statements/claims that require citation.
516:
feedback inappropriate (you and a couple of other regular editors doesn't cut it).
3053:
Except for wikilinking, yes. Check the first edit of almost any article with the
503:
Please be aware (for the general audience, although Uber almost certainly knows):
4739:
The "Personal Life" section currently has TWO cleanup tags that need addressing.
1957:
1924:
1860:
203:
If that is the case, then that particular request should have been made in the
4086:
4029:
4001:
3972:
3937:
3837:
3807:
The references are messy. I see there is an issue with not wanting to use the
3781:
3531:
2207:
there is a missing comma in the lead by reference 2; in the first sentence of
2068:
How do we know he was aware of this? Who claims he designed his map this way?
2011:
interpretation. Several other sentances below suffer from the same problem...
5003:
There has been progress made to the article, but it's still below standards.
1483:
4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
1204:
1b: The lead, along with the article, is too long and not in compliance with
664:
The review ran from 28 March to 11 May. So, as stated above, about six weeks.
4840:
2974:- There has been no progress whatsoever. Although, there was an addition of
2517:
Where is this footnote? The quote, as of this posting, remains unsourced. --
2467:
for the following reasons in addition to those cited by Jayron32 and others:
989::For those reasons, this article should NOT be considered a Good Article. --
2219:
constitutes full quote, therefore punctuation should be inside quotations;
1827:
What you missed is that the version I reviewed when I wrote my assessment:
1212:
2a: Many references are also incorrectly formatted and missing information.
928:, in the state it is currently in, meet all the criteria as spelled out in
681:
The article is not sufficiently or accurately wikified. It does not follow
5176:
The history section could stand to have each paragraph properly referenced
5117:
In case you think I'm not interested in making articles better, check the
2801:
Meant to say 2b; what I was getting at is there are not enough citations.
2790:. I suggest you reread the criteria and adjust or rephrase your comment.
661:
as best I can tell) did not previously and have not since voted in GA/Rs.
157:
4875:
There may be more, but that's what I noticed from scanning the article.
4386:
I think that the specific page reference (Doe, J (2032) "Article title"
3117:
expressed concerns about that decision. As you can see on the article's
1712:
possible means of inline citation. I do not see where it is required by
1200:
1a: Prose needs work. There are several places that need to be reworded.
3817:
2223:, second paragraph, ref 19 has space between punctuation and citation;
743:
282:
there was a consensus that the article was GA quality. I am voting to
156:
actually gone backwards in that time (unlike my favorite band article,
4052:"Some have dismissed this as a publicity stunt by the DJs" contains a
3287:
I've seen it done, but I don't think it's a requirement. My FA nom of
3662:
is another good example, although thats just a GA and not an FA yet.
4832:
criteria 1a (clarity), 1b (lead), 2b, 2c and 4 are fully addressed.
3515:
Somebody's just come along and passed this, yet it doesn't even use
3381:
How long does this remain open before it's regarded as a consensus?
2761:- Could use a clearer explanation of how/when/why the embargo ended.
1345:, The shorter lead now seems adequate, and I see no other problems.
752:
What awards, and how many millions of records, and for what albums?!
630:
disliked the lead, so your assertion up there is completely false.
292:
As long as it is, the referencing is spotty in places, for example:
4828:
and encouraged to go again for GAC when editors are condident that
4224:. As it says above, it is better to fix an article than delist it.
1292:
struck through prior vote. The article has improved in many ways:
1565:
been failed. Wrong reasoning, but ultimately the right result. --
3861:
If issues are addressed, I may change my vote at a later time. --
3044:
Copied and pasted straight from Britannica nearly word-for-word?
2030:
Superlative claims are always challengable... Source this please.
1471:
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
809:(Referncing vote by Paaerduag in Consensus Check below) That's a
543:
policy. This isn't even a rule. Tradition is not policy. You are
231:
reverted. Is anyone here reading other people's comments fully?--
3821:
3471:
noted that it is NOT GA ready yet, since there is an unresolved
3444:, but the rationale was added. Is the article able to pass now?
3432:
Result: 2 to Keep, 2 to Delist, 2 to relist at GAC, no consensus
685:
standards nor those of the more specific wikilinking guidelines.
3474:
tag that makes it fail referencing requirement (Criteria 2). --
591:
These points make this article non-GA worthy, and it should be
4745:"Allegations of sexual and personal misconduct" has a fact tag
2354:; and there are several good anthologies of the Presocratics.
2036:
Who offers the interpretation that it is "generally accepted"?
1405:
The Alternative version section is a stub, and needs extending
246:
view, it's like saying "Sorry but all your work was useless".
126:
viewpoint and it shows in the current version of the article.
3525:
and has an embedded link which commits a copyright violation.
1720:
is unfair to the nominator and the initial reviewer alike.
3829:
3650:
for FAs with correctly formated referencing done manually.
3457:
The article should be renominated in order for it to pass.
3557:
Why does it need citeweb, and which link is in violation?
2576:
Result:Delisted by an individual Wikipedian (Geometry Guy)
3620:
But someone's already passed this and shouldn't have....
2308:
have NO specific reference to who is making that claim.--
1557:. Production gets NO treatment in the lead, for example.
1395:
I have failed the article for GA status. My reasons are:
1197:- I believe the article fails the following GA criteria:
217:
GA article because of copious citations, but little else.
4868:
Multiple tags and templates for referencing and cleanup.
4214:
In the words of one of Knowledge (XXG)'s oldest mottoes
2892:- This article was promoted with ZERO inline citations.
404:
does NOT belong on the GA list as is, since it violates
5118:
4476:: This article currently fails wikipedia GA criteria -
4134:
3764:
The lead is too long for the length of the article per
2893:
1828:
1628:. This, I am afraid, passes the point of tolerability.
149:
142:
139:
133:
130:
1871:
was written in Knowledge (XXG). Simply cite where.--
1477:
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
1357:
per above. This isn't featured article candidates. —
4368:
the article - although that can be helpful; but the
1750:
You're so very welcome. That's what we're here for.
705:
I'll add additional issues as I find them. Regards,
4858:Lead does not adequately summarize the article per
3959:
Put the chart positions in Infobox Single in order.
3828:2. Red Hot Chili Peppers - Singles, Billboard.com,
2008:
Very few documents can provide details on his life.
579:
Everyone has pointed out the unsourced information.
321:
1995–2000: HIStory era and Blood on the Dance Floor
3924:, but a little work could maintain its GA status:
3816:1. News, Red Hot Chili Peppers official fan site,
2654:, although I would note that comprehensiveness is
582:Everyone agrees on those two points bar you. That
346:Those are the reasons that I vote to delist it. --
2773:2b, not enough sources. Also, needs some work on
2227:, quote should use {{cquotetxt|Blah blah blah.}}.
1931:Result: Endorse fail 4-0. Status quo maintained
4854:recommendation based on the following issues:
3179:Kentucky Community and Technical College System
1942:
4742:"Accidents and medical issues" has a fact tag.
2842:Fall of the First Triumvirate - entire section
5242:comprehensiveness, FA is not that far off. --
3300:We have two cases. If a reader knows who the
2050:Again, superlative claim, so challangeable...
1462:A good article has the following attributes:
8:
4395:even if it's in a foreign-language edition.-
576:Everyone has commented the lead is too long.
122:before being delisted (2 months, anyone?).
2854:Aftermath of assassination - entire section
2848:Aftermath of the civil war - entire section
2350:I see Giorgio de Santillana did one on the
1939:Talk:Anaximander#More_sources_-_GA_comments
1304:It is fully referenced to reliable sources.
1215:2b: There are several unsourced statements.
960:The article fails the following aspects of
3803:I feel there is insufficient wikification.
3181:for additional materials without success.
2113:largely identical to FA. See and compare
1791:Looked this over. This looks fine now. --
25:
4871:Citations are not consistently formatted.
4649:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Good articles
4549:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Good articles
2741:Little discussion of the developing world
1411:The Featured cast section needs extending
178:issues raised in the previous nomination.
4064:Posters on a RCHP message board are not
2163:Dick Williams Publishing, ISBN: 94509800
1465:1. It is well written. In this respect:
4307:I've given it a pass over with AndyZ's
3495:The GAC nominator also needs to review
3440:due to a lack of fair use rationale in
2151:Any University Press, ISBN: 12323454376
2839:Conquest of Gaul - last two paragraphs
2167:webpage or page number(s) in a book.--
1595:only once on the reference list (as "1
5054:This article is getting much better.
4635:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM
148:The version actually given GA status
7:
4547:I've nominated this article for the
3569:"(The two songs are compared here ."
2541:Footnote 2, which says "Themistius,
688:There are several issues with prose.
329:(there's even a citation needed tag)
2851:Assassination plot - entire section
454:Furthermore, as you can see in the
286:myself, for the following reasons:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Good article review
3760:- This does not meet GA criteria.
3172:I'm not sure how I would go about
2373:those people are not your audience
2056:Really? Who is making this claim?
391:existence is faulty and misguided.
259:before resubmitting it to a GAR.
24:
4263:You complained of the absence of
1101:Apendices (refs, see alsos, etc.)
974:the layout is difficult to follow
4647:- This article is currently the
3245:, looks to pass all criterion.--
3200:here. All other aspects of the
2857:Military career - entire section
2161:Tom Jones: The Greatest Guy Ever
1854:"Release dates" is unreferenced.
1543:"Release dates" is unreferenced.
1020:Recording and performance career
970:The lead is not a proper summary
297:1958–1979: Early life and career
64:
29:
2568:
445:, not in a misguided GA review.
5069:requirement of WIAGA. Thanks.
1949:Knowledge (XXG):Citing Sources
1:
4915:per above, and fictioncruft.
2352:Origins of Scientific Thought
1953:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
5119:edit history of this article
1779:Some help needed then please
844:article is up for review. --
2683:Talk:Klee's measure problem
1863:a featured article no less.
303:1979–1982: Off the Wall era
5287:
4814:per Jayron32's reasoning.
3887:If you wish to advocate a
3548:22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
3088:per Jayron32's reasoning.
2845:Civil war - entire section
2234:should use {{reflist|2}}.
2193:per Jayron32's reasoning.
1910:I agree and i will rewrite
1703:; that's not the issue on
5182:Ref 5 is a plain wikilink
5161:09:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
5148:04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
4652:Collaboration of the week
4552:Collaboration of the week
4139:Electroconvulsive Therapy
3442:Image:Dani california.gif
1591:per Jayron's assessment.
1317:the League of Copyeditors
1065:Child molestation charges
327:2001–2003: Invincible era
129:The GA approved version:
5271:09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
5259:05:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
5232:11:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
5222:04:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
5206:20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5126:09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
5099:04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
5074:23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
5047:19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5023:05:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4999:03:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
4978:02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
4964:19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
4955:This isn't mentioned in
4951:04:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
4920:19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
4908:15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
4895:06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
4865:Inadequate wikification.
4819:08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
4807:02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
4771:18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
4698:17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
4683:19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
4674:19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
4640:22:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
4604:17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4574:05:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
4539:04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
4512:00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
4500:01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
4486:23:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
4474:Nomination for delisting
4457:11:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
4448:16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4438:16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4419:15:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4410:15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4400:13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4382:13:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4357:10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4346:09:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4330:01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4316:01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
4297:03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4283:02:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4259:18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
4234:22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
4210:18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
4182:17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
4156:17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
4146:16:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
4115:06:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4104:22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4047:22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
4019:22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3990:22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3955:22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3911:15:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
3881:07:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3855:21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3830:http://www.billboard.com
3799:21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3753:21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
3734:01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
3714:19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3667:17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3655:17:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3634:23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3625:12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3616:04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3607:03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3585:23:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
3576:23:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
3562:21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
3553:21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
3510:17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
3491:19:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
3462:18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
3452:18:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
3414:17:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
3405:16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
3396:14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
3386:13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
3376:21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3364:16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3345:18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
3318:22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3296:16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3283:16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3256:13:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3238:21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
3221:03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
3186:13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
3168:01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
3154:17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3141:14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3126:13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3093:17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
3073:01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
3049:20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
3040:20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
3022:14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
3010:05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
2998:20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
2963:04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
2938:17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2916:03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
2882:17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
2860:Honours - Entire section
2829:Nomination for delisting
2806:01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
2795:21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
2782:02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
2734:13:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
2718:11:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
2690:13:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
2669:16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
2643:04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
2616:22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
2604:20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
2591:20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
2555:15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
2537:06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
2513:18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
2499:07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
2448:18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
2432:16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
2407:20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
2392:03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
2364:01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
2346:01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
2325:17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
2300:05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
2267:20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
2254:19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2221:Meteorological phenomena
2198:18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
1919:07:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
1888:04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1848:04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1808:04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1770:19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
1746:03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
1730:01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1689:19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
1664:19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
1642:22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
1618:17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
1582:03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
1524:14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
1504:14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
1459:What is a good article?
1423:12:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
1367:21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
1350:20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
1336:03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
1285:12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
1273:04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
1251:19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1188:17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1169:05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
1124:03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
1017:follow. Consider this:
1006:16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
951:16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
912:22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
901:17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
875:17:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
864:06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
838:19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
804:19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
789:18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
774:07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
736:06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
725:06:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
646:03:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
612:20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
600:20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
563:19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
552:19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
498:04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
487:03:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
464:03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
450:03:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
429:03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
396:03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
385:18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
374:03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
363:02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
319:The second paragraph of
315:1991–1994: Dangerous era
313:The second paragraph of
272:03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
251:02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
236:18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
222:02:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
212:02:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
196:02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
183:01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
165:23:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
4388:such and such a journal
2658:required at this level.
2184:06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
2159:: Smith, Jane (1975).
2107:17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
2090:05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1993:03:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1976:02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1965:22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
309:1982–1986: Thriller era
307:The first paragraph of
4165:wider implication. --
4128:Result: 3 to 1, delist
4084:Done, Added, and Fixed
3963:A few MOS violations:
3304:is, she does not need
2570:Klee's measure problem
2149:Biography of Tom Jones
1951:quoting the policy in
1946:
1820:have missed something?
1492:
1387:has failed my article
1059:Marriages and children
325:Several paragraphs of
301:The last paragraph of
4903:per above reasoning.
4463:Arnold Schwarzenegger
3106:Result:6-0 list as GA
2147:: Doe, John (2002).
1453:
1385:User:The Giant Puffin
3302:Governor of Kentucky
3147:this short biography
3136:• The Giant Puffin •
2681:ed the article. See
1519:• The Giant Puffin •
1418:• The Giant Puffin •
5227:Problem solved. :)
4469:Result: 6-1 delist
3702:delete this process
2824:Result: Delist 5-0
2225:Origin of humankind
98:Archived Disussions
70:Good article review
4309:javascript program
4027:Removed/Referenced
2786:There is no 1c at
2759:End of the embargo
2705:Result: Delist 3-0
2023:According to whom?
683:WP:MOS#Wikilinking
5256:
5250:
5203:
5197:
5145:
5139:
5096:
5090:
4996:
4990:
4948:
4942:
4804:
4798:
4768:
4762:
4678:Agree with Lara.
4638:
4390:, pages 281-283,
4380:
4281:
4232:
4179:
4173:
3909:
3809:cite web template
3712:
3648:Tourette syndrome
3604:
3598:
3488:
3482:
3473:
3316:
3218:
3212:
3100:James F. Robinson
3071:
3038:
2935:
2929:
2879:
2873:
2553:
2511:
2446:
2429:
2423:
2405:
2389:
2383:
2362:
2344:
2322:
2316:
2181:
2175:
2157:Professional Life
2087:
2081:
2073:challengable...--
1885:
1879:
1845:
1839:
1805:
1799:
1728:
1641:
1579:
1573:
1548:original research
1333:
1327:
1166:
1160:
1121:
1115:
1098:Awards and honors
1085:Themes and genres
1082:Performance Style
1003:
997:
948:
942:
924:Does the article
833:being reasonable.
484:
478:
426:
420:
360:
354:
132:and the current:
91:
90:
83:
82:
52:
51:
45:current talk page
5278:
5254:
5248:
5201:
5195:
5143:
5137:
5094:
5088:
5020:
5010:
5007:
4994:
4988:
4946:
4940:
4892:
4882:
4879:
4802:
4796:
4766:
4760:
4671:
4661:
4658:
4620:
4601:
4591:
4588:
4571:
4561:
4558:
4536:
4526:
4523:
4376:
4277:
4272:
4266:
4256:
4246:
4243:
4228:
4223:
4217:
4207:
4197:
4194:
4177:
4171:
4101:
4096:
4091:
4066:reliable sources
4044:
4039:
4034:
4016:
4011:
4006:
3987:
3982:
3977:
3952:
3947:
3942:
3905:
3896:
3890:
3878:
3868:
3865:
3852:
3847:
3842:
3796:
3791:
3786:
3708:
3602:
3596:
3546:
3541:
3536:
3529:Done and Removed
3524:
3518:
3504:
3498:
3486:
3480:
3472:
3342:
3332:
3329:
3312:
3280:
3270:
3267:
3253:
3216:
3210:
3138:
3111:The Giant Puffin
3067:
3062:
3056:
3034:
2995:
2985:
2982:
2960:
2950:
2947:
2933:
2927:
2913:
2903:
2900:
2894:Reviewed version
2877:
2871:
2731:
2640:
2630:
2627:
2549:
2534:
2524:
2521:
2507:
2442:
2427:
2421:
2401:
2387:
2381:
2358:
2340:
2320:
2314:
2297:
2287:
2284:
2260:Robin des Bois ♘
2251:
2241:
2238:
2179:
2173:
2100:Robin des Bois ♘
2085:
2079:
1883:
1877:
1843:
1837:
1803:
1797:
1767:
1757:
1754:
1724:
1702:
1696:
1686:
1676:
1673:
1661:
1651:
1648:
1637:
1615:
1605:
1602:
1577:
1571:
1521:
1420:
1331:
1325:
1269:
1266:
1248:
1238:
1235:
1164:
1158:
1119:
1113:
1001:
995:
979:Criteria 3 (b):
968:Criteria 1 (b):
946:
940:
898:
888:
885:
861:
851:
848:
830:
820:
817:
771:
761:
758:
722:
712:
709:
569:You are mistaken
482:
476:
424:
418:
358:
352:
268:
265:
110:Result: Keep 6-1
85:
84:
68:
54:
53:
47:
33:
26:
5286:
5285:
5281:
5280:
5279:
5277:
5276:
5275:
5019:
5016:
5008:
5005:
4891:
4888:
4880:
4877:
4844:
4670:
4667:
4659:
4656:
4600:
4597:
4589:
4586:
4570:
4567:
4559:
4556:
4535:
4532:
4524:
4521:
4466:
4374:Septentrionalis
4275:Septentrionalis
4270:
4264:
4255:
4252:
4244:
4241:
4226:Septentrionalis
4221:
4215:
4206:
4203:
4195:
4192:
4124:
4097:
4092:
4087:
4040:
4035:
4030:
4012:
4007:
4002:
3983:
3978:
3973:
3948:
3943:
3938:
3903:Septentrionalis
3897:requirement at
3894:
3888:
3877:
3874:
3866:
3863:
3848:
3843:
3838:
3792:
3787:
3782:
3706:Septentrionalis
3660:Lawrence Taylor
3644:Toronto Raptors
3542:
3537:
3532:
3522:
3516:
3502:
3496:
3428:
3425:Dani California
3341:
3338:
3330:
3327:
3310:Septentrionalis
3279:
3276:
3268:
3265:
3247:
3134:
3103:
3065:Septentrionalis
3060:
3054:
3032:Septentrionalis
3028:1911 Britannica
2994:
2991:
2983:
2980:
2959:
2956:
2948:
2945:
2912:
2909:
2901:
2898:
2821:
2727:
2702:
2699:1973 oil crisis
2639:
2636:
2628:
2625:
2573:
2547:Septentrionalis
2533:
2530:
2522:
2519:
2505:Septentrionalis
2440:Septentrionalis
2399:Septentrionalis
2356:Septentrionalis
2338:Septentrionalis
2296:
2293:
2285:
2282:
2250:
2247:
2239:
2236:
2217:Multiple worlds
1928:
1766:
1763:
1755:
1752:
1722:Septentrionalis
1700:
1694:
1685:
1682:
1674:
1671:
1660:
1657:
1649:
1646:
1635:Septentrionalis
1614:
1611:
1603:
1600:
1517:
1430:
1416:
1377:
1267:
1264:
1247:
1244:
1236:
1233:
1062:Charitable work
926:Michael Jackson
919:
917:Consensus check
897:
894:
886:
883:
860:
857:
849:
846:
829:
826:
818:
815:
770:
767:
759:
756:
721:
718:
710:
707:
459:several others.
266:
263:
107:
104:Michael Jackson
100:
43:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
5284:
5282:
5274:
5273:
5261:
5236:
5235:
5234:
5211:
5210:
5209:
5208:
5187:
5186:
5185:
5179:
5172:
5171:
5170:
5169:
5168:
5167:
5166:
5165:
5164:
5163:
5115:
5106:
5105:
5104:
5103:
5102:
5101:
5062:
5058:
5040:
5035:
5034:
5027:
5026:
5025:
5017:
5001:
4968:
4967:
4966:
4922:
4910:
4889:
4873:
4872:
4869:
4866:
4863:
4843:
4838:
4837:
4836:
4821:
4809:
4783:
4782:
4781:
4780:
4774:
4773:
4752:
4751:
4750:
4746:
4743:
4740:
4737:
4730:
4722:
4715:
4700:
4687:
4686:
4685:
4668:
4642:
4611:
4610:
4609:
4608:
4607:
4598:
4568:
4533:
4514:
4502:
4465:
4460:
4430:
4429:
4428:
4427:
4426:
4425:
4424:
4423:
4422:
4421:
4333:
4332:
4321:
4320:
4319:
4318:
4305:
4304:
4303:
4302:
4301:
4300:
4299:
4288:assistance of
4253:
4204:
4184:
4143:24.199.103.240
4131:
4130:
4123:
4118:
4109:
4108:
4107:
4106:
4073:
4061:
4049:
4021:
3992:
3960:
3957:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3913:
3875:
3859:
3858:
3857:
3825:
3813:Other issues:
3804:
3801:
3770:
3755:
3737:
3736:
3717:
3716:
3694:
3693:
3692:
3691:
3690:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3686:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3678:
3677:
3676:
3675:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3671:
3670:
3669:
3640:Michael Jordan
3465:
3464:
3435:
3434:
3427:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3379:
3378:
3366:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3349:
3348:
3347:
3339:
3306:United States;
3289:William Goebel
3277:
3258:
3240:
3223:
3193:
3192:
3191:
3190:
3189:
3188:
3156:
3102:
3097:
3096:
3095:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3012:
3000:
2992:
2969:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2957:
2910:
2862:
2861:
2858:
2855:
2852:
2849:
2846:
2843:
2840:
2820:
2815:
2813:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2798:
2797:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2756:
2753:OAPEC or OPEC?
2750:
2744:
2701:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2672:
2671:
2660:
2659:
2645:
2637:
2618:
2606:
2572:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2531:
2489:
2479:
2469:
2468:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2367:
2366:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2294:
2270:
2269:
2248:
2200:
2187:
2186:
2164:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2117:Criteria 1(c):
2070:
2069:
2063:
2057:
2051:
2044:
2037:
2031:
2024:
2018:
2012:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1979:
1978:
1927:
1922:
1916:124.187.21.235
1912:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1902:
1901:
1896:
1895:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1865:
1864:
1856:
1855:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1822:
1821:
1816:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1782:
1781:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1764:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1683:
1658:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1612:
1585:
1584:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1551:
1544:
1541:
1538:
1527:
1526:
1449:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1429:
1426:
1413:
1412:
1409:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1376:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1352:
1339:
1338:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1287:
1275:
1254:
1253:
1245:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1201:
1191:
1190:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1022:
1021:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
983:
977:
918:
915:
904:
903:
895:
867:
866:
858:
827:
807:
806:
792:
791:
777:
776:
768:
728:
727:
719:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:wikification).
695:
692:
689:
686:
679:
668:
665:
662:
615:
614:
603:
602:
588:
587:
580:
577:
573:
572:
555:
554:
537:
525:
521:
517:
510:
505:
504:
490:
489:
434:
433:
432:
431:
388:
387:
366:
365:
343:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
331:
330:
323:
317:
311:
305:
299:
290:
275:
274:
253:
239:
238:
201:
200:
199:
198:
186:
185:
119:
118:
106:
101:
99:
96:
89:
88:
81:
80:
73:
62:
50:
49:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5283:
5272:
5269:
5265:
5262:
5260:
5257:
5251:
5245:
5240:
5237:
5233:
5230:
5225:
5224:
5223:
5220:
5216:
5213:
5212:
5207:
5204:
5198:
5192:
5188:
5183:
5180:
5177:
5174:
5173:
5162:
5159:
5155:
5151:
5150:
5149:
5146:
5140:
5134:
5129:
5128:
5127:
5124:
5120:
5116:
5112:
5111:
5110:
5109:
5108:
5107:
5100:
5097:
5091:
5085:
5081:
5077:
5076:
5075:
5072:
5067:
5066:
5063:
5059:
5056:
5055:
5053:
5050:
5049:
5048:
5045:
5041:
5037:
5036:
5031:
5028:
5024:
5021:
5013:
5011:
5002:
5000:
4997:
4991:
4985:
4981:
4980:
4979:
4976:
4972:
4969:
4965:
4962:
4958:
4954:
4953:
4952:
4949:
4943:
4937:
4933:
4931:
4927:
4923:
4921:
4918:
4914:
4911:
4909:
4906:
4905:LuciferMorgan
4902:
4899:
4898:
4897:
4896:
4893:
4885:
4883:
4870:
4867:
4864:
4861:
4857:
4856:
4855:
4853:
4849:
4848:
4842:
4839:
4835:
4831:
4827:
4822:
4820:
4817:
4816:LuciferMorgan
4813:
4810:
4808:
4805:
4799:
4793:
4788:
4785:
4784:
4778:
4777:
4776:
4775:
4772:
4769:
4763:
4757:
4753:
4747:
4744:
4741:
4738:
4736:Unreferenced.
4735:
4731:
4729:references...
4727:
4723:
4720:
4716:
4712:
4708:
4707:
4704:
4701:
4699:
4696:
4691:
4688:
4684:
4681:
4677:
4676:
4675:
4672:
4664:
4662:
4653:
4650:
4646:
4643:
4641:
4636:
4632:
4628:
4624:
4619:
4615:
4612:
4606:
4605:
4602:
4594:
4592:
4584:. Thank you,
4583:
4578:
4577:
4576:
4575:
4572:
4564:
4562:
4553:
4550:
4546:
4542:
4541:
4540:
4537:
4529:
4527:
4518:
4515:
4513:
4510:
4506:
4503:
4501:
4498:
4493:
4490:
4489:
4488:
4487:
4484:
4479:
4475:
4471:
4470:
4464:
4461:
4459:
4458:
4455:
4450:
4449:
4446:
4440:
4439:
4436:
4420:
4417:
4413:
4412:
4411:
4408:
4403:
4402:
4401:
4398:
4393:
4389:
4385:
4384:
4383:
4379:
4375:
4371:
4367:
4363:
4360:
4359:
4358:
4355:
4350:
4349:
4348:
4347:
4344:
4339:
4336:
4331:
4328:
4323:
4322:
4317:
4314:
4310:
4306:
4298:
4295:
4291:
4286:
4285:
4284:
4280:
4276:
4269:
4262:
4261:
4260:
4257:
4249:
4247:
4237:
4236:
4235:
4231:
4227:
4220:
4213:
4212:
4211:
4208:
4200:
4198:
4188:
4185:
4183:
4180:
4174:
4168:
4163:
4160:
4159:
4158:
4157:
4154:
4148:
4147:
4144:
4140:
4136:
4129:
4126:
4125:
4122:
4119:
4117:
4116:
4113:
4105:
4102:
4100:
4095:
4090:
4085:
4082:
4080:
4074:
4072:
4069:
4067:
4062:
4060:
4057:
4055:
4050:
4048:
4045:
4043:
4038:
4033:
4028:
4025:
4022:
4020:
4017:
4015:
4010:
4005:
4000:
3997:
3993:
3991:
3988:
3986:
3981:
3976:
3971:
3968:
3966:
3961:
3958:
3956:
3953:
3951:
3946:
3941:
3936:
3933:
3931:
3926:
3925:
3923:
3920:
3912:
3908:
3904:
3900:
3893:
3886:
3885:
3884:
3883:
3882:
3879:
3871:
3869:
3860:
3856:
3853:
3851:
3846:
3841:
3836:
3833:
3831:
3826:
3823:
3819:
3815:
3814:
3812:
3810:
3805:
3802:
3800:
3797:
3795:
3790:
3785:
3780:
3777:
3773:
3772:
3769:
3767:
3762:
3761:
3759:
3756:
3754:
3751:
3750:
3747:
3742:
3739:
3738:
3735:
3732:
3731:LuciferMorgan
3728:
3724:
3719:
3718:
3715:
3711:
3707:
3703:
3699:
3696:
3695:
3668:
3665:
3661:
3658:
3657:
3656:
3653:
3649:
3645:
3641:
3637:
3636:
3635:
3632:
3628:
3627:
3626:
3623:
3622:LuciferMorgan
3619:
3618:
3617:
3614:
3610:
3609:
3608:
3605:
3599:
3593:
3588:
3587:
3586:
3583:
3579:
3578:
3577:
3574:
3573:LuciferMorgan
3570:
3565:
3564:
3563:
3560:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3551:
3550:LuciferMorgan
3547:
3545:
3540:
3535:
3530:
3526:
3521:
3513:
3512:
3511:
3508:
3507:LuciferMorgan
3501:
3494:
3493:
3492:
3489:
3483:
3477:
3469:
3468:
3467:
3466:
3463:
3460:
3456:
3455:
3454:
3453:
3450:
3447:
3443:
3439:
3438:It was failed
3433:
3430:
3429:
3426:
3423:
3415:
3412:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3403:
3399:
3398:
3397:
3394:
3390:
3389:
3388:
3387:
3384:
3377:
3374:
3370:
3367:
3365:
3362:
3357:
3354:
3346:
3343:
3335:
3333:
3325:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3315:
3311:
3307:
3303:
3299:
3298:
3297:
3294:
3290:
3286:
3285:
3284:
3281:
3273:
3271:
3262:
3259:
3257:
3254:
3252:
3251:
3244:
3241:
3239:
3236:
3235:
3232:
3227:
3224:
3222:
3219:
3213:
3207:
3203:
3198:
3195:
3194:
3187:
3184:
3180:
3175:
3171:
3170:
3169:
3166:
3165:LuciferMorgan
3162:
3157:
3155:
3152:
3148:
3144:
3143:
3142:
3139:
3137:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3124:
3120:
3116:
3115:LuciferMorgan
3112:
3108:
3107:
3101:
3098:
3094:
3091:
3090:LuciferMorgan
3087:
3084:
3083:
3074:
3070:
3066:
3059:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3047:
3043:
3042:
3041:
3037:
3033:
3029:
3025:
3024:
3023:
3020:
3016:
3013:
3011:
3008:
3007:Legis Nuntius
3004:
3001:
2999:
2996:
2988:
2986:
2977:
2973:
2970:
2964:
2961:
2953:
2951:
2941:
2940:
2939:
2936:
2930:
2924:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2914:
2906:
2904:
2895:
2891:
2890:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2880:
2874:
2868:
2859:
2856:
2853:
2850:
2847:
2844:
2841:
2838:
2837:
2836:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2825:
2819:
2818:Julius Caesar
2816:
2814:
2807:
2804:
2800:
2799:
2796:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2769:
2768:
2760:
2757:
2754:
2751:
2748:
2745:
2742:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2732:
2730:
2725:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2716:
2712:
2707:
2706:
2700:
2697:
2691:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2670:
2667:
2662:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2646:
2644:
2641:
2633:
2631:
2622:
2619:
2617:
2614:
2610:
2607:
2605:
2602:
2598:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2578:
2577:
2571:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2535:
2527:
2525:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2497:
2494:
2490:
2488:
2484:
2480:
2477:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2466:
2463:
2462:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2430:
2424:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2390:
2384:
2378:
2374:
2369:
2368:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2332:
2326:
2323:
2317:
2311:
2306:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2298:
2290:
2288:
2279:
2275:
2272:
2271:
2268:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2252:
2244:
2242:
2233:
2228:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2204:
2201:
2199:
2196:
2195:LuciferMorgan
2192:
2189:
2188:
2185:
2182:
2176:
2170:
2165:
2162:
2158:
2155:
2150:
2146:
2145:Personal Life
2143:
2142:
2140:
2136:
2134:challengable.
2132:
2129:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2105:
2101:
2096:
2092:
2091:
2088:
2082:
2076:
2067:
2064:
2061:
2058:
2055:
2052:
2049:
2045:
2042:
2038:
2035:
2032:
2029:
2025:
2022:
2019:
2016:
2013:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2002:
1994:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1977:
1974:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1963:
1959:
1954:
1950:
1945:
1941:
1940:
1936:
1933:
1932:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1920:
1917:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1903:
1898:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1886:
1880:
1874:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1846:
1840:
1834:
1829:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1806:
1800:
1794:
1790:
1789:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1780:
1777:
1776:
1771:
1768:
1760:
1758:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1744:
1740:
1737:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1706:
1699:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1687:
1679:
1677:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1662:
1654:
1652:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1616:
1608:
1606:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1590:
1587:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1574:
1568:
1563:
1562:
1556:
1552:
1549:
1545:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1525:
1522:
1520:
1513:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1481:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1469:
1466:
1463:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1450:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1425:
1424:
1421:
1419:
1410:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1381:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1348:
1344:
1341:
1340:
1337:
1334:
1328:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:
1303:
1300:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1241:
1239:
1230:
1229:
1223:
1220:
1217:
1214:
1211:
1209:
1207:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1170:
1167:
1161:
1155:
1151:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1135:unreferenced.
1133:
1130:
1129:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1116:
1110:
1105:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1064:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1049:Personal Life
1048:
1046:Acting Career
1045:
1044:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1004:
998:
992:
988:
984:
982:
978:
975:
971:
967:
966:
965:
963:
959:
955:
954:
953:
952:
949:
943:
937:
933:
931:
927:
916:
914:
913:
910:
902:
899:
891:
889:
879:
878:
877:
876:
873:
865:
862:
854:
852:
842:
841:
840:
839:
836:
831:
823:
821:
812:
805:
802:
797:
794:
793:
790:
787:
782:
779:
778:
775:
772:
764:
762:
753:
749:
745:
740:
739:
738:
737:
734:
726:
723:
715:
713:
704:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
680:
677:
673:
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
656:
655:
653:
650:
649:
648:
647:
644:
640:
635:
631:
629:
623:
620:
613:
610:
605:
604:
601:
598:
594:
590:
589:
585:
581:
578:
575:
574:
570:
567:
566:
565:
564:
561:
553:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
511:
507:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
488:
485:
479:
473:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
457:
452:
451:
448:
444:
440:
430:
427:
421:
415:
411:
407:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
394:
386:
383:
378:
377:
376:
375:
372:
364:
361:
355:
349:
345:
344:
337:
333:
328:
324:
322:
318:
316:
312:
310:
306:
304:
300:
298:
294:
293:
291:
288:
287:
285:
280:
277:
276:
273:
270:
269:
257:
254:
252:
249:
244:
241:
240:
237:
234:
230:
226:
225:
224:
223:
220:
214:
213:
210:
206:
197:
194:
190:
189:
188:
187:
184:
181:
176:
175:just finished
173:This article
172:
169:
168:
167:
166:
163:
159:
153:
150:
146:
144:
140:
136:
134:
131:
127:
123:
117:
116:previous GA/R
114:
113:
112:
111:
105:
102:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
74:
71:
67:
63:
60:
56:
55:
46:
41:
40:
35:
32:
28:
27:
19:
5268:Geometry guy
5263:
5239:Keep as a GA
5238:
5229:Geometry guy
5214:
5181:
5175:
5158:Geometry guy
5152:Many thanks
5123:Geometry guy
5071:Geometry guy
5051:
5044:Geometry guy
5029:
4970:
4961:Geometry guy
4925:
4924:
4912:
4900:
4874:
4851:
4850:
4846:
4845:
4834:Geometry guy
4825:
4811:
4786:
4732:
4724:
4717:
4709:
4702:
4689:
4644:
4618:TonyTheTiger
4613:
4579:
4544:
4543:
4516:
4504:
4491:
4473:
4472:
4468:
4467:
4451:
4441:
4431:
4391:
4387:
4369:
4365:
4361:
4340:
4337:
4334:
4186:
4161:
4149:
4132:
4127:
4121:Phineas Gage
4110:
4098:
4093:
4088:
4083:
4078:
4075:
4070:
4063:
4058:
4051:
4041:
4036:
4031:
4026:
4023:
4013:
4008:
4003:
3998:
3994:
3984:
3979:
3974:
3969:
3964:
3962:
3949:
3944:
3939:
3934:
3927:
3921:
3849:
3844:
3839:
3834:
3827:
3806:
3793:
3788:
3783:
3778:
3774:
3771:
3763:
3758:Endorse fail
3757:
3744:
3740:
3726:
3701:
3697:
3568:
3543:
3538:
3533:
3528:
3514:
3436:
3431:
3380:
3368:
3355:
3323:
3305:
3260:
3249:
3248:
3242:
3229:
3225:
3196:
3173:
3160:
3135:
3109:
3105:
3104:
3085:
3014:
3002:
2971:
2888:
2887:
2863:
2828:
2827:
2823:
2822:
2812:
2792:Geometry guy
2770:
2758:
2752:
2746:
2740:
2728:
2723:
2710:
2708:
2704:
2703:
2687:Geometry guy
2678:
2666:Geometry guy
2655:
2647:
2620:
2608:
2596:
2579:
2575:
2574:
2542:
2474:
2464:
2372:
2351:
2333:
2304:
2273:
2231:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2206:
2203:Endorse fail
2202:
2191:Endorse fail
2190:
2160:
2156:
2148:
2144:
2126:
2125:Criteria 2:
2118:
2094:
2093:
2071:
2065:
2059:
2053:
2046:
2039:
2033:
2026:
2020:
2014:
2007:
2001:Endorse fail
2000:
1999:
1947:
1943:
1937:
1934:
1930:
1929:
1913:
1900:intentional.
1783:
1778:
1738:
1709:
1704:
1625:
1624:
1596:
1589:Endorse Fail
1588:
1531:Endorse Fail
1530:
1518:
1511:
1497:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1451:
1448:
1417:
1414:
1394:
1389:Keane (film)
1383:
1379:
1378:
1374:Keane (film)
1358:
1354:
1342:
1289:
1277:
1261:
1257:
1203:
1194:
1179:
1030:Off the Wall
986:
985:Criteria 5:
980:
973:
969:
957:
956:
923:
920:
905:
868:
810:
808:
795:
780:
751:
747:
729:
658:
651:
638:
636:
632:
628:not everyone
627:
624:
616:
592:
583:
568:
556:
544:
540:
532:
528:
513:
491:
453:
442:
435:
410:please do so
389:
367:
326:
320:
314:
308:
302:
296:
283:
278:
260:
255:
242:
228:
215:
204:
202:
174:
170:
154:
147:
137:
128:
124:
120:
109:
108:
92:
69:
37:
4975:Aaron Bowen
4680:Quadzilla99
4054:weasel word
3922:Weak delist
3698:Strong Keep
3664:Quadzilla99
3652:Quadzilla99
3446:igordebraga
3361:Quadzilla99
2889:Attempt fix
2803:Aaron Bowen
2779:Aaron Bowen
2677:I have now
1958:Anaximander
1925:Anaximander
1861:Jaws (film)
1708:, which is
1428:My Response
1313:peer review
1218:2c: See 2b.
1095:Filmography
1092:Discography
1079:Music Video
547:mistaken.--
529:meaningless
248:Quadzilla99
36:This is an
4695:Homestarmy
4497:Homestarmy
4483:LordHarris
4378:PMAnderson
4279:PMAnderson
4230:PMAnderson
4081:main page.
3907:PMAnderson
3710:PMAnderson
3631:Homestarmy
3613:Homestarmy
3582:Homestarmy
3559:Homestarmy
3411:Homestarmy
3402:Balloonman
3393:Homestarmy
3373:Homestarmy
3369:List as GA
3324:Brilliant!
3314:PMAnderson
3261:List as GA
3243:List as GA
3226:List as GA
3197:List as GA
3069:PMAnderson
3046:Homestarmy
3036:PMAnderson
3019:Homestarmy
2747:References
2613:Kicking222
2601:Homestarmy
2583:Salix alba
2551:PMAnderson
2509:PMAnderson
2444:PMAnderson
2403:PMAnderson
2360:PMAnderson
2342:PMAnderson
2138:reference.
2048:distances.
1973:Homestarmy
1743:Murphy Inc
1726:PMAnderson
1639:PMAnderson
1501:Murphy Inc
1347:Homestarmy
1185:UberCryxic
1056:Early life
909:UberCryxic
872:UberCryxic
835:UberCryxic
801:UberCryxic
786:UberCryxic
733:UberCryxic
659:disclaimer
643:UberCryxic
609:Manboobies
597:Manboobies
560:UberCryxic
549:Manboobies
533:no impact
495:UberCryxic
461:UberCryxic
447:UberCryxic
393:UberCryxic
382:Manboobies
371:UberCryxic
233:Manboobies
219:UberCryxic
209:UberCryxic
193:Homestarmy
180:UberCryxic
162:Manboobies
72:(archive)
4841:Chocolate
4734:election.
4416:Malkinann
4397:Malkinann
4354:Malkinann
4327:Malkinann
4313:Malkinann
4294:Malkinann
4268:cite book
4079:Billboard
3999:Clarified
3965:Billboard
3776:articles.
3727:ownership
3250:Wizardman
3119:talk page
2715:Malkinann
2232:Footnotes
2213:Cosmology
2128:research.
1990:Argos'Dad
1962:Argos'Dad
1512:suggested
1442:confused!
1282:Paaerduag
1072:Influence
1039:etc. etc.
1027:Jackson 5
748:Like who?
676:WP:LENGTH
639:that's it
607:August.--
456:talk page
443:talk page
205:talk page
5255:contribs
5244:Jayron32
5202:contribs
5191:Jayron32
5144:contribs
5133:Jayron32
5095:contribs
5084:Jayron32
5061:article.
5052:Comments
4995:contribs
4984:Jayron32
4957:WP:WIAGA
4947:contribs
4936:Jayron32
4830:WP:WIAGA
4826:delisted
4803:contribs
4792:Jayron32
4767:contribs
4756:Jayron32
4509:Zeus1234
4478:WP:WIAGA
4454:Garrondo
4445:Garrondo
4435:Garrondo
4407:Garrondo
4343:Garrondo
4290:Garrondo
4178:contribs
4167:Jayron32
4153:Garrondo
3899:WP:WIAGA
3721:used is
3603:contribs
3592:Jayron32
3487:contribs
3476:Jayron32
3459:Zeus1234
3217:contribs
3206:Jayron32
3202:criteria
2934:contribs
2923:Jayron32
2878:contribs
2867:Jayron32
2833:WP:WIAGA
2788:WP:WIAGA
2496:Awadewit
2428:contribs
2417:Jayron32
2388:contribs
2377:Jayron32
2321:contribs
2310:Jayron32
2180:contribs
2169:Jayron32
2123:WP:WIAGA
2115:WP:WIAFA
2086:contribs
2075:Jayron32
1884:contribs
1873:Jayron32
1844:contribs
1833:Jayron32
1804:contribs
1793:Jayron32
1718:WP:WIAGA
1714:WP:WIAGA
1630:WP:WIAGA
1578:contribs
1567:Jayron32
1434:Article?
1332:contribs
1321:Jayron32
1165:contribs
1154:Jayron32
1120:contribs
1109:Jayron32
1033:Thriller
1002:contribs
991:Jayron32
962:WP:WIAGA
947:contribs
936:Jayron32
930:WP:WIAGA
593:delisted
545:severely
483:contribs
472:Jayron32
425:contribs
414:Jayron32
406:WP:WIAGA
359:contribs
348:Jayron32
295:Most of
158:Megadeth
5219:Teemu08
5215:Comment
5080:WP:CITE
5030:Comment
4971:Comment
4860:WP:LEAD
4703:Comment
4645:Comment
4614:Comment
4545:Comment
4492:Comment
4362:Comment
4219:sofixit
4112:Teemu08
4059:Removed
3930:WP:LEAD
3892:citeweb
3818:April 3
3766:WP:LEAD
3746:Deckill
3520:citeweb
3500:citeweb
3383:Acdixon
3293:Acdixon
3231:Deckill
3183:Acdixon
3174:proving
3151:Acdixon
3123:Acdixon
2775:WP:DATE
2729:MrZaius
2652:WP:LEAD
2648:Comment
2493:WP:LEAD
2334:Comment
2305:Comment
2274:Comment
2209:Apeiron
2095:Comment
1698:citeweb
1555:WP:LEAD
1360:Deckill
1206:WP:LEAD
811:comment
796:Comment
781:Comment
744:summary
279:Comment
256:Comment
243:Comment
171:Comment
77:Page 20
59:Page 22
39:archive
5154:Jayron
4926:Delist
4917:Carson
4913:Delist
4901:Delist
4852:Delist
4812:Delist
4787:Delist
4517:Delist
4505:Delist
4366:within
4187:Delist
4162:Delist
3996:cited.
3646:, and
3086:Delist
3015:Delist
3003:Delist
2972:Delist
2771:Delist
2724:Delist
2711:Delist
2679:delist
2621:Delist
2609:Delist
2597:Delist
2543:Oratio
2487:WP:ATT
2483:WP:NOR
2476:world.
2413:verify
1914:Thanks
1831:way.--
1739:Thanks
1438:point?
1195:Delist
958:Delist
799:again.
652:Delist
524:edits.
284:Delist
4930:WP:EL
4370:range
3723:WP:RS
514:wider
509:post.
16:<
5264:Keep
5249:talk
5196:talk
5138:talk
5089:talk
5009:Love
5006:Lara
4989:talk
4959:1b.
4941:talk
4881:Love
4878:Lara
4797:talk
4761:talk
4749:now.
4690:Keep
4660:Love
4657:Lara
4627:cont
4623:talk
4590:Love
4587:Lara
4582:here
4560:Love
4557:Lara
4525:Love
4522:Lara
4245:Love
4242:Lara
4196:Love
4193:Lara
4172:talk
4135:here
4071:Done
3970:Done
3935:Done
3928:Per
3867:Love
3864:Lara
3835:Done
3822:2006
3779:Done
3741:Keep
3597:talk
3481:talk
3356:List
3331:Love
3328:Lara
3269:Love
3266:Lara
3211:talk
3161:does
3058:1911
3030:'s.
2984:Love
2981:Lara
2949:Love
2946:Lara
2928:talk
2902:Love
2899:Lara
2872:talk
2629:Love
2626:Lara
2587:talk
2523:Love
2520:Lara
2465:Fail
2422:talk
2382:talk
2315:talk
2286:Love
2283:Lara
2278:lead
2240:Love
2237:Lara
2174:talk
2121:and
2080:talk
1878:talk
1838:talk
1798:talk
1756:Love
1753:Lara
1705:this
1675:Love
1672:Lara
1650:Love
1647:Lara
1626:Keep
1604:Love
1601:Lara
1572:talk
1355:Keep
1343:Keep
1326:talk
1315:and
1290:Keep
1278:Keep
1258:Keep
1237:Love
1234:Lara
1180:Keep
1159:talk
1147:way.
1114:talk
996:talk
972:and
941:talk
887:Love
884:Lara
850:Love
847:Lara
819:Love
816:Lara
760:Love
757:Lara
711:Love
708:Lara
619:here
595:. --
477:talk
439:here
419:talk
353:talk
229:just
79:) →
4714:it.
4631:bio
4392:and
3700:or
2713:. -
2656:not
2028:be.
1710:one
1139:it.
1036:Bad
520:it.
145:.
57:← (
4934:--
4790:--
4443:--
4405:--
4271:}}
4265:{{
4222:}}
4216:{{
4190:--
4099:77
4094:SR
4042:77
4037:SR
4014:77
4009:SR
3985:77
3980:SR
3950:77
3945:SR
3895:}}
3889:{{
3850:77
3845:SR
3820:,
3794:77
3789:SR
3749:er
3642:,
3544:77
3539:SR
3523:}}
3517:{{
3505:.
3503:}}
3497:{{
3234:er
3061:}}
3055:{{
2978:.
2976:OR
2589:)
2581:--
2262:➳
2102:➳
1986:OR
1960:.
1701:}}
1695:{{
1363:er
1268:PD
1262:--
584:is
541:is
267:PD
261:--
61:)
48:.
5252:|
5246:|
5199:|
5193:|
5178:.
5141:|
5135:|
5092:|
5086:|
5018:C
5014:/
4992:|
4986:|
4944:|
4938:|
4932:.
4890:C
4886:/
4862:.
4800:|
4794:|
4764:|
4758:|
4669:C
4665:/
4637:)
4633:/
4629:/
4625:/
4621:(
4599:C
4595:/
4569:C
4565:/
4534:C
4530:/
4254:C
4250:/
4205:C
4201:/
4175:|
4169:|
4089:N
4068:.
4056:.
4032:N
4004:N
3975:N
3940:N
3876:C
3872:/
3840:N
3784:N
3600:|
3594:|
3534:N
3527:(
3484:|
3478:|
3449:≠
3340:C
3336:/
3278:C
3274:/
3214:|
3208:|
2993:C
2989:/
2958:C
2954:/
2931:|
2925:|
2911:C
2907:/
2875:|
2869:|
2638:C
2634:/
2585:(
2532:C
2528:/
2425:|
2419:|
2385:|
2379:|
2318:|
2312:|
2295:C
2291:/
2264:✉
2249:C
2245:/
2177:|
2171:|
2104:✉
2083:|
2077:|
1881:|
1875:|
1841:|
1835:|
1801:|
1795:|
1765:C
1761:/
1684:C
1680:/
1659:C
1655:/
1613:C
1609:/
1575:|
1569:|
1550:.
1329:|
1323:|
1265:M
1246:C
1242:/
1208:.
1162:|
1156:|
1117:|
1111:|
999:|
993:|
976:.
964::
944:|
938:|
932:?
896:C
892:/
859:C
855:/
828:C
824:/
769:C
765:/
720:C
716:/
571::
480:|
474:|
422:|
416:|
356:|
350:|
264:M
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.