Knowledge:Good article reassessment/Archive 26

1738:- To call this article stable is laughable. More than two dozen reverts all in a row in one day is far from stable. And that was just one day in a list of MANY days of reverts. It appears that anything added or changed in the article is reverted, whether it be referenced or not. Discussions that should take place on the talk page instead take place in the edit summaries of revert wars. Edit summaries that are also extremely disrespectful and rude. Overall inappropriate whether directed at anons, registered users, or bots (all three of which have occurred). The article was protected for a time but nothing changed. Considering all the edits by those disputing the content, there are obviously issues with the POV of the article. Issues that are being ignored... or, rather, anyone with a different perspective, interpretation, or belief is slapped in the face for making changes to the article that reflect their views. Coupled with the fact that the article is tagged for additional references, and the current references are not correctly formatted, I feel this article fails to meet GA standards. 1399:

many publications as it has been, it lacks the one fundemental hallmark of reliablity that would be needed to convince Homestarmy that it is reliable: Editorial oversight. Any source with zero editorial oversight cannot be reliable... I can't debate that... I want this to be a good article. I believe it to be one. But though I believe it to meet all the requirements of WIAGA (I find the site reliable; in the sense that I can see no places where the claims Brusca makes are controversial or debated) my opinion on the matter is unimportant. The source has no editorial oversight, it is self-published, and so is unreliable. Homestarmy is right, and only personal pride would cause me to reach any other conclusion. --

3535:- I'm leaning towards delist considering I question some of the references. In searching for some of them, I can find nothing relevant. ISBN searches result in one book having a different author and different publication year. I'm also confused on what the main source is. It doesn't appear to be a book but, rather, an art show program or something. That needs to be clarified. I formatted and named the refs, so that is no longer an issue. However, I am curious, the question marks in parenthesis... am I seeing ???s because I don't have that language programed into my browser, or are the ???s there as a request for translation? 2736:, especially criteria 2, on referencing. WIAGA specifically states: "(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles". This article contains a LONG list of references, but it is unclear how these references back up much of the information in the article. There are about a dozen or so "Harvard" style references, which is a good start, but there are large chunks of the article that lack ANY sort of direct citations, making the facts the article reports 2305:- The article has issues, that is certain. Whether or not they warrant delistment, I'm not sure yet. There is a quote stated to be one of hers, however, when searching for a reference, it came up as someone else's quote that she was touched by and hung in her orphanage. I've hidden that quote pending discussion. I also referenced the fourth quote under the section of that name. I'm in the process of cleaning up the reference formatting. I'll make a determination on whether or not I feel the article should be delisted soon. 1288:

reliability, but none of these are on key points. The two major sources are a reliable road atlas software (at least as reliable as any print atlas) and the aforementioned Route40.net, which as Geometryguy has noted, is itself bibliographized. Also, as Lurking has noted, many of the landmarks ARE cited to state park websites or the like. For ANYONE who believes that the any facts in the article are not to be believed, please list the said statements from the article that need more reliable citing, and I will find it. --

1441:- I'm not able to read the article right now, but in scanning over it and the references, I don't see any major issues. It seems sufficiently referenced to me. I mean, it's a highway. I can't imagine there being too much controversy or material to be challenged. It seemed that possibly "US 40" was used a bit too much. Almost every sentence, but, again, I haven't actually read it yet. It's been along day. I'll look at it again tomorrow and make my recommendation then. 1945:. This article is weak for many reasons, including jargon, a poor lead, and inadequate sourcing of the material. However, I would note that it is an article on a major field written in summary style: this means that some of the material is actually sourced via subarticles. I would also suggest that redlinks can be expected (and are useful) in such an article because Knowledge is still far from complete in its coverage of major scientific fields such as this. 73: 1840:

this behavior. The article is also tagged (I can go through and add fact tags where, if at all, necessary) for additional references, and all references need to be consistently and correctly formatted. Since the POV and ref template are disputed, I'll thoroughly look over all of it (after some sleep -- it's 4am) and make my own determination on the matter. In the mean time, possibly start formatting the references. Regards,

38: 1132:"fansites", such as "Colorado Highways", "Illinois Highway Page", and "Maryland @ AAroads.com". The description is far from adequate; it should be greatly expanded and split into sub-articles like has been done for several states. There are some errors; for instance US 40 no longer passes through downtown Indianapolis, instead going around on I-465. The history is somewhat disjoint, placing some 1920 1686:- It is NOT broad in its coverage. It does not address the major aspects of the topic, in particular the nature of racism, racism in relation to suprematism, the political impact of suprematism on fascism and the political influence of nordicism on fascistic fringe politics. Moreover, the article does not stay focussed on nordicism and diverges on racial issues - even in WP:LEAD. 2788:- I regret passing this article now, and take full responsibility for wrongly passing it. I personally think that inline cites are necessary, and was convinced otherwise in passing this article - see the article's talk page if you'd like to see how that happened. I regret that now, and have returned to my original standpoint about requiring inline cites. Cheers, 378:- Upon looking over the above posted talk page discussion and the history of the article's talk page, the promotion of this article comes into question, as noted in the nomination. The discussion with the reviewer resulted in an agreement to have the article renominated at GAC for someone with more experience to hopefully review the article. Instead, the creator of 2508:

Chronicle (which is available on Gutenberg). The actual political background for the battle is compressed into one short paragraph, with no mention of such central events as Harold's visit to Normandy. The section 'The battle' is not wikified at all. It also contains statements that suggest original research, like: "Most likely is the simplest explanation:"

1959:. This article assumes too much on the part of the readers, does not use a proper reference format, includes huge internal and external link farms (which although useful, should be incorporated into the text as references or wikilinks) and has a huge number of redlinks. How this is a GA is a mystery to me. I would strongly suggest an introductory fork as 1688:- It is NOT neutral: the article represents viewpoints of its own and without regard to other viewpoints as represented in 21st century WP:RS. Those viewpoints concern physical concepts of race, denial of racism (according to modern definition being culturally defined) to be relevant to Nordicism, and denial of Nordicism to be influential on fascism. 2769:- Lead needs to be condensed. Removing the quote would be a start. That should be worked into the body. The article is stubby, lacks sufficient inline citation, contains fact tag and expansion templates, could use additional wikification, and quotes should not be italicized. Some major, some minor, all need to be fixed before renominating at GAC. 2533:- Article certainly is not up to GA-standards. As a history article, particularly, it needs to be very well-referenced, yet this article only lits 3 inline citations and three references that may be unreliable. The entire article could likely be an example of original research. Needs major wikification and referencing to meet GA criteria. 2130:. Unfortunately, this is an all-too-common phenomenon with most articles on religious topics. However, the article has been well-maintained, remains properly balanced, and regularly monitored. If there is a source or two that needs to be corrected or added, editors are free to do so, as with any article of GA-status or otherwise. -- 1224:. Using this, I was able to find a major printed source (well, two sources really) and add it to the article within a matter of minutes. If regular editors have the time to find this source (or any other sources listed in the bibliography) in a library or bookshop and read it, I'm sure the article could be saved from delisting. 975:. Please provide information about copyright violations. There is only one tagged in the article: this does show a copyright violation, but it is not immediately clear whether it is of Knowledge or by Knowledge. Where are the other numerous copyright violations in the article, and which sources have been plagiarized? Thanks. 3522:

GA candidate. My one concern is that much of the article draws from really only one reference; it has a rather specialized scope and it is not clear to me how many references cover the ground. My own recommendation is to reintroduce the article to the candidate queue so it may have the benefit of a full review. Take care.

3352:- article is listy in places, with too many bulleted lists for an article of this length. for notable early sightings, expand the details for each. the infobox should be updated to reflect kingdom, phylum, Class, order, family, and genus. prose needs a LOT of work. three references is WAY too few. for a topic with 3646:

cover, so it does qualify for fair use, except that it has no rationale given whatsoever. The final and major issue is that the article lists only 10 in-text citations, with almost all references being given in (an incorrectly formatted) bibliography form. It is a very long article, so more citations should be made.

577:

much), 1/3 of it is reception, based only on three web reviews and one TV review. It lacks a development section, a reasoning for why Nintendo decided to make a girl game, etc. A quick web search couldn't find any dev information. I'm sure readers are asking, "Why, Nintendo?" just like they were asking, "Why,

3645:

Article has already been submitted for a GA Review, with result being "Keep". However, it still fails to meet some criteria. The article has a very inadequate lead, and the main image used in the infobox is a copyrighted fair use image that does not have a fair use rationale. The image is from a book

2153:

is an essay, not a policy or guideline (it merely reflects some opinions of its authors). A criticism section need not be a "magnet for trolls"; it can be a way to contain and/or discourage them, because badly sourced personal attacks stand no chance against well sourced critical commentary. I am not

2139:

I agree that recently some editors have been adding unsourced and biassed critical material. However, the solution to this is not to remove it or dilute it into other places, but to write yourself robust well-sourced critical commentary: go on the offensive rather than be defensive. One person's bias

1913:- the article DOES have 16 references listed in the reference section, but could be substantially improved through the use of footnotes. as for jargon, the article could use a serious "dumbing down" of the content in order to increase readability for nontechnical users. for example, in the sentence 1606:

No more further reading and external links necessary, just broaden the scope of the references. 8 inline citations from 1 source is a lot for a very short article. Maybe find information from sources besides that one site, and cite it in the article. For example, in the "1914 eruption" section, 5 out

416:

That's why a review should be posted whether the article passes or fails. So that it is made known that the article was actually reviewed. The lack of a review coupled with the conflict of interest warrants delistment. Add in that the last review discussion ended in consensus between the reviewer and

406:

passed the article. Looking away from the obvious conflict of interest and assuming good faith that he may have actually reviewed the article, I'm not sure exactly what happened. Of course, Pupster's edits lately have been sporadic at best (last edit June 16th) so contacting him won't be the easiest.

3521:

for the poor quality of the original review, and have advised them that I am posting the article here for an independent review of what appears to be an out-of-process case. Quite apart from this, I have given the article a brief review and find no reason to speedy delist; it seems at least a viable

2462:

The nomination was made by an IP whose only edits are one to the talk page of the article calling it a joke written by hackers, and one edit to nominate it here. My guess, having worked for that Satan company for four years, is probably someone sitting on a higher rung of the WM corporate ladder, or

1839:

Rather than extract the portion noted by Rokus, take into account all of my recommendation. I did not say "Delist per instability". The revert wars and inappropriate edit summaries are not limited to Rokus and his or whoever's alleged sockpuppets. Other registered user and even a bot were subject to

1784:

The merger was proposed by another editor. I'm not opposed to it. There does not, however, seem to be consensus in favour of it. No formatting issues were raised when the article was submitted to GA, nor have any formatting issues part of the debate on Talk. We can only respond to what people raise.

1774:

I wasn't really speaking specifically about this article, as the formatting issues are still here and should be adressed. Furthermore, your intention to merge this article with another one clearly compromises the article stability, and if the merge goes through, the resulting article will have to be

1420:

Unfortunately, for books, "editorial oversight", which seems to be held in high esteem, often amounts to little more than copyediting, or worse, "how can we make this more marketable". Critical opinion and commentary is much more important. As you point out, this source has been subject to scrutiny,

2125:

This article should not be delisted. There has been an ongoing attempt by a small but vocal group of editors to insert a criticism section, which has been nothing but a list of personal attacks against the subject with little if any references. A review of the history of the article and talk page

1808:

Vandalism is not at issue here, just the mere observation that stability will never be achieved as long as different sourced viewpoints are vehemently rejected. An encyclopedic approach should give due attention to competing scholarly views in order to achieve neutrality, balance and stability. The

1340:

Because the person making the words and thingys appear on my screen appears to just be a hobbyist, with no real credentials in this area, who might not be reliably interpreting the information he cites correctly. As I understand it, that's one of many reasons why the Reliable Sources policy advises

1025:

as the copypaste tag indicates. I remember the page. My practice is to copy/paste relevant information and then rewrite and look for sources but apparently I didn't get around to the rewrite part of the process in this case. In all likelihood, I started the copy/paste part of the process and got

715:

It wasn't intended as a personal remark; sorry if it came across that way. Adding a fair use rationale is not about declaring something to be legal: if it were, I wouldn't do it either. It is about providing information, required by Knowledge policy, that makes it easier to determine whether use of

3392:

The promotion itself stretches the limits of AGF, and the article does not seem to meet GA standards at this time. Plenty of comments were left on the talk page, no need to rehash them here. If the comments left on the talk page were addressed, this would probably be a GA... but not as it stands

2287:

References need to be cleaned up. The references need to be worked on---Several duplicate entries and several entries like "See the homepage of this organization." But overall, they are pretty clean. As for POV, I don't see it being too biased. In response to GG's comment above, the section on

1764:

SidiLemine's point is crucial. The reverts have all been discussed. If you look at the history of the article before Rokus' appearence you can see how stable it has been. I hardly think that vandalism by a banned neo-Nazi editor, editing under an IP counts as "instability". The tag is very recent.

1393:

Except that he's right on one thing: As a personal website, it does not appear to have undergone the rigorous review one would expect of a source. Yes, the site has a bibliography. Yes, the site has won awards and itself been used as a reference by reliable publications. However, he has made up

2592:

Lots of referencing tags and mysterious sentences such as "Early historians state that the Normans repeated a number of feints to draw out small groups of Saxons and then cut them down. However, later historians have commented on the difficulty of such a complicated manoeuvre." How late are later

2507:

Fails on practically every count. There are only three footnotes, so many arguable contentions stand unsupported. The list of references contain only three items, excluding both authoritative secondary works like Douglas' biography on William I, and essential primary sources, like the Anglo-Saxon

2258:

A respectful interaction between 2 editors about one citation hardly seems like too many issues. Articles in Knowledge are never "finished", and are always evolving. When an article reaches GA status, it doesn't mean there can't be any further disagreements or discussion about its content. The

2157:

Religious articles are notoriously problematic, I agree. I think it is partly because of the tension between truth (subject to interpretation and point of view) and knowledge (subject to verifiability from reliable secondary sources). My suggestion for this article would be to imagine it is not a

1754:

This brings up an issue. If I understand well, it means that in order to delist an article, one would only need to get into a revert war, get everyone heated, troll a bit under a few IPs, and then declare the article unstable. Is that it? I think the "stable" part of WIAGA is intended at the time

1398:

and shows no sign that he can be convinced otherwise. I disagree for personal reasons (I wrote most of the article) but I cannot in good heart disagree with his premise. As well researched as the site is, and as well creditialed as the author is, and as well commended as the site has been in as

2653:

Article is lacking in inline citations, but does do a good job on meeting the broad requirement. Once inline citations are added for all information that may be questioned for verifiability by a reader, and has been checked with the other GA criteria then the article should be renominated again.

1701:

All of these points have been responded to on the talk page, though frankly it's difficult to respond to peculiar statements like "would be political correct (hypocritical) statements on race diverge attention from the real issue of racism". I really don't know what that means. I am not the only

576:

I wrote this article and helped it get promoted to GA status. Now, however, I have severe doubts that this features the broad coverage necessary (3a). Lead is probably too short, don't know how it could be expanded (1b). 2/3 of the article describes the game in great detail (hopefully not too

2288:

Miracles is highly skeptical of process. But there is other criticism of MT--that could be added. However, equal weight is not required. The section for quotes should be removed---consider using boxes or something to use as spacers. Overall, however, I do think this article is of GA quality.

2019:

Endorse all of the reasons above, PLUS, there are other issues. First of all, there is a section titled "Introduction"... Shouldn't this just be the lead? Secondly, each section starts abruptly without context or anything, it just jumps into some very technical language. This may be good for

1318:

If I read a book, you know words and thingys on paper, and said book has a bibliography, then I don't site the works in that book's bibliography... I cite the book I used, as that is the proper way to cite references. Also, when I look at the copyright notice in a book, it is copyright to one

1287:

As the primary writer of the article, I would like to second that Route40.net has all the hallmarks of reliability, mainly that it has a fairly extensive bibliography; and is quite well researched itself. The article does have some citations, mostly secondary, to some sources of questionable

2070:

This article is far from stable, and it reads like hagiography in places, possibly due to a campaign outside Knowledge. Criticism of Teresa, previously well documented, has been trimmed to a minimum (and frequently disappears completely) and mention of it has been frequently removed from the

2108:

or are willfully ignoring and/or abusing it. When I looked, there were only two paragraphs of criticism, both of which are muted, ambivalent and poorly sourced. Ironically, one of these paragraphs states that the Vatican "pored over a great deal of documentation of published and unpublished

1679:

Would be political correct (hypocritical) statements on race diverge attention from the real issue of racism, what Nordicism/Nordic theory really is. I noticed some serious POV pushing that does not belong to a good article, besides it does not comply to three out of six (50%) fundamental

1809:

counter argument above, calling Nazism essentially distinct from Fascism, is a clear example of a selective perspective at the cost of reliable sources contradicting this point of view, and as such is subject to never ending disagreements and opposition - thus to perpetual instability.

1381:

I don't think you should give up so easily, Jayron: Brusca has both credentials and notability, as his resume (linked above) shows. Not enough for a controversial topic, but for an article on a road, what more can you ask? A PhD in Road Science from the University of the Peripheral?

785:

Woefully underreferenced, I see very few inline cites to verify ANYTHING in several sections. Some sections have them, and some don't. It needs consistant referencing to be a GA. The writing seems GA quality, IMHO, but I don't see the lack of citations as a minor issue.

1464:

is that there needs to be some kind of peer review of the source. Without it, there's just no telling what's going on in anyone's mind while they write, independantly of their ability (not even talking about lying on one's competences). That's why I was in favor of the

767:

I believe that this article no longer meets the GA criteria. I have not delisted the article because I wanted to get some outside opinions on the article. Similar POVs have been expressed on the article's talk page. The article needs review for a lack of citations,

1069:

a quick look at the references will demonstrate that it needs to be cleaned up. To many of the references are duplicated (need to consolodate), lack access dates, lack any detail whatsoever (eg just a link). Within the article there are large sections without any

2109:

criticisms against her life and work." So, where is this criticism, and what does it say? In addition, the lead is poor, and there is a copyright violation of Time Magazine (the article in the given issue is not discussed in the text, so this is not fair use).

1011:

04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I just invited Richard to join this discussion, but looking at his talk page, there are several other comments concerning possible copy-vio's. That said, however, it is still possible that he wrote it and the other page copied

1856:

I guess I see the point. I just wanted to make sure that the main reason for delisting was POV, formatting, and possibly references, or to better understand the mechanisms associated with delisting for instability. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

2199:

article. while the article could benefit from additional critical material, it's not in such poor state as to merit delisting. I also agree with Homestarmy's comment -- this is a stable article. Protection has been to ward off vandals, not due to edit

1275:- weak references, history section needs improvement, needs another copy edit. addition of references from newspapers, state highway administrations, and referenced information on nearby sites of interest (nrhp, landmarks, parks) would help immensely. 3303:; the reviews on the talk page by the first two reviewers list, in detail, the corrections that are needed in order for this article to attain GA status. Though the passing editor marked the issues as completed, said issues have not been addressed. 810:

107 KB, but only 47 inline citations---many of which are duplicated and in need of clean up. From what I've read it reads ok, but is woefully under-referenced. And looking at the debates on the talk page, it looks as if referencing is called for.

1785:

Even the editor who added the tag requesting more references has not added any citation-needed tags, so it's difficult to know what s/he thinks needs to be referenced. There's no point scattering references about for the sake of it in order to

1631:

in light of the recent changes, this is actually the MODEL Good Article, the kind of article that the system was created for... Short but relatively complete articles that are well referenced and well written. This is a GA in spades...

2883:

Article never had a formal review, a user tried to go through the GA nomination process and an editor changed it back. Article seems a bit broad, but moreso, references are a mess, a mix of inline links and appropriate wiki-links.

3765:- lacks sufficient citation, references need to be cleaned up just a bit for consistency, wikification is off a little. Mostly minor issues, but the lack of overall citation and the quote without citation need to be addressed ASAP. 1607:

of 6 citations come from one site. It would be better if more than just "The 1914 Sakurajima explosion at Volcanoworld" was referenced. Still, more references are not necessary for GA Status, and changes are a huge improvement, so

823:

due to lack of sufficient referencing. Minor issues include inconsistently formatted references, improperly emboldened terms throughout article, and I would like the images moved around a bit. Sandwiched text does not look good.

346:

the references are not consistently formatted (some not at all) which is a 2a issue. Also, placement of some of the inline citations is off. They should come directly after the punctuation with no space before and no punctuation

1026:

distracted before I did the rewrite part. I'm sorry to have betrayed your trust, Majoreditor. I will say that I don't remember contributing to any other parts of this article so any other copyvios are unlikely to be mine. --

890:

This article is blatantly copied from copyrighted material in places, contains an unnecessary trivia section and a endless list further reading entries. Also the "Honors" section and "External links" section require a cleanup.

353:

there is one stand-alone year randomly wikified in the lead. I don't like wikification of stand-alone years, but it's consistent through-out the article, so I'll only note the need for correction in the lead. This is also a 1b

3828:- Well written and well organized, but unfortunately not well referenced. There is a mix of reference styles, poorly formatted footnotes, and some areas lack clear citations at all. Needs some more work to be GA standard. -- 3295:- Article was inappropriately passed just hours after a second fail in one week. The pass was made by the original nominator who is also a primary editor of the article, which is unacceptable as stated in the instructions at 3006:

What I meant by "great" is that on most other websites, I would have thought this is a large, extensive, detailed, informative article. And one has to admit that apart from stylish issues and (very) poor referencing, there

2685:(and I take some responsibility for its form, as I have edited this article). Also needs expanded section on economy, which right now is limited to tourism and utilities. No mention at all of manufacturing or retail. 2666:- Terribly under-referenced, references not consistently formatted, listy. Random wikification of stand-alone years... hate that. Once referencing is taken care of, the article isn't far from GA. Cleanup and renominate. 3659:- This article clearly fails to meet the criteria. I've tagged and listed the image for deletion. Article needs additional citation, fact tags are a disqalifier for me. References need to be consistently formatted per 2897:- Weak lead, random wikification of stand-alone years, stubby, listy, expansion template, lack of sufficient inline citation, references are not consistently formatted. That's from scanning the article. Far from GA. 682:. The article is beyond rescue for now, but the images are not. Fair use rationales should be straightforward here, since this article is about the product illustrated in the images and contains critical commentary. 2977:

For all of these reasons, the article should not be a GA... it needs a lot of work to be a quality article, regardless of whatever label you want to put on it, or indeed if you prefer to leave articles unlabeled.

2966:

Where references occur, there is a mix of blind external links and footnotes. These should ALL be converted to one format, preferably the footnote format, as it allows one to check at a glance the source of the

3682:

per lead (needs multiple paragraphs and full summary) and minimal inline citation (although the bibliography could be used to fix that). Image FURG could be done instead of tagging, but there are other issues.

2154:

saying a criticism section is necessary, only a possibility. It may be better, for example to have a couple of subsections of other sections devoted to specific criticisms, rather than lump them together.

637:; indeed you could play the entire game as Princess Peach (actually done it myself). She is also a playable character in NUMEROUS Mario spinoffs; like the Racing Games, Mario World games, etc. etc. -- 3011:

a great deal of work and information in this article. It is, however, an excellent example of everything an article shouldn't be on Knowledge, and a terrible negative example when it comes to WIAGA.--

1724:

The article is entirely stable and has been for a long time. It has recently suffered from vandalism from a banned neo-Nazi editor, but the only other "instability" has been created by Rokus himself.

998:

Perhaps, but I have my doubts. The editor who inserted the material (Richard) has a good reputation and hasn't been guilty of any copyvios that I know of -- and I've reviewed several of his edits.

693:

I've now added rationale templates. It was completely trivial to do: please, everyone, help to deal with the current "fair use" circus by adding rationales instead of speedy deletion tags. Thanks,

1007:

Until I see something to the contrary (and based upon his time/experience here, I would accept Richard's word if he says he wrote it) I have to assume that this is a copy vio of the other page.

433:

I guess he kind of passed it without any review, although I was ready at the time to fix any comments. Worst case scenario I'll just take care of whatever needs to be done if this is relisted.

2229:

You're making my point. Whatever the merits of the present article, it's not ready for GA status. There are too many issues to resolve first, and the role of criticism is perhaps the biggest.

2267:

presents a fine example of respectful and open discussion among editors who may disagree, but are willing to reach consensus on an article's content. Let's stop creating paper tigers here.--

1933:, a mandatory requirement of the GA criteria. If it was just one or two minor sections without citation I might let it slide, but of course, there isn't a single internal citation at all. 1597:

I guess I could fill up the "further reading" and "external links" some more... How much more do you want? This is, after all, a pretty straightforward thing, unlike the ottoman empire.--

1517:, on October 23. The article is fairly well-written, but it has only one reference and no inline citations. The article is not at all up to par for GA criteria in terms of referencing. 1585:

Much better with sources, and probably will now remain a GA, but is it possible to get a few more references? There are still only 8, and 8 inline citations are from the same source.

3750:

as far as I can see. Dunno about then, but it doesn't meet the criteria now. Very minimal referencing for an article of that length and depth (especially with current status etc.)

1202:

may help here. In particular, his work has been discussed several times in the media, and he has published in at least one refereed journal (Journal of the Milestone Society).

704:

I feel uncomfortable specifically declaring something to be legal under another country's laws. If you wish to discuss this further with me, you can ask me on my talk page. -

1504:

Only problem with article originally was lack of referencing, but the article is now thoroughly referenced. There is no need to continue review, as the sole problem was met.

442:

If it is going to be relisted, it will need a sponsor. It sounds like it has one. Good luck. This is an important article and we hope to have the facts correctly cited.--

2209:

I had a look at the Lancet article. I think it is worth referring to it, mentioning both its supportive comments and its more critical ones (perhaps an example of each?).

3335:, I can see some significant issues that still remain, and I don't believe that the comments were adequately addressed, despite the little checkmarks on the user page by 1917:, the terms elucidation, sequence motifs, and genomic region should be explained or wikilinked. on a different topic, the presence of multiple redlinks is rare in GAs. 1035:

Thanks for the confirmation one way or another Richard... as an aside, the source you obtained, IMO, is not a reliable source. It clearly has an agenda and pushes a POV.

2809:

Great article, once the reader can tell which citations go with which claims it will easily be GA, and on its was to FA. Until then I don't think it meets the criteria.

1021:

Thank you, Balloonman and Majoreditor, for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, in this case, I don't deserve it. The text in question is a copyvio from

3417:

Lack of integrity in the way it was promoted. It is wiser to post here if you disagree with a review. Doesn't have enough citations to join the ranks of GA articles.

585:

was. And the reviewer for that article said no because I couldn't source any reliable dev info on that article, either. I think the same should be applied to SPP.

3116:- This article in no way meets the criteria. It should not have even been brought to GA/R. Instead, it should have been boldly delisted, which I shall take care of. 3052:- This article in no way meets the criteria. It should not have even been brought to GA/R. Instead, it should have been boldly delisted, which I shall take care of. 2126:

makes that quite clear. Appropriately, these edits have been removed, with appropriate criticisms integrated into the body of the article. This is consistent with

3149:- no refs, no inline citations, lead is a poor summary of content, lead is fragmented, body does not contain enough breadth and depth for comprehensive coverage. 1187: 660:

Perhaps this game is the only game in which Princess Peach is a protagonist as opposed to a plot device? Anyway, I've tagged the images in the article as lacking

2521:- no wikification in major sections. needs inline citations to support claims. i have marked some of the more obvious claims that need support with fact tags. 83: 65: 3697:

Lead too short. References appear e.g. to criticisms of Hempel but no indication of where Hempel made those criticisms or what secondary sources discuss them. --

1309:

Then why is the copyright at the bottom of the page listed in only one person's name? Why doesn't the article cite the things that the website cites directly?

3200:

This appears to not have gone through GAC at all and at this point does not meet the criteria for inclusion as a GA, so it should be delisted at this time. --

1714:

The article is very broad in its coverage, since it discusses the history and influence of Nordicism. However, it is, of course, necessary to remain on topic.

49:

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

633:- For all of the reasons listed above, AND the fact that it contains a blatant falsehood in the first paragraph; Princess Peach was a playable character in 1177:, indeed, route40.net appears to be just a well-put together personal website from what I can tell. I see no evidence at all that it is a reliable source. 2341:

not sure what state the article was in before, but it is right now EASILY GA material. I can find no obvious variance with the GA standards at all... --

382:, the Yankee's Wikiproject, promoted the article without review. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll delist the article myself. Explanations, anyone? 198: 2963:

Woefully underreferenced. Statistics most certainly need specific sources, this article provides none. Entire sections lack any references at all.

2569:

Fact tags are an instant disqualifier for me. Whole sections are without citation. There are only two references. There needs to be an addition of

2453:- What exactly was the problem with this article? I see no issues with it. It is well-referenced, has relatively good prose, a proper lead, etc. 1082:

Needs more citation, fact tags need to be addressed. References need to be consistently formatted. Trivia needs to be incorporated into article.

2916:

This examplifies the difference between a great article and a Good Article... I think it needs just a few efforts to be FA material thought.--

2928:

due to lack of reference in some areas, need of major reference cleanup, a very inadequate lead, and need of wikification in some sections.

1717:

Nordicism was not influential on Fascism, which was a political philosophy invented by an Italian! This was discussed thoroughly when Rokus

2545:

Woefully underreferenced, not broad enough (The Bayeaux Tapestry gets a single sentance???)... This seems like an easy delist candidate. --

2144:

does not mean that "point of view" should be eliminated; it means that all significant points of view should be represented and attributed.

1263: 45: 3554:

This seems pretty serious to me. The principal ref has been published for an exhibition by a museum, that's about as reliable as can be.

2970:

The references section itself is a mess, many references lack even basic bibliographic information, most are just URLs and nothing else.

2400: 17: 1826:(Nazis are Fascists, Nazis are obsessed by race; therefore all Fascists are obsessed by race) In logic this is known as fallacy of the 1775:

resubmitted to GAC anyway. But the question is still very important to me: what is the limit of unstability that warrants delisting?--

510: 452: 316: 262: 3514:

on Lakers talk page in connection with another brief review. I gather Lakers stopped the practice of telegraphic reviews after that.

1915:

promoter analysis involves the elucidation and study of sequence motifs in the genomic region surrounding the coding region of a gene

1818:

There has been no instability until you came along. I repeat that your view about fascism was rejected by every single editor on the

1806:"different perspective, interpretation, or belief is slapped in the face for making changes to the article that reflect their views." 3187:, quick pass through article shows a lack of sufficient references to have been a GA in the first place, if beyond other problems.-- 614:- Images lack fair use rationales (Quick-fail criteria), the lead is weak, wikification is off, and it's terribly under-referenced. 2628:

GA tag added without review and comment (oldid=35365539), article lacks significant references compared other GA cities article. --

1319:

person's name. Why should the fact that the words and thingys appear on your computer screen make it any different than a book? --

3327:

at 20:11, 10 August 2007. This user was the original nominator for GA status, as well as one of the primary editors listed in the

2463:

a devoted shopper. Either way, I don't forsee a delisting and will snowball this into archive if participation levels remain low.

514: 456: 320: 266: 1057:. Per Geometry guy, please list the "numerous" copyvios along with a short description of the nature of the violation. Thanks. 927:- copyright violations, inclusion of trivia section, honors section should be in paragraph form rather than single line items. 518: 460: 324: 270: 1705:. I do not believe this is a good faith nomination, since it arises from Rokus' preoccupation with protecting his pet article 350:

emboldened terms need to be removed from the article. Embolding should be reserved for the title sentence. This is a 1b issue.

3839: 3404: 2989: 2755: 2556: 2352: 2036: 1972: 1643: 1410: 1365: 1330: 1299: 797: 648: 289:

admitted that this was her GA review and confused the criteria with for FA articles. More info on the review can be found at

1702:

editor who has difficulty making sense of what Rokus is trying to say, or who, when they can, sees a clear POV in his edits

491:

Sounds like a plan... but dang it... I wanted to vote to delist on the principle that we are talking about the Yankees ;-)

3323:, with significant comments made for revision both times. Within a day, after only three edits, the article was passed by 2953:

is an explicit GA requirement). Its a jumble of charts and interspersed text, and the prose is choppy and hard to follow.

150: 1984:

There isn't really a mystery here: it is a GA because it was made a GA some time ago, when standards were less exacting.

3738: 3559: 2195:. There was also a controversy a couple of months ago over a critical article which misrepresented the findings from a 2794: 206: 3132:

Passed was back in 2005, no references save for some links. Article structure doesn't meet typical GA standards (eg

1690:- It is NOT stable: contributions are reverted continuously, discussions are ignored, arguments defiled ad hominem. 2325:

That's kind of where I was... it definately has issues... but overall, IMHO, I thought it was still a good article.

1755:

when it runs for GA. Would you delist an article trying to change from GA to FA because it's not stable anymore? --

162: 2815: 3571:

I still have concerns about the ISBNs for the 2nd and 3rd references. They don't correspond to the listed books.

2949:

Poorly organized and poorly written: It jumps from topic to topic without context or reason. It doesn't flow. (

901: 154: 3429:, not a valid pass, and it doesn't sound like the concerns for the first failures were really addressed mostly. 2848:

It's a pain sorting the citations in what looks a well-researched article, but it has to be done, I'm afraid. --

1259: 3784:

Referencing issue as per Giggy and LaraLove. For example, neither the first two or the last two paragraphs of

3709:

also note that the previous GA/R was almost a year ago, so there is no problem with re-reviewing this article.

1804:(←) SidiLemine, I suggest to extract the answer to your issue from the very comprehensive stance of LaraLove: 1189:

I'm not sure if it's enough; we'd be on better ground by finding newspaper articles and similar references. --

2394: 1478:

But if a personal site has been scrutinized and used by independent sources, then this objection goes away.

1161: 716:

an image is legal or not. The rationale involves essentially no subjective information, and no declaration.

194: 166: 3844: 3820: 3808: 3796: 3776: 3756: 3742: 3713: 3701: 3689: 3674: 3650: 3640: 3607: 3591: 3582: 3566: 3555: 3546: 3526: 3479: 3452: 3433: 3421: 3409: 3384: 3372: 3360: 3343: 3319:

Article was reviewed (and failed) at 04:17, 4 August 2007 by myself, and again at 02:39, 10 August 2007 by

3314: 3277: 3261: 3247: 3235: 3223: 3204: 3191: 3179: 3153: 3140: 3127: 3096: 3072: 3063: 3032: 3015: 2994: 2932: 2920: 2908: 2888: 2878: 2852: 2840: 2828: 2801: 2780: 2760: 2727: 2701: 2689: 2677: 2658: 2645: 2632: 2623: 2597: 2584: 2561: 2537: 2525: 2512: 2502: 2474: 2457: 2445: 2426: 2357: 2329: 2316: 2292: 2271: 2253: 2224: 2215: 2204: 2181: 2164: 2134: 2115: 2095: 2065: 2011: 1990: 1979: 1951: 1937: 1921: 1904: 1895: 1861: 1851: 1834: 1813: 1793: 1779: 1769: 1759: 1749: 1728: 1695: 1674: 1648: 1615: 1601: 1589: 1577: 1565: 1553: 1534: 1521: 1508: 1484: 1473: 1452: 1427: 1415: 1388: 1370: 1345: 1335: 1313: 1304: 1279: 1267: 1228: 1208: 1193: 1181: 1169: 1140: 1119: 1093: 1074: 1061: 1039: 1030: 1016: 1002: 993: 981: 967: 931: 919: 906: 885: 859: 847: 835: 815: 802: 776: 762: 736: 722: 708: 699: 686: 672: 653: 625: 606: 589: 571: 539: 523: 495: 486: 465: 437: 428: 411: 393: 368: 329: 301: 275: 124: 2789: 2260: 2211: 2160: 2111: 2020:

people already acquainted with the topic, but for a general knowledge encyclopedia, it seems inadequate...

1986: 1947: 1480: 1423: 1384: 1225: 1204: 977: 718: 695: 683: 506: 482: 480:

I agree: I suggest Lara delists and Sportskido8 renominates. TonyTheTiger would be an excellent reviewer!

448: 312: 290: 258: 417:

the custodian(s) to renominate, and it seems further justified to do so. Are there any sound objections?

3369: 3357: 3150: 2522: 2390: 2364: 1918: 1276: 928: 294: 282: 178: 142: 23: 2641:- Article is definitely underreferenced for a GA Geography article, and is composed of too many lists. 2573:

more references and they need to be formatted correctly because the two that are in place now are not.

3793: 3698: 3232: 3029: 2849: 2810: 2698: 2594: 2024: 1721:

on the Fascism talk page. It was influential on Nazism - a fact which is well covered in the article.

552: 408: 298: 202: 1709:

from being merged. However, constructive comments would be very welcome. On Rokus's specific points:

843:

due to extreme undereferencing. An article of this size needs a little more than 47 poor citations.

3356:, the topic needs significant references to establish notability and verifiability of all claims. 3320: 3231:

A greater level of referencing might have avoided the allegations of plagiarism on the talk page.--

3025: 2859: 2230: 2150: 2127: 2072: 1246: 634: 182: 174: 158: 51: 2946:

Self-referential "This is a chart of trend of gross domestic product of Pakistan at market prices"

37: 3833: 3771: 3669: 3635: 3602: 3577: 3541: 3474: 3447: 3398: 3340: 3309: 3218: 3174: 3122: 3111: 3091: 3058: 3047: 2983: 2903: 2873: 2775: 2749: 2722: 2672: 2618: 2579: 2550: 2497: 2483: 2469: 2440: 2346: 2311: 2060: 2032: 2006: 1964: 1890: 1846: 1744: 1681: 1669: 1637: 1548: 1447: 1404: 1359: 1324: 1293: 1114: 1088: 880: 830: 791: 757: 642: 620: 566: 534: 423: 388: 363: 119: 1460:

Just to answer to Homestarmy, I believe that the most important point against personal sites at

2836:

due to overly long lead, lack of inline citations, and need for wikification in some sections.

2192: 2104:. It seems that most of the editors of this article either have absolutely no understanding of 2604: 1968: 1027: 866: 501: 443: 307: 286: 253: 186: 170: 2191:, per Anietor. Unfortunately, some editors have attempted to add improper material, such as 3734: 3511: 3201: 2950: 2655: 2420:- Personally, I don't see any major problems. Well referenced, decent prose (at a glance). 2264: 2221: 2201: 1831: 1790: 1766: 1725: 1466: 1058: 999: 434: 379: 210: 190: 146: 101: 72: 3710: 3507: 3430: 3300: 2733: 2732:

Recently passed as a GA, however, the article does NOT appear to meet the requirements of

2434:- This article has been on my watchlist for a long time. I don't find any issues with it. 2379:- probably a bad faith nomination, as suggested by Lara. No point in keeping this alive. 2326: 2289: 2178: 1934: 1531: 1342: 1310: 1241: 1178: 1071: 1036: 1013: 1008: 990: 950: 812: 586: 492: 249: 214: 772:, and overall clarity of the prose. I hope this helps to improve the article as a whole 3788:

contain any references at all. Also in need of an edit to make it read more up-to-date.

3273:

Forget it. I won't have time to source all of that. Maybe I'll submit it at GAC later.--

1822:, and yet you continue to insist that you alone are right. The above comment is a false 3660: 3133: 2374: 2141: 2105: 1876: 964: 769: 743: 705: 669: 665: 661: 603: 599: 528:

Well, we've waited this long, what's another week? Will you review it on the 9th then?

403: 2174:, just a note, looking at the past 14 days, the article does not appear very unstable. 1186:

Route40.net may be reliable, given that the media has used the author as a reference:

3829: 3805: 3766: 3664: 3630: 3597: 3572: 3536: 3469: 3442: 3394: 3304: 3296: 3213: 3169: 3117: 3086: 3053: 2979: 2898: 2868: 2770: 2745: 2717: 2686: 2667: 2613: 2574: 2546: 2492: 2464: 2435: 2342: 2306: 2055: 2046: 2028: 2001: 1930: 1885: 1841: 1827: 1739: 1664: 1655: 1633: 1543: 1442: 1400: 1355: 1320: 1289: 1190: 1137: 1109: 1100: 1083: 943: 897: 875: 855:

How sad. There should be a project specially made for sourcing such great articles.--

825: 787: 752: 638: 615: 578: 561: 529: 418: 383: 358: 228: 224: 138: 134: 130: 114: 109: 3468:

General lack of participation. Improvements have been made to the article, however.

1341:

against personal websites by people who have no apparent credentials or notability.

1221: 343:- I've not read the article yet, but just in quickly looking over it I noticed that 3789: 3785: 3720: 3523: 3339:. A quick-delist is probably in order here, but I thought I'd get consensus first. 2957: 2509: 2268: 2131: 1819: 1810: 1718: 1692: 1530:

as is, but if references are added, then my support automatically becomes a keeper.

1461: 1237: 1022: 2940:

This isn't even a great article per Sid. The article has many many many issues.

3730: 3620: 3518: 3496: 3485: 2737: 1901: 1706: 1164: 916: 773: 732:

beacuse it has a very inadequate lead, and is in dire need of more referencing.

3068:

Passed way back in 2005, no inline references, begging for a picture or two. --

1136:

under "early roads" and then jumping back to the 19th century National Road. --

3817: 3751: 3684: 3647: 3381: 3354:"Very little physical evidence proving the existence of the waitoreke exists." 3336: 3324: 3244: 3188: 3137: 3069: 2929: 2885: 2837: 2642: 2629: 2534: 2454: 2421: 2408: 2380: 1976: 1612: 1586: 1518: 1505: 1495: 1133: 958: 844: 733: 3588: 3563: 3274: 3258: 3012: 2917: 1858: 1776: 1756: 1598: 1574: 1562: 1470: 1199: 986:

I think it is clear with this edit that somebody cut and pasted TO wikipedis

856: 3418: 3332: 3286: 1960: 1823: 141:

and all editors with a dozen edits who have made at least one edit in 2007 (

297:. The article was passed although procedure may have been messed up a bit. 1513:

Promoted as a GA in 2005 before candidacy was required. Promotion occured

1220:. I am inclined to look favorably on Route40.net, because it has a decent 1129: 893: 582: 1900:

This article lacks references and is very jargonish. Anyone else agree?

1561:

I've started to source it. Should take a few days after the week end. --

3212:

Citation needs to be improved before the article is nominated at GAC.

231:

three times, it seems the article was promoted to GA without review.

3729:

Article fails several criteria, especially referencing and citation.

3459: 3103: 3039: 2708: 1158: 1125: 2149:

I would also note that, contrary to some comments on the talk page,

2000:

per all of above. This article clearly does not meet the criteria.

3257:

If you give me a few days I might give a shot at referencing it.--

598:

due to lack of development information and lead that doesn't meet

357:

I look over it more later, but these issues need to be corrected.

2158:

religious article at all: first and foremost, it is a biography.

1680:

requirements listed at WP:WIAGA. The issue has been raised here:

1421:

and its claims have not been challenged. This makes it reliable.

3160: 939:- Apparant copyvio (proof?), and a LOT of unsourced statements ( 252:

criteria 2b. There are very large sections that are uncited. --

2960:, external links should NOT appear as links in the main text. 3028:, just taking one example, reads like original research. -- 1573:

All the article is now sourced. Please review and advise.--

248:

That aside the article is very substandard with respect to

3587:

I see. I think I've fixed both. Please check and advise.--

3299:. The article is far from meeting the standards listed at 1149:

sources aren't reliable, has a little original research.

3748: 3503: 3489: 3328: 3243:- Needs more in-text citations, and lead is too short. 3185: 2405: 2175: 1703: 1514: 1153: 987: 3629:

Article fails several criteria. Issues not addressed.

2697:

Eight references for a largish article. 'Nuff said. --

1971:

and other technical science articles have done called

1830:(All A are B. All A are C. Therefore, all C are B). 3804:Needs much better referencing in order to be a GA. 3380:per lack of references, too many lists, and prose. 2593:historians? The 15th century? Names would help. -- 1662:Result: No consensus due to lack of participation. 1236:. The article is a bit unstable. Also, it lacks 1023:http://www.religion-cults.com/pope/communism.htm 3502:template on the talk page and leaving only the 2193:Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier than Thou 1394:his mind that this article should be delisted 3792:the present tense as if he is still active.-- 3562:. I added the ISBNs. No ??? on my browser. -- 1682:Talk:Nordic theory#This is NOT a good article 1469:site, while I'm not so sure about this one.-- 306:Still seems substandard with respect to 2b.-- 8: 2740:. Therefore, I propose that the article be 1124:Most of the references, other than those to 3368:- listy article, very limited references. 291:User talk:Kim Williams#New_York_Yankees_GA 32: 3790:Ariel Sharon#Unilateral disengagementuses 3441:- Article is far from GA. Shameful pass. 3085:fail to meet criteria, just delist them. 3081:- It doesn't even have a lead. When they 295:User talk:Sportskido8#New_York_Yankees_GA 281:The most recent GA nomination is seen at 3816:- Needs more referencing and citations. 24:Knowledge:Good article review/Archive 26 108:Result: Delist article, renominate at 519:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM 461:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM 325:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM 271:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM 7: 283:Talk:New_York_Yankees#Another_GA-nom 1765:Formatting can easily be addressed. 915:Has numerous copyright violations. 500:I can not review before August 9.-- 18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment 3026:Economy of Pakistan#Growing demand 1542:per lack of adequate referencing. 31: 3506:. About a day after this review, 2140:is another's point of view, and 71: 36: 1973:Introduction to bioinformatics 1929:, definently does not satisfy 199:Can't sleep, clown will eat me 1: 662:detailed fair use rationales 376:Delist and renominate at GAC 223:After the article failed at 3845:02:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3786:Ariel Sharon#Prime Minister 3743:20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3641:14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3608:13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3480:13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3453:04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3434:02:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3422:02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3410:01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3385:00:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3373:20:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3361:20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3344:19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 3315:04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 3861: 3821:21:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3809:17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3797:16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3777:14:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 3757:04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 3714:17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3702:17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3690:22:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 3675:15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 3651:15:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 3592:12:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3583:17:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 3567:12:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 3547:19:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3527:18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3278:16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3262:10:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3248:21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3236:16:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3224:05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 3205:21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3192:19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 3180:17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3154:23:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3141:23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3128:03:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3097:02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3073:22:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3064:03:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 3033:17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3016:12:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2995:04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2933:14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2921:12:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2909:06:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2889:05:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2879:02:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 2853:16:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2841:14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2829:01:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2802:23:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2781:06:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2761:04:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2728:02:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 2702:16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2690:16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2678:05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2659:21:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 2646:21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 2633:20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 2624:02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 2598:17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2585:15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2562:04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2538:14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 2526:20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2513:14:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2503:22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2475:05:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2458:05:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2446:05:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 2427:23:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2358:04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 2330:16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2317:16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 2293:01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 2066:15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1896:14:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1675:14:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1649:04:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1616:17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1602:16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1590:16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1578:13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1566:17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 1554:21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1535:18:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1522:15:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1509:05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1120:18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1094:17:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 1040:14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1031:05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1017:04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 1003:03:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 886:17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 860:13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 848:18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 836:14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 816:00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 763:17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 737:14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 572:16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 540:16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 524:16:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 496:01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 125:16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 3519:apologized to the editors 2272:23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2259:cordial exchange between 2254:21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2225:18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2216:18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2205:17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2182:17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2165:18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2135:13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2116:11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2096:10:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2012:19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1991:18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1980:13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1952:11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1938:02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1922:19:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1905:14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1862:12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 1852:07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 1835:10:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 1814:22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1794:20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1780:16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1770:15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1760:15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1750:15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1729:11:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 1696:21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 1485:18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1474:18:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1453:05:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1428:18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1416:05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1389:18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1371:03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1346:03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1336:03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1314:03:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1305:02:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1280:18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1268:20:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1229:20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1209:18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1194:20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 1182:23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 1170:16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 1141:08:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 1075:21:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1062:03:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 994:21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 982:11:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 968:01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 932:19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 920:14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 907:06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 803:05:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 777:00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 723:10:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 709:13:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 700:19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 687:17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 673:12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 666:non-free content criteria 654:06:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 626:16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 607:12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 590:22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 487:21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 466:16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 438:08:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 429:22:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 412:04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 394:19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 369:19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 330:22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 302:22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 276:21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 77:Good article reassessment 3484:Passed 03 April 2007 by 3184:GA tag added by anon IP 581:?" when reading how bad 3558:is the exhibition, and 2039:) 00:40, August 7, 2007 238:16:43, 4 June 2007 FGAN 402:The edit summary says 244:20:12, 4 June 2007 GA? 241:18:41, 4 June 2007 GAC 235:07:04, 4 June 2007 GAC 3466:Result: No consensus. 2365:Criticism of Wal-Mart 1242:good article criteria 553:Super Princess Peach 3560:here is the catalog 3504:briefest of reviews 2860:Economy of Pakistan 1238:reliable references 664:as laid out in the 635:Super Mario Bros. 2 151:Silent Wind of Doom 2484:Battle of Hastings 1965:general relativity 3842: 3836: 3407: 3401: 3331:. Looking at the 2992: 2986: 2791:Corvus coronoides 2758: 2752: 2605:Duluth, Minnesota 2559: 2553: 2413: 2355: 2349: 2041: 2027:comment added by 1969:quantum mechanics 1820:Fascism Talk page 1646: 1640: 1413: 1407: 1368: 1362: 1333: 1327: 1302: 1296: 1266: 905: 867:Pope John Paul II 800: 794: 651: 645: 522: 464: 328: 287:User:Kim Williams 274: 221:Delist nomination 207:PassionoftheDamon 98: 97: 90: 89: 59: 58: 52:current talk page 22:(Redirected from 3852: 3840: 3834: 3774: 3769: 3754: 3687: 3672: 3667: 3638: 3633: 3605: 3600: 3580: 3575: 3544: 3539: 3501: 3495: 3490:directly posting 3477: 3472: 3450: 3445: 3405: 3399: 3370:The Rambling Man 3358:LurkingInChicago 3312: 3307: 3221: 3216: 3177: 3172: 3151:LurkingInChicago 3125: 3120: 3094: 3089: 3061: 3056: 2990: 2984: 2906: 2901: 2876: 2871: 2826: 2824: 2822: 2813: 2778: 2773: 2756: 2750: 2725: 2720: 2675: 2670: 2621: 2616: 2582: 2577: 2557: 2551: 2523:LurkingInChicago 2500: 2495: 2472: 2467: 2443: 2438: 2424: 2411: 2387: 2383: 2353: 2347: 2314: 2309: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2240: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2082: 2063: 2058: 2040: 2021: 2009: 2004: 1919:LurkingInChicago 1893: 1888: 1849: 1844: 1789:more scholarly. 1747: 1742: 1719:raised the issue 1672: 1667: 1644: 1638: 1551: 1546: 1467:Chrysler Sunbeam 1450: 1445: 1411: 1405: 1366: 1360: 1331: 1325: 1300: 1294: 1277:LurkingInChicago 1258: 1255: 1252: 1249: 1168: 1157: 1117: 1112: 1091: 1086: 961: 955: 948: 942: 929:LurkingInChicago 892: 883: 878: 833: 828: 798: 792: 760: 755: 649: 643: 623: 618: 569: 564: 537: 532: 504: 446: 426: 421: 391: 386: 366: 361: 310: 256: 163:Brad E. Williams 129:I have notified 122: 117: 102:New York Yankees 92: 91: 75: 61: 60: 54: 40: 33: 27: 3860: 3859: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3772: 3767: 3752: 3727:Result: Delist. 3724: 3685: 3670: 3665: 3636: 3631: 3627:Result: Delist. 3624: 3603: 3598: 3578: 3573: 3542: 3537: 3499: 3493: 3475: 3470: 3463: 3448: 3443: 3310: 3305: 3290: 3219: 3214: 3175: 3170: 3164: 3123: 3118: 3107: 3092: 3087: 3059: 3054: 3043: 2904: 2899: 2874: 2869: 2863: 2820: 2818: 2816: 2811: 2799: 2776: 2771: 2723: 2718: 2712: 2673: 2668: 2619: 2614: 2608: 2580: 2575: 2498: 2493: 2487: 2470: 2465: 2441: 2436: 2422: 2409: 2381: 2371:The result was: 2368: 2312: 2307: 2238: 2235: 2233: 2231: 2080: 2077: 2075: 2073: 2061: 2056: 2050: 2022: 2007: 2002: 1891: 1886: 1883:Result: Delist. 1880: 1847: 1842: 1745: 1740: 1670: 1665: 1659: 1549: 1544: 1499: 1448: 1443: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1198:Frank Brusca's 1152: 1150: 1115: 1110: 1107:Result: Delist. 1104: 1089: 1084: 988:with this edit. 963: 959: 951: 946: 940: 881: 876: 870: 831: 826: 758: 753: 750:Result: Delist. 747: 621: 616: 567: 562: 559:Result: Delist. 556: 535: 530: 424: 419: 409:Michael Greiner 389: 384: 364: 359: 299:Michael Greiner 285:. The reviewer 155:Michael Greiner 120: 115: 105: 50: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3858: 3856: 3848: 3847: 3823: 3811: 3799: 3779: 3747:Promoted here 3723: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3704: 3692: 3677: 3623: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3596:I fixed them. 3549: 3462: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3436: 3424: 3412: 3387: 3375: 3363: 3333:article itself 3293:Result: Delist 3289: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3265: 3264: 3250: 3238: 3226: 3207: 3167:Result: Delist 3163: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3042: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3020: 3019: 3018: 2998: 2997: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2968: 2964: 2961: 2954: 2947: 2944: 2943:Almost no lead 2935: 2923: 2911: 2866:Result: Delist 2862: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2843: 2831: 2804: 2795: 2783: 2715:Result: Delist 2711: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2692: 2680: 2661: 2648: 2611:Result: Delist 2607: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2587: 2564: 2540: 2528: 2490:Result: Delist 2486: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2448: 2429: 2367: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2320: 2319: 2296: 2295: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2185: 2184: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2155: 2146: 2145: 2119: 2118: 2071:introduction. 2049: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2014: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1954: 1940: 1924: 1879: 1877:Bioinformatics 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1732: 1731: 1722: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1691: 1689: 1687: 1685: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1556: 1537: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1350:Fair enough. 1282: 1270: 1231: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1172: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1077: 1064: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 970: 957: 934: 922: 873:Result: Delist 869: 864: 863: 862: 850: 838: 818: 805: 746: 744:Ottoman Empire 741: 740: 739: 726: 725: 713: 712: 711: 690: 689: 676: 675: 657: 656: 628: 609: 555: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 397: 396: 373: 372: 371: 355: 351: 348: 335: 334: 333: 332: 246: 245: 242: 239: 236: 104: 99: 96: 95: 88: 87: 80: 69: 57: 56: 41: 30: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3857: 3846: 3843: 3837: 3831: 3827: 3824: 3822: 3819: 3815: 3812: 3810: 3807: 3803: 3800: 3798: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3780: 3778: 3775: 3770: 3764: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3755: 3749: 3745: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3722: 3719: 3715: 3712: 3708: 3705: 3703: 3700: 3696: 3693: 3691: 3688: 3681: 3678: 3676: 3673: 3668: 3662: 3658: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3649: 3643: 3642: 3639: 3634: 3628: 3622: 3619: 3609: 3606: 3601: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3590: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3581: 3576: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3550: 3548: 3545: 3540: 3534: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3525: 3520: 3515: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3498: 3491: 3487: 3482: 3481: 3478: 3473: 3467: 3461: 3458: 3454: 3451: 3446: 3440: 3437: 3435: 3432: 3428: 3425: 3423: 3420: 3416: 3413: 3411: 3408: 3402: 3396: 3393:right now. -- 3391: 3388: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3376: 3374: 3371: 3367: 3364: 3362: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3317: 3316: 3313: 3308: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3288: 3285: 3279: 3276: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3263: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3251: 3249: 3246: 3242: 3239: 3237: 3234: 3230: 3227: 3225: 3222: 3217: 3211: 3208: 3206: 3203: 3199: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3181: 3178: 3173: 3168: 3162: 3159: 3155: 3152: 3148: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3139: 3135: 3130: 3129: 3126: 3121: 3115: 3113: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3095: 3090: 3084: 3080: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3071: 3066: 3065: 3062: 3057: 3051: 3049: 3041: 3038: 3034: 3031: 3027: 3024: 3021: 3017: 3014: 3010: 3005: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2996: 2993: 2987: 2981: 2976: 2975: 2969: 2965: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2952: 2948: 2945: 2942: 2941: 2939: 2936: 2934: 2931: 2927: 2924: 2922: 2919: 2915: 2912: 2910: 2907: 2902: 2896: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2887: 2881: 2880: 2877: 2872: 2867: 2861: 2858: 2854: 2851: 2847: 2844: 2842: 2839: 2835: 2832: 2830: 2827: 2814: 2808: 2805: 2803: 2800: 2798: 2793: 2792: 2787: 2784: 2782: 2779: 2774: 2768: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2759: 2753: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2730: 2729: 2726: 2721: 2716: 2710: 2707: 2703: 2700: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2688: 2684: 2681: 2679: 2676: 2671: 2665: 2662: 2660: 2657: 2652: 2649: 2647: 2644: 2640: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2631: 2626: 2625: 2622: 2617: 2612: 2606: 2603: 2599: 2596: 2591: 2588: 2586: 2583: 2578: 2572: 2568: 2565: 2563: 2560: 2554: 2548: 2544: 2541: 2539: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2527: 2524: 2520: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2511: 2505: 2504: 2501: 2496: 2491: 2485: 2482: 2476: 2473: 2468: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2456: 2452: 2449: 2447: 2444: 2439: 2433: 2430: 2428: 2425: 2419: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2412: 2406: 2404: 2402: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2391:71.168.231.91 2385: 2384: 2378: 2376: 2372: 2366: 2363: 2359: 2356: 2350: 2344: 2340: 2337: 2336: 2331: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2315: 2310: 2304: 2302: 2298: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2286: 2283: 2273: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2252: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2214: 2213: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2203: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2170: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2128:WP: criticism 2124: 2121: 2120: 2117: 2114: 2113: 2107: 2103: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2068: 2067: 2064: 2059: 2054: 2053:Result: Keep. 2048: 2047:Mother Teresa 2045: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2018: 2015: 2013: 2010: 2005: 1999: 1996: 1992: 1989: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1955: 1953: 1950: 1949: 1944: 1941: 1939: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1925: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1903: 1898: 1897: 1894: 1889: 1884: 1878: 1875: 1863: 1860: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1850: 1845: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1833: 1829: 1828:Illicit minor 1825: 1821: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1812: 1807: 1803: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1743: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1730: 1727: 1723: 1720: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1683: 1677: 1676: 1673: 1668: 1663: 1657: 1656:Nordic theory 1654: 1650: 1647: 1641: 1635: 1630: 1627: 1617: 1614: 1610: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1584: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1576: 1572: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1557: 1555: 1552: 1547: 1541: 1538: 1536: 1533: 1529: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1511: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1502:Result: Keep. 1497: 1494: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1472: 1468: 1463: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1451: 1446: 1440: 1437: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1414: 1408: 1402: 1397: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1387: 1386: 1380: 1372: 1369: 1363: 1357: 1354:it then... -- 1353: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1344: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1328: 1322: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1297: 1291: 1286: 1283: 1281: 1278: 1274: 1271: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1232: 1230: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1180: 1176: 1173: 1171: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1155: 1148: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1113: 1108: 1102: 1101:U.S. Route 40 1099: 1095: 1092: 1087: 1081: 1078: 1076: 1073: 1068: 1065: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1053: 1041: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1024: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1015: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1001: 997: 996: 995: 992: 989: 985: 984: 983: 980: 979: 974: 971: 969: 966: 962: 956: 954: 945: 938: 935: 933: 930: 926: 923: 921: 918: 914: 911: 910: 909: 908: 903: 902:contributions 899: 895: 888: 887: 884: 879: 874: 868: 865: 861: 858: 854: 851: 849: 846: 842: 839: 837: 834: 829: 822: 819: 817: 814: 809: 806: 804: 801: 795: 789: 784: 781: 780: 779: 778: 775: 771: 765: 764: 761: 756: 751: 745: 742: 738: 735: 731: 728: 727: 724: 721: 720: 714: 710: 707: 703: 702: 701: 698: 697: 692: 691: 688: 685: 681: 678: 677: 674: 671: 667: 663: 659: 658: 655: 652: 646: 640: 636: 632: 629: 627: 624: 619: 613: 610: 608: 605: 601: 597: 594: 593: 592: 591: 588: 584: 580: 579:Stellar Stone 574: 573: 570: 565: 560: 554: 551: 541: 538: 533: 527: 526: 525: 520: 516: 512: 508: 503: 499: 498: 497: 494: 490: 489: 488: 485: 484: 479: 478: 467: 462: 458: 454: 450: 445: 441: 440: 439: 436: 432: 431: 430: 427: 422: 415: 414: 413: 410: 405: 401: 400: 399: 398: 395: 392: 387: 381: 377: 374: 370: 367: 362: 356: 352: 349: 345: 344: 342: 341: 337: 336: 331: 326: 322: 318: 314: 309: 305: 304: 303: 300: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 279: 278: 277: 272: 268: 264: 260: 255: 251: 243: 240: 237: 234: 233: 232: 230: 226: 222: 218: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 196: 195:Baseball Bugs 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 168: 167:24.193.99.118 164: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 140: 136: 132: 127: 126: 123: 118: 113: 111: 103: 100: 94: 93: 85: 81: 78: 74: 70: 67: 63: 62: 53: 48: 47: 42: 39: 35: 34: 25: 19: 3825: 3813: 3801: 3781: 3762: 3746: 3726: 3725: 3721:Ariel Sharon 3706: 3694: 3679: 3656: 3644: 3626: 3625: 3551: 3532: 3516: 3483: 3465: 3464: 3438: 3426: 3414: 3389: 3377: 3365: 3353: 3349: 3329:edit history 3318: 3292: 3291: 3270: 3253: 3252: 3240: 3228: 3209: 3197: 3183: 3166: 3165: 3146: 3131: 3109: 3108: 3082: 3078: 3067: 3045: 3044: 3022: 3008: 3003: 2937: 2925: 2913: 2894: 2882: 2865: 2864: 2845: 2833: 2806: 2796: 2790: 2785: 2766: 2741: 2738:unverifiable 2731: 2714: 2713: 2694: 2682: 2663: 2650: 2638: 2627: 2610: 2609: 2589: 2570: 2566: 2542: 2530: 2518: 2506: 2489: 2488: 2450: 2431: 2417: 2397: 2388: 2386: 2373: 2370: 2369: 2338: 2300: 2299: 2284: 2261:Geometry guy 2248: 2244: 2237: 2220:Great idea. 2212:Geometry guy 2210: 2196: 2188: 2171: 2161:Geometry guy 2159: 2151:WP:Criticism 2122: 2112:Geometry guy 2110: 2101: 2090: 2086: 2079: 2069: 2052: 2051: 2016: 1997: 1987:Geometry guy 1985: 1956: 1948:Geometry guy 1946: 1942: 1926: 1914: 1910: 1899: 1882: 1881: 1805: 1786: 1735: 1678: 1661: 1660: 1628: 1608: 1594: 1582: 1570: 1558: 1539: 1527: 1512: 1501: 1500: 1481:Geometry guy 1479: 1457: 1438: 1424:Geometry guy 1422: 1396:prima fascia 1395: 1385:Geometry guy 1383: 1351: 1284: 1272: 1245: 1233: 1226:Geometry guy 1222:bibliography 1217: 1205:Geometry guy 1203: 1174: 1146: 1123: 1106: 1105: 1079: 1066: 1054: 978:Geometry guy 976: 972: 952: 936: 924: 912: 889: 872: 871: 852: 840: 820: 807: 782: 766: 749: 748: 729: 719:Geometry guy 717: 696:Geometry guy 694: 684:Geometry guy 679: 630: 611: 595: 575: 558: 557: 502:TonyTheTiger 483:Geometry guy 481: 444:TonyTheTiger 375: 339: 338: 308:TonyTheTiger 254:TonyTheTiger 247: 220: 219: 128: 107: 106: 76: 44: 3794:Peter cohen 3763:Weak Delist 3699:Peter cohen 3621:Karl Popper 3512:an advisory 3233:Peter cohen 3202:Nehrams2020 3112:WP:SNOWBALL 3048:WP:SNOWBALL 3030:Peter cohen 2850:Peter cohen 2699:Peter cohen 2656:Nehrams2020 2595:Peter cohen 2265:Majoreditor 2222:Majoreditor 2202:Majoreditor 2023:—Preceding 1707:Nordic race 1134:auto trails 1126:route40.net 1070:references. 1059:Majoreditor 1000:Majoreditor 435:Sportskido8 179:Rollosmokes 143:Sportskido8 43:This is an 3711:Balloonman 3589:SidiLemine 3564:SidiLemine 3508:Homestarmy 3431:Homestarmy 3275:SidiLemine 3259:SidiLemine 3013:SidiLemine 2918:SidiLemine 2327:Balloonman 2290:Balloonman 2179:Homestarmy 1935:Homestarmy 1859:SidiLemine 1777:SidiLemine 1757:SidiLemine 1599:SidiLemine 1575:SidiLemine 1563:SidiLemine 1532:Balloonman 1496:Sakurajima 1471:SidiLemine 1343:Homestarmy 1311:Homestarmy 1179:Homestarmy 1072:Balloonman 1037:Balloonman 1014:Balloonman 1012:Knowledge. 1009:Balloonman 991:Balloonman 857:SidiLemine 813:Balloonman 587:hbdragon88 493:Balloonman 227:twice and 203:Howieanson 79:(archive) 3287:Waitoreke 2951:WP:LAYOUT 2389:Added by 1961:evolution 1824:syllogism 1128:, are to 706:Malkinann 670:Malkinann 668:policy. - 604:Malkinann 404:Pupster21 380:WP:YANKEE 183:Antandrus 175:Wknight94 159:Yankees76 3841:contribs 3830:Jayron32 3806:Zeus1234 3739:contribs 3406:contribs 3395:Jayron32 3341:Dr. Cash 3321:Blnguyen 3301:WP:WIAGA 3110:Result: 3046:Result: 2991:contribs 2980:Jayron32 2757:contribs 2746:Jayron32 2742:Delisted 2734:WP:WIAGA 2687:Kablammo 2558:contribs 2547:Jayron32 2401:contribs 2375:snowball 2354:contribs 2343:Jayron32 2037:contribs 2029:Jayron32 2025:unsigned 1645:contribs 1634:Jayron32 1412:contribs 1401:Jayron32 1367:contribs 1356:Jayron32 1332:contribs 1321:Jayron32 1301:contribs 1290:Jayron32 1264:Contribs 1240:per the 1130:roadgeek 799:contribs 788:Jayron32 650:contribs 639:Jayron32 583:Big Rigs 250:WP:WIAGA 213:, & 3661:WP:CITE 3533:Comment 3524:Gosgood 3134:WP:LEAD 3083:clearly 3004:Comment 2967:data... 2510:Lampman 2301:Comment 2269:Anietor 2172:Comment 2142:WP:NPOV 2132:Anietor 2106:WP:NPOV 1911:comment 1811:Rokus01 1693:Rokus01 1595:Comment 1583:Comment 1458:Comment 1439:Comment 1285:Comment 1218:Comment 1055:Comment 1028:Richard 973:Comment 770:WP:NPOV 600:WP:LEAD 340:Comment 187:Soxrock 171:Simon12 84:Page 25 66:Page 27 46:archive 3826:Delist 3814:Delist 3802:Delist 3782:Delist 3731:Nja247 3707:Delist 3695:Delist 3680:Delist 3657:Delist 3486:Lakers 3460:Shunga 3439:Delist 3427:Delist 3415:Delist 3390:Delist 3378:Delist 3366:Delist 3350:delist 3297:WP:GAC 3271:Delist 3241:Delist 3229:Delist 3210:Delist 3198:Delist 3147:delist 3114:delist 3104:Shigin 3079:Delist 3050:delist 3040:Sandur 3023:Delist 2938:Delist 2926:Delist 2914:Delist 2895:Delist 2846:Delist 2834:Delist 2807:Delist 2786:Delist 2767:Delist 2709:Apache 2695:Delist 2683:Delist 2664:Delist 2651:Delist 2639:Delist 2590:Delist 2567:Delist 2543:Delist 2531:Delist 2519:delist 2197:Lancet 2102:Delist 2017:Delist 1998:Delist 1957:Delist 1943:Delist 1931:WP:SCG 1927:Delist 1902:Tarret 1832:Paul B 1791:Paul B 1787:appear 1767:Paul B 1736:Delist 1726:Paul B 1540:Delist 1528:Delist 1352:Delist 1273:delist 1234:Delist 1200:resume 1175:Delist 1147:Delist 1080:Delist 1067:Delist 937:Delist 925:delist 917:Tarret 913:Delist 853:Delist 841:Delist 821:Delist 808:Delist 783:Delist 774:Timhud 730:Delist 680:Delist 631:Delist 612:Delist 596:Delist 354:issue. 347:after. 229:WP:GAC 225:WP:FAC 211:Dfmock 191:Jsh726 147:Win777 139:WP:NYY 135:WP:NYC 131:WP:MLB 110:WP:GAC 3818:Raime 3773:♥Love 3753:Giggy 3686:Giggy 3671:♥Love 3648:Raime 3637:♥Love 3604:♥Love 3579:♥Love 3543:♥Love 3517:I've 3510:left 3476:♥Love 3449:♥Love 3382:Raime 3337:Zalgt 3325:Zalgt 3311:♥Love 3245:Raime 3220:♥Love 3189:Masem 3176:♥Love 3138:Masem 3136:). -- 3124:♥Love 3093:♥Love 3070:Masem 3060:♥Love 2958:WP:EL 2930:Raime 2905:♥Love 2886:Masem 2875:♥Love 2838:Raime 2812:Until 2777:♥Love 2724:♥Love 2674:♥Love 2643:Raime 2630:Masem 2620:♥Love 2581:♥Love 2535:Raime 2499:♥Love 2471:♥Love 2455:Raime 2442:♥Love 2423:Giggy 2410:Giggy 2382:Giggy 2313:♥Love 2200:wars. 2062:♥Love 2008:♥Love 1977:Filll 1892:♥Love 1671:♥Love 1613:Raime 1587:Raime 1550:♥Love 1519:Raime 1506:Raime 1462:WP:RS 1244:. -- 1116:♥Love 1090:♥Love 953:Giggy 882:♥Love 845:Raime 832:♥Love 759:♥Love 734:Raime 568:♥Love 536:♥Love 215:Bole2 121:♥Love 16:< 3835:talk 3768:Lara 3735:talk 3666:Lara 3632:Lara 3599:Lara 3574:Lara 3556:This 3552:Keep 3538:Lara 3492:the 3488:via 3471:Lara 3444:Lara 3419:Wrad 3400:talk 3306:Lara 3254:Hold 3215:Lara 3171:Lara 3161:Dada 3119:Lara 3088:Lara 3055:Lara 2985:talk 2956:Per 2900:Lara 2870:Lara 2797:talk 2772:Lara 2751:talk 2719:Lara 2669:Lara 2615:Lara 2576:Lara 2571:many 2552:talk 2494:Lara 2466:Lara 2451:Keep 2437:Lara 2432:Keep 2418:Keep 2395:talk 2377:keep 2348:talk 2339:Keep 2308:Lara 2303:Keep 2285:Keep 2263:and 2189:Keep 2123:Keep 2057:Lara 2033:talk 2003:Lara 1887:Lara 1848:Love 1843:Lara 1746:Love 1741:Lara 1666:Lara 1639:talk 1629:Keep 1609:Keep 1571:Keep 1559:Hold 1545:Lara 1515:here 1449:Love 1444:Lara 1406:talk 1361:talk 1326:talk 1295:talk 1260:Talk 1111:Lara 1085:Lara 944:fact 898:talk 877:Lara 827:Lara 793:talk 754:Lara 644:talk 622:Love 617:Lara 563:Lara 531:Lara 425:Love 420:Lara 390:Love 385:Lara 365:Love 360:Lara 293:and 116:Lara 86:) → 2234:hib 2232:Pro 2076:hib 2074:Pro 1975:.-- 1191:NE2 1156:O - 1138:NE2 949:). 894:OSX 602:. - 515:bio 457:bio 321:bio 267:bio 217:). 64:← ( 3741:) 3737:• 3663:. 3500:}} 3497:GA 3494:{{ 3009:is 2978:-- 2884:-- 2821:== 2819:1 2744:-- 2654:-- 2407:- 2249:ns 2241:ni 2236:it 2177:. 2091:ns 2083:ni 2078:it 2035:• 1967:, 1963:, 1857:-- 1684:: 1632:-- 1611:. 1262:• 1254:10 1165:Y? 947:}} 941:{{ 900:• 786:-- 521:) 463:) 407:-- 327:) 273:) 209:, 205:, 201:, 197:, 193:, 189:, 185:, 181:, 177:, 173:, 169:, 165:, 161:, 157:, 153:, 149:, 145:, 137:, 133:, 68:) 55:. 3838:| 3832:| 3733:( 3403:| 3397:| 2988:| 2982:| 2825:) 2823:2 2817:( 2754:| 2748:| 2555:| 2549:| 2403:) 2398:· 2393:( 2351:| 2345:| 2245:o 2239:O 2087:o 2081:O 2031:( 1642:| 1636:| 1409:| 1403:| 1364:| 1358:| 1329:| 1323:| 1298:| 1292:| 1251:A 1248:J 1167:) 1162:L 1159:R 1154:→ 1151:( 965:P 960:U 904:) 896:( 796:| 790:| 647:| 641:| 517:/ 513:/ 511:c 509:/ 507:t 505:( 459:/ 455:/ 453:c 451:/ 449:t 447:( 323:/ 319:/ 317:c 315:/ 313:t 311:( 269:/ 265:/ 263:c 261:/ 259:t 257:( 112:. 82:( 26:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Good article reassessment/Archive 26 - Knowledge

Index