Knowledge (XXG):Good article reassessment/Archive 29

4858:" on the RevoPower article, with the arrow pointing to "Loafer", but that's not much of a criticism really, not to mention it can't really be cited because it's not in text. It did make a pretty big sweep through the blogosphere awhile back, one of them might have some criticism, but even the more popular blogs are generally not reliable sources. Of course, once it is released, it will probably get a surge of media attention, and I can look around then. If it's as popular as they're hoping for (100,000 units in the first 6 months, I think, I don't have the exact quote here) it wouldn't be surprising to see a bunch of towns passing laws and telling people they are/aren't ok and such on it, like those electric RAZOR scooters that were so popular a couple years back, or pocket rockets, or Segways, or any number of other weird transportation things that have come up in the past few years. Of course, if it gets in magazines that get to review it I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism, not to mention people complaining about how it's 'eliminating the point of biking' or something to that effect if it really catches on. I'm already thinking about the future of the article to be honest, I figure there will probably be a "Legality" and "Reception" section once it's released, and probably a new section for new types of wheels, as they are released (the four-stroke, hybrid, etc. models they mention) -- 4876:, Since there doesn't seem to be any more new comments, i'm siding to list this article. Primary sources aren't weak simply because they are primary, and references do not have to be held up to Knowledge (XXG)'s standards of neutrality. Unless someone can demonstrate how the RevoPower main website is factually innacurate, I just don't see how it is a bad reference. Furthermore, if there's really nothing else available to add, I don't see what can be done in terms of expansion, and this subject seems like the kind of obscure topic that probably won't expand very quickly even when it is publicly produced. There might be criticism in the future, or the company might tank and make such a section irrelevant, but there's a whole lot of might be's that go with many contemporaneous subjects that are GA's on Knowledge (XXG), and I don't think there's enough mights for this article to automatically make it too unstable. 1553:

should be expanded or merged into one "Modern History" section. The "Urban Environemnt" section would likely be confusing to non-local readers, as it relates many locations based on local street names and institutions. Much information seems to be pretty trivial as well. The "Education" section is very poor, consisting of only a stubby heading senetence and then a list of what appear to be unimportant schools. This list should probably be merged into prose if possible. The "Transportation" section could also use some expansion/rewording. The whole article would benefit from more references and citations.

994:

library service and therefor expensive to obtain outside this catchment area. However, if a more comprehensive scheme of referencing can to be added to this article and cleanup effected, I would nominate this article for FA status as the subject is hightly notable. I have therefor raised its Business assessement importance from low to medium, as this article is closely related to the development of the Refrigerator car, which in turn is a major driving force in the extraordinary economic development of the mid-West. --

4649:(whatever's appropriate, can't remember) per the work done to diversify sources. It was never my contention that this particular company was making erroneous claims, just that that can be the perception, thus if something is declared good, it should have the best, independent, sources available. Thanks for your work here and sorry I wasn't more help, I have been on a semi-wikibreak, mostly discussing a few things and working on some stuff in my user space that isn't quite ready for the limelight yet. : ) 3654:"The show aired every Monday evening, with Rollins playing a variety of music which could mostly be classified under the broad rock and roll umbrella" According to whom? If someone classifies something, that's analysis. We do not provide our own analysis of his show. WHO has decided that his show plays this type of music. I am not denying that it does. I only note that this is a statement of opinion, and note that we do not provide opinions at wikipedia, we report the opinions of others. 4100:

was giving some articles to use to model this article on. If your goal is to make this the best possible Knowledge (XXG) article it can be, you could do no better than to model the format of the articles she lists. But this seems to easily fail the broadness criteria if the information exists (Flemming is a well analyzed author; there is HEAPS of literary criticism on him, and that this article makes no use of it makes it fail 3 (a).)

66: 849:

just asked for a link to the archived GAR discussions be placed on the article's current talk page so that people can access the entire history of discussions about its being nominated and re-nominated for GA. Thanks in advance if you can help with archiving and/or providing the link to the archived discussion (everything above and beyond that re: "HP "as GA nomination. Is it necessary now to have a section here? --

3291:- Broadness is a serious issue, and there are a few tags that need resolving. The Radio and Television work is a real problem; there are only two recent things listed, where as I know for a fact he has done a LOT more TV than this. He's a frequent contributor on the VH1 nostalgia programs, he's done a 1/2 hour standup special on Comedy Central (Live and Ripped). A very quick google search turned up this: 31: 272:- This article has already been delisted; it was removed from the GA list and tagged as a delisted GA on August 28. At this point, this should be closed and archived, or the article should be relisted under terms of premature delistment and discussion brought up here agiain. However, since much of the article is written in an in-universe standpoint, I think a bold 3661:"Rollins posted playlists and commentary on-line, but due to fan demand, these lists were expanded with more info and published in book form as Fanatic! by his 2.13.61 imprint in November 2005." Really? Is this why it was published? Fan demand? According to whom? This sentance provides analysis. Analysis is opinion, and challangable, and thus needs reference. 4170:" whereby a work of fiction is analyzed critically (and not where bad things are said about it). Criticism can mean "looked at with a critical eye" and not just "bad things said about something". This article lacks ANY reference to reception in the press, reviews of the work, scholarly analysis, sales figures, ALL of which would be "criticism"...-- 989:. Several sections lack references altogether and the article has few inline references. In the Notes section, there is a inline citation for an author named White, but the note does not indicate which of his two books listed in the Reference section is being cited. Furthermore, some of the material seems to be shared or copied from the article 4588:? Clearly you're not talking about assertion of notability, given that's more than established, so what in the article needs asserting? What would be NPOV without a source-- or for that sake, with one? I can say with about 98% certainty that anything sourced to the company is somewhere else too, especially anything that would actually be 841:

listed in the nominations page. I followed the link that you or someone else provided in this section and just got to the preview editing page of this section. Laralove requested that the previous discussion (including your own earlier comments and my replies to them) be "archived" since I re-nominated the article for a new review.

1736:- This is well below the criteria, especially with regards to referencing. As a frequent editor of football articles, I would like to see many of them attain GA and FA status. However, wanting them to meet the criteria does not make it so; this one needs lots of referencing work. This may be my next project after 5143:- Lead needs to be trimmed, there is information (as noted above) that needs citation, sources need to be consistently formatted, I'm not sure why bullets are being used in the Popular music section, but that needs to be worked into paragraphs. There were some other little minor things, but I fixed them myself. 4515:. The references are weak and article is short. It's currently "B"-class. While I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an advertisement, it lacks enough references from reliable sources to qualify as GA-class. That said: keep up the good work. With some work the article may be able to progress to GA-class. 4421:

way the article could be improved, and pointed out no problems with sourcing other than apparently accusing the manufacturer of releasing fake specifications, and saying that a third party source is needed. The reviewer offered absolutely no reason why these sources were unreliable, or where reliable

3615:

I didn't want to imply that no work had been done ever on this article, just that the issues that I saw when I first looked at the article had not been fixed since I had first looked at it. The biggest issue remaining is the expansion (with full referencing, of course) of two sections: Musical style

3596:

There have definately been major changes, and the article is definately much better. There do seem to be a few lingering issues though. You can have a few more days I suppose, but it's not like we're gonna hold you to a deadline or anything. I just figured it's been up here a really long time, and

848:

This page was on my watch list by default and so I saw your comment above. I can't find the archived discussion previously on this page, which is where all of this section needs now to be archived so that the GAR can move forward once a reviewer is assigned or volunteers for that task. Thanks. I had

4091:

Criteria 2 (b): In-line citations lacking from several ideas that beg them, as ONE example, (and there are more, so fixing this ONE will not fix the entire problem): "the Daily Express suddenly cancelled the strip (per Lord Beaverbrook) on February 10, 1962, when Beaverbrook and Fleming disputed the

3650:

While the Henry Rollins Show section and the Other Appearences section do not contain any information that I would find contentious, as there is nothing there that is not referenced directly to the shows in question (Rollins appeared in XXXX is plainly self referenced to the credits of XXXX and does

3127:

down is very sparcely referenced. Given the number of forked articles, I'd guess that a lot of the facts are referenced in those articles. Things like Rollins's friend being shot should be easy to source and fixable in a relatively short time. If the referencing can't be fixed in reasonble time from

772:

Just saw this. Thank you for archiving. Re: the image for the infobox etc.: I did find a "free" one (as stated from the Commons), though I think it's actually taken from an agency photo (the original make him look thinner and is clearer. It also happens to be illustration 39 in Billington's book,

4286:

at 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC). I have done an initial review, and I think it mostly meets the criteria, with a couple of concerns. Primarily, this is a very controversial subject, and pertains to wikipedia itself, and I don't feel that one editor should make the decision alone to list this as a

4103:

Criteria 3 (b) or 1 (b-layout): While we're at it, the controversy section seems out of balance with the rest of the article. In the first case, it seems to be mostly about the controversy surrounding the production of the FILM, and thus really not belonging in the article on the NOVEL (thus being

3430:

Actually, I take part of my comments above back. Criticisms are usually reserved for specific articles or songs, since people's opinions might change drastically. I guess my only concern with the article is an overall lack of breadth (the whole is one big Biography section), but I'm just not sure

3407:

It seems like CloudNine is still working on the article, but I still don't think it meets criteria. Since it has been here for a month, and there still seems to be alot of work (criticisms, prose cleanup, etc) I'd recommend delisting the article for now with an invitation to renominate the article

1780:

I agree that it isn't well-referenced enough. For example, the very long rules section has zero references, along with its parent article. Even some broad references would do it minimally, but its impossible for me to give benefit of the doubt to general references when there's absolutly nothing to

4839:

Well, reading the article, I don't think it really is an advertisment. It just appears that way because what's there is mostly positive in nature, though I don't think its written in a non-neutral way, its just that all the facts about the subject presented here are fairly positive. Lucid, is this

4474:

what was written like an advertisement, 5 is definitely met, I think there's been one vandal in the entire time the article has been up, and that was a bit of NPOV OR, no page blanking, most contributions to the article are minor things, like fixing acronyms and such, 6 is definitely met given the

4099:

Criteria 3 (a): An article on a work of fiction that contains NO section on critical reception seems well below broadness. This was the central theme of Awadewit's failure notes. Awadewit didn't say she was comparing this article to FA standards and endorsing the failure based on that. Awadewit

3875:

sweep. I do not believe that this article qualifies because I think that it is predominantly a list and should probably sent to FLC where necessary. The main substance of this piece is that there is a short section on the format of the warm up matches, and then a very large table of statistics and

3383:

I still don't see where the major problems have been adressed (broadness and referncing issues. see above). This has been here for a month. Even if the vote is deadlocked, we should archive this as a no-consensus. Could everyone please re-read the article and see what you think about this. I'd

3319:

Additionally, large parts of the article are still unreferenced or in need of more referencing, such as the entire Rollins Band section, and most of the Black Flag section. Plus, the article contains no reception of Rollin's work, for an artist of his type there is LOTS of criticism (positive and

1718:

I totally disagree also about what is indicated by the Talk page. Counting Shudde's post saying that the article was going to be put up for GA review, there were only 4 posts in the entire month of August. The older issues have been dealt with through discussion. There are no contentious points

1539:

is somewhat weak (if the town's claim to fame is the shooting, despite how morbid the event, that likely should be mentioned), the history section could probably have a "Current" or "21st Century", and group the last three sections into this for parallelism. Last few sections definitely need more

1332:

unless someone can source the info, because the article is underreferenced. Most of the other smaller issues should be cleared up (except for the small and odd typeface in the notes section, I would add some refs if I knew anything at all about the topic, which I do not, it doesn't look like there

1273:

link to a redlink needs to be removed. Any statements with fact tags need to be addressed. Further reading section needs to be consistently formatted - Some have ISBN#s, others don't. Some have bullets, others don't. The reference section is also messy, and could use some cleanup. Citations in the

4784:

You said that the review "doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. ", but the only review I see nearest to the bottom doesn't appear to be like that at all, quite the contrary really, there seem to be several WIAGA-relevant

4570:

of the subject matter. There is nothing stopping the company from saying whatever it wants about itself with absolutely no editorial oversight. Of course they are going to make themselves look good, of course they have a conflict of interest when presenting information about themselves. Find some

4191:

Ah, I see. It's just usually (on Knowledge (XXG) anyway) people use simply "Criticism" in the second use you mentioned, and "Critical reception" or the like in the classical sense. Funny thing to get confused, considering arts criticism is my business! Anyway, I agree completely. A lack of such a

3562:

once it is finally up to standard. This one has had MORE than enough time to work out the kinks, none of the major criticisms (lack of broadness, poor referencing) have been addressed. We have been told over and over again that they are GOING to be adressed, but I see no major changes in moving

2603:

Honestly, the article has so little referencing; it is FILLED with statements like that which stand alone as analysis, or opinion, or unusual facts. Also, what's with the organization? We have double = level headers for years 1976-1981; then triple = headers for years 1981-1989? The references

2512:

are included for direct quotations, numerous statistics (such as Nielsen ratings) are not referenced anywhere in the article. There is a separate article (under the ratings section) that details these references, but they need to be present in this article as well. Also, numerous sections have no

1552:

per Masem. Article doesn't meet criteria. Lead is short, and 2nd paragraph needs to expanded, merged, or deleted. Per above, the shooting should be mentioned. Furthermore, the lead should mention more than just population statsitics. In the History section, the "Today" section is very stubby, and

1392:

Lead contains political discussion not in rest of article. And why is the former regime described as "communist" and then called "socialist" thereafter? Needs a copy edit - e.g. for clauses without verbs. Quotes lack page references in citations. And why is art music discussed both in popular and

1314:

I also think that considering the political history of the nation had influence on its music that a couple sentences relating the two aren't unwarranted, the lead doesn't go into too much detail about that anyway, it mentions it. The fact tags should be cleared up but this article could easily be

631:

per above comments. Lead section is very inadequate, and the copyright issues with the first image need to be addressed. The history section could definitely be expanded, and some sections of the article need more sources. Also, parts of the article are very listy; these parts might be able to be

4757:

I'm not sure if i'm looking at the right section, but when I see the latest GA nomination failed heading, it sure looks like the reviewer gave several legitimate reasons for failure, such as the article reading like an advertisement, among other things. Not even commenting on the accuracy of the

4621:

Basically, I am of the opinion that the site is absolutely self serving, its essentially an ad for a yet to be released product, so really it is nothing more than speculation on the company's part, about how the company thinks things will result for the product once it is released. There is also

3666:

WIAGA says that challangeable statements need inline cites. Simple statements of easily checkable facts (He appeared on XXXX show on YYYY date) don't seem all that challengable. However, in situations where critical analysis is done (That some sort of music belongs to one genre or another, for

840:

I do not know what the proper procedure is relating to the "good article" nomination status of this article. The article was not reviewed after you first made comments about it in the previously-archived section of this page saying that it needed to be "de-listed" when it was not then currently

4729:

is a pretty good sign that they aren't making their stuff seem better than it is. Anyway, I've added more secondary sources, there's still a few more out there but they don't have much new, or are borderline reliable/notable (see the talk page for one), and removed some stuff that wasn't really

1365:

Lead does not summarize the article; In the Folk music section, in "Albanian folk music falls into three sylistic groups," is that supposed to read stylistic?; Sample music lacks fair use rationale; Insufficient citation; Ref placement is inconsistent and does not look good, nor does the random

993:

rather than sources about the subject himself. There is a further problem with this article that it is unlikely that it will be adopted for cleanup anytime soon; despite the large Reference and Bibliograhy sections, the references draw on local sources that are obtainable only from the Chicago

178:

This article was promoted to Good status on February 2, 2006, but I have just looked over the page today, one and a half years later, and I think it is no longer worthy of being a Good Article. The article is largely told in an in-universe style, there's no section on the world's reception and

881:

At this point I think it might be a good idea to continue the discussions on the article's Talk Page. It seems as if this is becoming an increasingly complicated matter, which is a shame for an editor such as yourself who isn't interested in all the bureaucracy and just wants to make a great

858:

That "yes" may be incorrect. Please do the right thing; I don't know what it is now. You said that this section was "double" posted; now I'm not so sure it was. Is this the place for reviewers to post their review comments? Where else does one put them: whether to keep listed or to delist?

3041:- Necessity of quote in the lead (which is not recommended) is questionable. Wikilinked term in quote is also not recommended. Terribly under-referenced. References also need to be consistently formatted. Otherwise, it shouldn't be too far from GA. Correct the noted issues and renominate at 4111:

Criteria 1 (b-lead): The lead itself is NOT a true summary of the article. It omits parts of the article (no part of the plot summary appears in the lead) AND it introduces information not found in the actual article (HERE is the missing criticism. If its here, why is there no criticism

4053:

Two fellows, Alientraveller and Awadewit seem to have forgotten the difference between a GA and an FA. Their demands are endless and have failed this article twice, saying that controversy section needs more sources (It has seven) and add this style section and that section. Bloody hell!

591:

Not too bad, but for such an important topic it needs more expansion. The copyright issue is significant however. I doubt a fair use rationale could be fit to that, as there are other possible ways of illustrating the topic and the article is not actually about Metropolis or Fritz Lang.

4412:

given on the talk page is very stand-offish, and doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. The information in the article is as accurate as possible from reliable sources, and the reviewer offered absolutely

3491:

tags. The section on his radio and television work needs serious expansion as well. The article as a whole reads like a fan site. Let's have less adoring tribute and more sober encyclopedic tone that provides sufficient context thank you. The article as a whole does a poor job of

1709:- there are several inline references as well as three comprehensive reference books listed. Our verifiability standard is to cite things that are challenged or which would likely be challenged. There are no templates in the article indicating that any fact has been challenged. 1274:

article need to be correctly placed after punctuation. The lead poorly summarizes the article; I don't think this topic warrants a paragraph about the political history of Albania. And the audio section is kind of inappropriate in its current state; it needs some formatting work.

777:. There are so many good ones, but they are not free. Since you wrote the comment above, I have revised the article substantially more to take account of another reviewer's comments (as well as earlier comments). Thanks again. I must log off Knowledge (XXG) to do my work! -- 435:, which essentially says that "saying how something is used is encyclopedic, but saying how to use it is not". I'd expect a Pokemon's article to have (sourced) information about the particular R-P-S arguments that make that Pokemon strong against x type or weak against y type. - 4715:

Essentially, just balance out the sources with more independent ones, and the use of the company website becomes no problem. When the entire article is based on it though there is no way to know whether any of information has ever been confirmed independently, or fact checked.

3350:

Another suggestion: The Works section should have a paragraph or two talking about his works. That's not to say you should just list them, but give a brief overview of both his solo works and works within a band. Just having a link for a section isn't all that great.

2598:"The NBA responded to CBS' actions by stretching out the regular season, resulting in the NBA Finals ending after sweeps." Really, the NBA made the change because CBS wanted them too? I am not denying this is so; but such an analysis seems to beg a specific reference. 2884:. I've had reservations with the "UT in popular culture" section for some time now, as I think it weakens an otherwise strong article. I therefore have no issue with either deleting it entirely or moving any of the items elsewhere to preserve the article's GA status. 1114:

due to lack of verifiability. Furthermore, if Joopercoopers wishes for examples, I'll consider it when his attitude is less agressive towards GA/R reviewers. Others may put up with such poor behaviour, but I do not because I have better things to do with my time.

3588:

There have been major changes! I've made 130 edits to the article, in which time I've made the biography section fully comprehensive, reorganised the article, removed the trivia, referenced several uncited facts. What is the article lacking in broadness exactly?

1688:

The request for more sources has been up for some time. It's not like this GAR came from out of the blue. I personally think it will take quite a lot of work to get up to standard. Will probably be better to delist now and then renominate once it's done. -

1252:

doesn't exist. That kind of defies logic. Referencing is also fairly messy. References should be after punctuation not before. This. Not this. And the "Notes and references" and "Further reading" sections are a bit of a mess too. And I know there's

1205:

tags in the article and there many unsourced claims such as "music is considered the most sophisticated in the country" in the city of Korca. The further reading section is small for some reason and the books in that section are not in cite book format.

3006:

default keep. As an aside, this article has remained on GAR so long that many of the earlier comments, whether keep or delist, refer to an article that is so different from what the article is today that it is impossible to determine consensus at this

2896:. The article would benefit by de-emphasizing or removing the Popular Culture section and removing the photos of Notable People. The article's contributors examine other GA-class university articles and their talk pages; they hold tips for improvement. 606:

For reasons above and for insufficient sourcing. The article could use a lot more inline citations for the information presented. It should also be expanded to better cover the broad requirements and the fair use rationale definitely needs to be added.

4699:

I have reposted it for you here, this alone is enough reason to oppose the use of the source. As for assertion, I meant assertions, as in statements of fact that are cited within the article. I wasn't questioning the notability. Why are you linking to

4592:(which I would probably support removing anyway, if it were serious), or could easily be removed without effecting the quality of the article-- barring of course the "the company says, claims, notes" etc. bits. The problem is you're saying the company 952:

This article has many sections that are unreferenced. I have not examined the article beyond its referencing and nothing else jumps out at me. However, I feel the article is substandard and hope that it gets adopted by someone who can clean it

4693:

The burden is on you to prove the source is reliable, its neutrality is disputed here, it would be best if you just brought some independent sources, they shouldn't be too hard to find I would think. Since you ignored this part of what I wrote:

1939:- The review was a little bit too heavy on the need for referencing, but most of the suggestions seem very doable. Why not spend five minutes and address the concerns raised in the review rather than automatically bringing the article here? 5099:

The popular music section needs looking at. A lot of it does look as if it may be OR but there is a reference to popular musc at the bottom. This needs clarification. And BTW, why are their sections called "Hardcore, Metal" and "Punk", when

3421:. (My priority is the Rollins band section) I'm not sure about including a "Musical style", "Criticisms" or "Legacy" section; Rollins' only solo releases have been spoken word, and I've not read many criticisms of them. What do you think? 1473:

Has cite needed tags, not many citations for an article that size. Except for the History and Urban environment sections the rest are small and do not contain much besides bot generated information. Fair use images don't have rationales.

3657:

Also, "Drawn almost entirely from Rollins' own extensive collection" is a surprising fact. I would want to know what this statement is based on. Is there a published account or review or interview somewhere where this statement is

2746:

criteria 2b, specifically that there are tags and headers asking for additional referencing, as well as several sections that make unverifiable claims, and thus need inline cites to make these claims verifiable. I recommend that we

276:

ment would have made sense in the first place. Other problems include the "Reception and criticism" section (which contains no text); this seems completely out of place in an article about a location in a video game. Also, there are

4622:

absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. Sorry, but

2267:

per nom. Quote absolutely needs a citation. It is a pretty short article, so I don't know if it really needs more references, but the fact that there are no citations in the article at all means that the material isn't verifiable.

4696:

There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked

4458:. Going through the GACR, 1 I feel is met, there are probably a couple errors but nothing that couldn't be spent by having a couple more sets of eyes look it over, 2 is the only thing the reviewer seemed to touch on, but again 2867:

This article contains a large, mostly unreferenced trivia section. It also contains a possibly-unfree image in the "Notable people" section (disclaimer: I am the one who listed the image PUI and its status is still undecided).

4107:

Criteria 1 (a); using correct grammar. Proper paragraph organization is part of good grammar. The second paragraph of the lead, for example, is about the film adaptations, then there is a random sentance about a plot device

4819:

Ah, I see then. While I don't agree that specific examples of deficiencies in articles always have to be specified, I guess I can see how you could interpret his review to be meaningless. I'll give the article a closer look.

836:

After I posted above, I learned that the user who I thought was a reviewer was just making "Comments" on the talk page of the article (to help out) but not doing a review and was not serving as a "reviewer" but just as a

4446:, not that the article itself doesn't actually meet the requirements for being a good article. Now, obviously if it wasn't worthy of being a good article, I wouldn't want it to be one, but the review gives absolutely 3063:

It's still under-referenced. Fact tag near the end (although, there needs to be additional references past that one tag). Also, the inclusion of the official website external link in the body needs to be removed.

2064:

per above. It's a massive topic that requires many more citations. Do you have access to sources such as Crisell or Briggs? Too many subheadings with one short paragraph, and overuse of the mainarticle template..

1714:

A request for more sources is fine and good - I love sources. But that is all it is, a request. There is no minimum number of sources that must be used. There is no mandate to act on a general request for more

1027:

Please provide details of some of the 'insufficienciess of reference'. I count 8 in the references section. Do you mean lack of inline citations - please provide examples of what you think need an inline citation

4300: 4117:

Is that enough yet? This is well below GA standard, and continues to be after several reviews. In the state it is in at this time, it is not GA ready. I suggest making the above fixes and renominating at GAC.

1297:) Cite book format? Templates? Those aren't required. The books have at least author, title and publisher, and ISBN if available (anything published before 1966 is highly unlikely to have an ISBN at all btw (See 207:

needs to be merged to this article. A LOT of trimming is needed, and the out-of-universe sections need significant expansion. I doubt there are enough hands to work on this right now, so it should be delisted. —

2958:—The article looks much better. The changes definitely strengthen it. I was leery of making wholesale deletions without the input of other editors since that sometimes causes problems with other contributors. → 4324:

The "Academics" section doesn't start by saying where specifically these academicians and students are, since the only sources are for England and America, that should probably be spelled out more explicitly.

3597:

that it would be better to re-adress this issue starting from scratch whenever that time comes. I didn't mean to downplay the substantial improvements that have been made, it was just a pragmatic suggestion.

844:

If you don't know the procedure, please ask someone who does for assistance. I am logging out of Knowledge (XXG) to do other work and cannot carry on further discussion about the article's GA status at this

3121:

Inconsistent referencing (Link no 3 should have been an inline reference and appears to be broken). Trivia section should be deleted/integrated. Personally, I don't have a problem with the rest of the lists.

3872: 4092:

rights to the short story "The Living Daylights"." This is an interesting analysis of someone motivation. Statements of simple fact (X did Y) may not be challengable, but statments of analysis (X did Y

571:

The prose is very listy in particular sections. I'd recommend turning those sections into prose, and perhaps creating a new article or category for mentioning every film that is currently bullet-pointed.

5121:

is categorised as a Hungarian composer and is, after the Vienneses Strausses, the best known operetta composer. And when mentioning non-Hungarian composers influenced by Hungarian folk traditions, then

872:. Thanks. (Due to my being logged out of Knowledge (XXG) to do work for extended periods of time, my talk page is re-directed to my user page; please don't post comments on my talk page. Thanks.) -- 5039:- Unless someone takes the initiative and fixes the referencing issues. At the moment, it doesn't meet criteria. On another note, it's good to see the new template being used *feels special* :) 792:

I just realized that this is posted at GA/R and GAC. Please don't double post something like this twice: both pages are backlogged enough as they are. Just pick one and stick with it please.

4986:

A good majority of the popular music section contains original research, I wasn't sure if this was enough to be delisted. This with all the other Music of X articles were primarily written by

417:. The supposedly in-universe section is three paragraphs. Not an issue. Since the the "in-universe cleanup" tag has not been justified on the article talk page, it could be summarily removed. 5095:

I'm undecided on this. There's a lot of good stuff well set out in it but I have a couple of scope and potential OR issues. What would make me move into the keep camp would be the following.

2220:

Again - please provide details of the quotations or aspects of the article you think are sufficiently surprising to require inline citations. We need specifics to make the GAC actionable.--

3651:

not need any further referencing... I know this) HOWEVER, the section on Harmony In My Head contains several statements I would think beg referencing and are easily challengable, such as:

1257:

way to format audio samples better than the way it is there right now. Also the stuff mentioned in the nomination, though "Further reading" sections don't have to be in cite book format.

2524:

whatsoever. They are different descriptions that link to one of a few articles. They need to have publisher, date, source, and title of work listed rather than what is currently listed.

4806:

is little more than saying "I don't like it, here's a few blanket statements that could be said about any article without anything to back them up, that way they can't be disproven" --

3548:

This review has been going for more than a month now. I recommend we delist the article until editors feel it is ready to be reevaluated, at which time a fresh review can be started.

357:- Delisting the article without a review based on a few small issues seems hasty. Although I agree with the points Link to the Past made, I don't think they're grounds for delisting. 773:

which is identified as copyrighted by Martyn Hayhow/AFP/Getty Images (not a free source); but it's in the Commons w/ a license no. (?). Please post a link to the image if you can on

3754: 1006:

as per nom and review above. I agree with the above reviewer, if it wasn't for the issues with inline citations, this could be a FAC. But without it doesn't qualify for GA status.

3104:

or something like that), a big uncited trivia section, switches between citations and external jumps, no sections on either the impact and popularity nor criticism of his work. --

4704:

in your edit summary. I didn't attack you at all, I looked at the article and the source and made a comment about it. If that's a personal attack, then I don't know what to say.

1244:- Not the worst article in the world, but it could use some work. Yea, there's alot of redlinks, though some redlinks is generally ok. But that's kind of alot. And why have a 179:

criticism, and it has grown too large for only thirty individual references to cover. Can one of you look over the article and review it as soon as possible? That would be nice.

5109:

The classical music section could do with a bit more especially about Hungary's contribution to the establishment of the Austrian/Viennese classical tradition and to operetta.

2784:

So it is. My bad. Looks like someone changed the talk page, but never actually delisted it; it is still on the GA list... In that case, I'll get on moving it off the list. --

3132:

21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC) In view of progress since I last looked, I've changed my vote from conditional delist to conditional keep just to acknowledge what is happening.--

882:

article. Consolidating the discussions down to a single point will help make things much simpler. So unless there's any objections I'll close and archive this discussion.

369:

the "biological characteristics" section is very in-universe. It's a fictional creature, so its biological characteristics are fictional, and should be treated as such. -

281:

external links. Perhaps some can be removed? The "Languages" section is also a stretch; is that much information about a fictional language in the game really relevant in

574:

The article has a decent breadth of topic, but covers some of the topics without sufficient emphasis. The History section, for instance, could be expanded considerably.

76: 58: 4334:

Another editor has given their own opinion already saying it should probably pass, is there anything to do here? Might as well take off the hold if there's nothing...

3994:

purely on the basis of "improper venue" and suggest writers consider moving it to FLC - it seems that it would not take much work at all to improve to their criteria.

3957:)... Is it just down to the amount of prose in it, or what? Not that I mind this being delisted too much (I'm abstaining due to the obvious COI, fyi), really. Cheers. 3320:

negative) out there to draw from. This article makes NO review of the reception of his work, which again, seems to indicate a lack of broadness required for a GA. --

4104:

unneccessarily detailed per 3 (b) ) AND, what inforamtion is kept about the production of the film really belongs in the section on adaptations (per 1(b) and layout).

2905:

I agree with removing the photos, as they don't add much to the article. Additionally, the photos introduce the complication of determining whom — out of such a long

1195:

Firstly the lead includes irrelevant info such as the political nature of the country. The prose is not all that great and the article is full of redlinks. There are

1827:

per above comments. It is definitely not adequately referenced, and is quite listy in some areas. In addition, many paragraphs and entire sections are very stubby.

237: 183: 1353:

Needs sources for challenged info. Also, I wonder whether there is more information on the topic. This article may have breadth issues and need more research.

4148:

I haven't looked at the article yet, but per Jayron's last comment I would like to point out that separate criticism sections are specifically discouraged by

4462:

in the article is sourced, with nothing controversial that would make a primary source unacceptable, 3 I also feel is met, given that the article covers the

3408:

here when chief editors feel the article is ready. However there is no consensus here to delist, so at least archive this discussion and hope for the best.

2906: 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

1851:

Insufficient referencing as of right now, but has the potential to return to GA with enough work. Some of the lists should be converted to prose as well. --

3831: 3929:

Agree with above. This is a list (a good one at that), and should be nominated at FLC. I don't think it'll have too much trouble being nominated there.

2343:. It appears that an editor is adding in-line citations. Per Raime, the quotation cited. I'm fine with the article containing just a single illustration. 743: 3876:

scoreboards. The tables far outweigh the actual prose in the article which actually discuss the actual cricket so I don't think that it is an article.

3744:

What issues are remaining? There's not really a consensus to delist; there's at least four keeps (with a conditional keep that I reckon has been met).

1663:- I posted a message some time ago on references. There are obviously lots of contentious points that need referencing (judging by the talk page). - 3028:

Article has an unnecessary trivia section and a very large amount of lists. Article also lacks a section on the criticisims of the artists work. --

38: 3811: 1869:

Result: close review since the article was simultaneously nominated at GAC and FAC. Please limit nominations/reviews to one place at a time.

17: 251: 4730:

needed and only really linked to the company's page. It's fairly well balanced now-- the FAQ is still used a lot, but it's needed to give a

342:

Another Pokemon, removed because it has some guide-like content and (basically) because it has a cite-needed tag on the origin of the name.

3712:

Should-we-finally-delist-this-article-and-let-it-be-renominated-when complete-or-allow-it-to-remain-a-GA-while-incremental-progress-is-made

1795:

per above. On a side note, there are a couple images with unnecessarily long image captions. It wouldn't hurt to trim those a little per

1366:

wikification of stand-alone years; 1950s and beyond could probably be expanded; the article could also use some additional wikification.

3606:

Ok, thanks! There wasn't any work done on the article until about half-way through its review. What would you say was the top priority?

3080:

I agree. (Removed the external link). It needs more references and expansion; it doesn't cover Rollins career in Black Flag too well.

2827: 1050: 963: 4466:

of it, even though it is short, because there isn't much to say, 4 I also feel is met, although the reviewer disagreed and called it

3241:. That's still a great work you did Cloud Nine. If you are willing to reword it, I'd be glad to help with the few missing sources.-- 4454:

touching on reliable sources, only to say that the company isn't reliable enough to give the specifications and motivations behind

1054: 967: 1058: 971: 3371:

it's a LONG way away from FAC, but IMHO, it is a GA. The references could be enhanced, but it's not grounds enough to delist.

4181: 4129: 3953:: as writer of the article, I asked for a GA review as I really don't see much difference between this and the main article ( 3916: 3778:

I know that, but what I meant to imply is that a consensus to delist was not obvious (especially as others have voted keep).

3768: 3725: 3701:

Indeed. That's the only section I haven't tackled (apart from expanding Musical style), and it's the only one with problems.

3678: 3627: 3574: 3395: 3331: 3305: 3018: 2795: 2762: 2615: 1751: 3149:

be notified in future?), and I may be able to save; I've got access to several good references. Removed the trivia section.

2809: 733:

Renomination. Relisted after substantial revisions. Previous review needs archiving (see below in 1.12). Thank you. --

4443: 3714:

check. So, should we finally delist this, or should we give it another week (this may be a GAR record, for the record)--

2970:- I like Jareha's changes. They definitely strengthen the article. I believe it once again complies with GA standards. 3966: 3616:

and Radio and television appearances. Also, the radio and television section continues to be largely unreferenced... --

1737: 4475:

high quality photograph of the object that the company donated. I really wouldn't mind this article failing if someone

4584:

would be unreliable. They are going to make themselves look good, yes, but they can't really bend specifications. And

4562:: You're missing the point Lucid, the references are unreliable because they are mostly from the company itself. See 4725:

As far as showing the source is reliable goes, I'd have to say that keeping in the company's specifications because

4664:

And again, the secondary sources back up this information as well. If you can find anything in the article which is

3238: 1040:

Yes. All relevant facts using the current references should use inline citations if it wants to retain GA status.--

191: 138: 4479:, and didn't personally attack other editors in their review. If someone could give a decent reason as to how the 3901:

Without statement of the article quality; GA just does not handle lists, and this is essentially a list article.

3459:

Not a lot. He's not married, so I expect the article, past his early life, will only cover his professional life.

3101: 4931:

Result: 5 to 1, Delist. Also, despite being a late archive, the article content doesn't seem to of changed much.

3667:

example) or where superlative or otherwise unusual claims are made, they are challengable and need references.--

2357:: The article now has inline citations. Are there any other issues? If not, it should maintain its GA status. 815:

So you're saying that this GA/R should be closed and archived? Due to the ongoing discussion on the Talk page?

4999: 4536:

anything to the article except pdf links. If someone can come up for a reason that RevoPower's own sources are

4048: 3800:

Seems to have been adequately repaired by CloudNine. Any points of action should be highlighted if any remain.

2408: 2209: 2196: 2147: 2015:

Weak lead, it is very stubby in places, it could use a good copy-edit, and referencing needs to be cleaned up.

1483: 1215: 3417:

I haven't had too much time to work on the article recently, although I think it's improved greatly since the

644:- Lead needs to be expanded, article needs further citation and references need to be consistently formatted. 5027:- Certainly not beyond help. The popular music sections in particular need some formatting and referencing. 3524:(I have not yet been shown examples of fan-site prose in the article, so it's hard to act on this delisting. 1565:

per above. Dates also need to be wikified for user date preferences and ref placement needs to be corrected.

5040: 3735:

I say delist it. We should treat this the same as a review. on hold for a week, if it doesn't pass, delist.

1496: 1433: 912: 5161: 5134: 5087: 5075: 5063: 5051: 5031: 5004: 4916: 4892: 4880: 4866: 4844: 4824: 4814: 4789: 4779: 4762: 4742: 4720: 4708: 4680: 4653: 4632: 4608: 4575: 4554: 4519: 4491: 4338: 4329: 4315: 4258: 4246: 4222: 4201: 4186: 4161: 4134: 4080: 4071: 4058: 4026: 3998: 3986: 3970: 3945: 3933: 3921: 3893: 3804: 3782: 3773: 3748: 3739: 3730: 3705: 3683: 3645: 3632: 3610: 3601: 3579: 3552: 3538: 3515: 3502: 3463: 3454: 3435: 3425: 3412: 3400: 3375: 3355: 3345: 3336: 3310: 3283: 3258: 3245: 3225: 3208: 3196: 3174: 3153: 3136: 3108: 3084: 3075: 3056: 3032: 3023: 2989: 2977: 2962: 2950: 2922: 2913: 2900: 2888: 2872: 2800: 2779: 2767: 2675: 2651: 2639: 2620: 2585: 2571: 2551: 2506: 2438: 2413: 2389: 2361: 2347: 2331: 2319: 2303: 2286: 2272: 2254: 2241: 2224: 2201: 2115: 2103: 2079: 2056: 2042: 2029: 1943: 1930: 1873: 1855: 1843: 1817: 1785: 1770: 1756: 1726: 1697: 1683: 1671: 1654: 1583: 1557: 1544: 1528: 1514: 1488: 1416: 1397: 1384: 1357: 1337: 1319: 1305: 1284: 1261: 1220: 1138: 1119: 1102: 1089: 1063: 1032: 1022: 1010: 998: 976: 924: 895: 886: 876: 863: 853: 819: 806: 796: 781: 763: 750: 737: 681: 662: 636: 623: 611: 598: 578: 506: 487: 463: 451: 439: 423: 409: 373: 361: 348: 337: 301: 289: 264: 227: 217: 121: 5113:

was someone born just on the Austrian side of the modern border with Hungary who worked for the Hungarian

4850:

Pretty much. It's unreleased, so about the only criticism is people on message boards, which is obviously

3995: 3954: 3801: 3511:

I'm hoping to work on this article again today. Could you point out the prose that reads like a fan-site?

3194: 3163: 1610: 1046: 959: 4483:

has problems that couldn't be quickly fixed, I'd be fine with it, not statements about the thing itself.

2517: 759:

Looks good to me. (By the way, I'm still working on getting a better picture, we'll see how that goes.)

5012: 4946: 3886: 3294:

Not saying it is an adequate or reliable source, but it's a start. IMDB might be a good start too... --

2567: 1886: 1228: 1155: 244: 204: 129: 94: 5114: 946: 934: 5131: 3133: 3129: 2513:

references at all. The Tape Delay section has only a couple references and is over 50% of the article.

1394: 1393:

classical sections? I would rename the latter art music and move material from popular section down.--

1293:

I also trimmed the further reading section (It was basically one writer's bibliography which violated

4077: 4055: 3941:

While I think this topic could conceivably be an article, its currently a list as far as I can tell.

3189: 2545: 2371:: Issues appear to have been addressed... and without going through and fact tag bombing! Good work. 2052:

Citations need formatting, there needs to be more of them, and the article is way too listy overall.

224: 4537: 3493: 3204:: based on improvements, I don't see any of the concerns that have been mentioned above any longer. 2499: 942: 447:

This review is pretty old, and 2 to 1 is pretty close to be archiving, anyone else have an opinion?

4991: 4571:

independent sources to back up the assertion and the article would have a much better chance here.

4068: 4032: 3878: 3237:

The article will have to be completely rewritten before that. It is based on a complete copyvio of

2774: 2400: 2188: 2138: 2122: 1475: 1249: 1207: 418: 343: 213: 44: 3128:

now, then delist stands.(Datestamp matches my striking initial comments and inserting new text.)--

3100:

too list-y (I'd recommend separating the end into a new discography/bibliography article, perhaps

2939: 2561:

Reference #14 and 15 aren't even references. It's just a link to another Knowledge (XXG) article.

30: 5149: 5072: 5028: 4889: 4580:(edit conf)Being from the company does not make something unreliable, being from the company and 4312: 4283: 4265: 4175: 4167: 4123: 3930: 3910: 3762: 3719: 3672: 3642: 3621: 3598: 3568: 3549: 3446: 3432: 3409: 3389: 3352: 3325: 3299: 3280: 3070: 3051: 3012: 2986: 2789: 2756: 2648: 2609: 2377: 2251: 2238: 2221: 2053: 2039: 2021: 1940: 1927: 1870: 1805: 1767: 1745: 1651: 1571: 1525: 1511: 1424: 1413: 1404: 1372: 1258: 1135: 1116: 1099: 1081: 1029: 1007: 995: 921: 883: 816: 793: 774: 760: 747: 693: 678: 650: 620: 575: 503: 401: 390: 358: 325: 261: 234: 180: 109: 4851: 4435: 4417:

basis for their accusation of the article being an advertisement. The review offered absolutely

4308: 4304: 4064: 2743: 1926:

Best article on Knowledge (XXG)! Please review this because i think the failure was a mistake.--

1294: 1075:- Upon reading the article, I agree that it needs further in-line citation for claims and such. 938: 4804:

actually showing where a source is wrong, or at the least contentious enough to not be reliable

5060: 2112: 2075: 1590: 1280:: I just removed all the red links, and the main article links, which anyone could have done. 1041: 986: 954: 5154: 4668:, please tell me. Right now, there's no basis to improve on any part of it, no any reason to 4149: 2535: 2521: 2509: 2382: 1810: 1576: 1536: 1377: 655: 330: 114: 5127: 4937: 4923: 4666:

contentious or self-serving to the point where the article is obviously biased or unreliable

4516: 3962: 2959: 2897: 2869: 2562: 2344: 2187:

No inline citations, lacking in references as well. Was promoted way back in September 05.

1862: 1852: 1146: 1126: 990: 930: 608: 518: 65: 4701: 4296: 4279: 4007: 3902: 3559: 3218: 3146: 3042: 2604:

that DO exist are poorly formatted and lack any bibliographic information or accessdates?--

2528: 1796: 432: 4907: 4877: 4855: 4854:

and not an RS. The closest thing to criticism is PopSci showing a meter from "Loafer" to "

4841: 4821: 4794:

Relevant, maybe, explanatory no. Saying "it reads like an advertisement" without actually

4786: 4759: 4717: 4705: 4650: 4629: 4572: 4335: 4326: 4255: 4237: 4152:. Not having a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section is far from a legit failing criteria. 4017: 3942: 3372: 3292: 3205: 3105: 2666: 2540: 2450: 2094: 1834: 1782: 1334: 1333:

are main editors and there doesn't appear to have been any kind of GAC review originally.

1316: 1302: 1281: 478: 448: 4563: 4288: 1540:

beyond stats and lists. Any claims to fame of the schools? More historical pictures? --

4758:

review, I really don't think the basis given for starting this GA/R is accurate at all.

2282:- Now meets criteria with good referencing and sourcing. The quote also has a citation. 223:

Deck is right, the article needs to be fixed up to current writing in fiction criteria.

5118: 4596:

promote itself, which is of course true, what you haven't shown, or even said, is that

4499: 4368: 3779: 3745: 3702: 3637:

Not to be a Negative Nancy, Jayron, but I given the recent changes to the GA criteria (

3607: 3558:

I would concur with that decision. There is no shame with renominating the article at

3535: 3512: 3460: 3422: 3342: 3255: 3222: 3171: 3150: 3081: 2702: 2358: 2328: 2316: 892: 873: 860: 850: 803: 778: 734: 436: 370: 210: 3641:) I don't really see what needs to be referenced. Anything specific you had in mind? 3341:

Again, I agree. Still referencing and expanding; I'll create a 'Legacy' section soon.

2538:

is not a concise summary of the entire article, but rather an introductory paragraph.

1018:

per lack of references, lack of inline citations, and improperly formatted citations.

5144: 4214: 4193: 4171: 4153: 4119: 3906: 3758: 3715: 3668: 3617: 3564: 3528: 3497: 3485: 3441: 3385: 3321: 3295: 3124: 3065: 3046: 3008: 2996: 2785: 2752: 2631: 2605: 2491: 2372: 2300: 2016: 1800: 1741: 1680: 1566: 1367: 1199: 1076: 669: 645: 593: 396: 385: 320: 104: 5083:

Intro seems to have been fixed up. Good enough for GA, just fix up the pop culture.

2918:

I've deleted the gallery of notable people and the "UT in popular culture" section.

5071:

Stubby sections, unsourced info, external jumps and the citations need formatting.

4987: 4888:

One-sided and short, but neither is a major concern given the nature of the topic.

4529: 2971: 2066: 1975: 1720: 248: 4840:

really all the material available on this subject? No criticism or anything else?

431:- I think the complaint about "guide-like" comment may have intended to reference 243:

I don't know what should be done, but if you delist it, please consider delisting

4546:

I'd agree, but as it is I don't see how the sources are in any way unreliable. --

4096:) are challengable and require citations to sources where said analysis occured. 3979: 3958: 3254:

No. That page is an earlier version of the article. See the bottom of the page.

3029: 2919: 2910: 2885: 2431: 1690: 1664: 494: 5047: 4901: 4861: 4809: 4774: 4737: 4675: 4603: 4582:

being controversial in a way that the company would be using to promote itself

4549: 4486: 4231: 4011: 2660: 2420: 2283: 2269: 2088: 1828: 1650:

Very little references and no section about American football competitions. --

1554: 1541: 1019: 633: 472: 286: 4076:

But what about Awadewit comparing it with FAs? Is this called GA reviewing?

3242: 460: 5084: 4359: 4345: 3736: 2682: 2582: 1354: 471:- IU problem has been addressed, and article now definitely meets criteria. 298: 4430:

any speculation, looking it over myself there is no speculation that isn't

4275:

3-0-1 (see also: [[Talk:Essjay controversy#GA|second opinion on talk page)

558:

After re-review of the article I've found it to have the following issues:

2531:

throughout the article, although this could be solved with more citations.

832:

Sorry, Drewcifer, I really don't know for certain what the procedure is.

5101: 676:

Result: None, discussion closed at the bequest of nominator/chief editors

3188:, but only on the strength of the improvements. Good work cloud nine. -- 5011: