Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced Wikipedia good article reviewers.

The old nominations in need of additional reviews are:

Dan Cocoziello • Women's rights in Saudi Arabia • Justine Ezarik • Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China •
Shortcuts:
WP:GAR
WP:GA/R

Good article reassessment is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article status, whether former good articles have been improperly delisted, or whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed. It also allows feedback to be given for delisted articles or failed nomination when the explanation for delisting or failure was inadequate. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.

There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination; it is primarily used to reassess the status of current good articles. A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review and individual reassessment. In that case, an editor requests a discussion on the good article status of the article, and that discussion is listed on this page. When consensus is reached, the discussion is closed and the status of the article is updated accordingly. edit guidelines

Individual reassessment

When to use this process
  • Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria.
  • Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
  • If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
  • Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself.
How to use this process
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (this is a subpage of the article talk page, just like a review of a good article nomination).
  2. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article.
  3. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window.
  4. Allow time for other editors to respond. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script), relevant WikiProjects for the article and, if recently GA reviewed, the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages.
  5. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. To do this, remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles; then remove the {{GA}} template from the article talk page, if there is one, or update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page. Also, change any project assessments on the talk page.
  6. To close the reassessment: if there is no {{ArticleHistory}} template then replace the date in the {{GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted". If there is an {{ArticleHistory}} template then update it and delete the {{GAR/link}} template. Please make sure that you remove {{Good article}} from any delisted good articles.

Community reassessment

When to use this process
  • Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved.
  • If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises.
  • If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
  • It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it.
  • Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.
How to use this process
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page).
  2. Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour.
  3. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer.

See below for how to contribute to a community reassessment, and how to close one. Depending on the situation, reviewers may move mountains to list an article as a GA, or they may simply endorse a fail, or suggest the article be renominated.

See also: Alphabetical list of previous community reassessments

← (All archives) Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 49) →


Contents


[edit] Articles needing review and possible reassessment

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GA request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply remove the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GA request}} to the article talk page.

See also

[edit] Articles listed for community reassessment

[edit] Joseph Moir

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The GA nomination for this article was declined, and the sole reason given was that it was too short. The reviewer referred to GA criterion 3a. However, this criterion explicitly allows shorter articles (footnote 3). So the reason I would like to put this to a community review (apart from getting this article to GA status) is for the community to make a judgement on the correct interpretation of criterion 3a. What is the minimum length for a GA article? Is there one? In any case, I thought this one would have made it. StAnselm (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What major aspects does it fail to cover? StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me reword that. While it may touch on major aspects, it does not delve into them very much. For example, there is nothing about his education or what influenced him to build. There must be more information about him; I suggest you have a look in your local library's archives. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street.
Ommissions like this mean that the article does not currently meet criterion 3a. Not to fret; with a small amount of work the article can be expanded to cover all major topics and will be able to meet GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Norwood, Ohio

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

I have two reasons for requesting this review: (1) Large sections of the article are entirely unsourced; this plainly doesn't fit criterion 2a, and it likely fails others as well. (2) It appears that the status was awarded in this edit, purely on the opinion of one editor operating outside of the GA progress. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Cyborg Kuro-chan

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

I have greatly edited the article since the last reassessment. I've added more episode sypnoses, and expanded the characters section of the article. I believe this article is eligible enough for a reassessment. Railer-man (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Line Mode Browser

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

I nominated a few weeks ago the Line Mode Browser article for GA. Malleus Fatuorum failed the article immediately a few days ago (in Gyrobo and my mind) with only smaller issues. The article should have been set on hold and everything can/could be corrected. On the other hand there was a small discussion about a technical part that couldn't be solved (portability of the browser). mabdul 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a reference that shows that the LMB was popular and that it had no chance against Mosaic. Maybe this reference changed on of your (Malleus_Fatuorum) main concerns. mabdul 09:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a step in the right direction, but not one large enough to alter my judgement. Here's another example for you: the lead says "The browser is very portable and could be ported to any operating system." What the first of the two citations says is that "Technical student Nicola Pellow wrote a simple browser which could be used on many different computers", quite a different kettle of fish; "many" is not a synonym for "any". The browser clearly couldn't be ported to an OS lacking a (ANSI?) C compiler, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Denard Robinson

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article was failed at WP:GAC in violation of WP:WIAGA. The reviewer statesd that the article was failed because of WIAGA section 5 concerns. Section 5 reads as follows: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]", where note [4} reads "Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."

This article is not the subject of either an ongoing edit war or a content dispute. It is a constantly evolving article that changes due to good faith improvements. It is no different than articles of Presidential nominees that have passed at GAC during the 2007-08 Presidential race (John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Articles evolve most rapidly when the subject is in the public eye, like this subject is. That does not make them ineligible at GAC. The reviewer should have followed the instructions in the footnote and put this article on hold because it is evolving due to constructive editing. I request that this article be relisted at GAC with its original date priority.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly a huge difference between listing an article where there is an event going on causing change (i.e. Clinton and McCain) and an article where 90% of his notability is still being played out over the past 4-5 months. After all, if you look at the article when it was nommed two months ago and now, it looks entirely different. Just that it's current is not the reason for failing, otherwise all those Michigan players could not be GAs, it's that the article keeps undergoing reconstruction, to the point that it is impossible to properly review the article for any prose/sourcing errors.

A more apt comparison would be if I nominated someone to GA status the same day that they were assassinated, and over the next month or so there were conflicting sources as to what happened. How is that article supposed to be reviewed properly? Besides, your co-nom has left a note more than once with the exact same concerns I just noted. Why would I put an article on hold for two months? That's stupid and not what the GA process is for. I maintain my stance that this article should remain off GAN, at a minimum, for the next couple weeks, ideally until Michigan plays its last game. If this is how actual concerns are treated, then I won't bother touching any more of your articles. I know the changes are in good faith. If it was perhaps a 1-2 sentence addition weekly, if that, I would let it go, but it's paragraphs of change each week, at a minimum, meaning it could have no issues one week, issues the next, none the next, etc. That's a stability problem no matter how you slice it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In terms of a hold. I imagine that there might be a reason to put this on hold until after the major college football awards are announced in about 3 or 4 weeks. There will not be much news after that that reallly changes the article. Yes, he may set a record or two in a bowl game, but the reason for the chronicle of games is that he is a Heisman Trophy candidate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Linux

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Overall, the main issue is the quality of the prose. I think that it is in dire need of a copyedit, and maybe a trawl through the sources to make sure they're all good.

Also, I can't find the GAN anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the GAN was in Archive 19 Aaron north (T/C) 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Delist This article clearly fails the GA criteria for several reasons. The article definitely needs a good copyedit (1a), we appear to have a 1b problem in the lead, entire subsections are uncited (criteria 2), and we appear to have 3a problems where important details are vaguely hinted at but not expanded upon. Aaron north (T/C) 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the problem with "three factors" 1nt2 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also fixed problems with the User Interface part of Design section.1nt2 (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Cocoziello

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Much like the debate at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/B. J. Prager/1, this debate focuses on the comprehensiveness of a biography article for a professional lacrosse player. Lacrosse is a professional sport that gets minimal press. The professional career part of Cococziello's Google News search consists of three articles.

I will repeat the arguments made for Prager here. The average lacrosse player is very difficult to build a substantial article for because there is sparse secondary source coverage after college. I believe that there is adequate comprehensiveness given the subject matter. In my experience in sports bio GAs, a comprehensive professional career summary includes major records, all-star and award summaries, important playoff performances, notable statistical accomplishments, significant injuries affecting performance, notable transactions and extraordinary single-game performances. Unfortunately, I don't think anything is missing from Cocoziello's article. Thus, although the professional section is brief, it is comprehensive. This article is even more problematic because he is a defenseman and there are no scoring stats to speak of. We need to evaluate its comprehensiveness based on knowledge of and expectations of information availability. In this case, Cocoziello passes WP:N easily and we need to determine where the bar is for him in terms of comprehensiveness. Does anyone expect that his missing personal and background information will ever be available in secondary sources? I am seeking a relisting of this article at GAC with the original date priority.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article was reviewed by Aaron north. Initially he had some concerns that seemed minor. He was concerned about the POV of a quote by a women's rights activist. I replaced the activist's comment with a quote from Muhammad.[1] I also added some info about Islamic traditions valuing women [2]. I didn't agree that the article violates NPOV policies (by being too negative toward Islam), but added these things anyway. Aaron north was concerned about using youtube as a source for info about women driving. I added an interview between Barbara Walters and the King as a source.[3]

The article also uses quotes from the Qu'ran, as an artistic and informative decoration. Recently, Aaron north decided that the "main (only?) issue is the use of the qur'an in the green comment boxes." He compared it to quoting the Bible in an article on women's rights in the US. I pointed out that US law isn't based on the Bible. His next act was to fail the article.

I'm the only regular editor of the article. Bless sins showed up when the GA review began. His appproach was to find problems, in my opinion distort the problems, and then delete text from the article. He argued that quoting the Qu'ran advanced the POV that the Qu'ran is anti-woman, although no interpretation of the Qu'ran is given (it is only quoted), and the Qu'ran is the basis for many customs regarding women. The fact is, the Qu'ran (like the Bible) is not exactly a feminist document. When laws are based on it, the laws are likely to treat women unequally. That's just a factual part of this topic.

So, my main objection to this "fail" due to bias is that the process was opaque. One minute there was the beginning of a discussion of quoting the Qu'ran and bias in general, the next minute there was a fail. The reasons for calling the article biased were never clear. Comparing an Islamic state to a secular one makes no sense. It actually reminds me a little of the "cultural relativism" paragraph in the Foreign Views section of the article.

I'd like to avoid renominating the article, waiting over a month again, and getting some unknown reviewer with unknown reliability and communication skills.Noloop (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last comment about this article and a very long and exhausting GA review. I think it mostly speaks for itself. Obviously NPOV was the most complex issue, and several people may come to several conclusions on NPOV and may disagree. Another reviewer who was willing to give a 2nd opinion also had NPOV concerns. Aside from NPOV, 4 other issues (under "comments" and the first 2 under "re-read") were also specifically identified on October 16, but were not addressed or commented on after a week and a half, so I think the fail was justified under that basis alone. I'm not exactly the toughest GA reviewer on wikipedia, I'm always sympathetic to the effort it takes to get an article up to be a credible GA candidate, and I have no inherent rooting interest in seeing this article pass or fail a review. If it fails, fine. If it passes on reassessment, I'll take that as a learning opportunity to discover what I should and should not do next time. Aaron north (T/C) 22:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I assume the subject of reassessment is ultimately the article, not the reviewer. Still, having put an enormous amount of time into this, it irks me to see factual misrepresentations of the review. The article was put on hold for a week, and then failed four days later.... There were not 4 issues presented as reasons to fail (there was nothing clearly and definitely presented as a reason to fail), and I did comment on and/or fix some of the matters mentioned. I did add a source for the claim sourced to youtube. I did change the quote people objected to. I did comment on the NPOV issues. I did add to the article's mention of Islamic traditions valuing women. Mainly, what is needed from a review is clarity. This was last comment on NPOV before failing: "I think I am going to change my mind on NPOV and say we have a problem. The 2nd opinion also suggested failing the article now, but I'd rather give the editors a fair chance to fix the issues." What, exactly, needed to be fixed? Do the Qu'ran quotes have to be completely deleted? Trimmed? Or what? Nothing was said except 1) there's an NPOV problem, 2) you have a week to fix the problem, and (four days later), 3) "fail". Noloop (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I started a thread on the NPOV noticeboard: [4]. Noloop (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment The reviewer prematurely closed the review before his explicitly stated hold deadline. The article simply wasn't on hold for seven days. The reviewer stated that the review was "long and tiring", which may explain the reason why he prematurely closed it, he was tired of it. When a reviewer doesn't want to continue a review, the best thing is to find someone to take over at the talk page at GAN.

Perhaps this is still the best solution. The nominator could renominate at GAN, and the reviewer could ask someone to take it up atWikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations. -- Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The review was a week and a half. Four other minor objections unrelated to NPOV were ignored. Another editor and a 2nd opinion both agreed it had NPOV problems. At least two, and possibly three other uninvolved people in that link mentioned above by the nominator on the NPOV notice board have now basically agreed with that view as well. It became clear that the the qur'an quotes were not going to be removed, we were at an impasse, and waiting four more days was going to be pointless. The editor was given plenty of opportunity to satisfy these concerns, and the review was not unfair. Aaron north (T/C) 05:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that there was an impasse making further discussion pointless. The conversation could have been continued and maybe should have. At least you could have waited to see if the nominator changed their minds. Sometimes they do a the last minute. And not tackling minor issues while major ones are being discussed is common during a review-- its not a clear sign or anything. So I just disagree that the nominator got their fair chance. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It likely would not have happened in this case, but you make a good point. Aaron north (T/C) 02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It's really hard for me to know what Aaron north is talking about. The review did not last a week and a half. He said he wanted a week for further developments, and then failed it four days later. This comment is completely out of left field, from my persepctive: " It became clear that the the qur'an quotes were not going to be removed, we were at an impasse." It was certainly not made clear that the only solution Aaron north would accept was complete removal of the quotes. He never said that. He expressed concern that they were a problem. It was certainly not clear me that we were at an impasse. I thought were discussing it, presumably with an open-mind. He made one comment (comparing the Qu'ran to the Bible). I gave a contrasting view, and then he failed it. It is certainly a controversial matter (( I missed part of the discussion at the NPOV board...I need to trim my watchlist), but that's beside the point. The point is the completely lack of sincerity in communication by the reviewer, the somewhat imperious manner is proclaiming an "impasse" (not clear to the main person involved in said impasse, namely, me) and then failing it. Since this is becoming a popularity contest, note that there was a peer review immediately preceeding the GA review, and that reviewer didn't object to the quotes.
As for the substance of the matter, what I would like something more succinct than a popularity contest. I'd like the objections to make sense to me. The only implication of quoting the Qu'ran in an article on Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia is that the Qu'ran is a significant factor in women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Which it is. The other "implications" that people are finding just seem like their POV. Maybe a common POV should be a factor an editing, but I'd like a more open-minded process than what has happened so far. Frankly, I think the article failed because 1) the reviewer is afraid of controversy, being perceived as culturally insensitive, etc., and 2) The method of quoting of the Qu'ran is unusual. Noloop (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The need here is very simple. The article was failed because the quote boxes for the Qu'ran were deemed a violation of NPOV. All I want is a succinct explanation of how they violate the NPOV rules. The only implication of the quoting that I see is that the Qu'ran is a significant part of the topic. I don't see how the quotations prevent the article from being a good article. So, I'd like an explanation. Noloop (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  • including the review and the NPOV noticeboard, five different people have now said the verses should be removed. Some have worded it differently and some have given slightly varying reasons why this is not NPOV, but generally it seems the opinion is that there is not a direct enough link between the religion and "women's rights in Saudi Arabia" to justify prominently highlighted quotes. It seems the qur'an is being coatracked into the article to cast it in a negative light. WP:COATRACK Aaron north (T/C) 02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It is objectively stupid to say there is not a direct link between religion and women's rights in Saudi Arabia. No Saudi says anything like that. They all say the opposite. They may say that what they object to is women's rights under tribal customs, rather than Islam, but absolutely nobody says that religion isn't major. To say otherwise is completely wrong, it contradicts repeated statements in the article that are sourced to women, to activists, to clerics, to government officials, to Western experts. It is an Islamic state. If you actually read that article as part of your review, you know perfectly well that religion is intrinsic to the topic. The lead quotes a female Saudi journalist stating "we are not asking for...women's rights according to Western values or lifestyles....We want things according to what Islam says." And that theme never stops. But regardless of all this, the problem is not your conclusion per se, but the complete lack of any kind of discussion, open-mindedness, or communication about the GA process. You just abruptly failed it. Only now have you stated that you (apparently) required the quote boxes to be removed. Only now have you stated there was an impasse; during the review, I had no idea you thought there was an impasse. During the actual review you merely stated there was a problem, said there'd be a week to work on it--and then failed the article four days later. So again, can we please have a discussion based on reason rather than popularity contests and opaque processes? WHY do the quote boxes prevent the article from being a GA? Why do they violate NPOV? It is absurd to say "Because they aren't related to women's rights in Saudi Arabia." Saudi Arabia is ruled by Islam. Noloop (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't personal to me. Seriously, it is not. Quite frankly, I liked the article overall and I would have liked to see it pass, but for what I thought was an irreconcilable disagreement on NPOV. I would have voted to overturn and list in this GAR if my concerns had all been fixed. Maybe it would have been better to have given it 7 days, but given that you have now called my opinion (and also I guess the opinion of 4 others) "objectively stupid", its now a moot point because it is obvious that we are at an impasse. Perhaps it wasn't obvious then, but it is obvious now. I'm done commenting on this, I will not vote, and I cant close this GAR because I'm obviously too closely involved. If other people want to vote to list, vote not to list, and/or close, it makes no difference to me. Aaron north (T/C) 06:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Justine Ezarik

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

I am challenging the propriety of the Talk:Justine Ezarik/GA2 delisting decision that was supposedly based on WP:WIAGA 2c and 6b. The bulk of the disagreement was based on a disagreement on removal of images from the article. I requested an outside party give a third opinion on the issue. The following are the image issues

  1. File:20081114 Justine Ezarik and iPhone.jpg was stated that it "doesn't add anything"
  2. three images (1, 2, and 3) in the 'New Media Expo 2008' box were deemed as not relevant because the text does not discuss them
  3. two internet event images labeled as 'myspace party' and 'podcamp' were stated to add nothing because the text does not discuss their relevance.
  4. File:Intel Insider Kickoff - Justine Ezarik.jpg was similarly described as adding nothing because the text does not discuss them.

The basic argument against these images was that "If the images are not depicting anything very noteworthy in the subjects career/life, which is what it looks like, then they should probably be removed."

There is also a disagreement about WP:PRIMARY in terms of two elements of the article that only have primary sources. The reviewer feels that primary sources necessarily mean WP:OR.

These are the only two items that led to the delisting. I do not believe either is valid.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't claim to be an expert on images and GARs, but looking at the article, I'd argue that:
  • ...given that Ezarik is an internet personality, and the pictures relate to her doing internet activities, the argument that these are the equivalent to a sports personality playing in a particular game or match would seem to have some validity. The MOS notes that images ..."must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic"; IMHO, I'd say that these probably are.
  • ...that said, there are a lot of pictures in the one section "Viral video career and Internet celebrity status" (six I think), and in terms of presentation, they might usefully be edited down to two or three - it does look quite busy at the moment.
Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am trying to interpret what you are saying. I am reading that you agree that delisting for irrelevant images was probably an incorrect interpretation of WP:WIAGA although you might prefer fewer images. Let me know if I am understanding you correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You've interpreted me correctly! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If you care to express an opinion that will count you would state in bold something like. "Overturn with encouragement to reconsider images (possibly specifying a number or two from the four above)" and state that you do not feel the images caused the article to controvert WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How are they related to the internet? As a reader, I don't know what a 'New Media Expo 2008', 'myspace party', 'podcamp az' or 'Intel insider event' is. I don't know what they are because they are not mentioned in the text.--Tempest429 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Her images are like the images in Manny Harris. They are all basically from games not mentioned in the text, but since he is a basketball player, we accept those images as representative of him although their significance is not explained in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Not at all, the images in that article are explained in the text. Basketball player x, played in league y, here is image z showing an example of one of those games in league y. The images in this article are just her standing in front of the camera. They add absolutely nothing by themselves. I feel like I am repeating what was already said at Talk:Justine_Ezarik#Images. If you didn't understand why it was wrong then, I don't think the chances of you understanding it now are any better. --Tempest429 (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Recommend Overturn with encouragement to reconsider the number of images (see below) and to improve captioning (see below). The images themselves appear relevant to the topic, as per GAR.

In detail: I suspect that we need to distinguish clearly the questions of the relevance of the image to the topic, and the suitability of the captions. Referring back to the GAR standard: "every included image must be relevant to the topic, and must have a suitable caption. Purely decorative images, such as an image of a butterfly in a psychology article about emotions, should be removed." also, "A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article."

a) As noted above, to me the images themselves appear relevant to the topic of the article, an internet personality.
b) The number of images in "Viral video career and Internet celebrity status" seems high. Given the length of the section, my advice would be to go for three; it were me, I'd choose 20081102 Podcamp AZ.jpg; 20080815 New Media Expo at twitter.jpg; Intel Insider Kickoff - Justine Ezarik.jpg.
c) Captions. The quality of the captions isn't quite GAR - too brief - but very easily sorted. I don't know anything much about Ezarik other than from this article, so play with the wording, but you could easily have, say:
  • 20081102 Podcamp AZ.jpg: "Justine in her eJustine persona, speaking at a Podcamp technology conference."
  • 20080815 New Media Expo at twitter.jpg: "Justine taking part in an online promotional spot for the web podcaster TWiT.tv."
  • Intel Insider Kickoff - Justine Ezarik.jpg: "Justine starting the debate at an Intel technology conference."

That way, all would link back to a point in the text (her eJustine persona, and her earning money through online promotional events and technology conferences respectively). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How is a portrait of the subject with her hands open, or holding a glass related to internet activities?--Tempest429 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Intel insider event?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to the portrait ones which have nothing happening in them.--Tempest429 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm just looking at the two issues mentioned above and making a good-faith assumption that everything else satisfies the GA criteria. I cant vote for it yet as-is, but I think this is fixable. Aaron north (T/C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Images - of the three images mentioned by Hchc2009, I am fine with the first 2, but not the 3rd. Given her "lifecasting" and youtube channels, an appearance speaking to an audience at podcamp and an appearance with a panel at the New Media Expo are both relevant. The other 4 images should be removed. We don't need more than one new media expo image, I don't understand why a face shot with a glass supposedly taken at a myspace party is relevant (what does she have to do with myspace re: the text?), and I have no clue why I am looking at her speaking at an intel insider event. What is she doing with intel? Looks decorative. Aaron north (T/C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

2. OR - I do agree that a primary source can be used when a good secondary source can not be found, but it can only be used for data (where were you born, how old are you, what is your job, etc). Saying that there are two characters and describing what they look like can be fine if done carefully. Describing eJustine's behavior and speculating on her motivation requires an analysis of a primary source, and thus OR. I assume you can't find a reliable secondary source, so I believe this flaw can be easily cured by removing the bolded text in: (In a few of her YouTube videos, in addition to her common persona as iJustine, she played the role of an additional character eJustine, who acts as a sort of antagonist against protagonist iJustine.) The sentence following that is a bit iffy (subjective descriptions of "normal", "wild", "strange-looking"), but that is pretty minor compared to the OR in the preceding sentence. (incidentally now that I notice, is it permitted to bold a subject's alternative name or identifier outside the lead?) Also, now that I step back from this one little tree and look at the entire forest, is this silly side-story with ejustine even relevant? Due to source questions its inclusion is problematic anyway, I might recommend just removing that whole thing and be done with it. Aaron north (T/C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

YesY This concern has been fixed. Aaron north (T/C) 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we are getting feedback on the photos as I had hoped in the original debate, I would like to understand why neither image with fellow internet personality Gary Vaynerchuk is considered relevant. I am removing the one with several unnamed subjects, but the The one with fellow internet personalities Vaynerchuk and Leo Laporte seems to represent something relevant. In fact, I am tweaking the image header to say the following: "New Media Expo 2008 images with internet personalities". Can I get some feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, that does make sense. I am fine with the two New Media Expo images with the title and captions as they are now in the imagebox. Aaron north (T/C) 16:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with removing all of the eJusting stuff and have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am travelling and don't have time to fully respond to the Myspace and Intel images, but she is widely associated with many internet and technology brands. In some of her more notable early career highly-viewed youtube videos she did painted the logos of several dozen brands on easter eggs one year. I am travelling today and do not have time to discuss further. Will respond later tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if an argument could somehow be made that the other 2 images are relevant to the article (and that myspace party photo doesn't even show her doing anything), there are 9 images in a 2,300 word article. I'd think that was more than enough, and if a couple images should go, those 2 probably have the weakest connection to the subject. Aaron north (T/C) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If I were to cut two images they would be the two that are currently in a T:MI template as the Myspace and Podcamp images. The intel images is the best image at showing what the everyday Justine looks like in the whole article. The first that I would chop would be the podcamp image because she does not often wear glasses. As I said earlier, she use to do videos linking her to many tech/internet brands and example is the Egg 2.0 video (I can not find the original egg video). I am going to remove the podcamp image because she just does not usually look like that, so the image is not really representing her.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose the myspace picture serves. Regarding the intel picture, I'd think that several of the earlier pictures are an example of "everyday Justine", and the intel connection seems weak when considering the text of the article in relation to that picture. Anyway, I would also be interested in seeing what others think of the images. Aaron north (T/C) 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If there were one remaining image I would not have trouble letting go, it would be the myspace one because it appears to be a social image. The intel image is seemingly a professional tech event, which I think makes it worth keeping.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to have more than one 'everyday' image of the subject. If the new media expo images are relevant, where is the accompanying text explaning what a new media expo is?--Tempest429 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, as far as the Blogworld and New Media Expo 2010 goes, the random "man on the street" might not know a lot about it, but within the realm of of bloggers, podcasters, and internet celebrities, there is not a bigger annual event. It is the biggest gathering of the medium. If Justine is expected to appear anywhere, it would be there. Perhaps it could be worth a sentence or two mentioning her appearance since the event isn't as well-known as the oscars, but I would cut a lot of other pictures (intel, myspace, etc) before I cut a picture of Justine as an internet celebrity standing next to Leo LaPorte. Aaron north (T/C) 22:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I just added some content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Until the above issues are fixed, here are some more:

  1. The lead says she is a 'voice actress, spokesperson and actress as well as a former freelance graphic/web designer', whilst the lead is suppose to only list her occupations she is known for. Seeing as she has voiceacted in a one-off video, and had two guest appearances on tv, she certainly can't be known for that. Spokesman for who, or what? What notable 'freelance graphic/web designer' work has she done? Should all be deleted unless it can be justified.
    Agreed. Aaron north (T/C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    As I understand it, Annoying Orange is far more than a one-off.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    I changed the lead as well as cited the occupations. I believe that her role of spokesperson (for companies such as Mozy) is a result of her status as an Internet personality. Annoying Orange is a comedy web series, so her voice acting on that show is part of her being a comedian. Ezarik was only noted for being a designer because that was her major in college and her occupation during her lifecasting run on Justin.tv. Her work as a designer has not been noted by the media, so I removed it entirely. I may mention it in the lifecasting section. --wL<speak·check> 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    At what point do we add actress to the LEAD given sources such as TV.com and IMDb.com?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    I wouldn't think a total of two guest appearances would merit a first-sentence lead "she is an actress", but it certainly should be mentioned in one of the first sentences of the lead that she has appeared in a minor role on two television shows. Aaron north (T/C) 16:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    Since she has only played two dead bodies so far, I think the mention at the end of the second paragraph of the LEAD is probably O.K. for now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Similar to first issue, she is in the categories 'American people of Slovak descent' and 'American graphic designers'. Need a RS for her Slovakian background, and as I said above, what notable graphic designer work has she done?
    Are the categories part of a GA review? I don't remember seeing that. Either way, removing a dubious category should be easy if necessary. Aaron north (T/C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Categories removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Both above makes it fail criteria 1(b) and possibily 1(c). But I'd suggest you fix the images problem first. If you don't want to fix them, then this discussion can be closed and the article can remain as B class.--Tempest429 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Somehow this discussion fell off of my watchlist. I did not see the discussion for the last week and am just responding now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak Do not list I could change my mind on this, but this GAR has been up for a while and the criteria 6 image concerns I have are not yet satisfied. I also believe the lead has a small problem as Tempest429 noted above. Aaron north (T/C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please consider my recent response. This fell of my watch list for a week and it may have seemed I was ignoring feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is better now than when we started. I would still be interested in seeing more feedback from others on the use of images, but lacking that I still have 6b concerns on the myspace picture. Aaron north (T/C) 16:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not too averse to removing the picture of her at the myspace party, but also request feedback on just cropping out the drink to make it look more encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The drink isn't really the problem to me, I just don't see the relevance of the picture in any form. The event isn't noteworthy, and we have plenty of other pictures to show what she looks like. Aaron north (T/C) 17:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Image removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Relist All of my concerns are satisfied. Aaron north (T/C) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Only remaining issue is Image:Intel_Insider_Kickoff_-_Justine_Ezarik.jpg still has nothing to do with the content it is placed with no. No mention of what an 'intel insider event' is.--Tempest429 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added an article noting that Intel is a client of hers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't explain what the Intel inside event is. Might be able to use [5] if you could get a hold of the full article.--Tempest429 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
What about changing the caption from "Ezarik involved in discussions at the Intel insider event (2008-06-24)" to "Ezarik, who counts Intel as a client, involved in discussions at the Intel insider event (2008-06-24)"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I have expanded the caption and text to reflect the link ref that you identified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Relist The last picture has a purpose in the article, as do all the others. Diderot's dreams (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The text of this article does not correspond with the article's title. I have informed the main editors of my concern and conducted an individual reassessment, but we have not agreed on the matter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest changing "transplantation" to "harvesting" and be done with it. Since they did not even have a donor program until recently, and even now it's not really doing anything, all the "transplants" here can be termed "harvests" without difficulty, since they are harvested from prisoners. That appears to be the only major source of organs. Of course, which prisoners depends on who you ask.... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the redirect list which shows the standalone articles: [7] - some sample histories:
This situation is a little more tricky than first appears. SilkTork *YES! 11:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
We would benefit from some more uninvolved opinions. Does anyone object if I invite WikiProject Medicine editors to comment? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments from RexxS
I'm commenting here because of the request at WikiProject Medicine. Having read the article for the first time, I'd have to agree with Axl that it focusses more on a single aspect (the controversies ) than I would expect for a Good Article. I looked at the following articles for comparison:
Although I appreciate the problem in finding reliable sources other than for the controversies, I still feel the article falls short of 3a "broad coverage". The lead of the article Organ transplantation contains this paragraph:
  • "Organs that can be transplanted are the heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, pancreas, intestine, and thymus. Tissues include bones, tendons (both referred to as musculoskeletal grafts), cornea, skin, heart valves, and veins. Worldwide, the kidneys are the most commonly transplanted organs, while musculoskeleletal transplants outnumber them by more than tenfold."
Compared to the general article, this article concentrates on transplantation of liver and kidneys, and mentions face transplantation. At present it covers "Controversies concerning liver and kidney transplantation in the People's Republic of China" well, but I don't believe that it is in line with my expectations for either 3a and 3b in the GACR under the topic stated in the given title.
To meet this concern, I'd recommend looking carefully at Organ transplantation and seeking to cover more of the topics outlined there.
Two small points: the lead image seems to contradict the phrase "Though the number of transplants fell to under 11,000 annually by 2005" in Background. It is also too small for me to read directly (see MOS:IMAGES and WP:IMGSIZE for justification of a larger chart).
Beyond GA concerns, the lead image contains information only conveyed by visual means (contrary to WP:Accessibility#Images no.3) and needs a text summary. --RexxS (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. Just a quickie about the image: there is a very valid point that the image is too small, and is not supported by text. The article the graph was sourced from surprisingly did not contain it, thus I was unable to create a bigger and better graphic to support the article. I will look for some corresponding raw data. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added (lengthy) alt text as a possibility for screen readers, and resized the lead image to 500px. It's readable to me (just) at that size, and is not too imbalanced in a 1280x1024 window, although at 1024x768 it's a bit cramped. Feel free to revert either or both if you don't think they improve the article. Would you like me to redo the chart to maximise the readability for around 400px wide? Or should I wait to see if you can get the raw data? --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I will only add that it is obvious that an article on the allegations of organ harvesting from Falungong would in no way run afoul of any relevant Wikipedia policy. Further, it is inaccurate to characterise them as "Falungong allegations." The most prominent proponents of the allegations are not Falungong practitioners. Where is the evidence that these are a minority view, that they are not well-supported (I leave the claim that they are not "widely believed", that is clearly nebulous enough to mean anything)? An article on the topic has occupied the front page of the Weekly Standard in the United States. The U.N. rapporteurs have requested the communist Party to provide them with information, and admonished them for not doing so. —Zujine|talk 06:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I made some significant deletions then. The section now appears to be one among many; when the other article is done (if it gets done), it could link out to the FLG claims. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have moved Kilgour-Matas report into mainspace and listed it at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilgour-Matas report. The result of that discussion will decide what happens to the contentious material in this article. SilkTork *YES! 00:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If that article is allowed to be kept, we can easily reduce the problematic section to just a very brief mention and link to that article to end this GAR as a keep. Aaron north (T/C) 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
One thought: the allegations in the FLG-related claims indicate that the bulk of organ transplantation (donation, movement, whatever: voluntary or involuntary) would be from FLG practitioners. It may be indicated in this article that it treats strictly legitimate organ transplantation practices, and also indicate what reliable sources say about the prevalence of legitimate versus illegitimate practices, in terms of quantity of transplants, and so forth. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Close?

The disputed material has been reduced to one paragraph, and the article is now more balanced. Are concerns now addressed? SilkTork *YES! 17:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages