Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7

This is an archive 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 current talk page.

← Page 8

Good article review (archive)

(Page 6) →

To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion.

Articles reviewed (add archived ones at the top)

Jamby Madrigal

Result: 1 to 2, no consensus

I think that this article should be reviewed because:

1. It has sources
2. The person is notable
3. It has links related to the article

I hope you would review the article and see whether it fits the GA Status. Thanks in advance! Kevin Ray 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Though it has some problems for GA, I re-listed the article back to the nomination page to have a fair review. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is insufficiently cited for GA. LuciferMorgan 21:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Neil Young

Result: 3 to 0, delist

I feel this article should be reviewed as;

1) It has a mere 7 inline citations, all of which provide insufficient info regarding the sources, ie. author, retrieval date etc.

2) Tons of sections have no citations and make critiques on albums, which is actually considered original research and isn't allowed in a Good Article.

4) "Instruments" and "Trivia" sections are listy, which disrupts prose. This violates the demand that the article should be "well written".

This article isn't up to GA standards at present in my opinion, namely for the reasons cited. LuciferMorgan 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The trivia appears compleatly unsourced as per its main article, and references are rather sparse. This might be because the article goes in such increadibly long detail, a pattern I notice for a lot of high profile musician type people, but irregardless doesn't allow articles to get off-track and not be called on it necessarily. I agree that it should be delisted. Homestarmy 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the article, I have to agree with Lucifer that it doesn't hold up to GA standards. I would support de-listing. Agne 23:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so if it doesn't meet GA can someone delist it, or is this a hardly used page? LuciferMorgan 12:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess this discussion counts as about a week old, i'll end it. Homestarmy 17:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Special relativity

Result: 1 vs. a whole lot of other people and WP:OR, keep

The math and science description at the following address shows an undeniable error Einstein made in his math and science description. The errors make relativity impossible to be true science. So, if you want correct science descriptions this should be reviewed.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:StevenCrum

....Well, I have to say, this is new. I'm afraid however that I don't quite have the education necessary to be messing around with trying to deny fundamentally accepted laws of the universe, i'll ask a few other people what they think. Homestarmy 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, two things to note concerning this situation are that all of the fundamentally accepted laws of the universe (that resulted from relativity being true) aren't true if the synchronization foundational truth is not true first. So, the synchronization calcs have to stand on their own in math and science. The second thing is this is incredibly easy math and as low in physics as it gets. A high school physics student can see the calculations and science presented is true. The point is don't think this is huge science logic and math. It truly is not even close to that. StevenCrum 19:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The math concering basic relativity is probably fairly easy, but trying to disprove it probably isn't. I've never actually learned much about really defending the theory, because proofs for some of the stuff dealing with relativity certainly are not within a high school education level. Homestarmy 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For truth in science and the issue here Eistein based his entire proof for relativity on the single, first synchronization part. He then developed everything else based on the critically needed first part being true. The point of this is that your statement "proofs for some of the stuff dealing with relativity certainly are not within a high school education" is factually not truth in science. There are no higher elements that are involved in the proving of his error. This isn't opinion, but just plain undenaible fact. The paper written here proves undeniably that Einstein mad a huge killing mistake, and not one competant scientist in the world can deny this truth. So, the error is fact, and whether anyone wants to actually look to see that fact is another issue.StevenCrum 3:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

StevenCrum, we don't have to go into your arguments before you are able to get them published. That's how wikipedia works.... Count Iblis 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Count Iblis, thanks for the comment, but I cannot figure out how to get from the user page I am on to it being published here. I also don't know where it actually fits either. In the end, since relativity is wrong science once you know the situation written, it should actually replace relativity and relativity being a history of a past mistake. But, that is a bit drastic, and I thought it best to discuss it first. So, I would truly appreciated any good suggestions. StevenCrum 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

StevenCrum - You cannot publish your work in Wikipedia as doing so would violate the No original research policy. By publication we mean outside of Wikipedia and in a mainstream scientific journal. Only after your work has become accepted by part of the mainstream scinetific community would it have a place in Wikipedia. Note that this requirement is in place because we often have people coming by who wish to present novel but mistaken viewpoints here. --EMS | Talk 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point about publishing. The issue here though is only secondary about publishing. What doesn't seem to be understood here is that the paper written here is not a new theory. And, it is not an opinion. Instead, the math and description show an undeniable truth about Einstein making a factual error, and because of that the article for relativity is not TRUE science. And, the article as written in Wikipedia is stating relativity is truth in science. In truth since the error is now known, the situation is relativity isn't even a reliable theory anymore, and all because the undeniable math and science truths in the paper show the truth of the statement. The math and science in my written proof cannot be proven to be anything other than factual science. So, my writing doesn't need to be included in Wikipedia if that is the decision, but the undeniable truth is that Wikipedia will not have its credibility if it willfully describes information in it that is factually proven to be wrong. So, it's your choice. Either truth, or wrong descriptions. What you likely don't understand is that the written paper showing the math and logic is factually true, and cannot be disproven by even one scientist in the world. So again, either truth or leave the relativity lie just as it is. StevenCrum 3:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep Article meets all criteria of a good article, the objection, which seems to fall into a particular category from new editors here, notwithstanding. FeloniousMonk 20:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If there are issues to be discussed about the article's content or validity, it should be discussed on the article's talk page. The GA review is only concerning the GA status and deals with conformance to WP and GA policies and guidelines. Please take the discussion to the Special Relativity talk page. RelHistBuff 20:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Buff, GA's have to be factually accurate.... Homestarmy 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And, the factually accurate part is precisely the situation. Relativity is proven by the paper math and description to be factually wrong. The situation here is that the GA should be considered very strongly to be changed to something that is correct.StevenCrum 3:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep and speedy close - This person has not shown that this article fails to meet the GA criteria. Indeed this person's complaint is against the topic itself and its acceptance in the scientific community. It is not our job to rule on the "truth" of relativity. Instead, it is our job to document it as it is currently understood by the mainstream scientific community, and this article does that. --EMS | Talk 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The math and science description in the paper prove without any doubt at all that the error exists, so the proof is factually there. That proof is also unprovable to be anything less than the truth to every single sciencetist in the world. If truthful examination of the math and facts are completed, the facts of the proof will be confirmed.StevenCrum 4:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Although criterion 2 mentions the article has to be factually accurate, our judgment on that accuracy is based on solely on the individual criteria 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d. What has been presented is a separate paper, possibly original research arguing against the article's accuracy. We (the GA project) have not been presented any arguments based on 2a-d. Therefore the GA status for the article should be retained until such arguments are presented here. In the meantime, StevenCrum should take his arguments to Talk:Special_relativity and convince the editors there if his material is relevant to the article or not. RelHistBuff 09:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will check 2a-d and present the information in the location you described. I haven't even seen 2a-d, but it should be good to note that no matter what is written there it still won't change the facts of relativity being proven false by Einstein's killing error. And, as soon as I write in the new location that will be seen fully. It shouldn't take more tahn about thirty minutes to get 2a-d described truthfully there. StevenCrum 4:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

HistBuff - I checked 2a-d and found the incredibly odd situation that something can comply with all four of the items listed and still be completely wrong as far as being truthfully "factually accurate". That is because the four item do NOT describe factually accurate as it exists in full truth, but instead just being assumed as accurate because of the sources it comes from, which is this case entirely. The source is wrong even if it complies with being a credible source. So, the 2a-d are the description of "accuracy" here, and that is fine, but there is no truth involved as far as real accuracy and truth. It's your choice and that is fine also, but I would think the standars would be higher here.StevenCrum 01:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is good reason for that. Wikipedia documents the current state of human knowledge, and the current state is of the opinion that relativity is correct. Steven's claim is brand new, unpublished, and not yet accepeted by science (if it even will be, which I strongly doubt). As such it is subject to the No original research policy, and should not be permitted to be a consideration as to whether the this article deserves GA status. --EMS | Talk 00:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There are three other "human knowledge" truths that also fit the description here, and the first is that at the beginning of the QA section is a location that had a statement about the MATHEMATICS was confirmed and had PASSED the test for accuracy before relativity was then considered true science. It is an undeniable fact in real math that the so-called passing in math did NOT occur. That was a failure of Wikipedia in finding the real math truth involved. And before you start denying the fact of my written article shows the factually true math and even a high school student can figure it out, it is still factual math TRUTH no matter if you have integrity enough to stand up for truth or not.

Number 2 is that Wikipedia also obviously from the above statement of yours, has the low-integrity level of just diplaying whatever the public wants to read INSTEAD of what is actually TRUTH. That is hypocritical and only shows the farcical so-called standards that don't actually exist. Your standards are nothing more than a sham.

Number 3 the math and science description I wrote is not original research in any way as you described and is instead ONLY shwoing your failure in your not being able to use the math in the first place to find the fault of relativity. It is pointing out your error and the FACT that the QA wasn't appropriate for relativity. THAT is NOT research and is precisely instead exactly what a QA review is all about. With your inability to have the integrity to understand or act on this factual truth that fully shows the full level of hypocrisy as well.

And, I have better things to do than mess around further with fully proven hypocrites. Wikipedia is nothing more than a pathetic disgrace for any kind of credibility at all, and you have proven that fact PERFECTLY.StevenCrum 00:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

StevenCrum, there are several things that you need to keep in mind that might help you understand our position and the reason we cannot include your findings. What you are proposing is Original Research, despite what you claim, and it doesn't matter if it's true or not, seriously, per the founder. WP has to protect itself and so we cannot be the first publisher of anything, period. If your findings are indeed basic, then you should have no trouble getting them published in a peer review journal. Then we'd be able to source it, etc. --plange 00:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Plange, how about I delete my written article and then your proclaimed situation of publishing is then all gone. The situation following that will THEN be the truthful one here, and that is that this QA discussion is NOT about publishing even one single thing. It is THEN all about WIKIPedia's failure to make a CORRECT math examination that shows relativity is WRONG in it's MATH. Math which Wikipedia is stai8ng here that the math check found relativity to be mathematically correct. IT IS NOT CORRECT, and this is FACT no matter how much you try to squirm around the dges of truth here. Tis discussion about TRUTH is now all about whether or not Wikipedia has any credibility at all, and the ethical professionalism to stand up and correct its own mistake. So, concider my written article gone and we will then see who are the hypocrites here. If you still don't see the factual truth about this would relativity have been incuded on Wikipedia IF it had FAILED the math checking? And, before you answer that question it is a FACT that it would have failed if the math check would have been done CORRECTLY and TRUTHFULLY. So, do you include articles on Wikipedia based on only what is popular and so everyone will think of you as just peachy, OR include them here because they are professionally truthful and correct? Make a choice, hypocrite or professional with credibility.StevenCrum 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, surely you must of realized that Wikipedia probably wouldn't be amazingly favorable of views which would effectively destroy a tremendous number of articles based on views that aren't even published? Homestarmy 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, obviously I did know that, but I would like to mention a few things that are truly pointed out by your extremely good point. And, that is that you likely don't know just how much science damage has been caused by the dead-end alley of relativity. Your reference to all the articles is only a small part of the total damage that has occurred. You see Homestarmy, I know a whole lot of science taht is factually above world-class physics and astrophysics, and all because the false relativity has led scientists into an incredibly ignorant, false-science direction. So yes, I do know what my article would cause, and I also know the true science situation that it is ignorant to keep going down a dead-end alley and butt heads in the solid brick wall of impossibility at the end INSTEAD of finding the truth in science and then going in the correct direction that leads to unimaginable true science that is light years beyond the errors that are being made now. Just an example is do you know that they don't even need to find water on Mars or anyother planet before going there? Oxygen either. I know the real science of how to change the dirt on any moon or planet into the lower density water and oxygen, and by the tons of both. I also know how the atom operates continuously and under their own self-operating power situation. Have you noticed atoms don't have little extension cords on them to make them run? And no, I am not deceiving myself in the slightest, and factually do know how their operation exists. The point of this is a motor that operates under the same science can then provide endless energy to make water and oxygen anywhere inside the universe. So, to answer your question, which is then better? - to continue in farcical and insane ignorance in science OR get it corrected and going right that then leads to unimaginable true science discoveries and advancement? So, the answer is whether people are going to remain totally ignorant or stand up like professionals in true intelligence and truth and get the ignorant slop changed to right. The ignorance has gone on for 101 years, now how much longer does it go on before it starts going in the factually true direction of correct science? If you still don't get this information, quantum mecghanics is all farcical and proven to be exactly taht, along with practically all of p-article physics, and 50 of the past Nobel Prizes were actually given out for BAD SCIENCE. This even includes three of the recent 2006 prizes, in physics, astrophysics and medicine. The medicine prize was given for gene silencing, whic actually kills a gene instead of just silencing, but what the developers of that method don't know is that it FACTUALLY causes a form of cancer to start that is not curable by any science method. Regualr cancer is curabble and that one is not. What they don't know is that two times out of three the gene gets "silenced", but when the gene is dead their gene killer is NOT. It then goes into other healthy cells and attaches to genes there. The point of this is that two out of three times it will keep on attaching to only the killing of the cells. The third time, which is inevitable, it will attach to the DNA "rung" instead of the "rail" as described above, and the rung attachment is the cancer direction. Once it attaches to the rung, the cell does NOT die and helicase cannot kill the attached object. The situation then is the tumor growth where all attached "objects" that cause the cancer are then replicated in every single cell that grows and divides each time. So, THIS is a truly good example of what happens when slop science like relativity is used instead of REAL science truth. So, all of this is an answer to your very good question. And, you would likely be amazed at hundreds of other real science things I know. One is how to instantly transport objects to Mars or any other planet, and even people. WITHOUT having to travel in space ships for numbers of years. And yes, there is real science that factually shows this to be truth in science. I also know how time travel factually exists and how to accomplish that either into the future or the past. So yes, I know exactly what my writing could have caused. Instead, it's the normal human ignorance of rejection of truth and hypocrisy. And no, I am not even SLIGHTLY surprised by the rejection of truth situation. I also knew THAT fully in advance also.StevenCrum 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the 50 Nobel Prizes is not a rough rounding to the number 50. It was factually 47 until the recent 2006 announced prizes. They nicely rounded it off to the total of 50. And, if you don't want to beleive the 50 - don't. It still doesn't change the truth of the 50 fact one single bit. Truth in real science doesn't depend on voting or any opinions other than what is factual science truth as it exists in reality.StevenCrum02:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Please see What Wikipedia is Not, and specifically WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought I think this will greatly help. I have no way of judging if the math is wrong, or even judging whether the math mistake necessarily dictates that his theory is wrong. Publish it somewhere reputable and then we can use it. Wikipedia is not the publisher of last resort for anyone. --plange 03:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

After writing this reply I am going to delete the article I wrote in my user space so we can finally get the EXCUSE publishing thing ended. The situation will THEN no longer be in the excuse area of publishing, in ANY resort. With that FACT then established and then getting back to the TRUTH that is still fully involved, the MATH cehck is still FACTUALLY the situation that relativity would have FACTUALLY been rejected in the math check IF the math check would have been done mathematically correct. THIS is NOT opinion at all, and the absolute fact situiation taht no mathematician on earth can deny the mathematics described in the article that I had written. So, you might not understand this UNDENIABLE MATH FACT, but in real scienec and math truth relativity is NOT a MAYBE it would have failed, but instead a COMPLETE FACT in that it absolutely would have failed the math check in real truth and math done correctly.

So again, you either stand up for credibility and truth as professionals having and maintaining those traits, or you don't. And, you can continue the obvious denial concerning the publishing excuse. An excuse that is going to be completely gone as soon as I get there in about twenty seconds to do the deleting. THEN, there is no such excuse and an easy out for you as far as the professional credibility problem, huh? Well, whether you understand the fcat or not, you don't deserve an easy excuse out, and factually because of your continued denial of the math checking and the simple situation that a high school science student would be intelligent enough to figure out. The obvious truth is you don't want to be seen as going against the Einstein slop EVEN IF it is obviously all a total lie. You want someone else to print that and then you can safely protect your butts in having it then printed here. So yes, I truly do understand what you are all about totally. It is also a solid, dead-on right fact that THAT your farcical math checking WASN'T done competently. As in failure on your part, and factually seen in truth to be precisely THAT. So, you can spout the endless publishing slop and remain being total hypocrites all you want. The truth of the matter is fully known in any case.

You FULLY deserve to have me tell the world all about "marvelously fantastic Wikipedia and how they are this paragon of incredibility in having such outstanding truths in their encyclopedia" when all the slop about Einstein fully comes out in front of the world soon now. I put that in quotes for sarcasm, and you FULLY deserve the exact opposite that is then the factually the truthful version. And, which would be complete justice as far as truth and integrity as well.StevenCrum 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to add another comment on this. Our verifiability policy states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.. This means that unless something has been published by a reliable third party then it shall not be included.-Localzuk^(talk) 09:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not about whether or not the article should be included in Wikipedia, but instead concerns the truthfulness of the science. Wikipedia has a written statement that says the math concerning Special Relativity has passed their math check. This can mean either a truthfully genuine math checking that actually checks all of the math and ends in a genuinely correct math check that then results in truth in science. Or, it can mean that Special Relativity went through the so-called math check without any regard for math truth, and then that false basis lets anything that has a publishing source float through the doors. This is then Wikipedia including whatever is popular and the public wants to read, and regardless of truth.

For information, stating the true fact that Wikipedia's math check only involves that math check, and has absolutely nothing to do with a third publishing source, someone's granny's pet poodle opinion, or anything else not related in the truth of the math checking. As far as my point about the issue not being about inclusion in Wikipedia, the truth behind that is that relativity factually should be included, but because it is a proven false theory it should be described as a history event in science. That obviopusly isn't going to occur in any case, but Wikipedia standing up in credibility and truth likely isn't going to either. If they don't want to be credible, they should remove the fancy box that describes how their paragon expertiese exists in the astonishingly great math checking they did before including articles. If they aren't going to do the math checks right, it is hypocritical to state the false situation and where readers are falsely led into thinking it is factually correct. So, getting rid of the "expert checking" is another way for them to slither out from around responsibility and integrity also. Of course, they could professionally and responsibly have the math checked by independent math experts to determine the truth or disporrof of the recent math proof. But, douing something like that which involves some professionalism and credibility seems to be beyond their understanding of principles and other things regarding excellence, huh? Gee, now why didn't any of them think of something like that? It's just a whole lot easier to put only things in Wikipedia that "others" are then responsible for all of the truth and rightness instead of actually being responsible themselves. So, I respect the truth of your point when it fits, but it factually is not the issue involved.StevenCrum 03:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

StevenCrum, I do not know what "expert checking" box you are referring to, but nevertheless, this venue is not the place to challenge special relativity. Last I checked it has not been proven as a false theory. Until it has been, your points are moot. And, yes, as your last sentences say, we are only responsible for publishing what other people publish. We are anonymous volunteers with varying levels of education working on a collaborative project and cannot afford to allow our anonymous editors to publish their own work as we have no way of checking their credentials, etc. We have enough to do without adding a level of complexity that allowing original research would entail. It is most definitely outside the scope of this project. We have never said or implied otherwise. I encourage you to approach scientific journals with your ideas to get them published there. If you're able to disprove special relativity then you'd be famous. Do it. Just know that challenging such a huge theory is not easy and you will be subjected to lots of hardships to prove your theory. But that's how science works. You have to prove your theory works first. --plange 15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Plange, The "expert checking" box is found at "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Special_relativity", where it states taht special relativity has received a WIKIProject mathematics grading of GA Class, Top importance. So, this where the math supposed checking was done. The written mathematics proof that factually proves special relativity to be mathematically impossible was the writing I had on my user page. As far as your point about relativity not being proven to be a false theory, that point was true, at least until the math proof I had written came along and provided that undeniable math description.

The undeniable part is in the fact that not one single credible mathematician can deny the facts of that math proof. You can check with every single math expert on the planet and the end result will prove the truth that it is factual and undeniable in fact. So, I understand your position of including only published articles, but my point is entirely about the math checking error that Wikipedia did in checking the math. This is NOT about the eagerness of the Wikipedia math check process, but instead the facts of the matter that an error occurred even if the math checking group didn't know of the math involved. Now, the math proof is in plain site, and the only cerdible thing to do is recheck the math. Failing to recheck is irresponsible and shows a true lack of professionalism and integrity. For information, it isn't just me spouting a personal opinion about the failed math, but is fully based on the true math fact that the math of synchronization truly fails. The situation is that what I have described in the failed math is as factually wrong as anything on this planet can get. Math proofs that are real and factually undenaible in what the written proof shows are undenaible fact, and are not based on opinion even in the slightest. So, if Wikipedia wants to maintain any cerdibility at all they need check this by math professionals for the truth involved. It is also a crime in professionalism for any math expert to just skim over the surface and think how could relativity be wrong, instead of a competent math check. As far as your point about getting a true math proof published in science journals, that is an incredibly good idea, but I guarantee that you have no idea how far beyond even your description that getting that even considered by anyone outside the "accredited expert" level has in accomplishing that. There are FACTUALLY experts in the relativity field that don't care at all about whether a math proof exists or not, and are fully able and are involved in the cover-up process to keep the false science going so their careers and reputations aren't destroyed. Only in the fantasy world are there the experts who love science so much that they acknowledge science truths before their own selfish interests. An example of this, whether believed or not, is that a cure for cancer factually exists now, and it is being suppressed by two different groups. One is a government group that knows the devastating affect that a cancer cure would have on social security payments that would occur in the near future. They are having serious problems with how to pay the money without having roughly 1500 people per day not dying off for them. The second group is a hospital that fully knows the cure, but they will lose millions by having it be known. Doctors will also have to change career specialties. That hospital is planning to use the cure, but only after chemo and all other methods fail. They will then use the cure without anyone knowing how, and state that the chemo did work in the end. This will make that hospital have an extremely high cure rate, and they will eventually be the only hospital with an amazingly 100% cure rate. It will be the hospital's secret and an ultra-huge profit situation. The point of this is you would be surprise at just how deep the self-interest cover-up garbage is. It has absolutely nothing to do with truth of science. You might note also that the doctors have sworn an oath to protect and treat their patients according to the oath taken. For profit, that oath only involves their patients and not the entire group of sick people. And, if you think hospitals are not able to think of the millions they will lose first before all patients, you should consider again. They get around this by thinking all patients need to do anywhere is to come to their hospital. So, your point was very good, but I am going in a direction that will factually cram it down the hypocrite's throats, and exactly as they deserve. For what it's worth, whether Wikipedia stands up for truth and checks the math or not isn't even involved in that plan. I have tried for two years discussing things like this with people and expecting professional intelligence and credibility to exist, and have seen precisely how truly bad the credibility situation factually is. I am now using a fully deserved method that doesn't rely on responses by hypocrites at all. I have given them far more time to respond intelligently and every single one of them have failed completely. Now, the nice way is ended, and I am going to end it all with truth and justice. BTW, what you don't understand is that Wikipedia was the last of a long line of groups that have now been documented and recorded fully in all of the irresponsibility and professional failures to stand up for truth in science and other things. The groups go form the government itself and its illegal activity, through the press, which spouts hypocritically that they are the news source for informing and protecting the public, through several locations with supposed-responsible scientists, science news sources, and finally an encyclopedia that is written by the so-called experts, and is supposedly writing truthful information to the public. And through a very long time now and roughly 500 writings that I have done, in all that time there was only one person that actually had the integrity to respond positively, and that was extremely brief. And no, it was NOT the weird things or anything like that that I was writing because a whole lot of the things were obvious truths. Anyway, thanks for your comments, but the above describes it all. The better way is if people won't listen to intelliegnt truth and acknowledge truth, then they will find out why they should have and be fully embarrassed by their actions.StevenCrum 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That box you mention is the project tag for WikiProject Mathematics which is just saying it's part of their scope. It doesn't mean the math was checked per se. If you have an issue with the math, talk to them, not us folks here at GA Review. --plange 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at Steven's work. His math is fine, but it does not mean what he claims it means. IMO, Steven does not understand what is meant by something called the relativity of simultaneity, and all that he is proving is that his misunderstanding of this concept is indeed incorrect. Beyond that, Steven should see the "assume good faith" policy. It is true that Steve is sincerely concerned that errors are being perpetuated here, and that harm is being done because of it. However, to accuse others of dishonesty in being concerned that his views may not be correct is a blatant violation of this policy, and makes Steve's edits disruptive. If anything, this episode very much justifies the "No original research" policy. To be credible and useful to the vast majority of its users, Wikipedia must document that which is accepted knowledge, and not that which any one man would announce as a "truth". --EMS | Talk 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The situation in the above paragraph involves first, that it is an opinion that is not backed up with a counter math proof, and in an area where people are continually saying something I have written is not correct, but they never provide the necessary counter math proof that is fully needed to counter the proof I have written. The logic used is then entirely opinion, and then doesn't address the issue of the math error. It is actually evassive as well, and fully because the obvious only good solution is to either provide a truthful counter math proof, or acknowledge the truth of the proof provided. You will note that I have provided the math proof right out there in front of the wolrd so anyone on the planet can disprove it. By a true math proof, instead of the "that's not right statement" that has no proof in it at all. As far as accussations of dishonesty, I have never used that word even once, and anyone can arrive at any concluding thoughts they want to about the motives of any here that are trying their best to avoid looking at the math involved. So, accusing me of being disruptive, etc. isn't any different than any of the others. The issue is entirely whether my math proof is factually correct or not. For the record and information in advance, if a true math check is done by unbiased math profesionals it will be found to be factual and not able to be disproven. So, that is the issue, and the GA review group here is the appropriate group to determine the GA rating instead of my going to the math group. So, EMS might not agree with my writing anywhere here, but he has never even once provided a counter math proof. And whether EMS states that my math proof says exactly what it says or not, doesn't change the fact that an unbiased examination by math professionals will prove that it fully does say exactly what I have said it does. There is no truth in that statement, and a check will prove the fact.StevenCrum 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

StevenCrum, I urge you to spend your energy on getting your result published in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of arguing on these pages. The discovery that Lorentz, Einstein, and all the mathematicians and physicists after them who studied special relativity where wrong, will surely earn you the Nobel prize in physics.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, your own argument that it needs to be examined by math professionals is exactly why Wikipedia is not the place to determine if your math is correct: we do not have paid math professionals on staff! That is precisely why the No Original Research policy exists. You need to take this to math professionals and get this published elsewhere. Here is not the place, and we are NOT the publisher of last resort if you've failed to convince others. It's a hard row to hoe to disprove something this big, but if you are correct, it will eventually come out. There are plenty of cases where a scientist of 20 years ago was mocked by the scientific establishment but their science held true and they received a Nobel for it and their views are now the established views... Wikipedia is NOT the place, however, to overturn scientific consensus. --plange 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The GA rating implies that truthful math exists for special relativity. My purpose is NOT to have my math proof checked, but fully the situation of convincing the GA review group of the FACT that the math proof proves relativity to be a false theory. This doesn't mean you cannot have relativity as an article, but ONLY the factual situation of that IF it fails the math check, which it FACTUALLY will, then you might consider removing the GA rating. THAT'S IT, and incredibly easy to understand the facts of truth involved. If you don't want to do it, then don't.StevenCrum 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, StevenCrum. I'm just a friendly 15-year-old who has been watching this debate with interest. I'm no fan of the Verifiability policy, and I don't wish to take sides, but I think I must point something out. If you really think you have discovered evidence refuting relativity, instead of arguing with the bigots here, why don't you find some real mathematicians to review your evidence, and get it published in the newspapers? If your refutation is correct, you will become internationally famous! In addition, besides Wikipedia, the refutation will go into millions of encyclopedias, textbooks, newspapers, academic/scientific publications and reports across the world - more will know the truth, not just Wikipedia readers! Wikipedia implemented the Verifiability policy because many physics cranks tried to insert their hoax theories into Wikipedia. Take your refutation to the newspapers, and show the bigots here that you are smarter than them; that you're not a physics crank! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Special J.L.W.S. Thanks for your encouraging and good comment. There is obviously truth in what you described, but there are also some other truths involved that have more importance than just me being proven right and being famous or whatever. One of these is simply that science at the level I am writing about should be discussed with scientists and not the newspaper type of thing. In a perfect world there would be intelligent discussion about truths in science, and the end result of all parties discussing and arriving at whatever is truth in science and what is needed to keep the science direction healthy and truly correct for advancement. Unfortunately, that perfect world isn't even close to existing and the end result is what is seen here. As a fifteen-year-old I don't want you to get discouraged, but you do need to understand reality in this world, and that it takes a huge amount of determination to stand up for truth when failures of truth have occurred. This world is far from the situation where you can just say truthful things and the good result occurs. There is another huge reason why I am standing up here and other places as well, and if I described all of the really bad suppression of truth taht I have seen you would very possibly get a bit discouraged. In any case, don't get discouraged and be a person who has the determination to do what is right. On the other hand, be careful because this world doesn't accept truth very well either. Anyway, thanks again for the comment, and for information also I am winning in the end and there isn't any problem at all. Take care.StevenCrum 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I move that this discussion be closed. Steven Crum is not interested in any truth but what his opinion of the truth is. SR has been checked for mathematical self-consistency and even more importantly for consistency with observation, including the abiity to predict novel phenomema. It has succeeded on both counts. As for Steve's math, it correctly shows that relativity is imcompatible with Newtonian notions regarding time. That is known and accepted and needs no dis-proof. --EMS | Talk 04:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually EMS, I am the one who is factually working for truth here and it isn't my opinion at all, but instead that my opinion happens to factually be that truth. What you are trying to do is to slither around the truths described and not respond to them. You will note that I have written the math proofs here twice, and you have never even once provided a math proof that shows where any error in my proofs exists. This is because you cannot provide the counter math proofs because they factually don't exist and cannot be done, but you haven't ever tried or acknowldged any truth at all. The real science involved is that it was required for Einstein to write his foundational math proof for the basis of his theory. Lorentz also had to establish his equations, and the math for the equations had to stand before those were accepted. The situation with this in real science is that if those original math proofs ever fail, then so does the theory, exactly like it would have failed in the original math ahd failed. All you have done and continue to do is to avoid the foundatioanl truth in the math error by skipping around to assumed math that is "self-consistency" based, and observation, which are both not even existing until the foundational math issue is disproven. Your novel predictions is nothing more than other science descriptions that are not Einstein's thinking at all. That is a diversion around the truth also.

The incompatibility of relativity and Newtonian theory is evading the real issue as well, and the truth isn't that my math proof has anything at all to do with Newton physics, but entirely in the true direction of proving relativity and Lorentz equations are impossible.

Your attempt at terminating this examination of truth in science and the math error is only for the purpose of evading the math proof that exists. The dis-proof situation is entirely that you need to disprove my math proof or relativity fails as a true science theory. You cannot dosprove it because that is impossible, but that is the issue involved in any case. The issue is not about how many ways you can try to think up as to how to slide around the truth and then continue like always before in the wrong science. Your attempt is nothing other than your trying to squelch the truth, and it's easily seen as that.StevenCrum 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In so far as Wikipedia is concerned, the facts that it has and by its own rules must utilize state that relativity is correct. Even if I thought that you were right, I would oppose this under the No original research policy for that reason. The policy says in part that

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ....

If that is "suppression of the truth" then so be it, but until the scientific knowledge that Wikipedia has chosen to document changes, your views don't belong here. --EMS | Talk 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your comment once again it is you that is wrong according to your own rules. The truth is that I am not writing in the rule area of "belong in Wikipedia" and am instead only discussing the math truth that concerns the GA rating. You will note that not one word of what I am writing will ever go into Wikipedia articles. So, your "If that is "suppression of the truth" then so be it" is the true issue involved whether you understand or agree with this truth or not. Next time use a rule that fits and then has some truth to it.StevenCrum 00:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It does fit. Using your views as a basis for removal of GA status is an acceptance of those views as appropriate to Wikipedia. After all, the removal of the GA status does affect the article itself, and under WP:NOR that cannot be permitted to occur. --EMS | Talk 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - take your pick WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, you could also say WP:POINT this counts as disruption to prove a point. Moreover the mathematics is flawed, the very postulate of the critique is that the time has to be syncronised at all times. It has been experimentally verified that Time dilation occurs. Following the scientific method it forces us to reject StevenCrum's hypothesis. --Salix alba (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per the above as well as because a Wikipedia's article must be based on published "good" sources - thus an unpublished opinion about the same subject is not allowed to influence an articles' content. Harald88 20:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I move to close this discussion. The Math and Physics projects have replied that his math is wrong and have supported our stance re: WP:OR, and WP:V --plange 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is getting pretty circular, i'll second that move. Homestarmy 20:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Overthrow of Sukarno

Result: 4 to 1, keep delisted

This was delisted with the sole stated reason being a lack of photos. Yet this, in my interpretation, is against WP:WIAGA. Ie:

6. (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status..

It was actually proposed to be delisted in July [1] but not actually delisted. it came to my attention when another editor actually delisted it a few days ago: [2]. There is also some discussion of the issue on Talk:Overthrow of Sukarno. I suggest it should be relisted as point (3) above suggests. Ie:

3. However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be re-listed as a Good Article.

regards --Merbabu 07:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be de-listed because of Criteria 6. While images are always more ideal, this topic is one that doesn't particularly need images in order for the reader to be able to fully understand the subject matter. However, I do think the article needs some work with Criteria 2, especially in-line citations. There is also subtle POV tones but nothing too alarming. Agne 07:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

GAAH!  :-) OK point taken - i kinda knew that having been incorrectly delisted it could well find obstacles for relisting against other criteria. On thing to remember though (and I am not trying to excuse the need to be accurate) is that this time in Indonesian history is HOTLY debated with numerous versions of the period flying around. By the subject matter's very nature, "accuracy" is difficult to ascertain. Indeed, the following president, Soeharto spent much of his 32 year presidency pushing his view of events right down to compulsory film screenings and school curriculums. The only alternate theories are often fanciful conspiracies (as is often the case when discussion of the subject is shut down or censored). I will review the article and see what can be done (if indeed anything is required)--Merbabu 07:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

From my experience most images of events and characters from this era - where they are available are such poor quality, and usually 'photo' of 'photo' that they are practically uselesss in any context of an online encyclopedia article SatuSuro 09:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also POV oozes through the whole subject- as Merbabu says - Soeharto's regime was sustained by its deifinition of events of 65 66. The title of this article was also problematic as for a title that did not exude any POV (viz talk for this article) many did not consider it was a civil war - (the original title being Indonesian Civil War) - and the test is what tapols and local populations might remember it as - but the crux was that the suharto regime insisted upon educating generations of indonesians about the event as 'G30SPKI' - so in the end to ascertain a NPOV title, and grounding for this article - the reviewer has to understand that POV will always crop up as there is in the end - no "final word" on a number of issues SatuSuro 09:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I had been requested a comment on my talk page pertaining to my delistment, I will answer here.

When one is reading criterion 6, 6a intends that if there are pictures in the article, they out to be well tagged and if they are fair use images, then adding a fair use rationale is necessary to be GA; 6b states that an image isn't necessary unless the editor finds one. In that case 6a overrules 6b because there is an image in the article.

Everything else still seems to be in GA accordance in the article so just adding a fair use rationale to the picture would have given the GA status back then. I'm sorry I overlook that article and thanks for bring it back to my attention. Lincher 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the article have no inline citations....? If it was only that there's an image with no Fair Use rational, I think it wouldn't be too bad to give the article a little bit of time to fix it and give it back GA status, but the total lack of inline citations would require much longer than a little bit of time to fix. Homestarmy 16:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Result: 4 to 1, relist

The stated reason for delisting the article was an objection to some of the references on the grounds that they weren't books published by university presses. Consensus appears to be running heavily contrary to this understanding of a "reliable source", so I'm putting it here for review.

The article may fail other criteria, notably stability. A.J.A. 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Article was not delisted properly, (People have to leave a note on the talk page), speedy relist, though a real review can probably continue here. Homestarmy 18:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the edits before the delisting, the reviewer clearly has a POV concerning this article. In addition the note that was left on the talk page is clearly insufficient. This is a clear example of a delisting that was not done in good faith and is disruptive of the GA process. I support relisting, but of course it is still perfectly acceptable if a truly neutral reviewer comes by, gives a proper review on the failure of conformance to WP:WIAGA, and delists it in the proper manner. RelHistBuff 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He has since added a note and redelisted it. I think his reasons are insufficient, but I'll address that on the Talk page. If no one else agrees with him I think the article should be unredelisted. A.J.A. 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, from a GA standpoint, the reasons aren't necessarily accurate, because I don't know of any sources which claim that the taxes imposed by Christians of yore upon Muslims were anything notable. I also think that the accusation of bad references really isn't true, as all of the citations are at the very least marginally acceptable, and the authors are pretty much reliable. Also, for stability, the edit war only focused on a very tiny part of the article, and there have not been "edit wars", emphasis on the plural, just one war. (and it was small) Homestarmy 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm....This is one that needs some thinking. I agree that the de-listing reasonings are not very accurate but overall I'm not sure of this article's standing as a Good Article. There are some issues with Criteria 1 in that I think it needs to more use of content forks with a link to the main article and provide a better summary paragraph for where they do link to another article. I don't see any glaring POV violation but there needs to be a better presentation of a more "Generic" detailing of Christianity. In reading the article you can see a sort of denomination hop scotch between the influences of Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and even modern day Gnostic thought on Christianity. It's an incredibly difficult task to accomplish but one that the editors should strive for. My concern in this de-listing is that the motivation for ANY delisting should be a desire to make the article article better, not as a tool in a POV or edit war. Thusly, a de-listing notice should include concrete and specific details of the concerns the article has in failing WP:WIAGA and where the editors should work on improving. The overall goal of this process is for the editors to have roadmap of where they can tidy and fix up and eventually achieve GA status again.
To that extent, I think the article should be re-listed because the de-listing reasons are not sufficient. However, I whole heartedly agree with RelHistbuff that it is open to de-listing again and I, very well, might do that after a more through review. Agne 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360

Result: Uhh, this belongs on the candidates page

Article has been rewritten and problems from last review fixed. Would like rereview to fix any further problems and get suggestions on how to get the article into GA status and later FA.123wiki123 06:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want a re-review, the place for that is to put it back on the candidates page.... Homestarmy 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vince Young

Result: 4 to 0, keep delisted

This article was listed as GA on 10 October. I didn't recall that this article was renominated again. However, I see in the talk page that there is a discussion about its renomination, but alas there is no GA review for the 2nd nomination. Seeing the content of this article, esp. at the beginning, it is not GA, IMO. What are other opinions? Keep or delist? — Indon (reply) — 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I wont even start mentioning how this article fails to meet GA standards. Delist on sighting, as I'm about to do. Lincher 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep Delisted, as per Lincher, and because it looked pretty bad NPOV wise when I looked at it a bit. Homestarmy 18:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Support delisting per Lincher. I agree with NPOV issues. The Rose bowl performance was amazing but the article goes a bit far in its overall presentation of the subject. Agne 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Derivative

Result: RelHistBuff seems to of taken care of the review problem

Given the rather long discussions we have had concerning math and physics articles, I would like to see improvement in the reviews of these articles. I hope I have done so with Hilbert space. Unfortunately, the review of Derivative is not a good review example. In my opinion, just by glancing at the article there are other issues to improve such as a better lead section and introduction section. It may deserve a GA, but in my opinion, we lose credibility with the math and physics authors if we give such "light-hearted" passes. I am interested in other opinions. RelHistBuff 13:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I felt the same way too, when I was reading the article's review. I've been watching this article, actually, giving the lengthly disscussion with "scientific" editors, but I waited for more experienced GA reviewer than me to judge it. I've been waiting to learn how to tell these editors about inline citations. However, the result dissapointed me. Worse that the reviewer did not say any words at all, but icons. Since when GA reviewing becomes icon voting? I think this is a good time to start again subpage GA review in an article talk page, isn't it? So passing/failing an article without proper review will result automatic renomination to the candidate page. Oh, for the article, I definitely want it to have inline citation, and per WP:WIAGA it has been said as a requirement. — Indon (reply) — 14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Although it is an oddly unspecific review, i've always felt that if an article actually is good, then its fine :/. I mean, we are all editors, we can offer suggestions to any article at any time. However, the internal citations are problematic, we need to decide once and for all whether we can really say thats its disputed or not during reviews. Homestarmy 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I concure that the review was a bit light. I'm not sure on broad in its coverage although there are links to other pages which address topics like history and generalisations in more depth.

As far as inline cites are concerned this is a case where they are absolutely bloody pointless. This material is covered in thousands of different books. All statements are verified by all the different reference works cited, indeed starting with the definitions the statements are verifiable by the reader using first principles. We serve the reader better by providing a variety on print and online references. Page references are useless, no understanding of the topic is gained by simply citing a result without the reader reading a hundred pages beforehand to put the result in context.

Maybe your process is broken - to award a status and immediatly take it away again - does not inspire others to have confidence in the system, (there are certainly elements of WikiProject maths who want nothing to do with the GA system). Perhaphs you need to eloborate on how to assess articles, the guidelines for assessors are very brief and AzaToth did as much as the guidelines suggest. Allowing single person reviews will always leed to inconsistancy. --Salix alba (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor point: GA reviews don't normally end up in immedietly taking away status. Besides, I looked up stuff on derivatives recently since we had a test on it, I know there's stuff out there that doesn't need page numbers on the internet. Homestarmy 15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to get away from focussing on citations. I am mainly concerned with GA credibility. Our job, IMO, is to help improve articles. The Derivative article really needed improvement and unfortunately the GA review did not help in that at all. To make up for this (and to close this issue), I will add some comments on the talk page later today. Salix alba has a good point. We do need better guidelines for GA assessors. However, I don't think the process is broken. It just needs to be improved. RelHistBuff 08:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I am bit disturbed that a GA reviewer would consider any part of the GA criteria "void" and not applicable to a review. This goes beyond "subjective interpretation" of any aspect of the criteria and sets a very bad precedent. In addition to the very valid points that RelHistBuff makes (and thankfully included on the article talk page), we do need to think about something that can be done to curb bad reviews. Agne 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Result: Err, one vote isn't exactly a consensus for much...

It looks like someone has gotten into the article, especially the first part, and mucked it up---is it for real, or supposed to be funny or something? Sorry, I don't see how else to report it.

75.80.189.131 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just vandalism, it should be fine now. Homestarmy 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The sourcing of a lot of things in this article (other than the news stuff) is based on fan sites. This is acceptable, I guess if nothing else is available, but over the past few years a lot of serious scholarly papers have been written about the cultural and literary impact of Harry Potter. For instance, this is a good compilation of scholarly articles on the Harry Potter phenomenon, and a Google Scholar search turns up many more. Hence, this article fails WP:RS, and thus Good Article criteria 2c. Borisblue 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify "a lot of things." TonyJoe 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire "themes and motifs" section. At present, they draw on primary sources (the books themselves) when there exists a lot of reliable secondary-source papers studying the themes of the book. There is a paragraph about "prejudice" which is uncited, which shouldn't be, since there is material covering that theme in scholarly literature. Borisblue 18:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thunderstorm

Result: 1 to 3, (the one is the person who passed it) Delist

In my opinion this article fails WP:WIAGA criteria 3a (it addresses all major aspects of the topic). Alot more could be added about the topic such as how they are detected and possibly a section on how thunder storms affet cities and people. Would anyone else agree? --Tarret 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it does appear to be missing important aspects like the one's you point out, unless of course its trying to say the only way we detect them is when storm chasers go after them in the midwest....(which is wrong). Homestarmy 01:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the detection area is probably the most glaring ommission. I'm also curious for more details on why areas like Midwest (and other areas of the world) are more prone to thunderstorms then others. I would support de-listing it until more info on the subject could be fleshed out. Agne 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Technomancer Press

Result: 2 to 2, no consensus

Is this article up to our standards? I think it is a borderline case, with few references, a heavy focus on products rather than the company and a comparatively long discussion of the company's criticism of the D20 system. All the recent discussion about quality made me decide to err on the side of caution and list it for review. Cedars 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the one reviewing the article. I know what you mean but after having looked around a bit (Internet, books & Games manual), I agree with the editor that the article can't really have more material in there (the publisher only started in 2005). All that was added before and all that the editor and I talked about adding was superfluous or non-notable for the article's broadness. I think that for now, it might not meet brilliant prose (it isn't required anyway), but it is still decent. It reminds me of the planetoid articles. Lincher 01:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To me its mainly an advertisement for the various products. I also wouldn't say that its "broad in its coverage", it has a history section that can be expanded alot. Tarret 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know such a subject? If so, lead me to references, I will bring the article up to par. I have searched for such references but haven't found any. Lincher 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Added in the history department. Lincher 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Does it look ok now? Lincher 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the expanded History section. Is there anything that can be done to flesh out the Business Model section? Agne 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me more details as to what you want to see in there as this is a somewhat new company and it doesn't really have much to say. Lincher 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, after looking on Google to see what kind of info that there could be I agree that there is not much to say here. When I first commented, I was mostly curious if there was a "Walmart influence" or model type that maybe they were trying to follow giving the similarity in their goals and the slogan they adapted. Agne 13:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy

Result: 6 delist to 4 keep, no consensus

This should be reviewed as it clearly has a bias towards those on the side of creationism. It belittles the beliefs of the scientific majority regarding evolution. Much of what is written there has obviously been written by fire and brimstone Christians. 202.164.195.56 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Mike 1:15PM 15 September

I have to say I find this attitude a bit odd given that most of the complaints about the article seem to be that it favors evolution too much (and many of the common editors are what one user accused of being a "scientistic cabal"). Do you have a specific example problem? JoshuaZ 13:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree Joshua, just giving it a cursory reading, it seems to have pretty much the same attitude all of the creationism-related articles have, "There is no dispute about evolution, and ID'ers are basically lying about this." Homestarmy 13:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, that article is distinctly on the evolutionist bent--and just a hair close to tipping NPOV because of it. What concerns me the most is the vast majority of the references seem to come from the "Pro-Evolution/anti-creationism" sentiment. I'm also not the biggest fan of the length. I'd be curious if we can get some valid content forks with section 4 : "Noteworthy participants in the controversy" and taking info from various parts into a History of the Creation-evolution controversy. Agne 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The "evolutionist bent" comment seems to fly in the face of the archived discussions. If you have specific criticisms of the content please list them. The fact that creationists are generally less verified and represent original research in many of their rants against scientific consensus means that the notion of a "level playing field" is a misnomer. This isn't a political debate, it's a controversy about settled science. --ScienceApologist 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "it" is neither a controversy over a settled science nor a political debate, "it" is an encyclopedia article, so the standard isn't to just stick with whatever the awe-insipiring scientific consensus states. Of course, the article doesn't really go quite that far, I think its still fine anyway. Homestarmy 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep as a good article. Seems balanced to me. Bear in mind that the WP:NPOV calls for articles that deal with pseudoscience to "describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." This article does a fair job of that. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This should not be a good article. Despite an effort at the end to contextualise the debate within a global context, the fact remains that this is an overwhelmingly US-based controversy. I raised this objection earlier at FA level and it has not yet been resolved. It is not that the topic needs to be expanded to discuss other countries - the article itself makes it abundantly clear that elsewhere in the developed world evolutionary theory is not a matter of contentious public debate. Rather, the article needs to explain why this debate is happening in the US - what about American society is it that allows this controversy even to exist. For those of us in the rest of the world, THAT is the most interesting aspect of this debate. The painful process of providing an NPOV overview of the actual controversy is fine, but the larger point is completely elided and this comes across as a parochial US-centric discussion that accepts the terms of its own argument without reference to the fact that at a global level, the controversy is aberrant. Eusebeus 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is another example of an article promoted before the current nomination/review process. Aside from many other problems, it is clear that it is not stable. Most of the reverts are not triggered by a response to vandalism, but due to real differences between authors. That criterion alone should be enough to delist the article. RelHistBuff 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That is largley because there has been very little discussion in WP:RS sources about why it is so prevalent in the US other than to note that the US is more religious than most developed countries. I have more opinions about why it is an issue in the US but that would be OR. It is a bit unreasonable to criticize an article for not extensively addressing something which hasn't been dealt with in many sources (and even more so, when other critiques seem to be directed at the article being too long). JoshuaZ 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (And note that if you can find any good sources that discuss why it is so US centric in detail, I'd be happy to see them and add them to the article). JoshuaZ 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've delisted the article with a review left on on the article's talk page Agne 03:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this, I compared the diffs from before I left on a trip to the version today, and besides an addition of a particular court case thing, nothing much had been drastically altered. Plus, there really ought to be at least a simple majority in favor of something for articles like this, the conversations tend to get....complicated Homestarmy 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Having just read this discussion for the first time, I do not see a stable consensus for de-listing this article, but instead an ongoing debate about delisting. This de-listing appeared to be premature, so I reverted the de-listing pending a clarification on the actual status of this discussion. ... Kenosis 04:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just precedent so far has been that anyone has the power to immedietly delist articles until a review actually finishes with a clear consensus/supermajority/what-have-you, helps make it easier to take care of the list and whatnot, occasionally, people will come here when their favorite article was delisted (even when it was pretty bad), and letting people delist things immedietly I think gives the system a good bit more flexability. Homestarmy 04:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was a matter of just one guideline (where a subjective view could be at play), I concede that consenus among GA reviewers should be achieved prior to de-listing. However, out of the 6 GA criteria the article had issues in all 6 include 3 precise issues brought up by 3 different individuals (not counting myself) above-POV by original poster, US centric by Eusebeus and stability by RelHistBuff. I don't think my de-listing was unilateral in the slightest and I give very precise and detailed reasonings in all 6 of the categories. While an individual may disagree with my assessment in one or two, I highly doubt that one could interpret the above as consensus that the article passes all 6 of the criteria to merit being a good article. Agne 04:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The stability provision is laughably flawed and broken. Has anyone who actually edits on controversial topics actually thought it through prior to codifying it? Because a stability provision is completely unworkable on contentious topics like creationism because the pov-pushers these articles attract always raise bad faith objections with the intent of discrediting any fair and factual treatment of the topic that does not favor their pov with special treatment. Any provision that fails to take into account pov-motivated objections is fatally flawed; this why you never see creationism related article make FA, and seldom see political or religious topics there as well. Until the GA participants put their GA criteria in order with provisions that take into account real-world misuses and abuses of their process, there's no reason why previously qualified articles should suffer. Either fix this obvious issue or risk becoming irrelevant to a large segment of WP articles - those on perennially controversial issues. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh Agne, the intial poster thought that there was POV problem in the other direction. I don't think that poster counts in this context...JoshuaZ 04:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. It like seeing symptoms of heart attack but it actually being a stroke. There is the perception that something is not quite right but the initial diagnosis was incorrect. POV is not NPOV regardless of which side it is tilted. Agne 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no it isn't. The point was in reference to the claim that issues were raised by 3 different editors and that one of them other than you had a POV issue. The POV opinion was in fact in the exact opposite direction of where any problem might have existed so it is unreasonable in the extreme to claim that that somehow should go to the general issue supporting the removal (and in any event, the user in question was an anon with almost no edits and seemingly no knowledge of general Wiki policies). I don't mind the delisting so much because it will presumably just have most of the issues fixed and then quickly relisted but these sorts of gaps in logic and total capriciousness of the GA system is a big reason it creates so much rancor. JoshuaZ 04:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the rancor seems to be in relation to articles in the science/math realm. The clear matter is the absence of NPOV in several areas and how it relates to GA criteria #4. If the article doesn't pass that criteria because of POV (in ANY direction) then it doesn't pass the criteria. But again this is only one criteria of the entire 6 that there is issues with. I wholeheartedly welcome and encourage renomination with the hopeful outcome of re-listing. In the end, that is the desire goal of everyone wanting to have good quality articles in Wikipedia. Agne 04:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's clear to me you're applying the NPOV policy incorrectly when it comes to pseudoscience; please read WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience paying particular attention to the bolded part. If this is the sum of your objections, then it's de-listing is baseless and I'll restore it. Though I seldom participate at that article, it is clear that by any reasonable reading of the GA criteria this article is a strong 'meets,' not an easy task on such a contentious subject and a constant POV and troll magnet. It has stood in GA status for some time, and your justifications for removal here appear flawed, based on your interpretation of NPOV and an singular application of the GA criteria. I'll be restoring GA status unless you have a better justification than a flawed application of NPOV. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually, many of the things Agne pointed out didn't have anything to do with the "science" part of it at all..... Homestarmy 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agne clearly says "seems to be in relation to articles in the science/math realm." WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience clearly states: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." That means that Agne's issues over NPOV are baseless, as is it's delisting. I'll be re-listing it unless Agne comes up with a better justification for delisting. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC

Um that ""seems to be in relation to articles in the science/math realm." is related to the comment about "Rancor with GA" that has to do with the conflict that science/math editors have had in general with the GA process (most recently with in-line citations). It has nothing to do with science or psuedoscience or a particular NPOV application to the subjects. Agne 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is one of the 6 criteria that the article had issues in-so this is far from a singular application of one of the criteria. Plus, I provided clear example of what I consider POV (some of which have already been corrected by Josh). If you could show how those examples are not POV, I would appreciate it. Secondly, as GA continues to grow it is a natural progression for its standards and quality expectations to increase as well. This is not isolated to GA as Jimbo and the Wikipedia Foundation are encouraging a more focused concentration on quality over quantity across the board. We are simply responding to that strive for higher quality. As GA reviewers, we will be glad to work with the article's editors in improving the quality of the article. Instead of simply listing the criteria with a FAIL next to it, I attempted to give a thorough and indepth review with precise areas that could use editor's attention. The goal is to have the end product be a better article then it was before. Tolerating the status quo because "It has stood in GA status for some time" doesn't really help anyone--much less the article. Agne 18:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Are the GA reviewers an established, knowledgable group of credible and qualified reviewers, or are you simply referring to the comments for community members seen here? Because is it's the latter, I'm impressed with the depth and breadth of knowledge when it comes to our NPOV policy or how to deal with bad faith objections. FeloniousMonk 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A GA reviewer can be anyone really. But some of the more frequent or "established" reviewers are also members of the Good articles project. As an editor who has not edited any of the creation/evolution page (and who is actually an evolutionist herself), I am curious for a clarification as to what you deem are bad faith objections? My agenda is for higher quality articles to be attached to a GA tag, nothing more then and nothing less. Agne 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A good example of a bad faith objection is this one at the FA page for ID: [3] In fact, that FA attempt was scuttled by what is widely recognized as bad faith gaming of the system to discredit the article for ideological reasons. What makes them clearly bad faith is the fact that so many clearly do not understand the actual NPOV policy or rest on misrepresentaions of it. This is a recognized flaw in the FA process, and one that has FA irrelevant for most articles on contentious topics. GA runs the same risk for similar reasons. Discussion has taken place here for a work around for that for a particularly contentious article: [[4]] I'm a semi-regular at GA review and I always carefully scrutinize the reasoning behind each GA status challenge I respond to and it's bringer's understanding policy. I don't remember calling into question your motives, only your understanding the NPOV policy and how it relates to science v. pseudoscienc articles like the one we're discussing. FeloniousMonk 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to delve into this discussion, but this seems to be a discussion about the article and not about its GA status. If the article is unstable and/or there are doubts about its POV at the moment, it's enough for it not to be considered a GA candidate. Please continue to discuss the article in its talk page and close this review. Bravada, talk - 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about listing this article as a GA, but about its keeping its long-held status, and of whether it has continued to be a good article or whether it should be de-listed. ... Kenosis 22:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews normally continue until the discussion has died off for a week or so, and so far, we seem to have around 5 to keep as a GA and 3 opposed in an active discussion, i'd hardly call this a resolved dispute. Homestarmy 21:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should not be listed, not because it may have slight POV issues, but because it is a current dispute and information will change as circumstances also change. -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Shinigami (Bleach)

Result: 5 to 2, keep delisted

Would anyone agree that this article is too "in-universe" to be a GA. --Tarret 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, it doesn't even feel like the article even tries to enter the real universe. Homestarmy 00:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would fail it, as it too in-comic perspective. Not an encyclopedia article. It's a bit strange as the article is reviewed to have a neutral view by the reviewer. The article should have a history, development and other out-of-comic information. I think it should be delisted as GA. — Indon (reply) — 07:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

De-list. The "in-universe"-ish is made even more clear by the fact that the only source of reference is the manga book itself. There has to be a broader scope. Agne 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone offer any suggestions on how to make the article less in-universe? I am one of the chief contributors to the article and wish to improve it so that it easily passes as a good article. However, as it stands now, the article is inherently in-universe because it's mainly a combination of the Bleach (manga) (the universe) and Shinigami (the subject) articles, which, combined, make it extremely difficult to come up with anything 'out of universe' (if anything did come up, it would likely go into one of the linked articles). I don't think this fact should warrant an impossibility for the article to be considered a GA. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The main guideline about it is here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). That might give you some advice on how to correct the problem. Also, many of the Pokemon articles are good examples of compliant GA's. Homestarmy 21:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the Shinigami (Bleach) article is a combination of a fictional work (Bleach) with a fictional race (shinigami), therefore the article must be related to both shinigami and Bleach. In other words, you can't have an 'in other media' section or 'mythological significance' or any of those things, because then it wouldn't be Bleach-related and therefore would only work for the shinigami article. MOS:Writing about fiction doesn't suggest anything to solve cases like this, that is why I asked here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Yn here. You will have a very hard time writing an out-of-universe perspective on this subject. You cannot write about the subject of Shinigami as a whole, because that goes in a different article, Shinigami. You can't really write about similarities to portrayals of shinigami in other media either, because that would be a WP:NOR violation. To compound matters further, most of the source material is still only in Japanese. The MOS's out of universe perspective guidelines really don't give any suggestions on what to do, and only vague ones on what NOT to do.

Actually, the Pokemon GA's you just pointed me to are interesting in that they read like a combination of in-universe and game guide/FAQ. --tjstrf 09:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hard time or not, other articles manage to pull it off, and besides, why do you want this article listed as a GA if most of the source material isn't even translated? That seems like jumping the gun. Homestarmy 03:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've delisted the article. Please see the respective talk page for the complete list. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Children's Machine

Result: 2 to 1, no consensus

I was just browsing GA page, and found this article. I'd like to ask whether future event/product can be categorized as GA. I think it does not conform with criterion (2). I want others' opinion before taking any action. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an article on a future product, true. But it's an article on a future product whose concept has garnered immense interest in the educational and media sectors. It's the concept that's notable, not the product. --tjstrf 10:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So how can we verify this paragraph in the Technology section? "2B1 will be a Linux-based, full-color, full-screen laptop. It will initially have a flat LCD screen, but in later generations may use electronic paper such as e-ink. The laptop will be rugged, use innovative power (possibly a pedal), be Wi-Fi- and VoIP-enabled and a touch screen (including a separate writing pad)." Every statements are in future tense. And what if the future product is canceled? Will it still stand for a WP article? — Indon (reply) — 10:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

One could ask the authors to concentrate on the concept and its history, rather than the final product. I am bit surprised that not much mention is made of MIT Media Lab who, as I understand, are quite involved with the project. The final target specification of the laptop should be in the article and not in the lead section and in any case the description of the product should not use vague marketing words ("rugged", "innovative"). It should cite a source for the target specification, of course. Having said all that, there are other problems with the article's style such as too many bulleted lists, WP:WEASEL words, etc.. It is not GA material, IMO. RelHistBuff 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is delisted. — Indon (reply) — 12:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Future products just don't get GA, period. PlayStation 3 is at B-class even though it would probably pass all other criteria. It's becuase the product hasn't been released yet, subject to major changes. Oh, and they're still battling over free vs. fair use (so much that they have to add a note on the top of the page. Hbdragon88 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Star Wars Holiday Special

Result: 2 to 0, keep delisted

This article is poorly written: the sysnopsis is far too long, there are way too many lists (most of which should be prosified or removed), and much of the stuff looks very irrelevant - what's the point of mentioning every Lucasfilm mention? External links sections is wayyy too long and there are few in-line citations. Someone ranked this an A-class? You're kidding me. Hbdragon88 07:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I took an axe to the external links, it's much better. But the other problems would require a top-down rewrite. Hbdragon88 07:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The synopsis is waaaay too long, and all the weird quote symbol things don't need to be used everywhere, (especially not centered, that really makes it looks weird). The trivia section is also problematic, I don't think this is a GA much less an A class article. Homestarmy 14:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I delisted it. If anybody objects, they can bring it here. Hbdragon88 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunkern

Result: 2 to 0, stay listed

The person who said the GA failed did not note that the generic sentences were there to bring it to GA standards, not to be generic. Such is required for articles under WP:FICT at GA or FA status. All of WP:PCP's good articles have such sentences...if this were to be a GA, it could. I could be bold from there and take out the gameguidecruft and do copyediting as well. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the one failing it. If you have any concerns, please modify the article as you see fits and request a re-review on my talk page, which I will gladly do. I just thought that the amount of work required was too much for the on hold process, if it isn't, please notify me on my talk page and I will re-review, maybe pass the article if it now meets the requirements. Lincher 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Case closed : GA passed after work done by editors. Lincher 11:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

German language

Result: This appears to be 2 to 0.....but even if not, there are still no references at all besides a number for something

At the moment, the page is protected due to an edit war. There is a disagreement about the inclusion of references to Dutch and the mutual intelligibility of both languages. A review of non-partisans might be a good thing. --LucVerhelst 11:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, it doesn't appear to have any references at all except for one thing at the top....? Homestarmy 12:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, I should have been more clear. The page got protected at a point in the discussion when the disputed paragraphs were removed. I'm afraid that when the protection will be lifted, the edit war will start over. Please look at the talk page and the history of the page. --LucVerhelst 12:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The lack of references and proper citation is more than enough to remove it from GA status, but there are other problems as well:

• The tables of English cognates are overly tedious and should reduced to a few examples at most and moved out into other sections. Suggestions are "Grammar", "Vocabulary/Lexicon" or "Classification".
• "Lexicon" (I really prefer the simpler and less peacock-ish "Vocabulary" as a title) should be be moved out into its own section.
• "Official status" has been placed under "Classification...", though it actually belongs under "Geographic distribution".
• "Phonology" (again, "Sounds" is so much user-friendlier) has a rather obvious tilt towards orthography and spelling-is-pronunciation-explanations. German phonology has plenty of material (and references) that could be summarized and included in the main article.
• The section "Names for German in other languages" is questionable as a trivia section. It has more to do with ethnicity than the language itself, and since it's really just an etymology section it contains information that is far more relevant to Germans or any corresponding Wiktionary article(s).
• Gratuitous bolding and one-or-two-sentence paragraphs are too abundant and the lead is anything but satisfactory.
• While sound samples may be more of an FA requirement, it's very odd that out of the hundreds of German language sound samples, only the one for "Deutsch" is used. There ought to be more than enough native German contributors with mics that could record at least a set of minimal pairs for all the phonemes of Standard German.
• As with any language article, the "Common phrase" section of tourist phrases really doesn't add much. It should be removed or replaced with a sample of good German literature.

If the article is to keep its GA status I believe that most of these issues should be addressed.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Give us some time, there are a few stubborn people (least of all me) who need to work this out so that the edit war does not restart.

Ameise -- chat 17:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You can start by letting the Dutch issue simply rest for a while and addressing the concerns above that are related to article structure. There's no POV involved in those.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How much time would the page editor's need to take care of some of the GA concerns? Agne 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Podcasting

Result: 3 to 0, delist

This is a good article? It used to start out with a giant image add for Apple?!?! Plus it contained alot of obviously speculative, irrelevant information.

Talk/Discussion page under Major Cleanup Section:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Podcasting#Major_Cleanup:__This_really_needs_a_fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testerer (talk • contribs)

• My initial concern is the lack of in-line reference and the inclusion of rhetorical questions "Does Apple own the pod? Could podcasting, podcasts, and anything with the word "Pod" in the name become the property of Apple computers?" . I'm also don't think it covers the "broad coverage" bit. In looking through the talk page archives and history, I don't see where it was really reviewed. I would support de-listing it. Agne 17:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was promoted 12th December 2005 during the slap-on-the-GA-template days. There seems to be a major problem with stability so even just on that criterion alone, the article should be delisted. RelHistBuff 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Volkstaat

Result: Uhh, the first review goes on the candidate page....

First time request for a review of this article for possible listing as a Good Article. -Gemsbok1 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see this article already in the candidate list. Now, just wait and be patient for earlier candidates to be reviewed first ;-). Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The objections raised by the first reviewer were dealt with. I hereby request another review, by a reviewer other than Deon Steyn for an independent third party review. Thank you. -Gemsbok1 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

GA review is to discuss delistings, fails, and current GA's that people disagree with, not to get brand new reviews, just re-nominate the article again. Homestarmy 16:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has been renominated. --165.165.169.167 08:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Case is closed. I left a review on the talk page with suggestions for improvements. RelHistBuff 07:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)