Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 10

• Delist It's rather frustrating, but I have to say it. The biggest problem with our Harry Potter articles is that citing them is a nuisance, due to all the books being by one author, and two editions is widespread use. And, if we want to be consistent, either the Americans or the Brits cannot help in citations because their page numbers will be different from the rest of the articles. All the informtion in Voldy's article, I would say, is helpful, but unverifiable, and definitely not shown in a real-world perspective. Sigh. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with out-universe is that the majority of editors don't understand the concept, find it alien, and frankly prefer the in-universe approach. Having tried to debate it on the relevant policy pages, I found that its justification tended to amount to 'we prefer it because it is better'. Somewhat circular. If you asked everybody concerned, rather than those who work on the policy page, I rather think it would not be policy. Re page numbering, I also saw some evidence suggesting that not all UK editions are consistently page numbered, but I forget now what this was. Generally people on websites elsewhere get over this using chapter references. The other difficulty with writing any articles about HP, is that we are essentially writing about an unfinished book. People are naturally more interested in how the story will finish than in anything else. This does not fit well into the criteria, but any good article needs to include those elements which are of most interest to the reader. Only a select few know the real history of the character, and they are either not talking or have a vested interest in misleading. Finally, it needs to be judged as only part of what is written in the HP project regarding Voldemort. real-world issue are addressed in Harry Potter. Sandpiper

I am glad for your input. However I have to say that

WP:WAF

are official policies and not debatable. Everything else is lazy writing. This means, real-life POV, make your fiction clear, and verify, verify, verify! Real-life POV is obligatory in Wikipedia. If your peers tell you otherwise, then they are flat out wrong. Otherwise, these ugly bars will follow you everywhere you edit:

Official policies are not debateable? That seems to be the problem I just pointed out. The plain implication that something is 'not debateable' is that it is also not a true consensus. Sandpiper 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read

WP:NOR, the FIRST PILLAR OF WIKIPEDIA, a fact which will not win you many friends here. —Onomatopoeia 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

{{Unreferenced}} {{Cleanup fiction-as-fact}} {{

I can relate what you are talking about. When I was a newbie and edited

assume good faith; an out-of-universe style GREATLY enhances your article. Try it, you may like it. Happy wiki-ing! —Onomatopoeia 08:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delisted. —Onomatopoeia 08:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Ireland

Result: Delisted 2-0

Much information is uncited and unverifiable. For example "Riverdance 's appeal was such that the arts of Ireland were made globally popular in a very short time. Dancing school enrollments skyrocketed, Irish sessions found their numbers swelling with new musicians wishing to take part, and interest in Irish arts rose to an all time high."

I could not google information about dance class enrollment numbers and other information I've looked at on the page seems suspicious. Please review this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bifgis (talk • contribs) 05:52, 4 December 2006

Seems like far too much content to be covered by just five references, unless of course stuff has been copied, which would be bad. Until the referencing can be made clear, I think should be delisted. Homestarmy 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist --RelHistBuff 09:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left message on article's talk page: "

Gold Coast, Queensland

Result: No Consensus, failure not overturned

Failed while on hold, had been on hold since 27/11/06, failed 1/12/06. -- Nathannoblet 07:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a problem? Homestarmy 06:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Nathannoblet 09:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly failed based on lack of citations. LuciferMorgan 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was on hold.

Yes and failed on 1st December. LuciferMorgan 11:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(undent; long comment) I was just about to apologize and say this misunderstanding was my fault. I had written:

• This is my fault. I wrote "I'm gonna put this article on HOLD for one week" on the talk page.. but then failed it earlier because I didn't see constructive activity. From now on, I'll just put, "Article on Hold" and not mention a time period.

As a concluding detail, I was gonna quote

• You may put an article On Hold for up to 7 days if only minor changes or clarifications are needed. If the 7 days expire without an editor addressing the concern(s), the article can be failed.

The first sentence makes the length of the period as 7 days seem optional & up to the reviewer's discretion; the second makes waiting 7 days seem mandatory. Suggest immediate revision to make the two sentences more in accord with each other. I think this article should clearly fail, if voted on its own merits. However, simply to go above and beyond the call of duty in adhering to rules, I'm willing to vote Keep based purely on a technicality. I do this with a clear statement that I plan to revisit the article's acceptability in exactly one week (7 calendar days) from the date of archiving this discussion. That should give the contributors ample time to fix the lack of referencing. If the article is Kept, and if its problems are not addressed 7 calendar days from the date of archiving this discussion, I will personally renominate it for GA review.--

When the On hold thing was first created the point was that at the end of the week, somebody was supposed to make a decision to pass or fail, generally depending on response to concerns. This way, articles wouldn't stay up on the list forever if there was some minor thing that needed to be done, but prevented an article from becoming a GA. But waiting a full week I don't think has ever been mandatory, an article can be passed or failed sooner than that. (If i'm wrong, I really like it my way better :D )Homestarmy 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's been done wrong here I feel. Best to just archive this one. LuciferMorgan 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Nicolas Ledoux

Result: Not Promoted

• This article has not been passed or failed, and I am aware that it is not strictly appropriate to list it here. I am bending the rules somewhat because I am trying to act in the best interests of the contributor to the article, who expressed discontent with the review process.
• I will not be contributing to this discussion (if a discussion takes place, that is — someone may remove this item because listing it here is not strictly in accordance with the rules).
• If a discussion does take place, I would request that someone leave a note on the talk page of the article informing any contributors of that fact, and providing a link to this page.
• --
  Ling.Nut 12:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I was about to ask for a review on this myself, it seems this one may be difficult to review alone.... Homestarmy 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say

Ling.Nut's review was fine. There is a definite need for the citations where the tags were added. The article provides only four citations, with the rest of the footnotes being clarification notes so this could be improved. The advice on being proactive is very good as it will become a factor later on in FAC. The French does not need to be translated if they are wikilinked, but some titles should be translated especially if they are generic (Administration des Eaux et Forêts or Water and Forestry Administration) and certainly individual words like dépendances (smaller dependent buildings on an estate). The only thing I would add to the review is that dead wikilinks should be removed. The article is almost GA and is fixable in 7 days in my opinion. --RelHistBuff 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a darn good article, and congrats to the author(s). IMO the only real problem is the cites, and if the books are easily available that's pretty easy to fix. I can't see any egregiously awful prose shockers that would be a barrier for GA, though I recommend that someone does a thorough copy-edit before it goes forward for FA, otherwise it might get jumped on. If you want my services for that copy-edit, then give me a bell. Best, Moreschi 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as I was expecting a simple pass / fail from GA, not reviewing like PR or FA. There is a PR for this article

DVD+ R/W 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ordinarily, GA candidates aren't brought to the Review page first, but since there seems to be some contention over this article, I think this might be helpful. As for the article, the citation needed tags are somewhat troublesome, the one in the intro is particularily noticeable. However, on your criticism section on the bottom with all the fact tags, are you sure criticism of this architect is really that notable? It might save you some time just to remove it, unless most architect type articles have criticism sections when you can find criticism. Homestarmy 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the sentence with the fact tag from the lead and and also removed the criticism section. I just translated it from the article on fr, and asked some other people to edit it some. I don't really see what is so contentious.

DVD+ R/W 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It appears the trouble started when one User:Wetman said "Do Wikipedia's articles on art and architecture really require more editors who "write crisp prose but know nothing"... and who decide whether an article is "good" enough to be a "GA"?" on the article talk. But really, the prose seems fine enough to be a GA, in my opinion anyway. Homestarmy 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add another point about the question about reviews, even if the article was not sent here for more "eyes" to look at it, all GA candidates should receive comments or reviews whether they pass or fail. This is because going through GA should help in improving the article. PR tends to harvest comments only as a final step before FA, so GA provides the first feedback to authors from editors outside of the Wikiprojects. --RelHistBuff 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I see a conclusion here. Y'all decide, PASS or whatever. --

Ling.Nut 15:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Since I mentioned that the 7-day hold is ok, I will complete the review. All comments will go to the article's talk page. --RelHistBuff 11:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed. I declined the promotion as the comments placed here and the talk page were not implemented (cites, translations, dead wikilinks), but it is close, so I volunteered to re-review it when the article is fixed. --RelHistBuff 10:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support RelHistBuff's decision. LuciferMorgan 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scout Association of Hong Kong

Result: Keep 6 to 1

I'm nominating this for GAR as I feel it fails 2. b. which states;

• The citation of its sources using an accepted form of inline citation is required. LuciferMorgan 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does have inline citations :/. However, it certainly is not well-referenced with such sparse coverage, so it should be delisted anyway. Homestarmy 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My GAR nom is due to insufficient inline cites, which I should've clarified. LuciferMorgan 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY IS THIS BEING PUT UP FOR GAR WITHOUT A NOTICE ON THE TALK PAGE? Yes, I'm shouting and it's because this happens ALL TOO OFTEN on this GAR page. See at least three threads on the talk page and requirement FIVE above. The only reason I know about it is someone tipped me off.Rlevse 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. Homestarmy 03:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the talk page notice, but the problem is editors who list GARs--they should be the one doing that, you shouldn't have to follow up behind them. Moping the water up only goes so far, the spigot needs to be turned off, in this case that was LuciferMorgan. Rlevse 03:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I've also just added 4 refs (one doubled up) and put a notice on the Scouting project page. I and others will work more later.Rlevse 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The requirement to put a notice on the talk-page is brand-spanking new. Did you write any checks in Jan 2006, but sign the year as 2005? But apologies are due nonetheless. It will take a while for the habit to be formed.--

Understood, but people can still read the steps everytime, I do so when I review a GAC and pass/hold/fail it. Thank you for your time.Rlevse 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REF TOTAL-I've increased the refs from 4 to 18, with several used more than once. Let me know where you think it may need more. Rlevse 13:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• GA is correct: The article in question does have all references that were used in the writing process, in in-line citation format. And that is the GA requirement. The article does not aspire to FA rates, but there is no question that GA was correctly applied. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm, Rlevse has improved it a bunch, but all of the Organization and Headquarters section now appears unreferenced, unless i'm missing something. However, I think its too close now for me to support delisting it :/. Homestarmy 17:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's this close business about? It's meant to wholly meet GA standards, not be close. If it's 99% GA, it should still be delisted, as it's supposed to be 100%. LuciferMorgan 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its close because it has inline citations, yet it doesn't cover quite everything. However, well-referenced is not the same as perfectly-referenced. Homestarmy 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (undent) I don't feel good about keeping, and don't feel good about delisting. It's in the gray area between. There are too many unreferenced numbers, figures, acts of government, historical occasions, etc. I hope the editors will not stop adding references, no matter what the outcome of this review is.
• Having said that, I also feel I must choose a side of the fence to sit. Tie goes to the runner. Keep. --
  Ling.Nut 21:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - could do with a few more refs, but is just about all right. Next time an article is nominated for GAR, it would be nice if people had some basic civility and actually bothered to put a note on the talk page. Or even, maybe - now this would be daring - actually notify the major contributor. Moreschi 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic civility? You mean like the comment you made to me at the

Graniteville train disaster? Or do you mean the above comment you made? LuciferMorgan 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Huh? Sorry, all I said down there was that I thought you were over-strict in your interpretation of the word summary, and suggested that this was something you could perhaps fix yourself without a full-fledged GAR. Nothing incivil. Nothing incivil either in informing you it be nice if you bothered to inform the major contributor(s) before putting their articles up at GAR - which isn't really incivil, I suppose - just inconsiderate. Moreschi 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and let's have no more procedural violations round here, please. --
  Folantin 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This procedure has only been in a few days may I add, which everyone seems to forget. LuciferMorgan 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to Moreschi, articles are placed up for GAR if they fail to meet criteria. It'd be nice if these major contributors you speak of could be "bothered" to keep their articles up to standards (if they're concerned of course). LuciferMorgan 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, in my experience, most delistings which occur nowadays involve articles which were promoted when the criteria were lower, the GA template doesn't just give notifications to all articles automatically when the standards change :/. Homestarmy 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but most people assume general GA and Fa standards are static, which isn't the case. LuciferMorgan 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Folantin, Moreschi, Lucifer, you guys are boring the cr*p outta me. No offense and all that. But I mean, it's getting old (and I say that even tho I was involved in the original shouting match).
• I put {{
  fact
  }} tags across the article. I anticipate that some, perhaps many, can be legitimately removed because of nearby references.
• --
  Ling.Nut 22:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• KEEPThis procedure has been official for a few weeks, not days and it's only common sense to put a notice on the article, so it shouldn't be new to anyone. Furthermore, Ling.nut's placing of OVER 20 citation tags is just ridiculous. This is the GA project, not FA, and that act of his is another case of GA trying to imitate FA. That'd make over 40 refs and there are lots of FAs that don't even have that. Keep things in perspective. Rlevse 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the organization, motto, and headquarters section had just even some general references at the bottom which would likely cover much of the information in those sections, I think that would be enough for a relatively well referenced article here. For instance, perhaps any books or pamphlets or official scouting websites which discuss those topics, as those sections sound like they concern the sort of technical detail that would be listed relatively comphrehensively in one place or two. Homestarmy 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homestarmy, that makes sense and is rational and that I will do. I'm not listening to Ling or Lucifer. I'll get right on it.Rlevse 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(two edit conflicts)

Rlevse, I hate to sound cliche', but if you had read my comments, you would see that I knew that many of the tags were probably legitimately removable without further ado (but with an appropriate edit summary).

I don't care about GA, I don't care about FA; I'm certainly not trying to imitate FA. I care about Wikipedia. I don't give a hang about the rest. :-)

PS I see another argument impending. There's no point in getting the last word; I will not reply. If your GA is more important to you than

Ling.Nut 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I just added about 7 refs and reused some. That's where I'm leaving it. Rlevse 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, inline citations, even better than general references. (Well, generally speaking I suppose) I think this article is just about good enough to be a GA right now, most everything seems referenced. Homestarmy 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - insufficient citations still. Delist. LuciferMorgan 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article mostly relies on one source, so the article may not come from a NPOV. LuciferMorgan 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I OBJECT to LuciferMorgan participating in this. He obviously can not be objective anymore. He's just upset because I won't put up with him. FYI, on the talk page he just told me to "shut up" and stop "whining", see

WP:CIVIL. There is no clear definition of referencing for GAs. By the standard he's trying to apply in this, scores of GAs would have to be delisted. I just checked some at random and the second one I checked had ONE, yes ONE, ref.Rlevse 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)...I just picked 10 at random, 3 had more than 25 (which the HKSA has right now), most had 10-15, and 1 had only one ref. That's 70% by sheer ref count. Rlevse 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually nominated the article in the first place. Also some of the stuff you said about me is

WP:CIVIL also - I gave as good as I got, so we're both in breach of that rule, so don't be hypocritical. In saying there is no clear definition of referencing for GAs you are totally correct - I'm merely applying my own interpretation, and you're merely applying yours. LuciferMorgan 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Lucifer has a right to have higher reference standards than the rest of us, "well-referenced" is intentionally ambiguous. But I don't think I could support non-objective editors not being allowed to talk about reviews, that would mostly defeat the purpose of notifying talk pages, and would made it more difficult for people commenting here to get the full picture if there's some sort of dispute. However, this page works by simple consensus, which generally takes the form of a supermajority by Wikipedia standards, so I don't think there's that big of a problem here really. Homestarmy 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homestarmy's right - while I've voted one way, others have voted the other way. LuciferMorgan 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepI've read the article chat, this page's talk page chat, and this page. I agree Rlevse initially overreacted, but he's obviously calmed down now and he had every right to be upset at first. But then Lucifer overreacted. Homestarmy said Lucifer went throught the GAs about a month ago and delisted a bunch. Given that, how did Rlevse fine one with ONE ref? The article in question has way more refs than most GAs, so I say it meets the "well-referenced" standard for the GA project. If Lucifer is going to apply a higher standard, he needs to be consistent--saying 10 is okay for one article and another needs 40 or whatever when they're about the same size is not being consistent-they don't need to be exact of course, but they should be in the same ballpark; note that I just did my own spot check of GA ref'ing and got about the same result as Rlevse. I totally agree a notice needs to be on the talk page when a GA/R starts. I'm going to look for refs from non-HKSA sources right now.Sumoeagle179

The current list is so long, there's of course the possibility we've missed a few, it would help if we knew which article :/. It's also possible we missed somebody sneak it onto the list recently. Homestarmy 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fear not, neither let your heart be troubled.. I guarantee we will be trying to root out those no-ref or one-ref articles. We are still in the process of doing so...
• No one has yet acknowledged that I never said all of my ref tags were mandatory & in fact said just the opposite, not once, but repeatedly, on more than one page.. but.. yawn... it's .. getting.. kinda.. yawn..--
  Ling.Nut 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And also I never disputed the GAR notice - I just forgot to put it there, and objected to the person going psycho about it to me. And although I went through a bunch, did Homestarmy say all? No he didn't. And for the record, I am consistent. LuciferMorgan 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My, what an active thread. Check the talk page here, just 3 or so weeks ago there was another article Rlevse was involved in that was GA/R'd without notice. Anyway, I still say this article has enough refs and all the other quibbling should be left on an article by article basis.Sumoeagle179 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, putting an article for GAR isn't a requirement - GAs can be automatically delisted without GAR. LuciferMorgan 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, active indeed. Enough beating a horse to death here. We've said what we wanted to and it's time to move on. I agree with Sumoeagle179, let's move on and handle the articles case by case. And thanks Sumo, for adding some refs. The article's refs have improved immensely and we've all voted. There seems to be clearly more "keeps" than "delist".Rlevse 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)...BTW, the article with one ref (and one note) is Pinyin and it's been a GA since at least April 2006. Other problems have crept in, so I suggest it be listed here for review, with a talk page notice-;). Rlevse 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling us about Pinyin.

Threads are archived after one week without active discussion. The way to move on is simply to stop replying... and wait... --

Ling.Nut 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Rlevse last two comments. LuciferMorgan 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, one could try to apply

WP:SNOW here, since the wording is that the week old thing is a "good rule". (And I think it should stay that way) But I don't think snowing this right now would be right since the article has changed quite a bit since this review opened :/. Homestarmy 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Not particularly well-written, and it's missing some sources. Delist. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the repeat of references is problematic, along with the citation needed tags. Homestarmy 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the lead needs some work too. LuciferMorgan 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bramall Lane

Result: 2 to 1, no consensus

It was suggested that this failed GA nomination because it was a cut-and-paste from EnglishPremier.net. I propose that EP.net copied the article from wiki, and there is evidence from

The article seems to go into far too many specifics concerning the stadium, do other articles on stadiums give a seating-by-seating analysis? It seems like its going into too much detail, and with so much of the article composed of that sort of thing, even if it isn't a copy and paste operation, I don't think this is a GA. I mean, how many notable sources can there be for specific sections of a single stadium? Homestarmy 22:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wasn't what I asked. I simply stated that it was only failed as it appeared to be a cut-and-paste job, and provided evidence to the contrary. But since you do ask, how about you take a look at

Reebok Stadium, City of Manchester Stadium, St Mary's Stadium, Riverside Stadium not having separate stands, there in no call for it in some articles. As I say though, this is not the point Jazznutuva was trying to make in his/her review. L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 01:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the Review page, where people can give input on other people's decisions to pass or fail articles :/. The thing is, its not that talking about the stands is bad, its just so much of the article is dedicated to a corner-by-corner analysis that it seems like its going overboard. Homestarmy 01:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What else is a football ground if not it's stands? :) L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be something to be said for keeping things as relevant as possible, and there's some stuff in those sections about the "sort of people" who sit there, which seem like highly specualtive generalizations to me, seeing as none of the Stands sections appears to have any references. However, these reviews last a week, perhaps someone else more familiar with how stadium articles typically work can say something about this. Homestarmy 03:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Bramall Roar is well-known (now referenced) likewise the Kop is on Shoreham Street, and does give rise to the chant (referenced). Aside from that, no of seats, amenities within each stand, recent developments/extensions all seem fairly relevant to me... L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 13:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furigana

Result: Inappropriate placement

I think this article is very good, when I first saw it, it contained all the info I thought I was going to put into it and then some. Michiganotaku 23:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations go on the Candidates page, this page is for disputing the delisting of an article or the passing of one. Homestarmy 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This simple mistake has happened several times lately and I think it may be due to the fact that we use the word "review" in the context of the promotion/failure process (such as "leaving a review of the article before promoting an article") as well as in the delisting process. Perhaps we can clarify that on the

talk page. --RelHistBuff 08:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I still support the idea of moving the page back to "Disputes"..... Homestarmy 13:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Do we archive articles placed on this page by mistake, or just delete them? --

Opus Dei

Result: No Consensus

Article in its present form violates Mediation ruling-- NPOV non-equal validity. It uses a word to avoid (cult), and used it as section title. The whole section is POV fork. R Davidson 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, what does "NPOV non-equal validity" mean? But seriously, one word does not a horrible POV article make, and if the whole section has been forked from somewhere, removing it is a viable option. Homestarmy 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reviewers: This review has been requested because of a recent rewrite that was done. When an RFC was conducted, all of the outside editors, 11 out of 11, felt the rewrite was an improvement. The reviewed who did the original GA review is also on record saying it's an improvement. --Alecmconroy 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I assume this dispute refers to the word "cult" in the criticism section title? Homestarmy 15:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, I think the mere existence of a criticism section is objectionable to the Opus Dei members, but yes, the use of the word quote in the section title about "'cult' allegations" has also been disputed. --Alecmconroy 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article was brought here for review, I'd appreciate it if a few of you would review the article. Other than this neutrality challenge, is the article GA quality? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue itself, I do not see how this article's use of the word "cult" as a description of what others think of the group is a violation of neutrality. In my opinion, "all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic" are expressed here and this fits what one point of view thinks. If a mediation ruling exists as asserted, I would like to see a link to it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that link. Ironically, the resolution was neither to keep previous version, nor explicitly to rewrite from scratch, but to shorten. Baccyak4H (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article seems good enough to me, I think CTSW has spelled it out nicely. Still don't know what "NPOV non-equal validity" means though.... Homestarmy 17:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly it means that the weights given to different sources should be in proportion to their quality. Baccyak4H (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... what has this got to do with the use of the word "cult?" --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it has something to do with that criticism section, there's alot of inline citations there. Homestarmy 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may apply, but I suspect when people claim nonequal validity here, they are asserting that the former article was accused of NPOV violations (it was), and was found not to have violations when taking into account non-equal validity, but then drawing the (invalid) implication that any change such as this to a new rewrite is by necessity a POV violation. Now indeed it may indeed need POV improvements, but the conclusion that it must, solely on account of overwriting the previous POV certified article, is demonstrably invalid. But again, "cult", I don't see the connection. Baccyak4H (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. Thanks for discussing the Opus Dei article. :) I am glad a lot of attention is being paid to it.

As to the mediation resolution which emphasized non-equal validity, kindly read this post I made here.

As to what my friend, R Davidson wrote, I think you can find the section title with the word "cult" in section 6.3.1 of the present article. We had a long discussion on the advisability of a response section here at mediation. here please

Thank you for taking time to read these. I think they will be helpful in the ongoing discussion. Thanks! :) Thomas 06:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thomas! I'll read it, but I don't think I'll change my opinion that the article should stay listed. Even if the word "cult" as used here is a problem, the issue can be easily resolved with an edit to remove or rephrase it. That is what I'll suggest to you all at the talk page. If no one has a problem with this, I'll consider the challenge to the listing closed. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CTSWyneken. My apologies but I still believe the article violates NPOV, as it gives undue weight to the criticisms by treating them on the same level as the responses. It gives as much space to ODAN than John Allen Jr. I don't think this is in accord with Wikipedia's concept of balance-- more space to more prominent writers. Thanks again for bothering to read those links. Thomas 06:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]