Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:GAR -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced Wikipedia good article reviewers. The old nominations in need of additional reviews are: Robot • Todd Manning • Milton Friedman • John Marshall Harlan II • Lou Gehrig • Jurassic Park (franchise) •

Shortcuts: WP:GAR WP:GA/R Good article reassessment is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article status, whether former good articles have been improperly delisted, or whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed. It also allows feedback to be given for delisted articles or failed nomination when the explanation for delisting or failure was inadequate. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination; it is primarily used to reassess the status of current good articles. A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review and individual reassessment. In that case, an editor requests a discussion on the good article status of the article, and that discussion is listed on this page. When consensus is reached, the discussion is closed and the status of the article is updated accordingly. edit guidelines

Individual reassessment When to use this process Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria. Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment. If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself. How to use this process Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (this is a subpage of the article talk page, just like a review of a good article nomination). Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window. Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. To do this, remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and then remove the {{GA}} template from the article talk page. To close the reassessment, replace the date in the {{GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted".

Community reassessment When to use this process Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved. If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises. If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it. How to use this process Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page). Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour. It is also courteous to notify the most recent GA reviewer. See below for how to contribute to a community reassessment, and how to close one. Depending on the situation, reviewers may move mountains to list an article as a GA, or they may simply endorse a fail, or suggest that the article be renominated.

Guidelines for reviewers. Please consult the good article criteria before you comment on whether an article should have its status changed or not.

All suggestions for improving articles are welcome, but criticisms not based on the good article criteria do not ordinarily disqualify an article from good article status. Note also that if an article is listed here, it almost always means that someone considers it to be of good quality, so if it does not meet the criteria, an explicit explanation is more likely to be appreciated than a general comment that the article is inadequate. Furthermore, reviewers should feel free to fix problems with articles under review if they wish: this is not regarded as a conflict of interest, and may encourage regular editors of the article to engage more actively with the reassessment process. Good article reassessment is not a deletion discussion, but many of the guidelines for contributing to such discussions (such as the essay on arguments to avoid) contain useful advice. Any registered user can list or delist a good article (see above), but for articles listed here, please follow the archiving guidelines below for closing discussions and changing the status of the article.

Guidelines for closing a reassessment discussion. When a reassessment discussion has run its course, it can be closed: please click on the "show" link for guidelines on when to close discussions. To close a community reassessment discussion, go to the reassessment page of the article and replace {{GAR/current}} by {{subst:GAR/result|result=result}} ~~~~. Here you should state the result (whether there was consensus, and what action was taken) and explain carefully how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. On the talk page of the article, replace {{GAR/link|GARpage=n}} by {{GAR/link|~~~~~|GARpage=n|status=result}} (five tildes) at the top of the page, where the result is one of "listed", "delisted", "kept" or "not listed"; alternatively, remove {{GAR/link}} from the top of the talk page and add or update {{ArticleHistory}}. If the result changes the GA status, update the article talk page templates and the good articles list accordingly. The reassessment discussion will automatically be removed from the good article reassessment page and added to the current archive within an hour. edit archiving guidelines

Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 7 days old, unless at least five editors have expressed an opinion the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus. However, discussions which have lasted more than 4 weeks can be closed with no consensus: in this case the status of the article should remain unchanged. Closing a discussion requires taking responsibility, determining what the consensus of the reviewers is, and taking action where necessary. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes: for instance, the article may have changed since being listed for reassessment, and some comments may no longer be applicable. Compare the comments made in the discussion with the current state of the article and with the criteria for good articles. If there is a clear weight of argument that a current good article does not meet the criteria, then it should be delisted. If there is a clear weight of argument that a delisted good article or failed nomination does meet the criteria, then it should be listed as a good article. If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, leave notice that you intend to close the discussion, and wait 3 days for further comments before closing. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions."

Good article reassessment (update archive number)

(Current archive: 39) →

Contents 1 Articles needing reassessment 1.1 Robot 1.2 Todd Manning 1.3 Milton Friedman 1.4 John Marshall Harlan II 1.5 Lou Gehrig 1.6 Jurassic Park (franchise)

Articles needing reassessment

Robot

Article (|history) • Article talk (|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

Major problems of this article:

• entire paras missing references
• too long see also indicates the need of expansion
• external links in main body
• refs with nondated elinks

And that's just after a cursory scan of the article. There is a general copyedit needed template at the top of the article as well. This is not a Good Article quality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Rocketmagnet and I have been guiding the discussions in this article for a while, but both Rocket and I have been mostly reactive rather than proactive. Talk:Robot is a watering-hole, even sort of a wikiproject, and we didn't want to step on anyone's ideas. But we've recently decided to start pushing robotics articles towards GAN and FAC. I think we decided (at least I did) that Robot would logically be the last article to get a promotion, after we see which material can and should travel to other articles. Still, I think we should be able to save the GA label for now. I'll start by inviting a discussion on the talk page, I'll do some copyediting, and I'll move the history information to History of robots. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll just make some quick notes as I go. My edits are mostly a reflection of what I've seen at FAC. FAC reviewers wouldn't like all the links, particularly when they're strung together, so I'm removing links that IMO the reader could do without. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Apart from the history section, Robot seems to me to be 90% or 95% about robots in the public perception and imagination. I'm going to move some of the material that isn't focused on this theme to the talk page. Obviously, anyone can move it back, or we could talk about how to organize the material into one of the other articles on robotics. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Back in a day or so; working on WT:UPDATES. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has numerous problems. The prose often descends into chatty, non-encyclopedic banter. Here's an example:

Having a limb can make all the difference. Having eyes too gives people a sense that a machine is aware ("the eyes are the windows of the soul"). However, simply being anthropomorphic is not sufficient for something to be called a robot. A robot must do something, whether it is useful work or not. So, for example, a dog's rubber chew toy, shaped like ASIMO, would not be considered a robot.

In other spots the prose disintegrates into a tangle of rough-hewn embedded lists.

I'm also concerned with the article's focus and breadth. There's an embarrasing lack of material on the current state of industrial robotics. Unless the article's editors can address these issues quickly then we should move to delist. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you say that. As someone who subscribes to Industrial Robot Magazine (there are not many of us), I can tell you that the current state of industrial robots is well covered by the article. What in particular did you think the article missed in this area? Industrial robots haven't come very far since they were invented. They're basically like the car. It's gone about as far as it's going to. Changes are mostly superficial, and we're waiting for the next big thing (flying cars, cars that drive themselves). Rocketmagnet (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that there is a lot to cover in this article. Industrial robots make up only one sector of the field, and the article is already long. Industrial robots would be covered in depth in their own article. I imagine the Robot article as a kind of introductory hub to all the other articles. Rocketmagnet (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Majoreditor, I'll do the copyedit today. I'm not going to add information on the current state of industrial robotics, because the article is already over the limit given by WP:LENGTH, and because how robots work is not the focus of this article; the focus is robots in the public perception. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your efforts to improve the article. I'll give it another reading in a few days. Oh, one other point. I'm concerned with one of the statements in the lead: Despite the huge advances in technology of the last century, robots are still nowhere near as capable as the public imagination believes. Both mentally and physically, robots are still slow, dim-witted and clumsy. Does the article really reach those conclusions?

You're right, it doesn't. But wait ... don't remove it from the lead, let me add to the article so that it does reach those conclusions. I think it's a critically important thing to say. Rocketmagnet (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted that, but I'll put the the second sentence back, with a small tweak, to the end of what I've got, and wait for supporting material in the text to see where we're going with that. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Rocketmagnet is correct and I have been too extreme in my statements on industrial robotics. However, I still think there's room for improvement. For example, there's much emphasis on robots in automotiv emanufacturing, but scant mention of them for metal fabrication outside the automotive industry. I'd also suggest that more could be said about the production, sakles and marketing of robots. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, those kind of robots are used in various industries, and the article talks about robots working in factories in general, eg removing hot metal from die casting machines. I guess it could have a little more, but it would be a shame to make the article industry heavy. Rocketmagnet (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, kids are back in school. I can tell from the 8 vandal edits so far today. I've got another couple hours of style updates to do; I can get to the copyediting in a few hours. Thanks for the help, everyone. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Rocket says it's okay with him for me to convert to American English, and I don't believe we have other British editors involved with this article. It's clear that material is going to need to move around among the various robotics articles, and all the others (that I'm aware of) are in American English, so this will reduce the chances of screwing up. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm finished with the lead for the moment; I tried to at least mention all the areas covered in the article (except for the more speculative robots). Most leads are slightly WEASELy because they try to cover things in a general way that will be dealt with specifically in the article; I think I may have gone overboard and bought the whole weasel. If you think there are way too many "some do this" and "some think that" lines, tell me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll leave the first three (short) sections section on characteristics and definitions to whoever wants to make suggestions. I've made some suggestions in the past on those that didn't get anywhere. I'm not sure what the reviewers want, or what the other article editors want. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. It's now one section with 2 subheadings. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Franamax and I would like to move the specifics from the robot competition stuff to Robot competition. I like avoiding duplication between articles, I'm ready to put some work into that article, and that's one of the sections that tends to draw troublesome edits. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, I got tied up, I'm back. Rocket, I'm working on doing enough copyediting to remove the maintenance tag ... not just for this review, but for Wikipedia 0.7, too; we're days away from the deadline. I did what I could in the first 3 subsections section, but more needs to be done. Read the lead section of WP:WEASEL for why it's not okay (in WP, anyway) to say "laymen would say X", unless you're talking about a specific set of layman whose opinions were recorded in a reliable source. Also, is "service robot" a synonym for "domestic robot"? It's not defined. Also, I couldn't find in any of our sources the statement that something is more likely to be considered a robot if it has an arm and/or eyes. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• I removed the mention of a separate definition of "robot" used in Japan for copyediting purposes; it can go back in when we get a source. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• I welcome feedback on the short history section. It's kind of damned-if-you-do: I think it reads like a recital of a few dry facts at the moment, but if I try to breathe life into it and give context and more interesting examples, then it would be way too long for this page; that belongs at History of robots. If I remove what we've got now, it will feel like important stuff is missing. Feel free to tinker with it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  

---

Todd Manning

Article (|history) • Article talk (|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

I made intense improvements to this article after it was failed during its first GA review. I did not nominate it that first time for GA and saw the flaw in it having been nominated that time. Once I read the GA review, however, I took care of most of the concerns that were basically implied to be all this article needed in order to be listed as GA. There were only three concerns the GA reviewer had a problem with that I did not completely change. What were they? The GA reviewer had a problem with the first quote, feeling that it may be copyright infringement. I stated that I felt that the first quote was appropriate, and not really going against policy; there are other decent articles that have quotes of that length and are seen as appropriate by experienced Wikipedian editors. The GA reviewer also had a problem with two of the references (really four, but the reliability of two of those references was never in question; it was rather the other two). I explained that those two references are primary sources.

After further improving this article, I nominated it for GA for a second time, and I waited for quite a while for it to once again be reviewed. I came to Wikipedia today, checked on it, and saw that it was failed without even having been put on hold to suggest improvements and without an explanation on the talk page as to why it was failed (though I saw this reviewer's reasons in his GA review). I addressed that much to this GA reviewer. This is simply not a B-Class article anymore, and is hardly in any worse shape than many GA articles I have seen on Wikipedia. I feel that the GA reviewer was mistaken to fail it. It is not so much that he failed it but rather quick-failed it due to what he sees as sploppy prose. I feel that it should have been put on hold asking me to improve the prose, especially since it only has a minor problem regarding that. In fact, I am off to go improve the prose now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My comments on the article in the state it was in when I reviewed it are at Talk:Todd Manning/GA2, and some further conversation on my quick fail at User talk:Jclemens#Todd Manning. I have no objection to being overruled, especially since it looks like Flyer22 has been busy making improvements to the article. At the time I reviewed the article, I thought the prose was failure quality, rather than hold-and-give-detailed-feedback quality. If I was being too hard on the article, my sincerest apologies. I've only been doing GA reviews for a few weeks, and if the community consensus is that I should have placed the article on hold, I will humbly apologize for not doing so in this case, and do so in similar cases in the future. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize for your review. The three examples given in the second GA review show that the article wasn't ready to pass GA. That said, I bet that Flyer will be able to bring the prose up to par in short order. Majoreditor (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have taken care of the three examples Jclemens pointed out in his GA review, as stated on his talk page. As I stated there: "Sure, I was lazy with the prose and did not read over the article as much as I should have before nominating it, but going back over the article, I still saw few problems with it. The prose you pointed out in your GA review I just took care of not too long ago. It was that simple. I noticed other prose problems along the way. It was that simple." I also improved a lot more of the prose since his GA review, and added a new section (the latest one to the Controversy section) that I feel is decently written. Any other tweaks needed for the prose, or not so much needed but that would help improve this article, I would definitely appreciate hearing, and would take care of as soon as seeing them mentioned here. Right now, though, it seems like I will just have to nominate this article for GA again. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is informative and well-cited, but still suffers from uneven prose. An example: Making the character Victoria Lord's younger brother gave the writers a significant amount of story to work with. Majoreditor (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take care of that later today or tomorrow. But the bad prose has been taken care of. As for any more uneven prose (which I don't see as bad), I will be sure to take care of that as well very soon. But, really, parts of this article can still be cited as having room for improvement. I mean, we're not talking about whether this article is ready for Featured Article status, of course. Though, honestly, even some of those articles can still be improved. We're talking about whether this article is now good enough to be given Good Article status. I feel that, besides more needed tweaking, it is. I've looked over enough listed good Wikipedia character articles, like Harry Potter (character), to know that I am not that far off, or even actually off. I've been studying a few good and featured character articles as well, not just looking over them. I am definitely for improving this article as much as it can be improved. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Milton Friedman

Article (|history) • Article talk (|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

I have requested a reassessment of the good article status due to the severe lack of neutrality. Similarly, I have also flagged the article itself to dispute its neutrality. This article reads as a hagiography and only mentions criticisms and failures of Friedman's ideas in passing. Paul Krugman's criticisms are dismissed as if he is a lone quack.

There definetly should be more information about the application of Friedman's free market principles, by his disciples (the Chicago boys), in South America (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia), and the catastrophic effects they had on the economies of that region. Friedman's tacic support of brutal dictators such as Pinocet to advance his theories should also recieve attention. Naomi Klein's recent book "The Shock Doctrine" provides ample specifics and references. Historical evidence that refutes Friedman's theories should also be added (eg deregulation debacles like Enron; environmental, legal, and labor abuses following privitization of national industries; historical failures of tax cuts to stimulate economic growth (low taxes preceded the great depression, and have often preceded drops in unemployment in the US); the association between freer market policies and greater income inequality in the US, etc... Jdstany (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would expect that the biography of a Nobel Prize-winner would be much more positive than negative. Thus, the relevance of neutrality should be judged in this context. The depth of the article is more than sufficient for a WP:GA, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that a Nobel Prize should grant its winner limitless immunity from valid criticism; Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissenger, for example, are both Nobel Prize winners who are regularly and strongly critised in mainstream conversation. Milton Friedman is known for his ideas, and the consequences of his ideas are therefore part of his legacy. Just as Marx has been rightfully demonized for the consequences of communism, Friedman should not get a pass on the consequences of his ideas simply because he won a prize or because he never fired a shot or implemented a policy. Ultimately, the application of Friedman's principles has destroyed economies throughout the world (particularly South America); Friedman-inspired privitation and deregulation has nearly always resulted in total disaster; and here in the US, Friedman's ideas are directly responsible for rising government debt, rising income inequality, increased poverty, and weakened social support systems. Saying that Friedman is all good because he won a Nobel Prize, or because Reagan and Bush like him, is an inadequate defense. The depth of the article may be adequate, but the failure to legitimately address any criticsm or failure of Friedman and his ideas indicates that the breath of the article is far from aqequate. Jdstany (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you twice on your userpage to make the proper notifications and denote it above. Please give some sort of response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I'm new to contributing and I wasn't aware of the protocol. I'll send out the notifications ASAP. Thanks for letting me know. Jdstany (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's worth repeating the process, but for things like this it's very helpful to include a link to this discussion in your message. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you notified any of the projects yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article could certainly do a better job presenting critical views. For example, a short (1-2 sentence) encapsulation of criticism in the lead would enhance the article. However, it's hyperbole to say that the article suffers from a "severe lack of neutrality." Majoreditor (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This article passes GA criteria, but I agree with Majoreditor that it needs some work. --Patrick (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've engaged in some of the POV-conflicts on the Friedman page, and I do still think it could use POV improvement. In spite of that, I do think it's a very good article. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I am not a friend of criticism sections, neither on the Friedman nor the, say Chomsky entry. The article should stick to the facts, present the main ideas, and if the person was controversial, that should be mentioned, too, and in fact is, in the article. Of course one could add more criticism, but then, one could also add more praise, and ultimately that will open a Pandora's box as for some Milton Friedman is a saviour, and for some, see above, his ideas are responsible for almost everything bad in the world today. Also, I don't think that anything more than a passing mention of Naomi Klein is not appropriate. Just because she is popular today, does not make her criticism notable. Better to include criticism of contemporary figures, such as Orlando Letelier, which is much more relavant to the article. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  

---

John Marshall Harlan II

Article (|history) • Article talk (|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

Notified: WP:WPBIO, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, WP:LAW, Lord Emsworth (inactive leading editor), Ruslik0 (2nd leading editor)

Upon review of the article history at Talk:John Marshall Harlan II this article was not properly nominated and passed. However, the article has previously survived a WP:GAR nomination and is outside of my area of expertise, so I did not delist it myself. The article is very poorly cited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article actually contains lots of case citations, which, in my opinion, enough for the jurisprudence section. To solve the problem with some {{cn}} tags, it is necessary to convert some refs in Additional reading section into inline citations. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Can you convert the inline citations?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you think this article should use a template like 311 U.S. 32 (1940)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think now the article is properly cited. Ruslik (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I saw at least three cases where the {{ussc}} template was not used. I think each case should have this template if you don't want to go with inline footnote citations. Great work otherwise though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Keep I think this now is pretty much up to standard. I am not sure whether law articles should have the {{ussc}} template inside <Ref></ref> tags. If anyone else has an opinion on this matter that would be useful. I am pleased to see everything tagged with the template. Now, everything is verifyable for the reader with WP:RSs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Wait a second Brown (maybe because it is the second reference of this case), Adderley v. Florida (1966), Carrington v. Rash (1965) still not converted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I cited all cases. Can not find anything uncited. Ruslik (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Thanks for helping. Now a reader can really verify things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would still appreciate an opinion on whether some of the template case citations should be in ref tags.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They can be, but I don't think it is necessry in this article. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Lou Gehrig

Article (|history) • Article talk (|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

I would like to request community review of this recent GAN. It was failed, in part due to confusion about the reviewer's asking for a second opinion. See my comment at GAN/talk. As the article seems to be fully sourced and otherwise comply with MOS and use of images, etc., the wider community's assessment would be helpful especially as the prose question raised by the reviewer was unresolved. Using WP:FACR as a measuring stick, I believe the article's prose is "engaging and professional", as well as presenting the content comprehensively, factually accurate, and reliably sourced. JGHowes ^talk - 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think this article is ready, and I agree with the decision not to list it. I do not share the nominator's view that the prose is "engaging and professional", but more importantly, I do not agree that it adequately meets the far less stringent GA criteria.

• "... including a 450-foot (137 m) blast on April 28". Blast doesn't seem like appropriately formal language.

• The first three sentences of the fourth paragraph of Major League Baseball career all start off with "Gehrig ...".

• Too much peacockery, like "... Al Simmons made an amazing leaping catch ...". Amazing to who? Me?

• "On June 1 1925, Gehrig was sent in to pinch hit for light-hitting shortstop Paul "Pee Wee" Wanninger." Too many statements like that one, which mean almost nothing to someone like myself who isn't familiar with the sport's jargon.

• "Gehrig accumulated 1,995 RBIs in seventeen seasons ...". RBI needs to be explained in this article, instead of forcing the reader to follow a link.

• ... chiefly remembered for his prowess as a slugger ...". Is slugger an official baseball term?

• "Earl Whitehall beaned Gehrig, knocking him nearly unconscious". Beaned might be OK for a sports page, but not for an encyclopedia.

• The list following: "Late in life, X-rays disclosed that Gehrig had sustained several fractures during his playing career" does not appear to have anything to do with any fractures.

• Shouldn't use pullout quotes ( {{cquote}} ) in the body of the article.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks very much for looking this over. I've gone through the article and corrected the points you raised. JGHowes ^talk - 04:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to speak to the confusion regarding the second opinion request, the reviewer requested a second opinion because there were a lot of statistics given in the article and a lot of focus was given to the sentimental aspects of Gehrig's diesase and death. I looked through the article and replied in the review section that there didn't seem to be too many statistics (certainly not more than some of the other baseball articles I have read) and that the article captures how Gehrig is remembered. I said that I didn't believe that either of the concerns were serious enough to prevent the article from reaching GA level. The reviewer was satisfied with that answer, and the request for a second opinion was removed, as one had been provided. I am not sure where the confusion came in. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with the decision not to list the article in its present form. Malleus has summarised the major issues very well; the presence of so much jargon, idiom and so many statistics render it meaningless to some one unfamiliar with the sport, and the article comes across as a tribute to, rather than an encyclopedic treatment of, its subject. In addition to the above, the tables towards the end are confusing, the stamp image has no caption and is seemingly irrelevant (the related text is nearby), and the notes section would be better divided into Notes and References, with perhaps a parenthetical referencing system for the books cited. EyeSerene^talk 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  

---

Jurassic Park (franchise)

Article (|history) • Article talk (|history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

The article has numerous references tags, and I believe certain sections such as the critical reception and development sections could be expanded to give a more in-depth view of the entire film series. The development section is especially important in a film series article. See the Halloween franchise for an example of this. The critical reception could have individual critic's opinions of the films and compare it to the others. I also belive the article could use a copy edit.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Too many requests for citation, and I agree with the need for a copyedit throughout. Parts don't even seem to make sense to me:

• "Before the book was published, Crichton put up a non-negotiable fee for $1.5 million as well as a substantial percentage of the gross. Warner Bros. and Tim Burton, Columbia Tristar and Richard Donner, and 20th Century Fox and Joe Dante also bid for the rights,[2] Universal further paid Crichton $500,000 to adapt his own novel,[3] but Universal eventually acquired them in May 1990 for Spielberg." Apart from the fact that it's poorly written, it seems to be saying that Crichton paid someone $1.5 million before he'd even had his book published?

• "Many rumors have surrounded the project since it was first reported, many surrounding plot and script ideas, and new logos." Surrounding the surrounded?

• "Spielberg himself told him that he would direct the sequel, if one would ever occur." Sequels occur?

• The Reception section needs to be fleshed out.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. A lot of work is needed to bring this to GA standard. The lead is a disaster; even the first sentence is disastrous. Deep copyediting (aka a complete rewrite) is essential for many sections. After the opening sentence, the last paragraph of the lead would be a second example. For a third, how about "Michael Crichton originally conceived a screenplay around a pterodactyl being cloned from fossil DNA." – that's poor sentence order and no punctuation. Here is one interpretation: After being cloned from a fossil, Michael Crichton's first pregnancy was a screenplay caused by walking around a pterodactyl.

Plentiful "very successful"s need to be more specific and reliably sourced.

The dinosaurs table is not a good way to present this information (the cast table is only just bearable). The continuity section is listy. Critical reception by table is unacceptable for the same reason. The video games section seems no better, with the unsourced and unreadable "There was also a game available on the Microsoft Xbox console and also the Playstation 2 as well as the PC called Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis where the goal of the game was to create and manage their own version of Jurassic Park, in a manner somewhat similar to the Zoo Tycoon games." Geometry guy 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. It's not even close to GA standards. The article suffers from weak prose, as highlighted by MF and GG above. There are stubby sections and too many poorly-crafted embedded lists. Further, several sections are under-referenced and underdeveloped. Majoreditor (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Wow, a whole lot of {{fact}}s. It also contains a lot of trivia, section-stubs like "Comic series," etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  

---

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 1 September 2008, at 13:41.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:GAR".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:GAR

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.