Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment".

"WP:GAR" redirects here. For the Good article criteria, see WP:GA? and WP:RGA. For the guide to abuse reports, use WP:GTAR.

content

↓ 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:

Lou Gehrig • Jurassic Park (franchise) • GoldenEye 007 •

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.
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.

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: 38) →

1 Articles needing reassessment

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)

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)

Alicia Sacramone

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

Result pending

This article was failed for GA by the same editor who failed the Nastia Liukin article, for the same reason: it was claimed that it was not stable. The editor had originally agreed to wait until the end of the Olympics to assess the article and then went back on his or her word, with no warning. The rationale here was a NPOV tag which was added by IP vandals, and was taken away by registered editors as soon as it was found. The editor admitted s/he hadn't even read through the most recent copyedits before failing the GA.

This article should not have failed GA. I would like for it to be reassessed. I would also appreciate it if perhaps someone could ask the assessing editor about what s/he is doing--it seems as if s/he is constantly misreading the GA criteria and failing good articles as a result. DanielEng (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

List. For the same reasons I stated in the Nastia Liukin reassessment. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
List per the reasons on the Nastia Liukin reassessment. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
List per above. no content dispute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 20 August 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)

Nastia Liukin

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

Result pending

Reviewer has agreed that everything in the article is in good shape. Everything is cited, everything is formatted, there are illustrations, it's NPOV. However, it has been claimed that the article does not meet stability requirements, resulting in the fail, because it is protected from IP vandalism and because the subject is involved in a current news event.

IP protection is not, and should not, listed as a criterion to fail GA. The article is protected so it will remain stable, and because the subject is a visible sports figure who attracts a lot of media attention, and, thus, a lot of visits to her Wiki page. I note that many current GA and FA articles need to be protected for the same reason.
Many BLP subjects are involved in current events, and will need their pages updated from time to time. Again, not a reason to fail.
No edit war has happened; there's simply been a surge of vandalism that has been caught and corrected immediately.
The original agreement was to wait until the end of the Olympics to pass/fail this; the reviewer has changed his or her mind for some reason.

I very much thank the reviewer for the input and help they've given. However, there's no reason this should fail GA, especially for the given reasons. DanielEng (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List. I really think this has been failed due to a failure to read, or a misinterpretation of, the good article criteria.
"5: Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. <footnote>(Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.)<footnote>
As such, this hasn't been failed under any vaild criterion. BLPs will constantly evolve, that is part of their nature and is a product of the wiki model. In terms of semi-protection, numerous BLP FAs are semi-protected, see Barack Obama, for a GA example see Hilary Rodham Clinton. This should be listed as it passes the Good article criteria. Woody (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List. Stability is a measure of the degree to which there are legitimate disputes over an article's content. An evolving current event in which an article has to be updated often does not count as instability. Also, repeated vandalism that prompts protection status of an article does not count as instability, as vandalism is not a legitimate dispute (i.e. edit war) over content. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

List per above. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
List per above. no content dispute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 20 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)

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)

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)

GoldenEye 007

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

Result pending

I've nominated this article to GAR because there are three "citation needed" tags. David Pro (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good reason for GAR. Take it to the talk page. --haha169 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is still reason for it to need reassessment. The easter eggs section is starting to read like a trivia section, which indicates that there may be more edits that were made between now and when it was last reviewed that have gone unchecked. It has been almost a year since the last time it was formally reviewed, and the last peer review seems to address only general problems instead of article-specific problems. I think that a reassessment would benefit this article. — OranL (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment, the lead is also not up to par. It is far too short for an article of this size and doesn't adequately summarize. Nikki311 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Lead, as noted above, is not long enough (needs information on reception, et al.) and should not have citations.
- Gameplay doesn't adequately introduce readers to the game, and is too focused on minutae (i.e., easter eggs.)
- Citations, in addition to those already marked, should be added for some dubious claims.
- "All Bonds" section suffers from undue weight. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Delist - the article needs many things to fix. David Pro (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Delist. The article is not well written. It focuses too much on trivia and doesn't really explain the game adequately at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Delist per above. Failure to meet WP:LEAD is particularly clear. Geometry guy 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I lean toward delist. There's no one major problem; rather, there are numerous low-level issues. The lead isn't terrible but could be better developed so that it provides a more complete encapsulation of the article. The prose is often cluncky and some paragraphs are stubby. The article also contains a small number of {{fact}} tags. Majoreditor (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Ad Here

Contents

Articles needing reassessment