Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 57

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 58)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 56) →

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

Result: Pass - The GAR has long exceeded the time needed to address the concerns of the nominator (now into 5 months), which mainly centered around problems with summary style, and has seen no activity for almost one month. The concerns of criteria 1a and 3b were ultimately unfounded, apart from minor spelling/grammar errors. —Jennie | ☎ 19:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goes into too much detail about awards, stats, and is no longer neutral (absent of controversies), thus violating GA criteria 1a, 3b, and 4. thanks--Aichik (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article I would say you have a point about the focus criteria. We would really need to see some examples of controversies and why they are relevant to deem this non-neutrality. Also have you notified the main contributors and the Wikiprojects? AIRcorn (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Can you provide a *rule* that indicates "controversies" are a) needed and b) a neutral addition to a BLP? And, excluding the Kanyegate, Knowles has other controverises? Also, I recommend you to compare Ricardo Arjona and Ricardo Arjona. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. There's this, this, this, the video she did with Jay-Z where she simuilates fellatio that upset the African-American community (I've forgotten the name of the song but fans would know), and Laurie David's campaign against her singing at the recent inauguration due to her multi-million dollar Pepsi campaign when she was part of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity Move Your Body campaign.

Do you even realize what you have just written above? This is an encyclopedia, not the Page Six section of The New York Post. All those controversies are found in the songs' articles they are related to. This is a bio page. And why does Beyonce's deal with Pepsi concern you so much? Every artist endorses some brands or the other. Just because Pepsi is sponsoring her upcoming tour, it does not mean Beyonce is encouraging obesity. Sincerely, I cannot believe such short-minded points are being brought up here, on an encyclopedia. This is not a tabloid. We have Perez Hilton, Media Take Out and a bunch of other irrelevants for all those BS which are fabulated most of the time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I was trying to write in as you were raging on about tabloids, obviously we would pick and choose and not list all the criticism in detail (unlike the chart placements of some of her songs and Twitter information in the article as it stands now?!) but for the first two for example we would couch them together under an improperly-crediting-people-for-major-video-concepts idea. The problem is NOT singular to Beyoncé, of course, but the complete absence of mention of ANY criticism of her work in her article is dishonest.

And where do I find the main contributors to the piece? Are the ones who helped it reach GAR still monitoring the article? Where to start with Wikiprojects? There are just so many rabid fan-editors (Note even just the tone of User talk:Tbhotch (User talk:Jivesh boodhun above): It's hard to know even where to start to look for good editors on this.--Aichik (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the main contributors here. I would notify the top three active ones. The GA nominator and reviewer should also be notified, although since there is no GA subpage that can be hard to find (I think it was nominated by Efe (talk · contribs) and reviewed by Giggy (talk · contribs), who has since retired). If you drop a note here that should cover the Wikiproject requirement. You can just copy paste {{subst:GARMessage|Beyoncé Knowles|GARpage=1}} to the talk pages. You can't stop the fans commenting, but the article should ultimately be kept or delisted according to the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, there is no need to get to "Look at his tone... he is a fan" or whatever. Who do you expect to be editing Beyonce-related articles? Madonna stans fans or people fascinated by meteorology? I would have said the same for any other artist simply because this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. Those controversies have been discussed in the songs' respective pages. There is no need to bring them on the bio page. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced, sorry, and the snideness does NOT help. Who reads individual pieces on the songs except Beyoncé fans? The effort to separate Beyoncé from the tabloids is hilarious when you yourself know she USES the tabloids to feature herself and her music. The article itself notes how many tweets went out when the world found out she was pregnant: Clearly NOT an article about some statesman! Jivesh boodhun, I just saw your talk page so I know you're not going to be objective about this. You'll continue to nag and bully. (Why are you doing free PR for her anyway? Did you start then her people rewarded you with free tickets or a backstage pass?) --Aichik (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep this focused on the criteria and getting the article to meet them.

• Focus (3B). As Jivesh says above this is a biographical article. It doesn't need to document every little incident or ones that could be covered in other articles. It should summarise as much as possible. It suffers a lot from recentism (as you work down biography the section headers cover less time, but have increasingly more paragraphs devoted to them). They generally devolve into a diary format with month by month details. For example the first three sentences in 4 and motherhood are about being offered a role and then not taking it up and there is a whole paragraph (a large paragraph at that) about her singing the national anthem at the Presidents second inauguration. There are too many quotes in the "Stage and alter ego" and "Legacy" sections, which contribute to the bloated feel of the article. A large part of the legacy section consist of just short statements from other musicians presented in the repetitive "Such and such stated that ....". There should not be a Philanthropy section. It is the reverse of a controversy one, and should be incorporated into the main article somehow.

• Neutral (4). The problem is that if you are going to go into detail about minor achievements or opportunities, you will also have to do the same for the minor controversial issues. I don't think this is solved by adding information to the article, but by trimming back and condensing the current information. Two birds with one stone.

In its current state I think it fails the focus criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aircorn, I must say that I agree with you. This article definitely suffers from recentism and badly needs some trimming. Coming to Aichik, you really need to stop. You are the one bullying. Just like you say I am a fan, I can assert you nominated this for re-assessment because you are a pressed hater. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You buy an album and you are suddenly a troll fan, or using your own words a "toned fan"--and I didn't tell you to shut up. Per GAR's "Before attempting to ... Fix any simple problems yourself." If the information is in Wikipedia, add it by yourself, don't waste community time. Also, per Arjona and Madonna biographies, just to cite "recently" good articles. There is no rule that indicates a controversy section is needed, at most the essay Wikipedia:Criticism--if you manage to make it a policy or guideline we can talk again about this. The exclusion of negative content won't make an article biased, but its inclusion won't "equilibrate" it to a neutral tone either. If you believe it is "necessary", as you have denoted, use Michelle Obama's bio as a guideline how criticisms are managed. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Chaosdruid

Any material which meets notability can be included as long as there is no undue weight, and it is a balanced and neutral paragraph/section.

I do agree that these aspects of her career are missing. If they have any real significance on the course of her career, as I suspect one or two of them do, then they should be included here in summary. To emphasise this, one could place see also or "main" links to the relevant sections in the other articles - not only would this stop people from expanding it here, but it would also encourage traffic onto those other pages.

This article passed GA four years ago and it is probably why there is a difference in compaction of timelines. I would suggest looking at that GA version to see where the expansion has taken place. Having read through it, most of the material in the career timeline, and indeed most of the other sections, seems relevant and appropriate, I cannot really see much that can be trimmed without major surgery. Maybe the legacy section can be cut down a little ...

I would be more concerned about things like "Knowles has also ventured into [...] various perfumes." (last para lead), the missing commas off the end of dates, dead links (though I only found 1 so far), and citation style uniformity. There are other issues, such as images without the "alt=" parameter, but those sort of things should be caught on a thorough GA copyedit.

Images should not be on the left at the start of a sub-section, quotes should not be altered from the original and any cut parts should be marked by [...]

(I will add more if I find them) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that any material which meets notability can be included in a Good article. Imagine the size of the article on Barack Obama (a featured article) if this was the case. Writing succinctly and knowing what to leave out is just as much a skill as expanding an article. On the plus side, trimming is a lot easier than expanding it, although likely subject to more editor resistance. Also images don't need to have alts in good articles. AIRcorn (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is just that. Unfortunately if you read Mos images you will see that the minimum 4 include the alt= parameter as the third, with suggested text as it cannot be left blank. Meeting MoS is a GA requirement - it has also been discussed on talk pages with experienced GA and FA reviewers. If that policy has now been changed I would appreciate a link.

As for material included or not, if something else is less notable, or had less influence on her career/life, then it can be cut for the material to be inserted. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just my opinion, but longstanding opinion of most GA editors. That is why it is not mentioned at the WP:GACR page. Also see the top of the WP:GAR page ("compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria"), the image mistakes to avoid at the Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not essay ("Requiring compliance with MOS:IMAGES"), and the archives of WT:GACR (Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Question about alt-text, Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Alt tags, Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Alt texts part of WP:WIAGA? and Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Picture question) AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and speedy close reassessment. There is no need for it. The article is in great condition and continues to be one with the help of great contributors. The fact that an article about the woman herself doesn't include information about others getting upset at things she has done is irrelevant. That belongs in its own article. A biography is to sum up a person, not to float it with things people may have not liked that she has done. This isn't a forum.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why speedy close? This is not an out of process nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's ridiculous, of course. I fail to see any issues brought up that would make the article GA guidelines.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you say keep. Speedies don't really apply here unless it is a mistake or obvious vandalism. In fact none of the AFD speedy keeps reasons even apply. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the writer of the Ricardo Arjona GA, I can safely tell that this article meets the GA criteria, and is well written as a bio page. Controversies should never be added to the article unless they are big and significant, and they have a lasting impact on the person's career. For the rest of them, we have Perez Hilton. And yes, I am a big big fan of Beyoncé. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning the philanthropy section should only contain big and significant information. Also, what about the focus? The only keep !votes are addressing the missing controversies, not the major issue with the article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on controversies was additional. My main reason to vote was: "I can safely tell that this article meets the GA criteria": it covers all the main topics, is neutral, referenced and verifiable, meets the correspondent MoS guidelines, and it's well-written. Apart from that, it has images accompanied with captions and has no copyright violations. I see no reason why this should be delisted, if the main contributors work day and night to keep this up to standard. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address the focus criteria "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I think it goes into too much unnecessary detail (gave examples above). AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, although it may get into too much details here and there, it meets that guideline too on an overall basis. Beyoncé is one of the most notable and diverse artists out there, and she ventures into everything almost as much as Jennifer Lopez. In my opinion, we can remove the unnecessary detail with no controversy, and I don't believe that they are of enough weight to make the article lose it's little green ribbon. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will have different opinions on this. I think the legacy section itself is particularly bad. Why not say that "Such and such, and so and so have all been influenced by Beyonce" instead of the quote farm we have at the moment. If it is really that important a Legacy of Beyoncé Knowles article could be created (summary style is part of the criteria). I am willing to have a go at trimming the article. I am not a fan, but I don't have anything against her either. I would be uncomfortable giving this a pass in its current form. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed true, but where opinions differ is that it is a GA guideline issue (this GAR really wasn't needed at all, a simple discussion on the talk to trim some information could otherwise take place). But while we're here, something that has bothered me about the article is that "Other ventures" and "Philanthropy" should be merged into "Life and career", as that's what it is. They shouldn't be separate.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a improvement. AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at trimming the Biography. I found the prose a bit jarring, it sort of jumps from talking about an album, to a film, to something else all within single paragraphs. Also the chronology in early life was all over the show. It was hard to work out what occurred when, so I appologise if I made a mistake in there. The first sentence in this section seems wrong. From reading the article her parents only became professionals in the design, music industry after she was born.

I am wondering if there could be a better way to set up the sections. Maybe divide by Early life and career, Destiny's Child, Solo career and Movie career and keep all this information grouped together. An alternative could be to move the Life and career into this section. At the moment it is a mish mash of both. I would favour the second option. AIRcorn (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous subsection titles were the best in my honest opinion. All the article needed was trimming. But as it stands now, I don't even understand what it is talking about. Sometimes it is her career in music, then her movies, then her other ventures in cosmetology, her charity work...... Forgive me if I am sounding rude, this is NOT my intention. I sincerely appreciate all the work and effort that have been put on here but this article is getting messy. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that's fine. I think we should go with one or the other though. For example Peter Sellers is an article that combines all aspects of a persons life into biography, while John Lennon tends to split it into different headers. BTW the movies were always mingled through the songs (I actually tried to group them within each section) and I have only removed the Philanthropy header, although a couple of other editors have been edit waring over another one. However, I did move some information around the sections. AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy section is still a mess... and it's longer than the one for Diana Ross! Not sure what wealth has to do with legacy, either, as that has more to do with current status. Here's a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of legacy: It usually implies that the subject in question is dead or has a long career, no?--Aichik (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy is what the artist leaves behind after they die, they don't have to be dead. The earnings part should be merged into "life and career", but everything else looks OK to me.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case someone is watching this page and not the talk page, I started a discussion about possibly renaming the legacy section or splitting out achievements ob the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to STOP! This article is currently undergoing a good article reassessment. Discuss changes here.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I thought I'd perhaps put forward my view at were we're at now in terms of the GA. I would say that there were definitely problems with the length of some sections, and there was a need for summary style in some, but I don't think there was anything substantially wrong the article. Furthermore, the initial claim that the article is no longer neutral because it's absent of controversies sort of goes against the criteria here.

• 1a - I'm not sure why 1a was cited as something that this article is in violation of, as this refers to the way the article is written, not its content. The spelling, grammar and paragraphing are all secure here and were beforehand.

• 3b - I think this was were the problem lay, specifically with the Legacy section that incorporated a broad coverage of almost all of her achievements. Moving the list of artists out of the section (to List of artists influenced by Beyoncé Knowles) has helped (and could go further if needed). I think the section about wealth doesn't seem to fit with someone's legacy; "legacy" usually refers to someone's achievements with impact on others, perhaps this could move into Other ventures to become Success and other ventures?

• 4 - As I said earlier, articles don't need controversies, but if instances can be reliably sourced and are - key, here - widely reported and verified then they should be included. There are minor instances of this through the article, perhaps not to the extent that some would like, but this perhaps arises from Knowles not being much of a controversial figure and someone who goes through very little of it. The inclusion of some of the controversies you listed (e.g. the "Countdown" video and Billboard "Run The World" performance) would probably violate the need for summary style throughout, but anything controversial to her - widely reported and verified - should be added in (e.g. her fake pregnancy, inauguration). On the whole, I think this criteria is fulfilled. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 20:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens now? I could move the wealth stuff and add in the personally controversial, but then the 10+ editors canvassed by Jivesh will just keep loudly taking it out. So why don't you do it? (And I'll help to keep the changes in.) Or shall we leave it in limbo for awhile? Doesn't this mean it's no longer GA? (GA's never lose status right, they only change up or stay?)--Aichik (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a good article. I think in its current state it is close enough to the criteria that it can be kept. There is potential for improvements, but a Good article is not a perfect article. It would be nice if someone could look into the couple of tags on the article though before this is closed. AIRcorn (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep discussing and editing to be a good article. Jennie, I was going through your points about its status now and I have to respectfully disagree with you that it passes 1a of GA assessment. Just this paragraph on her image for example (with my emphases) alone:

"Off stage Knowles likes to dress sexily and carry herself "like a lady".[191] Due to her curves, in the 2000s, the media often used the term "Bootylicious" (a portmanteau of the words booty and delicious) to describe Knowles.[192][193][194] The term was made widely known by the Destiny's Child single of the same name, and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2006.[195] Knowles is fond of fashion: According to Italian fashion designer Roberto Cavalli, she uses different styles and tries to harmonize it with the music while performing.[196] The B'Day Anthology Video Album showed many instances of fashion-oriented footage, depicting classic to contemporary wardrobe styles.[197] People magazine recognized Knowles as the best-dressed celebrity in 2007.[198] Knowles' mother co-wrote a book, published in 2002, entitled Destiny's Style: Bootylicious Fashion, Beauty and Lifestyle Secrets From Destiny's Child,[199] an account of how fashion had an impact on Destiny's Child's success.[200] As one of the most media-exposed black celebrities in the United States, Knowles image has received some criticism that Emmett Price, a professor of music at Northeastern University, says is due to her race.[201] Toure of Rolling Stone stated that since the release of Dangerously in Love (2003), "[Beyoncé] has become a crossover sex symbol a la Halle Berry ..."[202] In 2006, the animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), criticized Knowles for wearing fur coats and using fur in her clothing line House of Deréon.[203]"

There is no overriding logic, and the chronology is completely off. And the beginning sentence: "Off stage Knowles likes to dress sexily and carry herself "like a lady". Isn't this self-contradictory? What does this even mean? Instead of an explanation, it then jumps into two lines on "Bootylicious" stuff, which is now dated.

And your point about 4, "that anything controversial to her - widely reported and verified - should be added in (e.g. her fake pregnancy, inauguration)." I agree and those are not in, as of yet so, no, this article's still reads like a press release on Beyoncé.--Aichik (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think saying the article reads like a press release is nonsense. To make my point about controversies clear: does the article need them? No. Should they be included if they are notable (that is, widely reported and verified)? Yes. I therefore see criteria 4 as always being fulfilled. I agree with you raising the point about that paragraph, and I've reorganized the sentences, although I don't think it was anything major or anything that violated criteria 1a. For that reason, I think we should close and keep the article as GA. —Jennie | ☎ 14:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. They're still tons of examples of WP:RECENTISM in the article. The number of tweets her pregnancy got in one week in 2011, for one. And while you half-heartedly fixed some of the chronology problems (Notice how when you did that, there was a way you could connect the Cavalli quote with the PETA thing? It's amazing what you can do with good writing from the start, isn't it?), you still didn't answer my point about the "Off stage Knowles likes to dress sexily and carry herself 'like a lady'." sentence. It is now followed by a boring sentence about her mom authoring a book about her style. If no Beyonce Wikipedian can illustrate one interesting point about what that book showed, I vote to take it out: the photos that accompany this article do more. (I doesn't seem flattering: Just shows how much of a stage mom her mother is.)--Aichik (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"an account of how fashion had an impact on Destiny's Child's success". Come on, guys. H O W. Illustrate, by an example.--Aichik (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In paragraph about Pepsi endorsement: "Following her performance at the Super Bowl halftime show on February 3, 2013, Knowles will appear in a global television commercial for Pepsi — Live for Now, her fifth for the soft drink since 2002. Knowles' image will also be used in life-size cardboard cutouts in stores and on a limited-edition line of soda cans, which will launch first in Europe in March 2013." Update please, are the global TV commercials out or on hold?--Aichik (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a go at rearranging the Image paragraph and I think it flows much better now. The other issues are relatively minor and I don't think rise to the level of failing the criteria. The only other recommendation (that I was going to do but never got around to) was merging the products and endorsements section into the biography as it appears a little undue given its own section. I don't think it is enough to delist the article though. House of Deréon is probably alright staying as its own section. This reassessment is again divulging from its intended purpose so I think it is probably best to close it and continue discussing the other points on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, close and keep and the article as a GA. —Jennie | ☎ 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree. It still reads like a long list of accomplishments. I picked apart one section as an example of a part standing in for the whole but no one else is bringing up anything about the other sections! The GAR's been about responding to my criticisms: It's lazy copyediting. Other non-Beyoncé-fan editors should look at this. Since it's a Copy Editors Drive month, we should wait till next month.--Aichik (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of poor writing in the intro with my emphasis:

Knowles' work has earned her numerous awards and accolades, including 17 Grammy Awards, 12 MTV Video Music Awards, and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (as part of Destiny's Child). As a solo artist, Knowles has sold over 13 million albums in the United States and 118 million records worldwide (as well as a further 50 million records with Destiny's Child),[3] making her one of the best-selling music artists of all time.[4][5] The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) recognized Knowles as the Top Certified Artist of the 2000s.[6][7] In 2009, Billboard named her the Top Female Artist and Top Radio Songs Artist of the 2000s decade,[8][9] and ranked her as the fourth Artist of the Decade.[10] Following year, Knowles was ranked first on Forbes list of the "100 Most Powerful and Influential Musicians in the World".[11]

The way the sentence is constructed that includes the ital'ed, it would seem that the ital'ed happened in 2009. But the reference contracts this. A sentence later, "Following year" which should be "The following year" would refer to 2011 if the change were made. Is this still accurate? Did anyone bother to check? No.--Aichik (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part(s) of the article reads like a long list of accomplishments? —Jennie | ☎ 20:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try printing the whole article out and reading it aloud. That's usually a good test. Not joking or being sarcastic.--Aichik (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am striking my previous keep !vote. One of the major problems has just been reintroduced with the re-addition of the Philanthropy section, plus an unnecessary political views one. AIRcorn (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, I respectfully disagree with your opinion about the addition of political views. It's good whenever a performer acts more responsibly in the world, and dispersed with all those chart stats, makes the article more readable. Beyoncé's fame rests partly on her image as a "good girl" so it's very much related, how she acts in the world. Now just as we are getting this article to fit point 4 of GA, that is, neutrality, I have to unfortunately add another critique, #5, that discounts this article as a GA: Its contents change daily, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. So alas, we are at 1a, 3b, and now 5.--Aichik (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aichik, criteria #5 (stability) refers to edit wars on contentious articles; in fact, listed as one of the "mistakes to avoid" when reviewing GA's is "discouraging normal editing activity for the convenience of the review." When reviewing GAs, single-purpose editors (like the fans of celebrities) will often fight over what should/shouldn't be included, and the reviewer is allowed to suspend the review if it becomes too difficult to read. To be frank, I see 1a and 3b as fulfilled for a long time now; in which sections do you think these problems are present? —Jennie | ☎ 17:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you didn't follow my suggestion about printing this out and reading it aloud. Frankly, I wish its 1a and 3b issues had been ironed out at this point too--there are many other interesting topics to address in Wikipedia--but whatev. Regardless, outlining all of the 1a issues myself would be alot of work. So instead I'll create a kind of synecdoche, with the 2002-07 section standing in for the whole, after which I suggest you submit this up to GCE.

• debut is spelled début (throughout the entire article)  Done (Although not part of GA criteria, it's definitely relevant)
• More spelling examples in just this section: The albums lead single; left-over tracks.  Done (Corrected)
• "46th Grammy Awards". Who cares what number award ceremony it is? A year would be better.  Not done (This is standard practice on Wikipedia, and again, does not contravene either 1a or 3.)
• Mentions that aren't further explained: the song "The Closer I Get to You" with Luther Vandross. Sounds interesting, involves another well-known singer, so what album was it on? Where was it used (movie, commercial)?  Not done (It was a Grammy for a performance)
• Another example of the above: David Foster as cowriter on "Stand Up for Love." In his article, it's indicated that he's a songwriter for her. Which other song(s)? So it'd read: "She also wrote 'Stand Up for Love', along with her co-writer on blah-blah David Foster, and his daughter..."  Not done (I think that was the only instance)
• General updating: Destiny Fulfilled as the group's "final studio album." In fact, lots of places throughout the article that needs this. In the Philanthropy section, her being in the 2013 Pepsi campaign. We say that it will roll out in February, so did it?  Done (Changed; this is addressed in the Fifth studio album section more comprehensively. You could update "Destiny's Fulfilled" if you think it's more explicit.)

I'll address 3b when I have a moment.--Aichik (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, your objection to a "Philanthropy" section is your personal preference (which I have no problem with), but a section like this, which is reliably-sourced, presents no problem to the GA. —Jennie | ☎ 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it impacts the neutrality, but not enough to suggest delisting. I am not however confident enough to say keep either. So I guess you can consider me neutral at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Aircorn's objection to the Philanthropy section is a personal preference. We call it a "venture" above her clothing line and product placement and that doesn't read arbitrarily. Leonardo DiCaprio, who's a bigger philanthropist, with millions of dollars donated rather than hundreds of thousands, and who narrates and actual hosts environmental events, his philanthropy is couched with his environmental activism and the very bottom of the article Beyoncé's Philanthropy subhead should be changed to "Causes" and go below [House of Dereon] and all the product placement stuff, because those separately involve more money anyway. It's in this order on the Kanye West article.--Aichik (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. (My objection to Aircorn was that this section presents no problem to the GA, not its position). —Jennie | ☎ 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of changing it to causes, it sounds a lot less peacocky. However, I had a look through featured article biographies and found Gwen Stefani, which has a Philanthropy section. I stand by my reasoning (I would also object to a controversies section), but it is not a deal breaker to my mind. The biggest problem I had was with the focus and while not perfect I think it has improved. AIRcorn (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are genuine issues with either 1a or 3b, and as this GAR has extended beyond 4 weeks (is it 4 months?), I intend to close this discussion and keep the article as GA quite soon. Aichik was right to initially address the bloat in this article; there were sections, particularly, with "Legacy" that went into too much detail, were repetitive and were unsummarised, I now feel that this issue has been addressed thanks to the help of many editors on this page. As for the other criteria, (1a, 3b) no significant parts of the article have been flagged up as holding these issues, and citing small phrases/one-line examples are not of great concern; normal copyediting has and will iron this out (perhaps a good look over in the next few days will ensure everything is tight). Furthermore, arguments that the article is boring or there are sections that people do not like, do not form part of the GA criteria and should be addressed through the talk page and/or normal editing. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 23:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hinted to another editor that they should close this. Basically I suggested if they close some earlier ones the one they are involved in might be closed faster. There is nothing wrong with you doing it per the instructions, but it ideally should be someone uninvolved. If they don't do so in the next few days I say that you should just go ahead. AIRcorn (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I would prefer someone else to do it, but I wonder whether other editors have had the time to read the whole page to make a decision to or not (as it is rather long). I'll give it a few more days. Thanks! —Jennie | ☎ 17:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about asking Kww (talk · contribs)? AIRcorn (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell, Jennie. I just outlined 1a and said I was getting back on 3b! I said the work I did on the one section was a symptom of the article's larger copyediting issues. Not to pull rank (but Tbhotch always does) neither you nor Aircorn are not a copy editors. Case in point: I disagree with your treatment of debut, again a synecdochal symptom of the bad copyediting in this article. Début's generally being phased out: Don't rely on Wikipedia's disambiguation page. See this and this. Note in the Merriam Webster's definition of a word that truly has interchangeable spellings, donut (v. doughnut), the fact of it being the variant is mentioned at top of the page as its loading. It doesn't do this for debut.--Aichik (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aichik, it's been 4 months since you've raised both criteria and neither 1a or 3b have been flagged up in any significant instance other than the occasional grammar or spelling mistake. Considering these things can be closed after 4 weeks, we've given a long time for editors to present any substantial problems and none have. Please continue copy-editing on the article, though. —Jennie | ☎ 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for debut, I completely misunderstood your point. I thought you wanted the opposite; "debut" changed to "début" (as the former was more common throughout) so I changed every instance. I'll r/vt that edit and make sure the Anglicized version is throughout. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Don't forget to read what I said about the Philanthropy section above, after Aircorn's bit. Sorry it's taken me awhile to address the reassessment again: I participated in a copyediting drive last month and have been spending time defending myself against other editors to this article as you probably know.--Aichik (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime Jennie, it'd be great if you could edit the intro down. VH1 should be used minimally, I think, since we already have Golden Globes, Grammys, MTV Music Video awards, Billboard and others. I would cut the bit about her ranking fourth and third in stuff too, it bogs the other awards down: It can be put in the text (if they're not there already). I'm asking you to do it since Jivesh threw a fit last time I cut one bit from the intro, and we want to keep this moving. I'll keep copyediting the other sections.--Aichik (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've padded the lead out a bit more, and dropped some of the lesser needed statistics. I think it needs another sentence on her live performance ability as the concerning which presents this as quite significant. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 20:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep This has been open nearly three months so it is safe to say that no more comments are going to be foprthcoming. The major complaint is that it doesn't go into enough detail about 2008 financial crash. Myself and another editor have searched for information on this and included what we can. The original assessor has not supplied any further source that mention risk parity during the crash. Therefor it is assumed that this article currently meets the broadness criteria as defined by the WP:GACR AIRcorn (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am disputing the recent downgrade by user:Don4of4 which was made despite objections from me and input from user:Aircorn.[4] My reasoning is as follows:

• As we all know GA articles are not FA's and can be improved and expanded. I have no objections to an additional paragraph or section about the way risk parity was influenced by the the 2008 financial collapse as requested by Don4of4 as long as there are reliable sources and the new section or paragraph is given appropriate weight per the preponderance of the sources. I mentioned this to Don4of4 but he/she did not point to any reliable sources to justify their personal opinion.
• Don4of4 failed the article for "Images: appropriate use with suitable captions". His/her rationale was: "This topic demands more appropriate imagery to even be considered for GA status. The one image is good, but for the topic at hand, historical data should be included". I asked him: Are there any appropriate copyright free images available that further illustrate the major points in the article? If so I'd be happy to include them. Don4of4 responded: "There is plenty of potential for graphs or other simple visual aids. The apparent lack of free images isn't an excuse when images can be created"
• I also told Don4of4 that I didn't understand why this couldn't have been addressed as a simple talk page discussion and a subsequent collaborative effort to expand and improve the article instead of a reassessment and the threat of a downgrade. He/she replied " I didn't feel like this article was close enough to GA requirements to dictate that courtesy."
• Don4of4 created the reassessment on Jan 4, 2013 [5] and I responded the same day. However, Don4of4 disappeared from Wikipedia for 6weeks. He/she returned to WP on Feb 14, 2013 and responded to my comments [6] After checking the talk page for 6weeks for a response, I gave up and asked Aircorn to close the GA reassess I thought that was in progress but instead Don4of4 returned to WP on Feb 25, 2013 for the sole purpose of delisting Risk parity without any notification to me.[7]

I find the both the method and rationale for this de-listing to be unsatisfactory and would appreciate some community input. Thanks!

— Keithbob • Talk • 23:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Don4of4 for his/her comments and speedy response to this listing. For clarity I'd like to indicate that after 6 weeks of no response to my comments at the Risk Parity GA reassess page I checked Don4of4's contrib list and noticed he/she had not made any edits for past 6 weeks. I then posted a message at WP:GAR asking for assistance. [8]. Aircorn saw my post and removed it feeling it would confuse the bot and he/she then commented on the risk parity GA reassess page [9] and notified me and Don4of4 on our respective talk pages. I believe that Don4of4 was acting in good faith but at the same time I disagree with his/her reasons for downgrading the article. At any rate now that Don4of4 and I have aired our individual grievances I look forward to hearing the community's comments on the content of the article. Peace everyone!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to personal attacks:

• User:Keithbob did not respond to my comments on 14 February 2013 so I closed the review on 25 February 2013, leaving two weeks to respond. User:Keithbob is being utterly disingenuous about the sequence of events and my motivations.
• It is not appropriate nor beneficial to patronize my failure to comment. - When another user notified me on my talk page I hopped right online. User:Keithbob accuses me of bad faith when he showed none, trying to go over my head through Aircorn.

Response to actual issue at hand:

The article simply does not meet the requirements of WP:GA?.

• It flatly fails criteria 3 "Broad in its coverage." - This article is extremely weak in breadth of knowledge, and portrays laughable depth. Especially when compared to it's relative importance in modern investing.

• Essential missing sections:

1. Role in the 2008 Economic Meltdown - Every modern fiance textbook will ramble for countless pages about this very topic and risk parity! Almost every book about the collapse will discuss risk parity. There is simply no excuse for a GA not having anything about it.

2. Mutual Funds - The fact that "Mutual Funds" doesn't even APPEAR in this article is reason enough for failure! These investment vehicles are poster children of the concept of risk parity.

• This article is simply deficient in content. I applaud User:Keithbob's work on it, but it's not quite up to ready for GA status.

Don4of4 ^[Talk] 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add comments here.

My role in this has been discussed above. A few clarifications for anyone who stumbles on this and is interested. I moved Keith's early post here to the talk page (found at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#Risk parity). I then became involved in the reassessment and left my opinion at that page. I have also been in touch with Don4of4 a few times suggesting that they close it, the last time was after Keith asked me to close the review on my talk page. As far as the process goes I don't think anything has been done wrong. Don4of4 as the opener of a individual reassessment is supposed to close it and I don't see a problem with Keith asking me to look into it when he thought Don had abandoned the review. It is now at a community reassessment where it should go if editors disagree with an individual one. Unfortunately this place is pretty quiet so I doubt we will get a lot of comments, but you never know. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue appears to be broadness in relation to the 2008 financial crisis. I have had a look through Google and found this which says "Risk-parity funds held up relatively well during the financial crisis". The following may also be useful[10]. I also looked in the first three books with previews that showed up in a google books search for "2008 financial crisis"[11]. I searched for risk parity in them, but found nothing [12][13][14]. I think some better evidence is needed to justify failing this due to it missing information on the 2008 financial crisis. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously? The lack of risk paritied funds was what caused the 2008 financial system collapse. As I previously asserted, any book will discuss credit default swaps and firms like Lehman Brothers. I shouldn't have to spoon feed this essential content to justify such a well known event. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 02:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have no trouble pointing to some sources then. AIRcorn (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aircorn and thanks for taking the time to participate here. My research has turned up about the same results as you. However, in the spirit of cooperation, I have created a Performance section and added the WSJ quote that you have unearthed. If Don4of4 has some additional sources then I'd be happy to add information from those sources as well. I"ve also added a sentence about AQR launching a risk parity mutual fund in 2012. I could not find evidence of any other such funds but if anyone can point me to more RS's than I can add more info. I would like the article to be as comprehensive as possible. Meantime I'd like to point out that the 2008 financial crisis is already mentioned in three additional places in the article --which I'm listing below for everyone's convenience.

• LEAD: Some portfolio managers have expressed skepticism about the practical application of the concept and its effectiveness in all types of market conditions but others point to its performance during the financial crisis of 2007-2008 as an indication of its potential success.
• RECEPTION: The financial crisis of 2007-2010 was also hard on equity-heavy and Yale Model portfolios, but risk parity funds fared reasonably well.........................
• RECEPTION: According to a 2011 article in Investments & Pensions Europe, the risk parity approach has "moderate risks" which include: communicating its value to boards of directors; unforeseen events like the 2008 market decline; market timing risks associated with implementation; the use of leverage and derivatives and basis risks associated with derivatives

Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since 6 weeks have passed and User:Don4of4 has not responded to any of the comments from other users, nor provided any sources to support his opinion as requested twice by Aircorn, I request that this reassessment be closed and that GA status be re-assigned to this article. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Beyoncé Knowles/1 is ready to be closed and has been open longer than this one. Maybe if that one was closed then this would be seen to sooner. AIRcorn (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No comments for over two months. Consensus that the article should not lose its GA status. Further editing or improvement, with discussion on the talk page as appropriate, is of course always welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

This article has certain problems with hagiography, where negative reactions to her are minimised, but praise for her is covered in a lot of detail.

Thatcher was a very divisive politician, to the point of there being street parties on the night of her death. She is blamed for having devastated entire regions of the country by some. As a good example, Thatcher is blamed in many parts of the UK for having devastated communities, especially the mining areas of England and the Welsh Valleys. However, the section on legacy minimizes all criticism and claimed negative effects into vague hints.

It's clear this article at least has a lot of debate as to whether it can be neutral. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In any case, there is going to be a flurry of editing activity over the next couple of weeks. I suggest that we wait to see what the article looks like after that has died down. StAnselm (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Let the usual talk page negotiations run their course and if there is still a problem in a few weeks we can assess the GA status. AIRcorn (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Let us wait for things to settle. Adam accuses the article of bias not only here but at other fora, e.g., edit-warring/3RR, etc. Perhaps he also should give noticeboard complaints a rest and instead work on attaining consensus on the talk page? At very least, he should be citing high quality most reliable sources for his claims, which would help him gain support for inclusion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also found two claims that went against the sources they were cited to, which is worrying. Fixed now, of course, but... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, let's put this on hold two weeks. We should probably do a good reassessment once things settle down, as it'll be a far different article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been two weeks, it still has the funny censorship of negative information, and that seems stable due to editwarring to keep it stable. Delist. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Adam Cuerden is talking out of his arse. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adam's vague hand-waving "hagiography" is somewhat insulting but is certainly not actionable. He has had two weeks to marshal his arguments and his sources, but has not so far come up with anything more than a vague feeling that the article should be more harshly critical of Thatcher. As Adam is not himself a reliable source, this opinion, while interesting, does not lead us anywhere useful. And stable due to editwarring to keep it stable; how does that work exactly? I see no evidence of edit-warring there in the recent past. --John (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hagiography is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be voting. Also, I did provide sources. Remember you claiming that if they didn't say the event was completely unique in human history it shouldn't go in? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That you call it a hagiography doesn't make it one, unless you consider yourself to be God. You need to be specific, and stop vaguely waving your arms around. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly don't remember saying that Adam, because I didn't say it. A hagiography is an uncritical account of a saint's life. This article has a lot of well-sourced criticism of Thatcher's policies; that you consider it a "hagiography" only tells us about the POV you wish to bring to the article, it doesn't tell us that it fails to meet the GA criteria. You are not a source Adam. --John (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to vagueness of complaint. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Clear consensus that that article is up to GA standards, and while minor issues remain, they fall outside the GA criteria. Adabow (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many problem. Few are listed below.

• Whats is the film's name? Is it Seven Khoon Maaf or Saat Khoon Maaf? Cant see it mentioned anywhere.
• Opening line is; "7 Khoon Maaf (Seven Murders Forgiven) is a 2011 Indian black comedy directed, co-written and co-produced by Vishal Bhardwaj (who also composed the film's music, with lyrics by Gulzar)". Why is lyricist's name required in first line? The whole page, in minimum ways, explains contribution of lyrist in the whole film. Why is then it so important to introduce him in the opening line?
• Next lines are; "The film is based on the short story "Susanna's Seven Husbands" by Ruskin Bond. After Bhardwaj saw the possibility of a script in the short story, he asked Bond about a film adaptation. Bond expanded his four-page short story into an 80-page novella, and then to a full-length script. The film centers on femme fatale Susanna Anna-Marie Johannes, an Anglo-Indian woman who murders her seven husbands in a quest for love. " Thats not required in lead. That much should be actually written in the below para of pre-production.
• Priyanka Chopra, who won multiple nominations for her work and was the main highlight of the film is mentioned after lyricist and the story of story forming.
• "However, earned a total of 33 crore(s) (US$6.0 million) for its box-office run and television-music-home-video rights against a budget of 15 crore(s) (US$2.7 million)." ---> Should be "However, it earned...."
• Best Playback – Female. Link it.
• Lead does not summarize "Marketing and release" section.
• Plot section is complicated. That could be because of the original plot itself. But it could still be simplified.
  • "she shoots "Modhuda"" Who is that?
  • "have a flaw which proves fatal." Proves fatal is kinda odd.
  • "she "dies"". Why is it in inverted commas? Does she not actually die?
• Use either "cameo" or "cameo appearance" in all places.
• The Blue Umbrella (film) should be linked somewhere.
• "Bharadwaj adapted Bond's short story". Firstly, spelling mistake and secondly, he is being mentioned after a long time. So use full name with a link.
• "Rekha Bhardwaj, who enjoys Bond's work". Couldn't find in reference that she enjoys Bond's work.
• The classic WP:QUOTEFARM issue.
  • "The four-page story had the material for 400 pages and a scope for the movie. I remember that I was intrigued by the title of the story. I told myself why would a woman have seven husbands and then I came to know that she also kills them! I was immediately hooked to it. It reminded me of a very old film, Bluebeard's Seven Wives"
  • "I had previously taken liberties with Shakespeare. Naturally, when you adapt a story, your vision also comes in it. But I have remained honest to its essence"
  • "The challenge was devising seven ingenious ways in which she could kill her husbands without being suspected. And she does it successfully, until towards the end"
  • "Priyanka was my original choice for the role. She is the finest actor of her generation right now. When I worked with her in 'Kaminey', I realised how under-utilised she is. She has so much talent in her. As a director I had so much trust on her that I felt that no one else can essay this role as brilliantly as she would do"
  • "It was a tough shoot as I am essaying a woman whose age ranges from 20-65. So, prosthetics had to play a heavy part but I’m happy that I pushed myself as the result is really fab. I had to be very careful of not doing things that would damage the make-up".
  • "Bharadwaj has composed a wonderful album that is not a clone of his previous work. It exudes freshness and is worth listening. However, the songs would not have achieved zenith without Gulzar's lovely lyrics. The team has done it again"
  • "7 Khoon Maaf is a good album with a couple of definite hits, couple of skip worthy ones and the remaining have the potential to grow. Since 7 Khoon Maaf is not a routine Bollywood affair, it can't be expecting a quick pick at the stands from Day One".
  • "Bhardwaj has certainly succeeded in adding new sounds to his catalogue. He continues to evade Bollywood monotony with this soundtrack[....]an innovative effort."
  • "duniya ki haar biwi ne kabhie na kabhie toh yeh zarur sochega, ki main apne pati se hamesha hamesha ke liye chutkara kaise paun" ("Every wife in the entire world must have once in her lifetime thought of how to get rid of her husband forever")
  • "For a filmmaker who has long established his hold over the craft, 7 Khoon Maaf is the only way forward — it pushes the envelope and takes you on a cinematic journey you may not experience in a Hindi film for a long time to come"
  • "Priyanka Chopra takes on a character that most of her contemporaries would shy away from and enacts it in a way that only she possibly can. For a woman with as many shades as Susanna, Chopra gets a crack at a role of a lifetime. And Bhardwaj ensures she sparkles like never before"
  • "Chalk up an absolute winner for the Vishal Bhardwaj-Priyanka Chopra team. They make a coherent vision out of an inconceivable marital crises."
  • "serious, sensitive and stirring", "a whole new cinematic experience" and praising Chopra's performance: "7 Khoon Maaf would undoubtedly end up as a milestone in Priyanka Chopra's career graph. The actor displays exquisite command over a complex character that is definitely a first in Indian cinema. She renders a subtle and restrained portrayal of a lonely and wronged woman who wanted love and only love from life"
  • "7 Khoon Maaf is a dark film that has its share of positives and negatives. However, the film will meet with diverse reactions – some will fancy it, while some will abhor it. The film will appeal more to the critics/columnists and the festival circuit"
  • "adventurous but over-indulgent", saying that Vishal Bhardwaj "traded economy for mainstream acceptance". However, Gupta praised the film's cinematography and its unexpected ending: "Discovering Susanna’s seventh husband [is] a killer twist in the end"
  • "the film stumbles and fumbles. The episodic nature of the narrative makes the plot predictable."
  • "'7 Khoon Maaf' has worked well for us commercially due to a combination of tight production budgeting, optimised spending on prints and publicity and a pre-sales strategy that helped us to de-risk the film via sales of home video, music, satellite and theatrical rights even before the release"

• "In January 2010, Mohanlal was cast" This is the first time when dates are being mentioned. When did other all things before this happen?
• "during her seven marriages, prosthetic makeup was used" Whats that? Prosthetic makeup was used during marriages?
• "Director Vishal Bhardwaj hired Hollywood special makeup effects artist Greg Cannom, who did the makeup for 2008's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, to create seven looks for Chopra's character in the film." Break it and write properly.
• "to create a her look." Whats "a her look"? Is she actually a he that a her look was created?
• "She had to gain five kg" Weight! Mention that.
• "The soundtrack was digitally released on Ovi (Nokia) 21 January 2011, and on CD 24 January 2011." "on" missing.
• "a bottle of "poison", a sachet of "potassium cyanide"" Why are poison and potassium cyanide in inverted commas?
• "The kit contained rope, a syringe, a knife, a bottle of "poison", a sachet of "potassium cyanide", an ice pick and a blister pack of Viagra, and was based on Chopra's character in the film." What was based on character?
• "The short story had been expanded into an 80-page novella by Ruskin Bond." This is not needed in Marketing and release section. Its already said above twice.
• "but was postponed a month to avoid conflicting with another UTV film, Dhobi Ghat." What do you mean by "another UTV film"? Is this also an UTV film? Its never mentioned anywhere above.
• " was released 18 February 2011 on about 700 screens" "on" missing.
• Whats NTSC?
• "7 Khoon Maaf received a number of nominations and won several, particularly for Chopra" Won what?

Now the main thing.... why is this GAR brought up here for community reassessment rather than just individual one? Thats because recently many inferior quality articles are being promoted as GA in the WP:INCINE project. A few more GARs will follow here and thats why i think its best other editors also voice their opinion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're in grave danger of losing contributors by your hasty actions.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you. You should ask that GleekVampire as why did he passed that article. I'm not here to work. Hypocrisy?Prashant talk 17:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little harsh. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose delisting Any minor issues can easily be solved, the article has an adequate coverage of the film and is properly sourced.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note : The article has just passed a good article review and the reassessment is unnecessary. Please close it.Prashant talk 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose delisting While most of your comments are valid, and they should be implemented, this is GA, not FA, so everything need not be perfect. Maybe it was just an inexperienced reviewer. I agree with the others that you could have raised these issues without an official GAR, or just fixed them. What were you really hoping to happen here? One additional point about the article is that the soundtrack image should probably go, as this is not a soundtrack article and the image is too similar to the main infobox image. Many would say that this fails WP:NFCCP. BollyJeff | talk 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia runs on consensus and if you all think this is a good article, who is gonna stop? Call it so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First thanks for providing detailed feedback. This is much better than the nominations that simply say "this article sucks". However I think you are asking for work to be done that falls outside the criteria. I will have a look later and try and fix some of the issues raised. I also agree that the spoundtrack photo should go, but I recall some discussion about this in other articles that I may try and find first. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the points are certainly constructive and would have been most welcome at a peer review, even during the GA review. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all the issues and fixed the above points. I want to tell administration that please don't let inexperienced editors to review any article as they always pass articles without going through the articles and posting issues which are unnecessary rather than focus on main issues.Prashant talk 03:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and quick close: Although there was some problems, they were mild and could've been easily fixed without a reassessment as clarified above by Dr. Blofield. So I suggest that 7 Khoon Maaf should remain a good article. I also suggest that this GAR should close as Prashant has fixed all the remaining issues. Regards ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 13:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• So, what's the decision? And who closes this reviews?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: outcome was delist – consensus and clear weight of argument to delist; no comments in over a month. Prose, tags, and verifiability problems. Fails to meet criteria 1a and 2b. Shudde ^talk 02:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The prose is quickly coming unraveled. Most of the "history" section begins with "The".
• "April Fools' Day 2008" contains a [citation needed] tag. Might I suggest using this source?
• Many sections, such as "Dan Kaminsky", "Michelle Obama", "Nancy Pelosi", and "iPhone Worm", are very short.
• "2008 Christmas Facebook Campaign" contains many unsourced statements.
• "Others" is little more than a trivia section.

My main concern is that the article is turning into an example farm, with lots of examples of Rickrolling that only got one or two mentions. Maybe it should be pruned to only the most widespread and notable ones.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically agree. Might be relatively easy to fix with a trim and by combining some sections. May look into it if time permits. AIRcorn (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Article has various cleanup tags that need to be addressed, including a cn tag dating back 8 months. I agree with the original comment that the short sections are a problem for WP:LAYOUT and the "Others" section contains an excessive amount of trivial detail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: keep – consensus is that the article meets criteria 3a. No comments in over a month. Shudde ^talk 03:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article mainly fails on broad coverage criteria. Will list down how and add more points.

• The article claims that the subject actress has starred in "several" theatrical productions but not a single one is mentioned.
• It also states that she has worked with "several" NGOs and assisted a documentary filmmaker. None of the NGOs are mentioned either.
• It further says that she signed a two-year contract with Hindustan Unilever. Then its lists down some commercials that she has worked in Samsung Mobile (Samsung), Nerolac (Kansai Nerolac Paints), Vita Marie (Britannia Industries), Saffola Oil (Marico), Mederma Cream (probably by Merz Pharma; i am not sure) and Pears Soap (Hindustan Unilever). So only one ad for Unilever in 2 years contract?
• And main point is that the article is not about her but about her playing the role of Mohsina.
• Classic WP:QUOTEFARM issue as always; to increase the prose size most probably. Excluding lead section and tables, the article has about 6400 characters out of which approimately 1/3 i.e around 2000 characters are from quotions.
  • "I never thought of coming to Mumbai or being an actress. But when my friend called me for an audition for a movie called Junction, it set me thinking. Sadly, the film never got made"
  • "I didn’t believe him then. You hear lots of such stories in this industry so I wasn’t waiting with bated breath"
  • "I have no regrets. I wish it had worked out but it didn't. I am not someone who sits and laments over things. I was approached for several other south films too but the roles weren't what I was looking for"
  • "Mohsina tries to copy everything she sees on the big screen in her own little ways. She is heavily influenced by Bollywood".
  • "an earthiness, sincerity, intensity and warmth of personality, qualities that distinguished Smita, apart from the fact that she was a very fine and instinctive actress. Huma is a good enough actress on her own, someone who can stand apart from the crowd and hold her own"
  • "Huma Qureshi, who's introduced much later in the film...is wonderful"
  • "Bollywood is largely about ex-beauty queens and size zero PYTs. Dusky and slightly bigger than the other newbies, she brings a raw sensuality on screen that is quite irresistible".
  • "When it comes to looks, [Huma] is different from the typical Bollywood actors"
  • "Huma Qureshi, with her gaudy clothes, designer sun-glasses and unusual attractiveness is the hottest cheez in Wasseypur. She beautifully lends support as a powerful man's 'prouder' better-half, even in his worst crimes"
  • "Huma Qureshi looks right for the role and she delivers a wonderful performance".
  • "[Qureshi], on the other hand, is charming as the fiery Punjaban, Harman. Her refreshingly natural acting style impresses again in a role that has shades of her character in the Gangs Of Wasseypur"
  • "The three leading ladies -- Konkona Sen Sharma, Huma Qureshi and Kalki Koechlin are smashing in their roles, and I refuse here to tell you who plays who. Each plays their given role with frighteningly good flair, and each deserves a big hand."
• Whats PYT?

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that it is very disappointing that you felt as if you should bring this straight to GAR instead of bringing up the issues with either of us. It shows disrespect to not only the editor but me as a reviewer, and gives the impression you'd rather work against us rather than with us. You cannot expect an article on a newbie actress to have "broad coverage". I believed the article was adequate given her current career status. You can't possibly compare this article to a veteran actor.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well well, That's why no one is interested in editing Indian articles of Wikipedia. I'm not interested in this Reassesment. Do what you want. But, if you have reassased the article then, why not Imran Khan (actor). This is called hypocrisy. I know who told you to reasses the article. Don't open my mouth. I'm not interested in this topic anymore. Also, Have you seen Ranveer Singh, the time it passed GA was a very small article. Ranveer Singh contains unwanted stuffs, do you want me to add How Qureshi was born, her thoughts, imagination , what she thinks of herself. Then I'm sorry, it is encyclopedia.Prashant talk 17:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The nominator's critiques strike me as frivolous from a criteria standpoint. The requests for more information are far outside the "main aspects" required by the GA criteria, which explicitly allow "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail"; since Qureshi clearly isn't known for her theatrical work or her NGO work, I don't think a comprehensive look is needed here. (Is this information even available from RSs?) As for the "quotefarm" concern, this isn't a GA criterion, and the article's use of quotations (less than one third of the article's body) seems reasonable in any case. I do agree that an explanatory footnote could be added to clarify what the Telegraph appears to mean by PYT (pretty young thing), but I don't see this as a major issue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she has worked in "several" plays and "several" NGOs, mentioning them in the article would make it comprehensive. Whether she is not known for that matters least here. When you mention several plays, you are talking about her acting. If that isn't what she is known for, then maybe she wasn't good at it and then you are not making it comprehensive by writing about her failure there. As to your question of "Is this information even available from RSs?", i would like to state that i am not yet done reading all the RSs of the world. (How are you asking to prove that?) For quotes, there are two aspects to consider. Firstly, dumping huge quotes doesnt fit in the way good articlea are written. And secondly, copying 1/3rd of the content from various copyrighted articles is copyvio. There isnt any fixed limit arrived by consensus or something stating howmuch is it allowed to copy. But i will ask some copyrights expert to check this situation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is information on her plays available I strongly suggest that Prashant adds it, But "comprehensive" is not a requirement for GA, and given that this is a rookie actress you cannot expect widespread coverage. I stated in the GA summary that Prashant will need to keep updating it and building it over time. Asking for this to be demoted without trying to get the desired improvements first is belligerent and unnecessary.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "if it is available"? How is anyone ever going to prove that it is not available. No one can prove negation. If she doesn't have widespread coverage, how will the article satisfy "#3 Broad in its coverage"? (And when i said on my talk page that i don't like to give warnings using those templates for personal attacks, i did not infer that you may continue to attack me. I am referring to you part of "belligerent" here.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being asked to prove that it's not available. You're being asked to prove that this information is available and that it constitutes a main aspect of the topic. If it requires reading every reliable source on earth to find this information, I think we can agree it's not a main aspect; there's already dozens of reliable sources on Qureshi linked from the article that you can check if you like. GAs can leave out even some major facts, and it doesn't appear this is a major fact per our RSs.

As for the copyright, I believe the important factor is how much of any individual source is used, rather than the precise article/quotation ratio, but of course you're welcome to get a second opinion. It doesn't appear at first glance that any source is being quoted to a degree that would rise to a copyright violation, however. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I wasn't overly concerned about the quoting is that as the actress gets older and her filmography gets longer I think the prose will fill out and it will become more balanced. The article appears to provide an effective summary of her work to date and is technically sound in sourcing. That's all that matters for GA. If Prashant can find sourcing for her theatrical roles great, add it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article stands now it states that she has worked in "several" plays and NGOs. And then you don't mention anything about it and you still call it a GA? Pick one; either the article is missing content or the so called RS which claims that is wrong. I have asked Moonriddengirl for her comments on copyvio issue. And if the article doesn't have any content at present it doesn't mean you start diluting it by adding such quotes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the sources which document her plays and I'll prompt Prashant to add the information. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/7 Khoon Maaf/1 which you also put up for GAR I see no major issues either.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Dharmadhyaksha, it's fine if the article is missing even some major facts about the subject per the GA criteria. The plays she acted in could be added if you can find them but it's not a reason to delist. I won't debate any further save to say once more that this is a clearly frivolous nomination. We'll have to agree to disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a kid. Okay...I know everything regarding the criteria, but if there is no information about her theatre productions and NGOs. So, what you want I should publish myself that she has played Juliet, Mendonsa and Fantine in theatre and plays. You want this. For God sake, there are no further information about your Frivilous demands. So how can I add , you think what I should write fiction here! Prashant talk 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note : The article has just passed a good article review and the reassessment is unnecessary. Please close it.Prashant talk 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant if you don't want people to think you're a kid stop acting like one. No need to speak in bold lettering. I believe you when you say there is nothing documenting her theatre career in detail. That's enough. As Khazar said it's hardly a reason to delist as GA anyway, but I'm awaiting a source for you to show what is missing Dharma. Moonriddengirl has also stated that the quoting it perfectly within the guidelines, You've basically nominated this based on unfounded concerns with nothing to back up your argument..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia runs on consensus and if you all think this is a good article, who is gonna stop? Call it so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're embarrassing yourself Dharma. You can't possibly compare an article on a newbie Asian actress to somebody like Clint Eastwood. I am well aware of what meets good article criteria and what doesn't. Each article is different. We can only go by what has been covered to date in reliable publications. The author says there is no information available on her theatre work, and has managed to compile something which effectively covers her work as an actress to date. It is well sourced and the sourcing is technically sound, that's all that matters for GA. GAs don't need to be particularly comprehensive, just provide an effective overall summary. If you have a problem with articles like this passing when it seems others don't, then stay well away from reviewing and promoting Good articles. Obviously the article is not great because she has barely appeared in films to date. As I say as her career develops I would expect more and more information to become available and it balance out more and gradually become a real good article. I've stated this at the review and I think Prashant, provided he isn't frightened off by certain editors here, will take the responsibility to update it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am not embarrased at all. I am surely sorry to have bothered to clean this up. Won't bother from now onwards. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't cleaned anything up, in fact you've created a rather messy situation which was unnecessary by GAR. Your input into the articles is still very welcome, and as Bolly Jeff says your comments especially on 7 Khoon are valid and will help improve the article. But your approach to clean up has been done in a way which isn't friendly to WP:AGF. Work together with other Indian editors and get them to improve their game would be most effective. There is a difference between offering constructive criticism and doing something which is quite contrary to progress on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The nominator's rationale for the article to be reassessed based on lack of comprehensiveness doesn't sound to be a valid one. The rule states, GAs need to be "broad in its coverage" and should "addresses the main aspects of the topic". The question of comprehensiveness comes into picture only in FAs which are a long way off from the GA stuff. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Same reasons as Vensatry said.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 09:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: I concur with Adabow's decision. This review has gone on far too long, and I am delisting it for the concerns raised above. ★★RetroLord★★ 11:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a few issues, just by looking at this article that I find questioning:

1. In the second sentence of the article, there is this sentence: "It is said that after Marshall's winning last move of the game, gold coins were tossed onto the board by spectators, although this is contested by other accounts." This sentence seems very unclear, as well as has an improper use of the word "It"; the use of the pronoun is incorrect. Reading the article as it stands at the moment, "it" would refer to the subject "DSB Congress".
2. In the "Game assessment" section, there are a few adverbs that disrupt the neutrality of the article, such as "sub-optimal" and "big".
3. This article does not contain any type of "Legacy" section, stating the importance of this game in the subject of "Chess". The opening paragraph states that this is a "famous game", but there the only other claim in the article regarding this game's legacy is the "The "shower of gold"" section of the article.

I would hope that these issues can be fixed. With these issues, I do not see how this is an article of GA status. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. I originally wrote that "Legend has" for this sentence, and didn't see why it should be "It." ::--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   In an article of "GA" status, using the word "Legend" as a subject still seems ambiguous. I, as the reader, am asking the question "What legend?" Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   The legend is clarified in the section before the moves - the lead's role is not to elaborate that much, but to summarize the article as a whole.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   "Legend has that ..." is incorrect, but "Legend has it that ..." would be OK (for now I've changed it to that). However, the original comment is incorrect. The It in "It is said that ..." cannot refer back to "DSB Congress", but stands on its own; it's what is known as a syntactic expletive. Sorry to be so technical, but the sentence was correct and unambiguous. This construction is actually quite common. --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. "sub-optimal" and "big" are justified if you look at the moves, especially the one that allowed Black to win a piece. ::--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. There were not many reliable sources found on things other than the legend of the gold shower and the surprise of the Qg3 move, although I might want to elaborate on how the ...Qg3 move is arguably the 3rd-best of all time. ::--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope no one minds if I comment on this but I thought i'd try and help by pointing a few things out.

"White: Stefen Levitsky Black: Frank Marshall Opening: French Defence (ECO C10) Tournament: DSB Congress XVIII 1912" This appears to be unreferenced, and it mentions in the lead " It was played in Breslau (now Wrocław) on July 20, 1912, during the master's tournament of the DSB Congress" which also appears to be unreferenced. Seems to be a violation of criteria 2a/2b ★★RetroLord★★ 23:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added citation to existing reference.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The opening paragraph states that this is a 'famous game', but there the only other claim in the article regarding this game's legacy is the 'The "shower of gold"' section of the article." A chess game can become famous on the basis of a single move. Many games share the opening moves of this game, but they are not famous. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this far too confusing. I am all for having the notation down for people who understand what it all means, but there should be a decent laymans explanation of the last move at least. Especially since that is apparently what makes this game so notable. There needs to be some prose introducing "The game" section. Whats with the question and exclamation marks? AIRcorn (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Chess annotation symbols. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was pointed out when I nominated it for DYK. Ultimately, what happened was that the game summary section was an attempt to address this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really explain the game or even the move very well though. If it was the plot summary of a movie or book it would just seem to say "The movie started and the bad guys made a few mistakes causing the hero to win". There are also issues with the lead. It should not introduce new information. In fact the whole structure of the article is off. What you should do is write the article first and then write the lead just summarising the information already presented. It also needs more background information, for example who are Levitsky and Marshall, what is the DSB Congress, is there any more information leading up to this game. I know there are wikilinks, but to be classified as good I would expect a bit more information presented here. Also if the ?? and !! are evaluation symbols then is that not bordering on original research? AIRcorn (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing your point here - I think the lead does its job of summarizing the article, and the game summary section is adequate given the length of the section of the article on the game itself. There is not much information on this DSB Congress itself - most sources only focus on this game. I strongly do not believe that we should lose the article's focus on the game itself by elaborating on the players. While ?? might be OR, !! is used by the sources cited, and besides, it is verifiable in that most reasonable chess players would use ?? when someone loses a piece.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of where the game is played and very little on who the players are in the article body. There is also no mention of the DSB Congress. The lead should not introduce information that is not present in the body of the article. There is in fact no background information in the body, it just launches into a game summary. The body of the article and the lead should stand on there own two feet, with the body going into a lot more detail. The lead does, but currently the body doesn't. The game summary in my opinion is not adequate. We should write these articles for a general audience and the game summary is the best way to explain why this move is so good. It doesn't, all it says is "Marshall's unexpected winning move put his queen—his most valuable piece—on a square where it could be captured by three of Levitsky's pieces". That doesn't seem like a great move. I actually think the game summary is more important than the algebraic notation section for an article like this. I have read this section a few times and still don't understand what most of it means. A few more {{Chess diagram}}s would help, but I would concentrate more on explaining the game in prose. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Aircorn has unaddressed concerns, which have gone unanswered for three months. I'm leaning toward delisting if there is no significant activity or discussion soon. Adabow (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Consensus that there is a severe lack of referencing. Adabow (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Largely unreferenced, therefore failing rule 2b. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this article failed GAN in Dec 2006, and passed in July 2007. Chris857 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist I think "largely unreferenced" is an exaggeration, but there are some quotations and facts that need reference and some mild POV language to clean up. The biggest problem seems to me to be unattributed opinions like "The originality of her opinions, as well as the forceful way in which she expressed them, won her ardent supporters as well as angry critics". On a smaller note, the lead doesn't do a very good job of summarizing the article, and contains information not found in the body. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist As per Khazar's comments above. Large parts are unreferenced also. ★★RetroLord★★ 18:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Not listed Pyrotec (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since this article has been re-assessed, neesd to be a GA after much editing in recent years. <unsigned comment added by 16:40, 14 July 2013‎ Zeddman123 (talk | contribs)‎ >

So what has a that to do with it? The article has not been nominated at WP:GAN since March 2007. It's not going to be a GA unless it is both nominated at WP:GAN and awarded GA status. It was submitted twice for GA in March 2007, six days apart, and it failed both times. Quite correctly so, in my opinion. Opening a WP:GAR is not an appropriate cause of action for an article that was correctly failed twice over five years ago at WP:GAN. However, looking at the article's recent history, there are signs of edit warring in both June and July 2013, so it if it was submitted now to GAN it might / could be failed on the WP:WIAGA, clause 5: stability. Pyrotec (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's no reason to contest a six-year-old fail here. I'd suggest simply nominating at GAN when you think it's ready, per the standard procedure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]