Talk:Natural family planning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Natural family planning was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 1, 2008
Natural family planning was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was not listed as a GA. Please see the archived discussion for further information.
Discussion ended: 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] www.healthybirthcontrol.com

I had added the following webpage for the Ladycomp and Babycomp:

www.healthybirthcontrol.com

for the reason that the webpage is dedicated to the full scientific research data on these monitors.

Research on these monitors show that the Ladycomp has THE SAME EFFECTIVENESS as the birth control pill, the reliability of which is unmatched in any other form of natural contraception.

In addition, it is far simpler, faster and less messy to use than charting, taking the mucus, urinating etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyakarani (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are these claims independently verified? Furthermore, judging by your contributions you appear to be a single-purpose account intended to promote this particular product and website on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core policies in order to productively help the encyclopedia. Thanks. - Chardish (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source

I don't have West's "Good News about Sex and Marriage" book, which is used as the only source to support a fairly strange sentence about foreplay. Can anyone check the source to make sure that it actually says this? Do we know if West's book is considered an accurate representation of Catholic doctrine? And (assuming that it's accurate) can we think of a way of saying this that doesn't remind me of a "plumbing lesson" given by an embarrassed adult to twelve year olds?

The larger concern I have with this article is its tendency to assume that "orgasm" always means "male orgasm." To read this, you'd think that female orgasms (which never result in pregnancy) must also always result from vaginal sex. I could be wrong, of course, but I'd be surprised to hear that the Catholic Church has actually mentioned women having orgasms in any of its rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The relevant quote from the West book (which I haven't read and don't have access to) appears to be posted online here (it's the first appearance of the phrase "female orgasm" on that page, if you can search for phrases in your browser). He argues that female orgasm must be part of an instance of intercourse (foreplay or post-play), although not necessarily directly from the intercourse itself. That seems to be the majority view among Catholic theologians, although papers like Mutuality and Pleasure: A Discussion of the Female Orgasm in Contemporary Catholic Sexual Ethics seem to imply there's still active discussion going on. LyrlTalk C 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links.
(1) Do we think that Christopher West is a reliable source for information about Roman Catholic theology? His website does not claim any official status for himself (doesn't the Roman Catholic Church have official theologians for the purpose of making pronouncements like this?) and his "classes" are unaccredited.
(2) Would anyone mind if I shortened the current statement,
"While deliberate orgasmic acts apart from a culmination in full marital intercourse are forbidden, this church does not condemn foreplay in the context of sexual relations within marriage. Foreplay is unobjectionable as long as the act culminates with the husband penetrating his wife's vagina with his penis and ejaculating while penetrating"
to read something like, "Foreplay is permitted. According to author Christopher West, deliberate orgasmic acts are unobjectionable only in the context of unprotected penile-vaginal sex."? I think that's a reasonably accurate statement (according to the bit of West's book on the website), but it distances us from West in case he turns out to be an unreliable source, and it feels less strange to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
His resume states he has a Master's degree in theology and is a "Certified Catechist" in the Catholic church [1]. To me, that seems like he is an official theologian (though I'm far from a reliable source in making that determination). This view is apparently being taught in classes on Catholic theology [2]. I don't see any reason to doubt West as a reliable source, or to imply that statement is inaccurate by attributing it to a single person whose name is not recognized by the general public.
How about replacing the whole paragraph from the second sentence with, "This church considers deliberately altering fertility or the marital act with the intention of preventing procreation to be sinful. Thus, artificial birth control methods are forbidden, as are acts intended to end in orgasm outside the context of intercourse (e.g. masturbation or oral sex that is not part of foreplay). At the same time, not having sex at all (abstinence) is considered morally acceptable."
LyrlTalk C 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) I think, after a brief Google search, that a certified catechist is what most Protestants call a Sunday School teacher (with a small amount of official training, equal to a single college class).
(2) Your proposed phrasing is fine with me. Would you like to make the edit? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
According to this unreliable forum post, Good News About Sex & Marriage bears a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur. These designations, issued by a Church bishop, means that the book does not contain doctrinal or moral error; i.e. it doesn't contradict RCC teachings. If this were the case, the statements listed about orgasm in connection with vaginal intercourse are consistent with Church theology. Could someone with access to the book (or the next time they're at a bookstore) see if the Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur are there? For the record, I believe there's something in Love & Responsibility (by JP II) about female orgasm being a moral imperative of the man. I can dig it up if we feel it's important. - Chardish (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness Statistics

I am unclear why this article should quote a general-use failure rate of 25% for symptoms based NFP methods. None of the research quoted under reference 14 justifies this number ('under 9%' would be more accurate); reference 13 (the Guttmacher Institue figure) apears to be based on 20-year old research and includes all periodic abstinence methods then available under one total. On the basis of the more recent research, which reflects use of reasonably current symptoms-based methodologies, I propose a change to the upper bound of general-use failure rate for symptoms-based NFP to 9%. Daldred (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding fertility awareness methods, the authors of the authoritative book Contraceptive Technology have not found (as of the most recent edition) any effectiveness studies to meet "modern standards of design, execution, and analysis." Other old studies have also found high pregnancy rates (PMID 7446621 in Columbia, PMID 7025639 in Los Angeles). Also, all effectiveness studies are of women who learned the method in a classroom. Many users now are self-taught from books. No studies have been done on pregnancy rates in this group, but it is widely believed their general-use failure rate is significantly higher than that of women taught by experienced teachers.
Recognizing the problems with the 25% number, it is not listed alone but rather as the upper end of a range. However, because of concerns that the general-use failure rate in the available studies does not accurately reflect the population using the method, and lacking the third-party judgment of Contraceptive Technology or a similar source, I don't know that lowering the upper end of that range is justified. LyrlTalk C 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the recognised problems with the 25% number, it seems inappropriate to use it except perhaps with very clear caveats - certainly not as a headline figure in a sidebar. The more recent studies do provide figures for general use, and whilst these studies may not conform to the requirements of the authors of the one book you quote, they are peer-reviewed published research: is this not the usual basis of recognition of scientific papers as references?
Is it not sensible to (a) apply caveats to the 25% figure on the grounds that it is seriously outdated and does not in fact treat modern symptoms-based methods, and (b) refer to the more recent results in relation to modern methods - and if the specific authors quoted are felt unusually authoritative, despite their involvement in technological birth control methods which are the direct competitors of natural methods, refer separately to their views on the research? Daldred (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The articles I linked to in my first response are peer-reviewed articles of modern symptoms-based methods. They both found Pearl rates higher than 25%. I do not believe age alone is sufficient reason to discard their results. LyrlTalk C 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify your thinking here: how can age not affect the relevance to modern methods, which have evolved since the studies in question? The studies you refer to are 10-15 years older than the recent ones, and methodologies have improved significantly: their continued inclusion as authoritative for modern methods, in the face of more recent and applicable contradictory research, damages the integrity of this article. Daldred (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
How have the methods changed since the 1980s? To my knowledge, the Billings Ovulation Method, the Creighton Model, the Couple to Couple League's Method, and Toni Weschler's method (all the main ones I'm aware of) were already established in their current form when those studies were conducted. LyrlTalk C 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
CCL's methodology (with which I am most familiar) has certainly changed; teaching it in the 1980s we used slightly different rules, placed less reliance on the cervix sign, and did not use Doering's research. CCL is in fact currently completely revising its methodology and the resulting system has changed the rules quite markedly. I would be surprised if others had not kept up with the changes in understanding. The NFP rules applied by the more recent two Frankl studies differ from the early 1980's ones; the Edinburgh study (as I recall from discussions with participating couples at the time, though I do not have any paperwork to hand) also reflected changes. This is probably why the figures have improved, in fact, and why the use of outdated figures in this respect is not reasonable.
I have suggested an alteration which reflects the later studies and would suggest including comments on the fact that NFP methodologies continue to develop in the light of experience and knowledge, perhaps as well as indicating the range of 'general use' statistics and that later studies give better rates. I am conscious that we do not want to create a 'revert war' here: would this approach not both represent a fair treatment of the published science and allow comment on the older studies to which you appear more attached? Daldred (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of the CCL's current project, but had not realized their system had changed significantly prior to this. I'm also not familiar with the Frankl or Edinburgh studies (To see the studies I have at least passing familiarity with, I've typed up the studies referenced in the Kippley's book here and you can see a more thorough discussion of them at Fertility awareness#Effectiveness). It would be interesting to have a discussion estimating how much CCL's changes have impacted the effectiveness of their system, but ultimately not definitive for this discussion since the lowest effectiveness numbers are for the Billings Method.

The two peer-reviewed studies I linked to found Pearl rates of 34% and 35% for the Billings Method. These numbers are not currently in the article and I'm not advocating putting them there. I'm comfortable leaving them out of the article completely because an authoritative source - Contraceptive Technology - has dismissed these studies as not up to modern standards. The authors of that book did not find any studies of symptoms-based methods up to their standards, and so used the data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Because the NSFG number is of calendar- and symptoms-based methods grouped together, I'm comfortable indicating that some studies of symptoms-based methods have found lower actual failure rates. I'm not comfortable throwing out the Contraceptive Technology number entirely. (I do not find writing about "technological methods" of birth control to be a compelling reason to not trust a person's writing on "natural methods". That would mean all my work on diaphragm (contraceptive) would disqualify me from working on fertility awareness.)

Thank you for your patience in waiting for this reply; I did not intend to keep you waiting for three days. LyrlTalk C 02:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On review (FAILED)

I am currently reviewing this article for GA statues. Please be patient. Realist2 (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

After consulting the advise of a more experienced reviewer I am going to have to fail the article. One of the main requirements for GA is that the article is stable with no edit wars, ownership or POV pushing. I advise that you sort out your differences, get the article to a place where your all happy and then re nominate it. Sorry. Realist2 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally confused by this. How is the article not stable? How has the article significantly changed since the nomination? Where are the edit wars, ownership and POV pushing?-Andrew c [talk] 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have address these concerns with Lyrl above, the decision to not review that article was not taken lightly, two reviewers felt that a combination of vandalism, pov pushing and ownership had affected its stibility. None the less recent days have seen an improvement. As you have waited sooo long and this article has such great potential i will keep it on my watch list. If things stay stable over the next 7-10 days i will fast track review it so you dont have to be in that que. Realist2 (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Although you do start to second guess yourself when your up against an admin. Realist2 (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still a tiny bit confused (but first, I want to thank you for taking your time to further review the article, and add your comments below). I'm confused what comments to Lyrl you made. Did you have another username? I could not find any comments made by you dating before the 30th. I'm also confused how vandalism (something outside of our direct control) can affect GA status. If vandalism is a problem, we can always get the article semi-protected. But it seems like if vandalism could stop GA, then it would be easy for disruptive users to purposely attempt to hinder GA promotions. Game the system, if you will. Anyway, thanks for your comments.-Andrew c [talk] 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It fails critera 5. Stability. As everyother edit is vandalism or the reversion of outsider edits. It fails to reach this aspect. Only 50% of edits made to the article positively improve it, the other 50% get reverted or are outright vandalism. With that in mind how could i possibly pass it... it could degenerate so quickly. --Realist2 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steps to improvement

Some things you might want to consider....

  • Prevalence - this section is good - it talks about catholics are protestants who use it, but are there any non believers who also use it? What about other religions?


Methods


  • Theology
  • A) Official Catholic - In places i have added double [citation needed]. This means it is controversial and might need multiple sources. I also placed another {{Fact}} tag next to something already sourced as it needed extract security.


  • Potential advantages
  • A) Divorce rates - add extra sources where I have put [citation needed] , be specific on how much in improves marriage stability is it by 1 percent or 20 percent.
  • B) Claims regarding communication - Fix [citation needed]
  • Also) True to get it in bullet point form where possible, like it is for the "Disadvantages" section below it. Its much clearer.


  • Potential disadvantages
  • A) Very good section only two {{Fact}} tags need sorting.


[edit] Conclusion

Make all the adjustments i mentioned above. Most of it is citation tags. Try to get some info on other religions and non believers, im worried it isnt broad enough. Ideally you need a picture to satify Part 6 of the requirements, your picture isnt great but i woundnt know what to suggest on that. Get all this sorted and if things have been calm and civil over the next week ill review it and probably pass it.

In places where i put a double [citation needed][citation needed], i can image the extra 1 getting deleted by an editor thinking its an error. Just make sure any tags that are removed by other users still end up getting those extra sources. Some things need 2 or 3 soures to drive the point forward.

If you have any further questions feel free to get hold of me personally. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: the scope of this article - by its nature it focuses primarily on the method as advocated by the Roman Catholic Church. Note that fertility awareness and the rhythm method have their own articles. I'm not suggesting ownership, but the goal of this article is not to state what every religion thinks of this method. - Chardish (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Article does start off with "Natural family planning (NFP) is a term referring to the family planning methods approved by the Roman Catholic Church." and has a disambiguation notice above that stating:
This page is about methods of family planning approved by the Roman Catholic Church. For a more general use of the term, see fertility awareness.
. So quite in order to discuss only RC's views. I would suggest though that by start of the 3rd screenfull, that "Theology" section header be renamed "Catholic theology" just to again make this clear. David Ruben Talk 23:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's inappropriate for an article on Roman Catholic views to spend much (or any) time on other religions' views of their theology. Some interesting comparisons are possible: Orthodox churches tend to favor NFP but don't ban contraception entirely, for example.[3] However, adding the views of a pseudorandom group of religions simply for the sake of adding other religions is inappropriate. Including (for example) Sikh views on the Roman Catholic contraceptive rules is as pointless as including Tibetan views in the article on France's 35-hour workweek.
I am uncomfortable with the demand for multiple sources in some cases. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources; however, you've double-tagged something that's already supported by the most authoritative source in existence. Are you, perhaps, not especially familiar with this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that way a bit. I'm finding stuff that's tagged with {{fact}} that's being found in the sources. I appreciate the reviewer's comments but I am not certain he has read the sources. I removed one of the double {{fact}}s; the fact that the Church's teaching on contraception is controversial does not mean that it requires multiple sources to say that it is the teaching. - Chardish (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again accusing a reviewer of not bothering to read sources only strenghens the arguments and opinion felt by two reviewers that this article is controlled and owned by specific users with outside edits or ideas dismissed. I quick fired this article (which i had every right to do) but gave it another chance because it has great potential and you guys had waited soo long. The edit history suggests that every other edit is either vandalism or an opposing view point. It is a controversal subject but maybe if you double sourced things like "sinful" or other controversial statements edit wars or vandalism wouldnt be an issue, its called "stemming the bleeding". Realist2 (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says its approved by the Roman Catholic church , thats fine, but has anyone else endorsed or encouraged it? The article implies that, not only is it endorsed by roman catholics but its only practiced by roman catholics (oh and a few protestants). If you only want to talk about it from the view point of catholics the article needs to stress that more clearly, otherwise the reader could get the impression that its only used in the roman catholic community. If it IS ONLY used in the roman catholic community MAKE IT CLEAR. Realist2 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Catholic doctrine holds that God created sexual intercourse to be both unitive and procreative.[19] This church considers deliberately altering fertility or the marital act with the intention of preventing procreation to be sinful." I fail to see how there is anything POV about this statement whatsoever. It would be POV to call something sinful on Wikipedia; it is not POV to state that a particular religion holds something to be sinful. It is not controversial to state that the Roman Catholic Church holds something to be sinful because it is correct and verifiable that they do hold it to be sinful. It's a statement about what a particular church teaches.
I suspect you might not have read some of the sources based on the statements you have made. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. - Chardish (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic only

You mean MAKE IT CLEAR, like putting a banner at the top that says "This article is about methods of family planning approved by the Roman Catholic Church. For a more general use of the term, see fertility awareness," or having the first sentence read something like, "Natural family planning (NFP) is a term referring to the family planning methods approved by the Roman Catholic Church."

Oh, wait. That's how the article already begins.

Where exactly does the confusion come in again? Do you think readers forget this information by the time they get to the next section? Don't you think that the 36 mentions of the word Catholic in the article would remind them? Just like the article says (twice!) at the very top, NFP really is a specifically Roman Catholic thing. The rest of the world is over at fertility awareness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

Realist2, When you complain about "ownership" and "edit wars", are you referring to actions like removal of changes like this one? If that's not a good example, could you give me several examples of your concerns? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Realist2 about edit wars/lack of concensus. You only have to read the last few paragraphs to see that this is clear. This is obviously a heated subject, and one can only hope that it can be solved, but it doesn't look like it so far. I'll give you some friendly advice (if I may):
  • When a reviewer reads an article (and its talk page) he/she expects to see some kind of continuity and concensus. The article and comments about it should be stable. A reviewer can not pass an article and then risk complaints that the article has undergone numerous changes, meaning it has to be reviewed again.
  • A very basic rule of GA reviews is that when a reviewer has some complaints/concerns about the article, it is paramount that he/she be not engaged in a war of words about what they exactly mean/why do they think so/can they explain themselves. In my experience this reflects the lack of concensus that an article needs, and an argumentative frame of mind. Reviewers do it for free (as we all do) and they know enough about what they are doing to put themselves on the front line, so don't argue; just do what "a fresh pair of eyes" ask. I once read a good piece of advice: Let someone read an article that has never seen it before, because they see things that an editor that is heavily involved in the article can not. If you disagree with that, then I can only wish you the best... :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give some examples, Andreasegde? Apart from some spurious changes which are reverted with an invitation to discuss at talk, or POV-pushing which eventually gets defeated after some time, this article has been remarkably stable. Just because there are still ways to improve the article (as are being discussed above) doesn't mean this isn't GA quality. - Chardish (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here it goes again. You use phrases like "spurious changes", "POV-pushing", "eventually gets defeated after some time", but is contradicted by "remarkably stable". It doesn't add up. You are arguing for a GA, which is not the way to do things. Would you buy a new car if someone said the features/extras it has "are being discussed"? Stability and concensus are paramount. Don't sell it if it's not ready. :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A lack of consensus on what? The article has really not changed substantially for at least three months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now there are two! :)) You are arguing, and are not heeding the comments on this page. OK, let's try it like this:

  • Why does this article deserve a GA rating? Why do you think so? Can you explain further? Can you give me examples?
  • Do you really believe that there is a concensus about this article? Can you give me proof? Can you give me instances of lack of concensus?
  • Is this an article about Catholics and Family Planning, or about human beings, and their way to avoid pregnancy? Can you explain in full, and reference your answers?

This could go on and on, and on, and on... (and on) which is why Realist2 would be right to fail this article, until all the contributors can agree. This is going around in circles, and no amount of questioning will solve it. 1 + 1 is 2. That's a GA article, IMHO. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The full review will take place in 5 days, I suggest you listen to some of this advice, I've never known two reviewers to be shouted down before, we won't be bullied into passing the article. Even if you refuse to accept our assessment that it's turbulent it will still fail because of the multiple citation issues. Realist2 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any shouting or bullying going on. We are asking for clarification on the issues you have presented. - Chardish (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be very bad form, and sounds like one's juvenile vehicle has lost some of its playthings. If you argue on Wikipedia in such an aggressive way, you will always lose. It is sad, and not to be recommended. Take a step back, and look at in a new light. We are here (as we all are, or should be) to help, and not to attack.--andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that arguing behavior is unproductive and that discussing content is always preferable, though I have not participated in the discussion you (Andreasegde) linked to above. That being said, could you please clarify what specific issues of instability you see with the article under review? Citing specific edits would be especially helpful. - Chardish (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

This is very interesting, but it's not going anywhere, because I know the rules. "We are asking for clarification", and "could you please clarify" is great - really good. The simple fact is that a GA reviewer comes here, asks for changes, and you constantly question his review. (This is funny, because you argue and question each other, ad nauseum...) I will advise Realist2 to stop wasting his (freely given) time and fail this article ASAP, so you can stop wasting his time (and mine). This article is a prime example of control over concensus, which is frowned upon. You will find (sadly) that the next reviewer will also have the same problems. I wish you the best.--andreasegde (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and failed the article, and my decision was based on the consensus of two reviewers who felt the same way.

  • A large number of the edits were vandalism, reverts, POV edits, ownership. Instability was a concern.
  • The bullying of us (the reviewers) made it impossible to review the article neutrally
  • Our views were not respected, reviewers were accused of not reading sources and being too inexperienced on the issue to evaluate it.
  • Edits made by reviewers to the article were reverted.
  • A number of citation tags are in place.
  • The article was not broad enough.
  • Pictures were OK but could have been better.

Realist2 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a drastic and unnecessary step. I assure you that no "bullying" is taking place. Could you perhaps take a step back, a deep breath, and respond to our questions without viewing them as personal attacks? - Chardish (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not "a drastic and unnecessary step". You failed a GA, and the world will turn... Stop complaining and improve the article.--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty I have in doing so is the fact that a discussion didn't really take place. Concerns were raised, clarifications were asked for, and then suddenly it spiraled down into an argument that ended with a GA failure. Typically a GA review identifies specific problems with the article, as well as suggestions on how to fix them. For example, "Pictures were OK but could have been better." How so?
It is possible for GA reviewers to be wrong. I have reviewed GAs before, and I have been wrong. While some people took issue with the comments of the reviewer(s), I do not see any disrespect in those comments. I'm sorry that your feelings were apparently hurt, and those of Realist2, but can we try to move on and work together to better the article? Please? - Chardish (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On the project talk page another reviewer has stated that he/she would probably fail it as well. Im not going to alter my decision on this. This is a shame, you waited weeks on the nomination list and you only have yourselves to blame, sort out the issues above and renominate it. Dont worry if i see it renomiated in a few weeks time i wont dare come near it.Realist2 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is a BLACK HOLE, and I doubt if it will ever get a GA rating. I will congratulate you if it does, BTW. Have fun.--andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hindsight

Yuck, what a nightmare, this shound never have ended in this manner, i wish you guys all the best getting the article to GA. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)