Archives

18 March 2006 – 15 April 2006 15 April 2006 – June 3 2006 April 2006 – Jun 2006 Jun 2006 – Aug 2006 Sept 2006 – April 2007 April 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – February 2008 February 2008 – May 2008 May 2008 – September 2008 October 2008 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Would anyone be interested in another GA backlog elimination drive if I were to set one up? -Drilnoth (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would to Jason Rees (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I've got four articles up, so I would commit to at least four articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; I'll look into setting one up sometime this week. -Drilnoth (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give it a try. DiverseMentality 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. I'll probably take it easy while the "drive" goes on. Let me know when it starts. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably sit this one out because I'm so busy at work right now. If it does go forward, however, it would be good to make sure that it is well-publicized. I reviewed 58 last time, but I only found out about it by chance. It would be very helpful to have more than 9 participants this time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mabye use WP:CENT? At least for the setting up stage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like Mattisse and Gary are saying, I think this will only be a true success if we can bring in people who don't reqularly do reviews, otherwise we burn them out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas; I'll look for some good places to advertise once I have the basic page setup. Would running it from February 13 to March 13 work, with prize barnstars handed out at the end of March so that on-hold articles finished after the 13th are counted? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the basic page set up here. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I'd be interested in participating and know that with rewards involved, it would be a great opportunity to on-board some new reviewers. I'm not sure how many people watchpage this talk page since there are so many inconsequential edits on the article page, so getting the word out would be key. You might consider posting the challenge on the reward board. --Eustress (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time. I have recently resumed GA reviewing after a long absence. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

(to Eustress): Good idea about the reward board; I'll mention something there. I've already put a notice at the top of the GAN page itself, so maybe that will help. I also asked if something could be mentioned in the Wikipedia Signpost. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re getting more reviewers, see User:Philcha/Sandbox#My GA review "template". --Philcha (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Mattisse and Gary. Besides, I don't like award schemes anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it wouldn't just lead certain editors to nominate a whole bunch more articles again, I might be inclined. As is, I'm too busy to focus on emptying Lake Michigan with a teaspoon. Once submissions are reasonably throttled, then I might be more willing to work on a backlog. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to Malleus): The awards scheme is just there as an incentive to get people who might not otherwise do so to review some articles, and it really shouldn't be considered the centerpoint of the drive.

(responding to Jclemens): Has that happened in the past? I wasn't aware. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about doing sweeps in the meantime? We desperately need new blood for that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an idea on how to redesign the sweeps so that they might attract more interest... would there be any interest in reformatting how it's done? I'm thinking that we could list all of the current good articles by the date they were promoted and then continually go through them to make sure that older ones are still high-quality. The current system looks kind of confusing to me. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the GA backlog is bad, have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#The_.22Queue_and_QF.22_option - they're tying themselves in knots, and the "points" system they're discussing is so complex and riddled with gotchas that it certainly deters me from reviwing or submitting. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reading after the 5th comments. Way too confusing. So Drilnoth, what's your idea on redesigning the sweeps? Let us hear about it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get a page written up with my redesign idea, probably be the weekend. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have something similar at FAC: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. Personally, I think that is a little too complicated but the FAs by date thing at the bottom is quite nice and I think close to Drilnoth's suggestion. I'd be very interested to see their proposal.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my idea: User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 2. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am bring this matter here because I am deeply unhappy about the way in which my nomination of Manchester Mark 1, an early stored-program computer, is being handled. The review can be found here and a personal remark made by the reviewer can be found here. It appears to me that it would be considerably easier to get this article through FAC than through GAN.

I would appreciate an outside perspective, as I realize that it's quite possible that I may have become too attached to this article, and consequently unable to see things as clearly as others might. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well at this point in time the reviewer does not appear to have reached a final decision on pass/fail/hold. This is an article that I would have happily reviewed at WP:GAN. I am currently reviewing two WP:GAN articles which I would like to complete in the next 24 hours. After that I will be doing almost no work on wikipedia for the next two weeks. If you and the reviewer cannot come to an agreement in the next two weeks and/or it is failed and you choose to resubmit it to WP:GAN then I will happily look at it. But, I can't really help before week beginning 23/2/09 at the earliest.Pyrotec (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer, much appreciated. My point though was that this is not a review but a personally motivated witch hunt. When this article is failed I will take it to FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand Malleus's last comment:

• re "personally motivated witch hunt", what motive would I have for that? We've had no (previous) conflicts and I've seen enoug to know that you're a highly-respected editor and reviewer.
• re "When this article is failed, ..." you know I err on the side of working pretty hard to get articles to pass, despite not compromising on coverage or WP:V.
• As for "a personal remark made by the reviewer can be found here", it was minor joke on an ambiguity in the phrasing of your preceding comment. In fact your preceding remark (about programming in binary), the fact that I understood it and some of my other comments reveal that we have both been involved with computers for rather a long time. --Philcha (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Witch hunt" was too strong, I apologise for that. But the article that you want isn't the article that I want. The issue quite simply is, does this article meet the GA criteria? Not is it the article that you would have written. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, we had a Olivetti P6060, bought from new in 1979 or 1980. Nice machine, twin 8" floppy disks, a paper tape reader & BASIC.Pyrotec (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a summary of what I think the main differences are between us - Malleus, please comment if you think there are errors or omissions in this list.

• Perspective, i.e. what points are important / unimportant in an encyclopedia. I've invited Fatuorum to discuss this and have given him a nice juicy target by summarising my own thoughts at Talk:Manchester_Mark_1/GA1#Perspective.
• Lack of clarity through not separating aspects of the subject and making them explicit. IMO this first arose in the "Background" section of the last version before the review. IMO the current version still does not sufficiently separate and explain for the benefit of non-specialists the significance and implications of using Williams tubes (faster & cheaper than the alternative, mercury delay lines, and did not require such precise control of the computer room's temperature; inital doubts about the tubes' reliability) and of stored programs (something we all take completely for granted to-day). I also still find the stages of the project and the objectives at each stage confusing.
• I think the article at the start of the review and at present understates the significance of the Manchester Mark 1 and of its predecessor the SSEM (aka "Baby") in the evolution of computers.

If other members of Wikiproject GA think I've got it badly wrong, I'm willing to back out of this review, as I know both Malleus and I have better things to do than continue wrangling like this. --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I apologise for the offence unintentionally given by my attempted joke about the long history we both have with computers. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with Philcha. My background was DOS (or MSDOS), BASIC, Fortran 77, Pascal and I have used a teletype and punched paper tape for input, so I have sympathy with identifying primarily with readers with no programming experience, but I have no interest in "cushy development environments - e.g. Javascript, VB or Delphi on the client side; MS ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, Java, etc. on servers; C / C++". So I don't see why the article should be distorted to fit those needs. Producing a whole load of defects - no graphical operating system, no CD-rom or DVD-player, no spreadsheets, comes under the category of "stating the bleeding obvious". I would award the article GA-status now. It would be great if I could find some typos or grammatical errors, especially as "MF" is the nominator, but I have better things with to do with my time than hunting for them; and I'm in favour of adding worthwhile improvements. So in summary, "It should be written for non-specialists" is probably the only thing that I agree with in your "Perspective".Pyrotec (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus repeated at Talk:Manchester Mark 1/GA1 his request that I fail the artcile, and I have regretfully complied.

Pyrotec, the point on which you agree, "It should be written for non-specialists", is the key one, and I think most of the rest follows from there. I only mentioned modern programming / scripting environments to illustrate the gulf between programming on a modern computer (or the mainframe ranges introduced since the early 1960s) and programming on the Mark 1 or, AFAIK, any other stored-program computer from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s. --Philcha (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now opened a community review here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does it seem like so many of these GACs are nowhere near being GAs, and it seems as if the nominators expect the reviewers to do all the work to take it to GA level. This also seems a complaint at FAC, although I think the articles are usually of a higher quality. Rarely, if ever, have I been able to pass an article without making minor, or (more commonly) major changes.

I usually don't fail an article unless the nominator doesn't respond, but sometimes I wonder whether I should write out these huge long reviews, and do it three times over to catch all the mistakes, just to have it pass. On the other hand, I could just give some advisory comments, and just let it fail. A puzzling conondrum. Anyone else have this feeling?

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No article has passed FAC without tons of work. If one seems to pass FAC with flying colors, it's only because a ridiculous amount of time was previously spent reviewing, proof-reading, copy-editing, etc. If less work is spent reviewing prior to an FAC nom, then of course more work will be needed during the process. GA is oftentimes (not always) a crucial step before FA, and sometimes articles (and their writers) suffer after a poor or limited GA review -- how many times have we seen "I'm nominating this article for Featured because it just passed Good Article today and the reviewer said it was awesome and didn't need anything else"? At the same time, many new editors simply give up because they received a three sentence review that basically says "This needs too much work, so I have to fail it. Here are three or four examples of how to fix it." Yes, some articles require more work than others. Yes, reviewing is time consuming. However, I would rather waste my time writing an extensive review, knowing that the information is saved for posterity on the talk page in case someone will be interested in the future, than demoralize or give false hope to inexperienced editors. María (habla conmigo) 15:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true (and I'm not trying to see I cop out on my own reviews). However, I'm mostly wondering what is the line between a straight fail, and working really hard to get to a GA? Is there one (i.e. work on every article, and don't fail any)? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)3[reply]

Personally, I'd only quick-fail an article if it is obvious that it can't be made a GA anytime soon. Otherwise, I make minor edits if needed before passing or, if there are major problems that can probably still be resolved, I put it on hold for improvements. I think that just when to put an article on hold as opposed to quick-failing or fixing it up yourself is really just personal preference. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is different, and every reviewer is, as well, so I don't think we can work with absolutes here. My personal philosophy is that if it fulfills the quickfail criteria (no refs, for example), then of course you don't need to waste your time pointing out every grammatical mistake. Some articles are worth the blood, sweat and tears, but again, it's entirely subjective. I spent quite a bit of time helping the author of George Bernard Shaw through the idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia MOS, but for me that was so worth it. I mean, come on! It's Shaw! María (habla conmigo) 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly that article was vandalised a couple of days ago, but nobody seems to have noticed.[1] The effort to keep articles at GA can often be greater than the effort to get them there in the first place. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I view the GA process as more of a collaboration than a strict evaluation. Consider this: our goal is to build an encyclopedia. To some extent, there's recognition of good work involved, but that's not the real benefit of GA. When I take an article through GA, I almost always learn something from the reviewer. When I review a GA, I sincerely hope I help teach the nominator something about what I consider a GA to be. Thus, it's a collaborative, learning/teaching process. In each reviewer/nominator pair, there's a chance to teach and learn, so that by taking a bunch of articles through GA, I learn what other evaluators want, and by evaluating a ton of articles, I get to give my best advice on article building to a ton of different editors. Once there's nothing more to be learned, (that is, when I've mastered all the GA expectations handily) then maybe it's time to move on to FA space. In essence, we're training world-class encyclopedia article writers at GA, one review at a time. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of comments here with which I agree: "it seems as if the nominators [often] expect the reviewers to do all the work", "every article is different, and every reviewer is, as well", "In essence, we're training world-class encyclopedia article writers at GA, one review at a time", etc.

However we need to do something about the quality of incoming articles so that reviewers can review more articles per month. The long waiting time frustrates editors and sometimes leads to a review starting when the nominators / editors are not as available (I just passed Rufous-crowned Sparrow after appealing for bird enthusiasts to rally round, as the nominator had been inactive since 31 Jan). I recently suggested producing a "Writing GAs for Dummies" guide that will do the job over 90% of the time, is easier to understand than the maze of policies and guidelines, and can fit on one page - and that should be supplemented by a list of e.g the last 10-20 GAs per topic.

Let's build a list of practical proposals, prioritise them and then implement them. --Philcha (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As perhaps our recent experience demonstrates, having examples to follow of good articles in a particular genre can make it much easier on both nominator and reviewer. The first GA in any particular field to some extent establishes a benchmark. I think was Geometry guy who was recently asking for examples of good GA reviews, which should probably be resuscitated. But perhaps in conjunction with a more easily accessible and finer grained set of examples of different types of articles. For instance, not just journalism, but local newspapers, national newspapers, magazines ... say, with links to the articles in their GA state and also the state they were nominated in, along with the review. Would be good examples for both nominators and reviewers.

What about producing a checklist of things a nominator should check before submitting an article for review?

In reply to jclemens, I don't think it's possible to master all the GA expectations, as each article introduces subtle new themes and requires judgement. More importantly I think that in the ideal world every reviewer would be active at both FAC and GAN. Things learnt at FAC can also be useful at GAN, and in your own writing; GAN isn't a training ground for FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, FAC still scares me, and I have 6 GAs and 40+ reviews. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC scares me as well, that's part of the thrill. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA is a checklist, but the problem is it refers to policies and guidelines, which refer to further policies and guidelines, etc., etc. I think one page midway between WP:WIAGA and the policies and guidelines, with a few practical tips (e.g. "use Dispenser's Link Checker before nominating") would help us in "training world-class encyclopedia article writers at GA, one review at a time". --Philcha (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA is a checklist aimed at reviewers, doesn't help nominators much. I was thinking of something more along the lines of your practical tips idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the quick fail criteria is for?じんない 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The quick fail criteria are written for reviewers, not nominators. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a "Writing your first GA" essay. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to try my hand at WP:WYFGA and see how it goes. I hope it doesn't seem too much like "gaming" the system. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone else is interested enough to have a go. Some pages you could mine for ideas:

• User:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article - a draft I started and offered for comments, but no-one responded.
• User:Jacklee/Writing good articles has a light, almost chatty style that I will be helpful to new(ish) editors.
• Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles - good content, but wrong title and a little bureaucratic in tone, with too many WP:acronyms.
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles, that Tim Vickers mentioned - good content, but IMO too long for a newbies' guide. --Philcha (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks. I'm offline for a while, so anyone can feel free to add/integrate those into the article without edit conflicts. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure how long Jclemens meant by "a while", so I filled out most (?) of the gaps in User:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about implementing a bot that will go through each GAC listed, and then make a list of any and all cleanup templates that listed in the articles. Does anyone think this will be helpful? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be helpful, and I can't see what it would hurt (other than leading to possibly a bunch of demotions). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is easily doable via WP:AWB's listmaking options. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This was made by finding articles linked to GAN and comparing it to articles in the Cleanup category. There are a couple false positives; that could be easily fixed by comparing to Category:Good article nominees instead (which is what I should have done). However, even the less-accurate method reduces search time down to a couple minutes, mainly spent waiting for AWB to crunch through the lists.

• Alprazolam
• Australia
• Thorbjørn Jagland
• Marilyn Manson
• Schindler's List
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I thought it would be thousands long. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh Peregrine, we're talking about GA nominations, not those that have already passed :) Gary King (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's only cleanup; I dunno if it includes disputed, POV, etc. There's probably a master categor for all such problems...?

BUT while we're at it, I found article that are NOT ISTED at GAN but have the GAN template on their talk:

• ABC (medicine)
• American crocodile
• Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Chemetco
• Christmas in the post-War United States
• Jan Kaplický
• Medical director
• Superman Returns
• The Nightingale
• Triage
• Two probs to be investigated....Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need? Oh well, good try. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superman Returns is my fault - I failed it but left loose ends in the "paperwork" -sorry! At least it helped to show the usefulness of these search tools. --Philcha (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to do this for current GAs? That might give some indications of the number that need urgent attention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Doing it for GAs would be easy, but I have to go to church. Back in a few hours. Don't you have WP:AWB? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to, but found it really distracting so turned it off.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jan Kaplický was my fault. I failed it but neglected to change the talk page template. I have fixed that now. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! Kohlberg Kravis Roberts was recently passed as a GA. I took a quick look at this article and saw quite a few things that would have made me think exactly the opposite - short lead, major lack of citations, etc. Am I being too picky, or should I take this to GAR? Just wanting to grab a few opinions before I decide which way to jump... Dana boomer (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new around here, but I wouldn't have passed it with that lead, and a quick look at a section "RJR Nabisco and the Barbarians at the Gate" shows it has many dollar values and dates being given that need specific citations (at least page numbers of the book being discussed). Sasata (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to say the same thing. Swathes uncited, improperly formatted references, poor lead - list goes on. Needs an urgent GAR and a note on the reviewers talk page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number or density of citations doesn't matter per se, but here there many many sentences screaming for citation, such as "KKR closed out the 1970s completing the public-to-private buyout of Houdaille Industries in 1979, probably the largest take-private of a public company to that point." According to whom? In addition to the above issues, the prose is unencyclopedic, reading in places like a press release. The "Investment strategy" section is particularly weak, describing what the company "will" or "often" does. Geometry guy 13:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Apollo Management, another nomination from User:Urbanrenewal, is on hold. There were a fair number of style improvements necessary, and also the lead was rather short. With only a quick glance at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, I would have though it needed similar improvements. However, Urbanrenewal is an amazing guy at making quick improvements to articles, so I wonder if it could be done 'off the record'. Then again, perhaps GAR is the way to go... Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be perfect for a individual GAR (aiming for a "keep" outcome, if what you say pans out). I don't mind doing it if Dana boomer (or someone else) doesn't. It is better to have a thorough review in the article history (the GAN was indeed a "quick pit stop"!). Geometry guy 13:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everyone, thanks for the comments. I'll open an individual GAR on the article in a few minutes - anyone else who would like to is, as always, welcome to comment there. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've opened the individual GAR, posted my comments, and dropped a note on the original reviewer's talk page. As I said above, please feel free to comment on the GAR for anything that I may have missed. Dana boomer (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reviewing the article about cricket player Dick Pollard. Among the usual things to fix, the concern is that the article, as you can see, says nothing about his personal life. When I raised it on the review page, the nominator said that "This kind of information is pretty much unavailable." I sympathize, as I know in other articles there a simply a dearth of references talking about a person's personal life. However, leaving something like that out for this article means leaving out a huge part of his life, and I do not believe that satisfies the requirement to be broad in coverage. So, can I have anyone else's opinion? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 05:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. A biographical article needs to cover both the subject's personal and public life to be broad. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree too. I'm more than a bit surprised as well that no date is given for his death in 1985. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I agree to some degree, I enjoy playing devil's advocate: what about historical figures (such as notable folk from Medieval England or Ancient Greece) about whom nothing may be known of their personal life? If I were to rewrite Sappho tomorrow -- very tempting -- and bring it to GAC, should it be held to such standards? Of course, contemporary people typically have better coverage due to the media machine(s), but that may not be the case. I had such a time trying to find something, anything on Robert Sterling Yard (GA, FA) other than his workaholic tendencies. María (habla conmigo) 21:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Short answer: horses for courses. It's rather unlikely that any further information will come to light concerning Plato's life for instance, but someone who died in 1985? It's pretty hard to believe that nothing was ever published about his personal life, wouldn't you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you're saying that an article that is (theoretically) otherwise inclusive should be shortlisted for GA until a reliable, tell-all biography is published, goodness knows when? If so, then no, I can't say I agree. I think an article that is "broad" in its coverage is all we can ask. To me, "broad" does not mean "everything" -- GAs don't have to be comprehensive like FAs, they just have to cover the "main aspects of the topic". María (habla conmigo) 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is this "theory" of which you speak? I'm simply suggesting that different interpretaions of "broad" have to be applied to those who died in 348 BC from that applied to those who died in 1985. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]