THC Science

WT:GAN

Archives

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

Mac OS X

I'm currently reviewing Mac OS X, and have commented that it's too insider-oriented in both content and sources - IMO the things that matter to ordinary users are pricing, performance, reliability, security, ease of use, and avaibilit yof applications, about all of which which the article says next to nothing. The editors disagree, and there has been no real movement on this for nearly 3 weeks.

I'd be grateful if another reviewer would look over the article and let me known whether what I've said is reasonable.

PS I'm aware of other issues that I haven't raised yet, e.g. the genealogy and architecture of the Unix-based parts of OS X is unclear and the statement about the "Taligent", "Copland" and "Gershwin" projects is not fully supported by the source (mentions only "Taligent"). I saw no point in going into detail while there was an issue about the scope. --Philcha (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you asked... :-)
Judging by a fairly superficial read-through of the GA review and the article, to the degree that your comments in the review are intended to be encompassed by your one-sentence summary here, I think you're on the wrong path here. The article seems generally fine (in fact, in some respects it may have been better before the editors started trying to address your comments; specifically the Architecture section, which should probably have been improved and illustrated rather then removed) and mostly needs attention to details and fleshing out or merging of the various single-sentence top-level sections. The issues and perspectives you mention here are fair, but, in my opinion, boil down to a minor content addition and some copyediting; and not, as you appear to suggest, a significant change in overall focus. I'm also left with a feeling that you may want to examine how much of your own POV is shining through in your assessment; some of the comments gave me the impression that you're extrapolating from your experiences with Windows (and primarily as a home user) and assuming they're generally valid. In short, I suspect the reason you're uncomfortable with the focus and coverage of the article is because it does not conform with what a specifically Windows user would expect an article on Mac OS X to look like.
That's not to say the article doesn't have problems and rough spots—and isolated instances of “insider-oriented” POV—but I'm guessing the reason it's stuck is because you're arguing the bit above and refusing to get into the details.
Anyways… I hope that wasn't too much of the “though love” and that you found a second pair of eyes useful (even if they disagreed fairly significantly with you). :-) --Xover (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be concise: the article fails WP:JARGON (which is part of criterion 1b) in spades. Partly as a consequence, it is essentially unreadable (1a) to a large proportion of the likely readership. Geometry guy 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on comprehensiveness

Criterion 3 (a) requires that good articles "address the main aspects of the topic". I'm wondering i. whereabouts the threshold for "main aspect" is, and ii. whereabout the threshold for "address" is. I'm reviewing an article on a one term U.S. Senator (the subject's primary claim to notability) who was a state legislator before his Senate career. I'm generally satisfied with the comprehensiveness of the coverage of his Senate career, but his career as a state legislator is dealt with in a single sentence that includes only the dates in which he served. I'm on the fence on this, and would appreciate others' thoughts. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what the scope of the article is intended to be. If it's called something like "Senate career of John Doe", then I wouldn't be expecting to see anything other than material about that period in his life. If it's called "John Doe" on the other hand, then I'd be expecting substantially more than one sentence of biographical material beyond the account of his senate career. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. The article is for the individual, but you may have misunderstood me: there's much more than one sentence about his life outside of the senate; my concern is specifically with the portion dealing with his career as state legislator, which is only one sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I did misunderstand you. Then my reply would be that the number of sentences isn't important, rather the importance of what isn't being said. If one sentence covers all that needs to be said, fine. Are there questions in your mind about important material you feel may be missing about his career as a legislator? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No specific questions beyond "What did he do during his six years as state legislator?" I'm not really wondering whether the article *should* include material on this; there's no doubt in my mind that it should. I'm more wondering whether the absence of such material is a reason to fail the article, given that WP:GA? is quite clear that an article doesn't need to be entirely comprehensive to be listed. If it helps, the article is Joseph Tydings. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking only for myself, that looks broad enough to me. It'll be interesting to see what others think. I'd be concerned about the claim in the infobox that he fought in World War II though. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both for your thoughts on the broadness issue and for drawing my attention to the World War II claim, which I'd missed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Mall here, the coverage given at the moment seems to suffice. For better or for worse we generally (or I generally, back when I was reviewing more) assume that if there's nothing more said it's because there's nothing more to say. No hard in asking as part of your review comments if anything of note happened in those six years; the author may have forgotten to mention them in the article. But if there's nothing to say, I think it's OK as is. Giggy (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related topic I wanted to raise: I have over the last six months been working through the sports person articles for GA Sweeps. One recurring issue is that many otherwise OK articles (i.e. Paul Dickov, David Beharall or Andrés Nocioni to name a few) have zero information about the person's life outside sports. I would normally consider this essential but upon consultation some time ago (and I now cannot find the discussion or remember exactly who was involved) I was advised to drop this consideration from my reviews. I still mention it, but it is no longer a cause to delist an article. I was wondering whether people felt such information was essential for a GA or peripheral and if it should be included, to what degree? (One of the better examples of such a section is, I feel, the one at Brian Urlacher).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, speaking only for myself, I would delist an article if it didn't contain information about the subject's life outside of sport, as failing 3a. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article was "John Doe, the Sportsplayer" it should have some relevant information. And it should only have such a title if their is a main article on that person.じんない 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absent contrary evidence of past consensus on the question (I don't follow these things that closely), I'd agree that an article purporting to be a biographical one needs to have some information about the subject's life outside his/her specific claim to fame to pass 3 a. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SI. Giggy (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some biographies may lack Personal life sections simply because there is little or no information available on the subject's personal life. In such cases, the lack of a Personal life section should not prevent the article from attaining GA status. The inclusion of a Personal life section in a biography of a non-public figure may cause the article to violate the BLP policy. Surely we do not want BLP-violating articles to achieve GA status? Remember, broadness is not comprehensiveness. GA was created for short articles and is hence a process that helps in countering systemic bias. I should note that I wrote Denise Phua, which achieved GA status despite having no Personal life section, and Yip Pin Xiu, a current GA nominee which also lacks a Personal life section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those articles lack personal life sections, but both of them also include information extraneous to the primary claim to notability. For example, Phua's claim to notability appears to be her status as an MP, but the article includes her year of birth, educational background, managerial positions, and volunteerism (though this last might actually be on par with the MP status as a claim to notability - I can't tell). Yip Pin Xiu includes a year of birth and educational background, as well as details about her condition that might not be strictly relevant to her claim to notability. As far as I can tell, Jackyd101 is talking more about an article that covers a person's athletic career in reasonable details (statistics, career highlights, etc.) without including any basic biographical data at all (place of birth, year of birth, residence, educational background, etc.). In my view, if basic biographical information is not available for an article subject, that subject probably doesn't clear WP:N (or, if it does, doesn't clear it by enough to have a GA written about it, though I recognize that the question of whether it's possible to make a GA out of every article is not one on which there exists universal agreement). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes sense, and I agree that a minimum level of biographical information isn't hard to come by for any truly notable sportsperson who has had some kind of professional career - they'll have appeared in sports magazines and on club websites, if nothing else. If the focus of an article can't be changed by tweaking the title, then I'd be inclined to delist and possibly even recommend that the article be merged with a club article if appropriate. EyeSerene^talk 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can disqualify articles on sports celebs for lack of personal info, as some are very reclusive out of the arena. E.g. Stefan Edberg in tennis and Lisa Moretti in wrestling. It certainly does not impact the subject's notability, which is generally for achievements in top-class competition.--Philcha (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stefan Edberg article does contain personal info, such as his ownership of an investment company, his wife and children, although why that's considered to be trivia ... --Malleus Fatuorum 12:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the small amount of personal info about Edberg should be retitled "Personal life" - except for the freak injury that killed a linesman, which real trivia as it waas not a foreseeable consequence of anything Edberg did. However I think the main point remains that personal info about about sports celebs can be miniscule or missing - e.g in the case of Ellsworth Vines you'll miss personal info in the NY Times obit if you blink at the wrong time. Until the 1980s the kind of books and articles we regard as WP:RS were very discreet about personal details. --Philcha (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is disrespectful to have the death of the linesman in a section named Trivia in any case. But to return to the question, if there is no biographical material then the article cannot be considered to have covered the main topics of its subject, and so fails criterion 3. Doesn't make it not a "good" article, simply means that it doesn't meet the GA criteria and so can't be listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) To note, my question was not about a "Personal Life" section specifically, but rather the inclusion of personal information in the article, whether in its own section or not. I agree that such information is probably available for all contemporary sports personalities and most former ones, although I would also add that a personality who is notable for their reticence is likely to have reliable sources documenting said reticence, which can form a paragraph of its own. Given the trend of this discussion, I will be returning to re-review the articles that I passed without any personal information in the near future. A related issue however is the question of how much information is required. For example, Emile Heskey has appeared in the media outside his sporting capacity (although not a huge amount) and yet the section on this in his article is only the barest minimum. Another example of this (although from a lower profile footballer) is Clayton Donaldson. How much do people think is necessary? Personally I think that at least one properly developed paragraph is a mimimum, but perhaps less is acceptable.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't call it a biography article if it doesn't cover the subject's life with some degree of completeness. Obviously we aren't looking for FA standards, but if relevant information can be sourced, it really ought to be included (and if not, perhaps as you suggest there's something to be written about why not). Personally I tend to drop or mitigate objections at GA-level if a good-faith effort has been made to find sourced info on something that I think ought to exist, even if it's drawn a blank, but that wouldn't apply where an article remains obviously incomplete or unbalanced, and tends to be for minor rather than major omissions. Not every article is capable of becoming a GA; for the Heskey article I find the almost complete lack of personal information more concerning than the passing mention of his non-sporting related activities, though that, too, is an issue. If the article was entitled "Emile Heskey's footballing career", it would more accurately reflect the content (and open a whole new can of worms!) EyeSerene^talk 21:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on the basis of the discussion here, I will be rereviewing the articles that I passed without adequate personal life information. I will begin by posting a warning and this instruction guide on the talk page of each (if anyone has any suggestions or improvements for the guide please let me know, and feel free to use any bits of it you like for your own reviews). If after seven days there has been no improvement then I will begin a formal individual GA reassessment and notify the relevant wikiproject and/or contributors. If no work happens after seven days then the article will be delisted. Any one contesting this is quite welcome to take the article to GAR. Sound fair?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)You have to take each article on its own merits; however, the good article criteria particular 3a says
"Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"
Where the note states: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics."
To me, that does not say a biography of someone who is very rarely in the public eye outside of his/her main field, needs to go into much detail at all. Some detail is certainly preferable and not to be discouraged, but I wouldn't be demanding much more than that. Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I would encourage the option of page moves (renaming the article) rather than failing as a biography. The broadness of an article is determined by its title. If reliable sources only exist to document one aspect of a person's life, it is better for the encyclopedia to have a good quality, reliably sourced article on that aspect, rather than an attempt at a full biography with less than stellar sources. This is a very serious and topical issue, as biographies can be libelous and can damage real peoples lives. See WP:BLP. Geometry guy 23:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been articles on athletes that have gotten through FAC with basically no personal life, because that person lived in a age before "personal lives" and did not have anything remarkable in his personal life to note. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't think the responses of a) I can't find sources and b) there is nothing to note really stand up at GA (and I certainly think there is no excuse at FA). An article I wrote (John Capper) recently failed a GAN from Matisse because "He does not come to life as an individual. There is not enough information about him other than a chronology of his career". Assuming this to be the standard (and I'm not complaining, just comparing), then why should articles about sports people pass without information about them as individuals?

I'm also reluctant to advocate moving articles simply because aspects of them aren't good enough: articles about a particular aspect of a person's life should only be employed if the parent article is too big, not as a convenience to prevent the delisting of Good Articles.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Perhaps you want it reevaluated. The FA article I was thinking of was Bob Meusel. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a challenge on that particular article, I'm not trying to make a point (I'd have gone to GAR for that), I'm just trying to establish where the line is and what crosses it. As for Meusel, I think that that amount of information is OK for GA, but that it would be very lucky to pass FAC at current standards. As it is, I have dropped notifications at Paul Dickov, David Beharall, Mark Hammett and Andrés Nocioni which all have 0 personal information. Those with inadequate information I will continue to consider in the context of this discussion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the gravity of my previous comment has not yet been taken on board. Articles should not be moved for convenience, nor should we stop challenging nominators to find more and better sources. However, like everything else on Wikipedia, GAN can only justify its existence if, overall, it improves the encyclopedia. Encouraging wiki-biographers to add dubiously sourced material about the personal lives of well known living persons most definitely does not improve the encyclopedia. I hope everyone can agree on that. Geometry guy 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt that everyone does agree that encouraging wiki-biographers to add dubiously source material is of no benefit either to the article or to the encyclopedia. But that's not what I understood was being discussed here. I too share Jackyd101's reservations about renaming just to creep under the 3a bar. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I do understand your comment, but I think you are assuming something that hasn't been suggested: no one has indicated that anything other than reliable sources should be used to back up this material. In fact I said in my proposed instruction guide that reliable sources are a must. I think that "Encouraging wiki-biographers to add ~~dubiously sourced~~ material about the personal lives of well known living persons" most definitely does improve the encyclopedia. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is well and good when nominators share our enthusiasm for improving the encyclopedia, as opposed to, say, getting more GAs under their belt for other reasons. Reliable sourcing is not a binary issue: there isn't a clear line between reliability and unreliability, judgment is needed. For BLPs it would be much better if this project encouraged the very best sources, at the expense of less information. I don't have a problem with YM's nominations of articles which refer to a person's contribution to a particular event. What is unencylopedic about that? Why do we have to describe people only in biography format? Why can't we have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y? Geometry guy 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y - some chess player GAs and other that have not yet reached GA have an "Influence on the game" section.

Chess promotion apart, Geometry guy is right - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" makes influences on and influences of the subject more important than private lives, unless these became causes celebres (to put it politely) or influenced the career that made the subject notable. For example many chess enthusiasts know how Mikhail Botvinnik first got noticed, who his major rivals were at various stages, who his pupils were, his ideas on preparation for important chess contests, his pupils - but it's pretty difficult to find the name of his wife. Apart from Posh 'n Becks, footballers' wives seldom make much impact. Half the times you only read about celebs' families in the celebs' obituaries. --Philcha (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent)I was brought to this discussion after it came up at Talk:Arjen Robben. If personal life sections are to become mandatory for sports figures than it will severely limit the amount of biographical articles I bring to GAN. The very reason I would choose GAN over FAC is that there is some detail missing which prevents it meeting the criterion it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context, but does not stop it from [[[WP:WIAGA|address[ing] the main aspects of the topic]]. For example, I own the majority of books which mention Sam Cowan. If the information isn't in the article it has probably never been published. Ken Barnes manages to go through the entirety of his 190 page autobiography without mentioning his wife's name once. Frequently the only sources for such things are tabloid scandal sheets, the antithesis of the type of sourcing we want to encourage. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just seen the notification for Paul Dickov, this brings up a case in point. Dickov scored the most important goal of his career when Vince Bartram was the opposing goalkeeper. The poignant part is that Dickov was the best man at Bartram's wedding. When I wrote the article I was aware of this, but couldn't find a reliable source. Since I now live somewhere where I can access Newsbank using my library card (but didn't then), I just ran a search. On this occasion we're lucky. Three publications mention it, one of which is The Guardian. The other two are The Sun and the News of the World. Those two I wouldn't touch with a bargepole from a WP:RS point of view. But most of the time it is that type of publication that tends to be the one to delve into personal lives. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on that, but it raises a question: tabloids are subject to the same libel laws as broadsheets, so in theory at least, their news (if not their tone or writing style) does qualify under WP:RS. We don't have a blanket ban on those sources, so perhaps we just have to exercise caution when using them?--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The red tops in particular deliberately sail very close to the wind, careful use of the word "allegedly" a favourite. Put it this way: Yesterday the front page headline on the Sun was "Robinho Rape Arrest". The player had been bailed by police in connection with an investigation into a sexual assault. Other papers reported the same story, but were far more reserved in the way they reported it. Today, though a search of their website brings 51 results for "Robinho" from 2009, yesterday's article is mysteriously not among them. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but surely the role of Wikipedia as a tertiary source is to distill the relevant information from the news article, just as with a broadsheet - our role is not to determine which information from commercially released newspapers or journals is newsworthy or reliable, but to report what others considered to be newsworthy and the manner in which they reported it. Thus allegedy is appropriate in many instances: for an example, see Tony Parker - he was accused of having an affair with a model in the tabloid press, the story ran for several weeks and later turned out to be a hoax - it generated a fairly high level of media interest and therefore is important enough to include in the article, in spite of its lack of relevance to his sporting career and in spite of the totally invented nature of the story (in fact the fraudulent nature of the story makes it even more important that wikipedia reports it accurately to conform with BLP). Wikipedia is fast becoming many people's first choice for biographical information on "celebrities" and the Parker story, like many others, will attract a large number of viewers to the page who are looking for information unrelated to the subject's sporting career. For information such as this, often the only sources available come from the tabloid media and yet that doesn't mean that the information is not relevant to the article or cannot be reliably sourced - it just means that we as editors must take care in the manner in which we phrase and source the information in the article in question.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the correct interpretation of WP:BLP. As an encyclopedia, we aren't competent to decide what is and isn't 'true', but we have policies to guide our use of what reliably-sourced information we do find. I share Oldelpaso's opinion of tabloid newspapers, but think that as long as they're used responsibly, they can be a valuable resource. WP:RS specifies the source should be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", which is different to completely reliable in all things. EyeSerene^talk 13:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If something is of note, then it ought to be documented in sources whose reliability is not suspect. We should endeavour to use the highest quality sources, doubly so for biographies of living people. To rely on sources are not regarded as trustworthy or authoritative is to hinder that goal. If something can only be sourced to publications with poor reputations for reliability, then my interpretation of WP:RS is that they should not be included at all - "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" surely applies. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's broadly true, of course, but we're in a bit of a grey area. I think part of the problem is that while many things are of note, they aren't documented in the highest-quality sources because they aren't of note to those sources. We wouldn't, for example, expect to find personal information about a footballer in a peer-reviewed academic journal or even necessarily a quality broadsheet - the audience for that information, by and large, is the readership of the tabloid newspaper, so that's where we'd look. I completely agree that such sources must be handled carefully, but that doesn't mean they have no value at all. EyeSerene^talk 14:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA guides

We've all grumbled about the poor state of some nominations. While there is a decent Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles guide, there's no simple guide to writing GAs for editors who are not familiar with the details of the relevant policies, etc. Would it be a good idea to write a relatively simple guide, possibly with sub-pages for aspects that are more complex or more topic-specific (e.g. the discussion about breadth of coverage, especially in bios), and then feature it prominently in the "How to nominate" section of WP:GAN and possibly link to it in Wikipedia:Good article criteria? I know the relevant policies etc. would take precedence, but I think a shorter, common-sense outline would suffice for at least at least 95% of the content in articles we review. I have a few thoughts on the contents, and could draft a guide in my sandbox for other reviewers to comment on.

BTW we had a discussion recenty about poor reviews. Would it be useful to add to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles something like "It's a bad idea to review an article for GA status if you have not already produced or improved at least two articles that have then passed GA reviews"? --Philcha (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For both editors and new reviewers I suggest it would also be helpful to provide a list / category of fairly recent GA passes by sub-topic in the nominations list, as some people learn more easily by example than from guides and rule-books. Does anyone know how this could be automated? --Philcha (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've produced the beginnings of such a guide at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article. Please comment at User talk:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article. --Philcha (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do already have Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles, which is largely written by Nehrams. I also found User:Jacklee/Writing good articles. But the more the merrier! Geometry guy 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links! I especially like User:Jacklee/Writing good articles, because I think a light, almost chatty style will be more helpful to new(ish) editors. The problem with Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles is that, although its content is good, its title suggests yet another dreary piece of WP bureaucracy, and the Guide itself contains too many policy acronyms - I don't think I've ever read a policy or guideline all the way through, and I've produced a reasonable number of GAs in the last 8 months or so. Whichever version we use:

Its title must imply "this is what to do before nominating" - why, if that's not obvious to a new(ish) editor.
Tthe way it is presented in the "How to nominate" box of WP:GAN must also give this impression.
Its style should be light and easy.
It should include tips and tools (e.g the link checker) as well as rules.
It should cover it all in one page, with the possible exception of breadth of coverage, so that the TOC is a good summary and readers don't lose the plot while waiting for a linked page to load.

Hopefully that will lead to better average quality of nominated articles, reviews that make a more positive impression, and more people willing to review.

PS to make it work, it needs a commitment from the GA project to keep it up to date - some parts of User:Jacklee/Writing good articles are visibly out of date. --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW has anyone any ideas on how to automate presentation of a list of recent GAs in each topic area, so that readers can see examples that meet the current interpretation(s) of the current criteria? --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good idea, as I frequently look for examples of articles in a certain area (like albums, or films etc.) so I know what is supposed to be in such an article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do this too. Whitehorse1 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think warning potential reviewers against reviewing if they have not already been a key contributor to multiple articles that have then passed GA reviews is a good idea. I understand what you mean in terms of someone understanding the process if they've experienced it from the other side though. Willingness to read, and ability to understand, the policies, guidelines & criteria in a potential reviewer though is what's crucial.

You make a great point about many learning more easily by example, Philcha. Specimen or model reviews, selected by others, might better guarantee quality than automated selection? Whitehorse1 00:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For model reviews I think you're right, they have to be hand-selected. Unfortunately model went so dormant it's been archived, although it was only opened around 12 Jan 2008. To make that work I think we'd need to:

Get a decent range of reviews - different types of subject; easy passes and those were harder work; close "fail"s; and maybe some that weren't so close, although the reviewees might not be happy about that, and perhaps we should ask if they are willing for the reviews to be listed.
Make them easy to access, e.g. links to them at the top and bottom of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles.
Review the list if standards change - which has happened, my impression is that many FAs promoted before 2007 would struggle to pass GA reviews now.

The need to keep "model" lists up to date is one of the reasons why I suggested automating the selection of model GAs. The other main one is that we need one or two from each sub-topic because e.g. a science GA looks very different from a sports GA, in fact there are wide differences within sub-topics.

The idea of warning against reviewing if they have not already been a key contributor to multiple articles that have then passed GA reviews came up in recent discussions about poor quality reviews (Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#Rule_to_make_only_established_editors_review_for_GA_status.3F and Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#Criticism.2C_not_review). I think a would-be reviwer should first have been on the "receiving" at 2-3 articles which passed. It's how I got into GA reviewing - maybe I was lucky, but my first 3 experiences of "receiving" GS reviews were positive. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For myself at least I wouldn't qualify as a reviewer under those rules. Whether or not that's a bad thing is, I guess, quite another matter! ;) –Whitehorse1 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably jumping off on a slight tangent, but it's always struck me as a little strange that nominators aren't asked to give feedback on the reviews of their articles, perhaps on a scale of 1–10, for instance. Who decides what is a good review? Me? You? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a limit to how many noms you have?

No offense to this user, but User:YellowMonkey has 20 noms in the sports and recreation section. In addition, to this being a lot of noms, it contributes to the huge 60+ backlog. The users also should help in decreasing the backlog if he wants to have those many noms. I'm just saying.--TRUCO 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such limit currently. There has been some discussion as to whether such a limit might be desirable, but none has yet been imposed. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, and I try to keep my ratio of articles submitted to article reviewed right around one. Some users, though - no idea whether this applies to YM or not - may not be comfortable reviewing articles, as reviewing good articles requires a different competence than writing them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently no limit, but it is generally encouraged to review other nominations if you list one (or 20) here. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen YellowMonkey review articles, it's not something I think he's shy about doing, but he does have other things to do. If someone feels there time is better spent writing articles than checking other peoples', I think that's fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against someone writing articles, I have 2 noms up there, but I reviewed 3 in exchange. Its fair to review to get a review IMO. I just think that 20, especially almost back-to-back is a bit overwhelming.--TRUCO 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a quid pro quo. Our aim here is to improve the quality of the encylopedia. Why should YellowMonkey be slowed down just because we can't keep up? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play Devil's Advocate…I think the OP was suggesting mass noms were contributory to why we might not be able to keep up. ;) Whitehorse1 00:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Sarcasticidealist comments others have thought this is something for discussion too. The immediate last archive of this page has something on this too —brought up by an pretty experienced reviewer I believe. Wikipedia is not a sprint. I can see how a cap on the amount of nominations (# of noms per editor) at one time, say a maximum of 3, is reasonable.

Reviewers place articles on hold for a short period so article problems can be fixed. This is so when they are fixed, and no new problems are introduced, they can pass the article. With a large amount of concurrent nominations an editor's time and attention is spread more thinly; even allowing for case multiple noms might not all be taken by reviewers at the same time this is valid; this means less time for addressing any concerns raised by each reviewer for each nominated article. Whitehorse1 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That an editor has twenty nominations suggests he is a prolific contributor of quality content and should be encouraged to write even more. But after closely scrutinising YellowMonkey's nominations, I am rather concerned. Six of his nominations are about the 1948 Ashes series and fourteen are entitled "X with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948". Would reviewers want to review so many articles with excessive details about a minor sporting event? Floods of such articles just show how severe the systemic bias of Wikipedia is. Perhaps there should be limits on nominating many similar and excessively trivial articles? While I wish to applaud YellowMonkey for writing so many articles about cricket, I wish he (and others) would do more to counter systemic bias by writing about, for example, Singaporean historical sites and politicians. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially, I clicked through and glanced at your talk page and something there led me to Peer Review. It (i.e. WP:REVIEW) has a note in bold type advising noms:

Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor. ...[A]nd 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review or unsuccessful FAC., and a further info link that explains: Since PR is supposed to be an interactive process, having more than four open PR requests seems counterproductive. ... The basic idea is that editors should look carefully at feedback from any review process, and make the needed changes before asking for a peer review.

It suggests to me how established the understanding is that limited or finite resources exist and, to effectively make those available for everyone, some limits have to be placed to facilitate that. As someone said, aiming to be about the "us and the we" instead of the "I and the me". It does look like limits to ga noms wouldn't be a paradigm shift from the setup that wiki contributors will experience and are used to onsite. –Whitehorse1 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 11#Limiting nominations?. Aptery gial 11:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piped link 'immediate last archive' posted a couple of paragraphs up. *g* –Whitehorse1 11:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So you did. But what that thread shows is that a policy of limited noms would be impossible to implement: the opposition from some sections of the GA community would be insurmountable. While I was originally for it, it is important to recognise the effect that such a policy could have on the output of quality articles. Aptery gial 11:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't get that from the debate there. Strong support — near unanimous — for some sort of cap, with User:TonyTheTiger the only opposed; User:Geometry guy said later in the thread he felt a cap would have limited impact too though.

I did quite like your your idea of further noms if you review a block, User:Apterygial. Interesting.

I found it interesting some of the 5 editors User:Geometry guy points out would be affected are the same names seen in the discussion that led to Peer Review introducing limits. –Whitehorse1 11:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We write and review subjects we care about and hopefully know something about. If all the nominations are of high quality than I do not see what the concern would be? If some or many are of questionable quality than that is another issue. I consider all sports game outcomes trivia, but that is just me. :-) Looked at some of the pages and all I can says is WOW. Dedicated. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's frustrating for the would-be-nominator who eagerly, with some trepidation, puts up the article they've lavished attention on… Only for it to languish in the queue for ages because of en masse noms from a small cadre of editors.

Time and again the sentiment there is a problem is brought up, like here; or, this current submission:
(quote) Mother's Milk is the fourth studio album by alternative rock band Red Hot Chili Peppers. This is a project I have been intending to work on since the last Chili Peppers' album, One Hot Minute, was completed and subsequently Featured in November 2007. … I elected not to nominate this article for potential GA status as I feel that process has become a useless outlet of mere waiting; it is a test not of the article's quality but of it's contributor(s)' patience. (unquote)
–Whitehorse1 12:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if more editors took that view then the backlog problem would be eliminated, at least at GAN anyway, although taking articles which are clearly not ready for GA, much less FA, will not do much for queue at that review process. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the possibility of that. My latest FA creation skipped right over the GA process completely. (I'd still be waiting for a review most likely based on the dates in the backlog) Wizardman 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem though is a severe lack of willing reviewers, both at GAN and at FAC. Pushing the problem onto FAC solves nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like a user pointed out above, it really drags reviewers away to review 20 noms of the same type of articles.--TRUCO 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've touched on something important. What isn't being considered in this wringing of hands and clenching of teeth over the size of GAN's backlog is that the waiting time is not uniform across topics, and some are severely backlogged because of an apparent lack of reviewer interest, others get picked up almost instantly. I can't remember ever having to wait much more than a week or so for a review, for instance. We don't have the right statistics available either. So the queue size is n? So what? What's the median waiting time for a review to begin? Standard deviation? Variation across topic categories? That there's a bottleneck with pop culture topics, for instance, is not something that I'm ever likely to be concerned about. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the need is not for more reviewers per se, but for more reviewers in categories x, y or z? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because of the rich inner light that shines through in your eyes, Malleus. People flock to it. Stats wise I don't know of any of that either. The only statistical data I've seen is GAN/R, the template, and GA/S. – Whitehorse1 13:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus has centered the point with his comment that the number of articles at GAN is irrelevant. What matters to nominators is how long is the wait. That will depend on the article. For instance several of YM's articles have been at GAN for some time, presumably because such specific topics haven't attracted reviewer attention. However, to those who think YM is not helping the encyclopedia with these specific, but well polished nominations, please address your concerns via User talk, not WT:GAN. I'm not aware of any evidence that such nominations cause delays to others in the same area: GAN is not a queue. Indeed, from a reviewer perspective, having more articles at GAN is a good thing, because it provides a greater selection of articles to review. These particular articles have evidently not been selected yet!

Yes, we need more reviewers, but, as I have pointed out several times, reviewer numbers are growing steadily: GAN is rather successful. If we want to reduce nominations, I agree with Philcha that the priority is to educate nominators in GA expectations so that the articles nominated here are close to meeting the criteria and we spend less time on articles needing significant work. However, and this I must stress, this does not involve regulating nominations or skipping reviews of good faith nominations. Like all volunteer work here, GAN reviewing is a service to the community, and we will only continue to grow if we build on the spirit to give every article we review the best service we can. That is how we encourage nominators to become new reviewers. Geometry guy 20:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed and passed two of Yellow Monkey's GA noms. They were the two easiest GA I've done. Quick, easy wins. I'd be quite happy to speed through the others in order to reduce the list. My view on this is that it's not the amount of noms that hold us up, but the quality of the noms, and the attitude of the nominators. Some nominators seem to feel that we will finish off an article that doesn't quite make GA. I'm happy to make minor corrections, and then make suggestions for improvements, but feel that if there is substantial work required, and the nominators are not doing the work, then the noms should be delisted. Arguments from nominators isn't helpful either - it is very demotivating. A nominater should be able to challenge views, and to have their concerns addressed, but no more than that. The process is light enough that a nominator can resubmit their article again if it is rejected. We are not a court of law, and quibbling over disagreements is wearisome and time-consuming. I'd take 20 noms of the quality of Yellow Monkey's articles, than 1 nom which fails on several borderline aspects which have to be explained in detail and then defended against a nominator who doesn't agree. SilkTork *^YES! 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Some articles can be bloody hard work, but others can be a breeze. I suspect that those nominators with a reputation for quality work don't usually have too long a wait at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, Geometry guy. If I may I'd like to take each of your points in turn. On your edit summary comment "Is there a limit to how many times this thread crops up?", my view is that this does keep cropping up says something; a dismissive or ostrich-syndrome approach could well be a mistake. Asking questions can cause us to re-examine an issue and find where improvements can be made. Some things bear repeating. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment "need to encourage more nominators to review". With respect to "Number of articles at GAN is irrelevant", I don't wish to be contrary…but no. On the comment "indeed it provides reviewers with more choice", the opposite seems surely true: Bulk nominations tend to be concentrated on a single or narrow topic area, which gives reviewers a limited topic range to choose from.

"However, to those who think YM is not helping the encyclopedia with these specific, but well polished nominations, please address your concerns via User talk, not WT:GAN." Please Don't. Nobody but nobody has said YM or any other user is harming the encyclopedia with adding content on their topics of interest, nor has anybody said any such user is sabotaging the encyclopedia, or GA, through making use of the GA process. Rather, all community members can help ensure the GA project can manage its backlog and turnover effectively. We have seen what happens to project areas that become overwhelmed — they are extinguished: LoCE.

"Malleus has centered the point with his comment that the number of articles at GAN is irrelevant." I didn't see him say that; I saw he said something about the size of the backlog, but I didn't see he said that.

For instance several of YM's articles have been at GAN for some time, presumably because such specific topics haven't attracted reviewer attention. My take on this is some articles take longer to be picked up for review for, well, various reasons — most commonly complexity of subject. I think there's a sharp contrast between an isolated lengthy science-oriented article, which could daunt somebody without a strong grasp in science (not essential for reviewing that, but certainly doesn't hurt), and as someone pointed out above a long list of noms from the same nominator, on the same general topic, at the same time.

"Yes, we need more reviewers, but, as I have pointed out several times, reviewer numbers are growing steadily…" I couldn't say whether that's accurate; others have commented most reviewers don't quickly go onto review another, but review one or two and simply move on. I inferred from the graph you linked above that nominations consistently exceed demand; still, not my area of expertise.

I'm not aware of any evidence that such nominations cause delays to others in the same area: GAN is not a queue.
It has a queue.
Well, yes, there is no quantitative 'evidence' I can hand to you. I do, however, find the backlog usually hovers around the 300 mark. (I commend those that take part in backlog elimination drives.) Taking older nominations though, while not obligatory, is strongly encouraged. WP:GAN has: "It may take several weeks for your nomination to be reviewed, as this page often has a large backlog." and "nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority." As others have pointed out: it is not fair to other nominators who have to wait for another person to get 10 articles reviewed before they can get one reviewed.

All the colloborative article quality, accreditation, and review projects on Wikipedia: PR, FA, have identified their project's resources are limited, recognized editor focus on a low number of articles as crucial given the interactive nature of a review, sought to ensure continued efficient and effective service for the benefit of all the Wikipedia community, and acted accordingly setting limits. – Whitehorse1 13:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Malleus will correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that his statement "So the queue size is n? So what?" may be interpreted to mean that he regards the number of articles at GAN as fairly irrelevant compared to (say) "median waiting time" (one of his choices). I paraphrased because I disagree with his implicit suggestion that GAN is a queue. At best you can argue that it is a large number of queues, one for each subtopic. However, the items are only ordered to encourage (but not require) the reviewing of "nominations [which] are older", and hence improve (e.g.) the median wait time. If the goal were to reduce the number of articles at GAN, reviewing any article would do. Unfortunately we don't have stats on the median wait: if someone wants to set that up, it would be very welcome. I maintain graphs based on the stats we have. I didn't actually link any of them in this thread, but regarding reviewer growth, the best one I have is on the right (it shows articles on review/hold, and averages). The number of articles at GAN has been growing steadily, but a large proportion of that growth is the number of articles on review/hold. From the data, and my experience, I conclude that there are more reviewers and they are taking more time to provide higher quality reviews. Rumours of GAN's forthcoming demise, under the weight of nominations, have been greatly exaggerated. Geometry guy 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I admire backlog elimination drives too, but all the evidence I have seen in the data is that they have absolutely no long term effect.

Your interpretation of what I meant to say is spot on, as is your analysis that there's not one queue but many. I persist in my use of the word "queue" though, based on my experience that there are many different strategies for dealing with queues, only one of which is FIFO, which is not always the most efficient. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osteitis fibrosa cystica

This article was recently promoted to GA by User:Cssiitcic. Here are his comments on the article Talk:Osteitis fibrosa cystica/GA1. I however fell that it still multiple issues to be addressed. It is still not a good overview. Maybe I am just being to hard on the editors but... If someone else could take a look I would appreciate it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean comments on the article, not the review. Unlike you I'm no medic, so I'll assume the medical coverage, content and refs are OK. From the exposition point of view:

I'd want a brief explanation of why hyperparathyroidism causes OFC and why the article is so confident that hyperparathyroidism is the cause.
"The addition of weight loss, appetite loss, vomiting, polyuria, and polydipsia to the aforementioned symptoms may indicate that OFC is the result of parathyroid carcinoma" is ungainly. I'd prefer e.g. "If the patient also suffers from ..., the underlying cause may be parathyroid carcinoma."
"osteoclasts", "polyuria" and "polydipsia" can easily be explained at their first use
A medical question - is parathyroid carcinoma a cause of hyperparathyroidism? If not, then hyperparathyroidism is not the cause of OFC.
"serum calcium levels higher than usual" needs explanation - in e.g. pop science "serum" often refers to antidotes.
I'd probably not ask for an inline explanation of "palpable" as the common use is close enough to the medical.
"virtually nonexistent in patients with OFC with a different origin" - 2 x "with", suggest ""virtually nonexistent in patients whose OFC has a different cause"
The parathyroid carcinoma eventually explains that the cancer is a cause of hyperparathyroidism - see my comment above. I suggest the carcinoma→hyperparathyroidism should be earlier, poss 2nd sentence of para.
I don't get the significance of "Muscles in patients afflicted with OFC generally appear unaffected or "bulked up" instead of diminishing in mass". does thisentence actually explain anything?

Thats the first 25-30% of the article. I don't think I need to go on much longer. If the medical aspects, including scope of coverage, are OK, this has all the ingredients of a GA but is not quite baked. OTOH I would not quick-fail, as the issues all look easy to handle and fixable within a week. --Philcha (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a number of my concern about this article to its talk page. Talk:Osteitis_fibrosa_cystica#Issues_with_this_article The medicine is a little confusing. After reading it twice I am left with many unanswered questions. I posted a few concerns earlier on epidemiology. Another big concerns is defining the boundary between OFC and Parathyroid problems. But there are many others.

The reviewer said many good pictures. There are two pictures and neither one is of the condition discussed. No discussion of histology or fine needle aspiration.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, if the medical aspects are so flawed, I suggest you post your concerns on the article's Talk page, add that they are serious enough to warrant a prompt GAR, and draw the reviewer's attention to this. I can't speak for the medical aspects, but the presentation of the part I looked over (25-30%) was IMO not GA-standard. So if you get serious resistance, I'll back you up, just give me call. BTW I notice User:Cssiitcic is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology, so it might be advisable to get a 2nd opinion on the medical aspects. I expect you can think of someone, but if not give me call, as I think I know someone who can point in the right direction(s). --Philcha (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a plethora of posts on this incident in various places (see here; it's complicated slightly by the fact that it's linked to an educational assignment). However, I think we've reached a workable solution; I've delisted the article and, since the article writer has indicated they are willing to to continue working, will be conducting a full review. I've also left a note for the original reviewer. Thank you all for your advice and assistance in maintaining the quality of our assessment process. EyeSerene^talk 09:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theses as sources

Is there a consensus about using one's own MSc or PhD thesis as a source of information? Does this conflict with the no original research rule? Couldn't find anything specific in the MOS, and would like to have it clarified. Thanks Sasata (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a problem with it, as long as it's done well, and doesn't look like self-promotion. But, please see WP:COI, which discusses conflicts of interest. But theses and dissertations don't explicitly violate WP:RS or WP:NOR, since they have been previously published, so that's fine. WP:NOR specifically exists to prevent people from using Wikipedia as the primary publishing venue for something that hasn't been published anywhere else.

As a general rule of thumb, if we're just talking about a 1-2 references in an article, it's probably ok; but if the entire article cites some guy's thesis, it's probably a violation of WP:COI. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at WP:RSN about a month ago. A PhD thesis is probably OK provided it avoids WP:COI, as PhD theses are generally reviwed by exteranl examiners. With Masters' theses, it varies - the review may be exteranl or internal, so in general they are not wonderful sources. --Philcha (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one has written a thesis in an area of science than it should be well referred. These references may be preferable.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You spell like a doctor (... just kidding, my wife is one, so I have 1st hand experience). I okayed (GA review) the nominator's use of his MSc thesis as source material. Thanks all for your input. Sasata (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any article can become a GA

From what I have seen, GA can be the "last step" for an article in which very little information is available; any article can become a GA. Is this true? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes all the GA criterion then yes and if it doesn't no. That simple. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and thinking about it that difficult as well. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the GA criteria, shall we: A good article is—

Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research:
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio.
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I'm only bringing this here because Maurice Kouandete was failed recently, citing the lack of personal life. Should I resubmit? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Queston on comprehensive above for more discussion on something similar. The main point is GAC 3a. Peanut4 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was by no means the only reason given by the reviewer for the article not being listed. I've had a look through both the article and the review, and I agree with the comments made by your reviewer. I would not recommend resubmitting at GAN until the outstanding comments are addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I plan to adress thoss issues shortly. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (fiction)

Good article regulars may be interested in the above proposed guideline, particularly the following segment: "Although an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion, independent sourcing is necessary to reach good article status. Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles."

Discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Good_article_status. Geometry guy 14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'd looked at that, and by the time I got halfway down the debate was thoroughly confused :P As far as I could tell the proposed change will have no impact on how we assess such articles (it seems to relate mainly to the notability of subtopics of fictional subjects), but I'm happy to be corrected. EyeSerene^talk 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was thoroughly confused because the editors involved are defending entrenched positions, or a less than transparent compromise.

I think this sets a poor precedent. The guideline proposes that articles without independent sourcing might meet the new notability guidelines, but that that independent sourcing is required for GA status. That essentially creates a new class of articles which are not eligible for GA status, in contradiction to WP:WIAGA, which says nothing about independent sourcing. In support of the work done by reviewers here, I go out of my way to stress that WikiProject criteria are not part of the GA criteria. The latter already apply pressure on reviewers. We don't want guidelines to start making implicit or explicit assertions about the GA criteria as well. Particularly if, as in this case, GA is completely irrelevant. Geometry guy 23:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just playing Devil's advocate

I've expressed my view on the GAN backlog elsewhere, which is that by and large I don't see it as anything to get too excited about. But I've been wondering. I also occasionally hang around at FAC, where there's also a backlog and a shortage of willing reviewers. A frequent suggestion to dealing with that problem is for reviewers to be quicker to lodge an oppose to the article's promotion.

A great deal of GA reviewer time is spent in fixing up articles during the review itself. At one extreme, we could eliminate the backlog overnight by simply looking at each article in turn and assessing whether or not it meets the GA criteria, writing a list of its shortcomings if it doesn't, and moving on to the next. At the other extreme we could extend the backlog asymptotically to infinity by spending as much time as it takes to get each and every GAN listed.

Occupying the middle ground makes it inevitable that there will be a backlog, so should we be encouraging reviewers not to spend so much time on each review during periods of high backlog? Answers on a postcard please. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard answer - No, we should not encourage reviewers to spend less time on each review relative to what they currently spend.

Longer answer - Each reviewer spends different amounts of time reviewing articles, and different articles require different amounts of time to review. It is necessary to walk the "middle ground", as Malleus puts it, because fails without hold are not always the answer, but neither is spending months attempting to help a nominator fix up an article that needs serious work. Each article should be addressed on its own merits, and each reviewer must decide how much time they are willing to give to an article. I would agree that backlog is not something to get too excited about - as there become fewer subjects that don't already have an article on WP, there will be (or should be) more of a focus on improving existing articles. Because GAN is a major spot for bringing articles after they have been improved, that will necessarily increase the amount of articles going through the process. Not a huge deal, just something that nominators need to be willing to deal with (they can always help out by reviewing a few, as well). I know, I'm getting into WP:TLDR territory, so I'll shut up now and go review a few articles :) Dana boomer (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible to address this with a variation on open review. Suppose that instead of the first reviewer being automatically the lead reviewer who decides whether to list or not (as is the case right now), reviewers could leave comments on a GAN subpage without undertaking to be the decision-maker. Then a nomination might acquire useful comments sooner. It would still need to have a full review by someone willing to make the decision, but comments from other reviewers would be encouraged, might motivate the nominator, and might help the eventual lead reviewer provide a good review and reach a good decision. Geometry guy 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only done 42 reviews and only two of these had a second (or more) reviewer(s) providing a contribution. In my experience I don't see this concept of multiple reviewers commenting on a GAN happening.Pyrotec (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. I've certainly looked at more than a few GANs and thought I'd like to leave a comment, but I didn't want to be the lead reviewer. I haven't always remembered to go back to them once the review has been opened though. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(To original point) I think it totally depends on the review, to be honest because there is no model GA review. If there is a huge backlog and a nomination isn't up to scratch, then a reviewer could give a short review to start with listing an array of ways an article can be improved. It could simply be failed or placed on hold with this list in place with a promise of a better review if those points are addressed. If they are addressed then a fuller review would be quicker and easier, if they are not addressed, the article could be failed, without the need for a long review. I hope that makes sense! Peanut4 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes complete sense, Peanut4, and I have done this with several reviews. Basically, if the article is not quite deficient enough to merit a fail-without-hold, but there are still significant problems, I'll list four or five of the most pressing issues. If these are resolved, I'll continue the review. If a week goes by with little or no action on the part of the nominator, the article gets failed. That way, I don't have to spend the time on a full review for a nominator that's no longer interested, and at the same time have the option of going back and adding more comments if it appears that the nominator is willing to invest some effort in the process. Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is excellent practice, and the kind of advice that needs to be inform our guidelines on reviewing good articles. Geometry guy 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we disagree on whether this will happen, I don't see any reason not to encourage it. Geometry guy 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum did provide some useful and welcome second comments on the review page of one of the GANs that I was reviewing, but I think I semi-ignored them, or didn't act on them fully. Perhaps I should have kept quiet about the last bit.Pyrotec (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. The point of open review is to make clear that one editor always makes the decision. They can take into account other information or not, as they choose. I have sometimes not acted on Malleus' good advice myself, but it was still better to have that advice, so that I could take it or not according to my opinion. In cases that I didn't, I might later realise he was right, or he might realise he was wrong, or neither. But at GAN, Pyrotec, when you are the lead reviewer, to list or fail is your call. Geometry guy 23:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Geometry guy says. I'm quite accustomed to having my opinions ignored. I not infrequently ignore the opinions of others myself. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about offering tit for tat incentive

I have a number of articles that I'd like to see get promoted to GA status. I've been careful not to "flood" the queue, only putting one on at a time, and I've been sure to review at least as many articles that I submit. However, I'm impatient, and would like to speed up the process. How does does the editorship feel about me adding a byline to my nominations, something like "Review this article and I'll do a copyedit or peer review on an article of your choice?" I don't want to make GA waves, nor give the appearance of impropriety, so thought I'd ask here first. Sasata (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea really; you're heart's in the right place but I don't think the plan would work. It gives rise to questions of neutrality and may lead to some more inexperienced editors rushing to review your article to help theirs. While it's important to get reviews done, I don't think this the right way to encourage more reviews. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Nev1 on this point. It is worth pointing out (yet again) that there is not a uniform backlog of GAN reviews, some categories are much worse than others: see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Summary, i.e. the oldest GANs in some categories are 2 and 8 days old, whilst others are in the 50s, 60s and sometimes 70 days. One "solution", which may be unworkable for you, is to create and submit GANs that are in low backlog categories. Another way of getting them through quickly is to build up a track record of producing articles than are easy for the reviewer to review (and pass).Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is dangerous ground, despite your good faith, and would not like to see such bylines at GAN. However, what you say in your user space is up to you. I've noticed generally that Wikipedians are more inclined to help other editors who are helpful themselves. For instance some reviewers like to review nominations from nominators who only nominate when the article is really close to GA and respond swiftly to fix concerns. Similarly, if you do a lot of reviews yourself, your good will may be noticed. As long as the reviewing process is transparent, and the outcome is based only on whether the article meets the GA criteria, it seems churlish to forbid the collegiate spirit that "helping the helpful" fosters. If you regularly offer to copyedit or peer review after a GAN review, no matter what the outcome, even a fail you strongly disagree with, then you may acquire a reputation as being helpful. If there is any sign that you are attempting to influence the outcome with such offers, you may instead acquire a reputation for impropriety. Geometry guy 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's what I figured, just needed to hear it from others. I'll work on making sure my articles are easy to pass :) Sasata (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamnet Shakespeare problem

Could someone offer a second opinion on this article? The reviewer and I have differing opinions. Someone more experienced with GA would be a huge help. The more the merrier. Wrad (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle the cricket nominations?

I'm new to GAN and I suspect that I should pick an "easier" article to review, but looking at the backlog the several XX in Australian cricket in YYYY articles that are up for review seem to be at the top of the backlog pile. My problem is that the articles appear to be well written, but can they pass 3b? Take for example Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Obviously Bill Johnson and Australian cricket team in England in 1948 could have GA articles about them, but can an article so narrow in focus be broad in its coverage, per 3c? I'd almost suggest that they should be merged up into one or both of those instead. Is it the role of a GA reviewer to even consider scope of an article or should we take it as a given and review what's here? Thoughts? JRP (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GA reviewer's job is to decide whether or not an article meets the good article criteria. Simple as that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can an article that is so narrowly focused meet the criteria? In specific, how do we weigh these narrowly focused articles against requirement 3? JRP (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any reason why not, looks like a nice article to me. In fact the summary style recommended here on wikipedia tends quite naturally to lead to articles like this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles Yellow Monkey has wrote are of a very very high quality! The articles are way too informative to be merged. Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. That's all I was looking for. I'm not experienced enough at reviewing these so I wanted another set of opinions. JRP (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all done here, but just to say I think you're misinterpreting "broad in its coverage". This part of criteria means broad in the coverage of the specific topic. Thus, if Johnston's role in the team is not discussed, or one of the tests isn't discussed then it wouldn't be "broad in its coverage". It means coverage within the article's scope. Hope that clarifies things. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add I think Sillyfolkboy's comment is the clearest. "Broadness" means the article broadly covers the scope defined by the article title. Geometry guy 23:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article Bill Johnston (cricketer) and most of the other ones are already FAs and GAs so merging into it wouldn't work without making the article too big and undue weight on the famous tour. All the matches every person played in is discussed, and their role/job in the team is also discussed. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic review

Please look at Talk:Hamnet Shakespeare and the GA reviews. It's been put up for a second opinion, but I think it needs more than that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has passed. It meets the GAC. What more can we do? Personally, I think the article is so slight that it doesn't warrant stand alone status. But it does meet GAC and has passed review. ShaShaJackson (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is that in a legalistic sense Hamnet may perhaps be WP:notable but is not notable in real terms - he should be a footnote in 3 or 4 plays, with a redirect to William Shakespeare#Life, which can accomodate content that is not play-specific. ShaShaJackson, the reviewer, wrote, "The actual content in this article about Hamnet Shakespeare could be written on the head of a pin. The article may better serve Wikipedia by being merged into a larger article, er .... something like “Shakespeare's children” or “Scholarly speculation about Shakespeare's descendants”? The article passes the Wikipedia:Good article criteria for good spelling, good grammar, good punctuation, good footnoting, good this, good that, blahblahblah that I'm tempted to pass it but I'm going to ask for a second opinion. The editor replied, "This is about all that can be said about the guy. Don't worry about the length, ..."

So do we go with WP:rules or WP:COMMONSENSE? -Philcha (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every wikipedia article has to be on a notable subject, that's nothing to do with the GA criteria. Hamnet doesn't look notable to me (notability is not inherited), and so someone should formally propose that it be merged, perhaps with the main William Shakespeare article, or even that the article be deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forced to agree with Malleus; the content should probably be merged into Shakespeare and/or Hamlet and the title redirected. There's no indication of why this young lad is notable in his own right. EyeSerene^talk 13:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence; obviously, articles need to be notable, but I'm not convinced that this one isn't. There's not much there for a biography, but his influence on his father's work does seem to have been the subject of some serious mainstream scholarship. I'm not sure it's a GA (I'd want to see more elaboration of the apparent mainstream view that Hamlet wasn't inspired by him, since by the information currently in the article it seems very intuitive that it would have been), but I don't know that merging is the best course of action. The best way to resolve this might be via AFD; that's where notability is properly ascertained. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to take it to AfD as well, on balance. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be best. Even the connections to Hamlet and Twelfth Night, which is where notability would be asserted, are highly speculative. FWIW, (and unrelated to GA) Susanna Hall is even more tenuous, though Judith Quiney looks better. EyeSerene^talk 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD might be the best bet, but I totally agree with Sarcasticidealist above. He seems to have been an inspiration for Shakespeare's work, and in my eyes this would make him notable. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been called many things before, but "an inspiration for Shakespeare's work" is among the kindest. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, sorry but I meant Hamnet was... ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to AFD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You folks are inserting your own opinions about whether or not this figure is notable, rather than objectively looking at policy. Notability is determined by the sources. There are plenty of sources about Hamnet, therefore Hamnet is notable. It's that simple. I challenge anyone to type his name into any scholarly or not-so-scholarly database. He's all over the place. Please just leave this article well enough alone. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Hamnet has been the subject of a great deal of unsubstantiated academic speculation is not in doubt. The question is, does that make him notable? Or is this really an article about the speculation, as I believe? Either way, everyone is as entitled to their opinion as you yourself are. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make judgments about the scholarship, please, please at least spell the name right. Otherwise it will appear that you haven't actually read much of it at all and I will doubt your conclusion. Wrad (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've read all of the article, twice. Took me a total of 28.5 seconds. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behind this storm in a tea-cup, I would like to point out that this article has not received a thorough GAN review (see Talk:Hamnet Shakespeare/GA1, Talk:Hamnet Shakespeare/GA2). The GA criteria are not primarily about "good spelling, good grammar, good punctuation, good footnoting" etc. They are primarily "Is it broad, is it neutral, is it verifiable?" For myself, I am somewhat concerned that the relevance of an extremely long quote (from King John) is sourced to Bill Bryson, which seems somewhat WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, in the key passage, "More recent scholarship has emphasised that, while Hamlet has a Scandinavian origin and may have been selected as a play subject for commercial reasons, Shakespeare's grief over the loss of his only son may lie at the heart of the tragedy. This scholarship remains outside the mainstream view.[9][13]" both citations are to Greenblatt, who is the proponent of this view. Hence they should be attached to the first sentence and he should be attributed to the viewpoint, which needs to be checked against the source for synthesis. The second sentence needs independent verification. Geometry guy 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence does not need independent verification as Greenblatt himself, I believe, acknowledges that his view is not in the mainstream. His essay covers the sentence. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, widely accepted views don't need citation at the GA level. But there's no harm in finding an independent reference anyway (and you'll need it at FAC!) Geometry guy 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these good and constructive comments on how to improve the article. I won't speak for Wrad (the nominator), but I know I felt the review(s) provided to be a bit on the… uhm. …superficial side, and might even go so far as to suggest that the GA Pass may have been somewhat premature or motivated by factors outside the GA criteria. However, since the review(s) are now closed (for good or bad), perhaps I could persuade you to place these comments on the article's Talk page? I'm not sure very many of the potential editors for the article follow the GAN talk page. Thanks. --Xover (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree, Geometry guy, and have been concerned as I have watch the issues regarding this article being distilled to "good spelling, good grammar, good punctuation, good footnoting" etc. I hope this is an opportunity to clarify the issues of context and focus. And I am concerned about possible WP:SYN. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take it to GAR after. I really despise how the GA process is so dependent on ONE editor's review. I don't think it needs saying, but I really felt cheated by the reviews I got. Jackyd had some good ideas, but I never got a chance to implement them because of this big distraction. I have some ideas to improve on it. I'll do those as the AfD continues, and then we'll have a GAR. Sound good? Wrad (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed something, but the review appears to have been closed, as the article is now listed as a GA. In any event, I would have thought that this whole kerfuffle demonstrates very well that the GA process is not at the whim of one editor's review. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented here because one of the purposes of this talk page is to promote best practice for GAN reviews. If my specific comments are useful on the talk page of the article, feel free to quote me. I also think that if the article survives AfD without a merge (or delete), a GAR might be helpful. Geometry guy 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD closed as keep. I want to point out that the article has improved quite a bit since the review. I believe it meets the criteria. It's been put through a pretty stiff strainer. Still, anyone who wants to has every right to ask for a GAR. If I could politely request though, that you put your suggestions on the article's talk page and give us a chance to respond to them first, before putting it up for GAR, that would be great. I would be more than happy to respond. I also want to request that we close the merge discussion with the AfD. Consensus has overwhelmingly established that this article has a right to exist on its own. Let's let the issue rest and move on to ways that this article can remain at GA quality on its own, thus respecting that consensus. Wrad (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted keep at the AfD, and upon cursory examination, I think the article meets the GAC. However, the GA pass seems to have been done in frustration, and I think you might want to renominate it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I think you need a real review. I imagine the article will pass easily. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going through that again. I'm not leaving this to the whim of one editor again. Any issues people want to work out can be done either on the talk page or at GAR. Wrad (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all (perhaps especially Wrad), but I don't believe WP:SNOW was correctly applied in closing the AfD debate, especially while it was still underway. I haven't overturned the closure, but I've posted to that effect on WT:AFD. It may be that we can WP:IAR as far as the debate is concerned and let sleeping dogs lie, though obviously there are still issues around the GA assessment. EyeSerene^talk 10:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a complete waste of time that resolved nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where else would SNOW be better applied than in an AfD with 0 delete votes, and more than a 4 to 1 margin for keeping over merging (even the nominator voted keep!)? If you restarted the AfD, you would just get the same results and it would be a waste of everyone's time since consensus clearly established that the article has a right to exist as a stand alone. Any disinterested passer-by would see that as clear as day. If you really think something was wrong with it, feel free to renominate it for AfD so that it can prove even more solidly its right to exist! Either that or drop it and leave this poor article alone. Wrad (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no-one had voted to delete, so strictly speaking SNOW did apply, but I thought it was unhelpful to close a discussion that was still underway and might as well continue there as anywhere - I felt the closure was a application of process over product, if you like. However, although as Malleus says nothing was really settled, I guess we've been kicked back to GA. How do you feel about the GA status - would GAR be useful? EyeSerene^talk 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW didn't apply, in my view. RfA is not a vote, and "delete" and "keep" are not the only possible outcomes. But comments on this belong at WT:AfD, not here. Geometry guy 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about with this "nothing was really settled" bit. It was 4 to 1 that the article should be kept as a stand alone. You'd have to be blind not to call that an overwhelming consensus. I personally feel like the article meets the criteria, as do others. I don't see any reason for me to challenge the article's status at GAR if I agree with it's status. If someone else wants to, that is their right. However, since an overwhelming consensus has already voted against merging the article, that point needs to be dropped. If you have an issue with this article's status, it's gotta be something besides that. If you disagree (speaking to anyone) I issue an open challenge to anyone to put this article up at AfD and have another merge discussion. That proposal will crash and burn just as it did last time. Wrad (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I apologise for my lack of clarity. I'm referring to the article's GA status as measured against the GA criteria. Nothing to do with notability at all. You mention above that you now believe the article meets the GA criteria as some improvement has taken place, but there was another suggestion to renominate it to get a proper review (to which you responded that you'd prefer the 'talk page or GAR'). That's what I was referring to. EyeSerene^talk 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion at AfD was (I still believe) closed prematurely, it looks like this'll have to go to GAR, on the basis that the article does not meet criterion 3, in particular 3b, and did not in any case receive a proper review. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what are you waiting for? Why does everyone insist that I challenge my own article's GA status? Would you do that if you had gone through what I have? Seriously, people :) Wrad (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's me trying to be tactful :) I was concerned not to give the impression that there's a vendetta underway against the article, which was why I asked rather than nominated. I see your point though... EyeSerene^talk 19:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I must say I appreciate that tact! Speaking as one (of several) contributor(s) to that article, it was very painful to watch what—from my point of view—at times felt like a big pileup of people just wanting to tear down what I'd painstakingly built (or in this case, contributed to building). While watching Wikipedia happily accumulate fancruft and "specific notability guidelines", it seemed entirely incomprehensible to me that so much effort would be put into removing (delete or merge) this article. In that context, a little tact went a long way towards making the process a more constructive one. In other words: Thank you, it is much appreciated! :-) --Xover (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for you to calm down a little, so that the discussion can be rational instead of emotional. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help me calm down if people approached this more like Serene and less like an all out war (kill it or bust!) Wrad (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I mean, you're seeing everything in black and white at the moment. If you had looked a little closer you might have noticed that nobody was trying to "tear down" or "kill or bust" anything. The essence of the discussion is not whether the article ought or ought not to be kept, but whether—given its present title—it meets criterion 3. My submission that it does not is no reflection on anything other than that, and it would be better if the discussion did not once again deteriorate into unwarranted and unhelpful personal comments. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I nominated it, I would say something silly like "I actually think this article passes, so I don't really have any specific criteria in mind that it doesn't meet, but oh well." That would be weird. Also, if there honestly isn't a vendetta against this article, why isn't anyone challenging the other three or four articles this reviewer passed? Why all the attention on Hamnet? The reviewer didn't fail a one, yet this is the only one people care about. Wrad (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article caught attention because the poor review was highlighted on this talk page. If you see bad reviewing practice anywhere, please advise us here. It is preferable to post about a review (or reviews), as in this case, rather than a reviewer. The edit, not the editor is the unit of currency on Wikipedia. Geometry guy 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely false Geoguy. ALL of his reviews were highlighted on this page as being faulty, and ONLY Hamnet was spear tackled. The rest were just ignored. Don't try to paint a prettier picture here. People are saying the review was faulty, and that's why it should be at GAR, but they turn a blind eye at all of his other faulty reviews. Say all you want about edits versus editors, but the GA process doesn't seem to be in practice what you think it is. Right now, it feels to me like a platform for some frankenstinian mixture of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and WP:Notability, with utter disregard for the actual GA criteria. Wrad (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link these threads? The only ones I know are #Hamnet Shakespeare problem, started by you, and #Problematic review, which refers to the same article. Geometry guy 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unind)I guess no one did say anything, at least not, is even more of a crime.. Ironically, I was the one who asked for help, and in return I get harassed and ridiculed, my work is considered worthless. What kind of organization is this?! GA is apparently just a gang of kids going after picked targets. There is a pretense of objectivity, but nothing real under the surface. One editor with no experience in literature and even less in actual Wiki editing (just over fifty edits), can come through here and pass several articles, catching all of you guys with your pants down, and you don't even care. And then this project has the gall to ask for a little green symbol in the corner of its articles. Gimme a break. My eyes are opened now.

I tried to get help from this talk page and all I got was a good kick in the crotch. Last time I ever ask for help from the GA process. I try to free myself from the clutches of this terrible review, and then suddenly it's all my fault. People want me to delist the article I've fought so hard for! They want me to put it up for GAR!

And they don't even realize the irony of what they're saying! They say that it's all speculation, yet none of them seem to realize that 90% of the Humanities discipline is speculation! We might as well delete 90% of the William Shakespeare article, if we're so concerned with bare facts. And we shouldn't stop there. We should comb through Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet to take it down to bare facts. Do realize how silly that would be?? And then there's this idea that somehow the article goes off topic by discussing it's subjects influence on literature. Doesn't anyone notice that William Shakespeare's article talks about his influence on literature? How about RMS Lusitania? About half of it is the influence of it sinking on history. Did anyone notice this gross violation of GA criteria 3b?? Apparently they don't, otherwise they would demand the offending sections be removed as a distraction to the article's subject, just as they are with Hamnet.

Don't you have some video game cruft to go after, rather than attacking this legitimate subject of Shakespearean scholarship. Can't you just leave well enough alone? Is this the best use of your time? Can I ask, just once, that someone here put themselves in my shoes and try to uderstand my frustration here. This whole thing is ABSOLUTELY MINDBOGGLING to me! An article with 15 citations, most of which are from well-respected scholarly sources, is put up for freaking AfD. And then when it fails by an overwhelming margin, you say it wasn't closed right and the conclusion is in question? What kind of Circus is this?

Are you starting to see how utterly strange this is all to me? I respect you, Geo Guy. I always have, and Malleus and I share many common opinions, but what the heck kind of drugs have you all been smoking lately? I say that in the kindest way I can muster in my baffled state. Wrad (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saddened to see this Wrad, as I did think that we shared many of the same views about lots of things on wikipedia. You seem to have got the wind under your feathers because you believe that the quality of this article is being questioned. Speaking only for myself, nothing could be further from the truth. If the article was entitled something like "Effect of Hamnet Shakespeare's death on his father's writing" I'd be applauding it as a clear. concise summary of academic speculation. However it's masquerading as a biography of Hamnet Shakespeare, and that's my problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all to me. Nowhere does the article claim to be a biography. It only claims, by the title, to be an article about Hamnet Shakespeare, and that is all that it discusses. I fail to see anything wrong with that. Wrad (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. It makes sense to me. The article hardly discusses Hamnet Shakespeare at all, as so little is known about him. Even you must surely admit that's true. The article is about the speculated effects of his death on his father. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, if I follow that logic, then half of RMS Lusitania has to go because it isn't really "about" Lusitania at all, it's about its influence after its "death". Don't you see how silly that is? An article about Hamnet has to include any of his influence that is notable to the sources, otherwise it won't meet the breadth requirement. People are applying a double standard to this article and that needs to stop if GA is going to have any integrity. Wrad (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They failed my Silver Age of Comics. At least I think they did. I'm still trying to decide what to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a procedural GAR nomination is the best way to go then, if only to put this to rest. I won't have time to do that this evening, but I'll be happy to do the business tomorrow (if no-one else wants the job!) Thanks for bringing up those other reviews, Wrad - that hadn't occurred to me, but in the light of your article and Peregrine Fisher's comment, you're right that they need looking into. Thank you too to Xover; we really do want the best for all articles that come through GAN, and your understanding and forbearance is likewise much appreciated. EyeSerene^talk 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a procedural community GAR would be a good approach, because the original GAN review was not ideal. There is no rush, though. It is good to see improvements to the article occurring in response to this suboptimal story. Geometry guy 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the other reviews by the same reviewer, ShaShaJackson: Metzengerstein , The Gold-Bug, and Silver Age of Comic Books. To remove all question, probably all of these should be reviewed again. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just put them back on the list? I just put another GAN template at the top of Silver Age of Comics. It was never removed from WP:GAN, so I just left it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. My suggestion would be to reinstate the GANs as they were before these "reviews" were started and to start again. I know full well though how frustrating it is to have to go back in the queue, so I promise that if nobody else picks the articles up within a week then I will. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I absolutely must copy the enlightening discussion on my talk page to this page. Here it is: <beginning of copy>

I hope you don't mind if I throw in my 2p worth as well. I appreciate your frustration, especially when it appears to you that you've done all the right things to get attention for a substandard review and, from your perspective, unfairly ended up in the stocks yourself. I don't believe that really is the case, but I can understand why it may look that way to you. It might help to clarify for you why events followed the sequence they did.

Reason for AfD: The poor review for Hamnet was rightly highlighted by both you and Peregrine Fisher; but before this could be tackled questions were raised about the scope of the article - the argument was essentially that title implies that it's a biography, but much of the content relates not to Hamnet himself but to his possible influence on his father. This again is understandable; how much can one write about a boy who lived over 400 years ago and died when he was eleven? Frankly I'm impressed that you found as much as you did. However the balance of the article is, perhaps unavoidably, skewed by the additional content, leaving the impression that Hamnet's only real 'claim to fame' is not who he was and what he did, but the effect of his death on his father. As such, we asked "does the article meet WP:BIO?" As a more fundamental issue than the GA review, the article's right to exist in it's current form needed to be tested first - hence the AfD. In retrospect this turned out to be a poor decision, partly I think because the issues were too nuanced for that forum and have been misunderstood, and partly because the (incorrect IMO) SNOW closure killed the debate prematurely. I should add that there was no chance the article content was ever going to be deleted, and quite rightly - it's all good, verifiable, sourced stuff - but we were hoping to clarify if content + title = notable, stand-alone article. Much unfortunate confusion resulted on all sides.

Reason for GAR: Even with the AfD something of a cock-up, we've still any outstanding GA assessment issues to address. This seemed to be something you were open to, so I suggested GAR as a place where we can get more eyes on the article and give it the detailed treatment it should have had from it's original review. I was in no way suggesting you nominate it yourself, but under the circumstances wanted to get your approval for the nomination. GAR's aim, first and foremost, is to improve the articles that arrive there so we don't need to delist them, but without your willing input on Hamnet that would be a fairly pointless exercise.

Rather more than 2p worth, but I hope I've been able to explain why we took the steps we did, and hope you can appreciate that it's only ever been about doing the best we can for the article. You're right that there are other reviews that need revisiting, but as G'guy says until we're told about them or someone happens to notice them, we can't do much about it. It's a weakness of the single-reviewer system that we are well aware of, but is thankfully becoming less common as we tighten up procedures and look at ways we can improve review consistency and quality (not that it's much comfort to you at the moment!) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(apologies it this comment is a bit awkward; posting from iPhone is... not optimal)

Who said Hamnet Shakespeare is a biography? Were you under the impression that, say, William Shakespeare is a biography? Xover (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. The article never claimed to be a biography. It only claimed to be about Hamnet. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is William Shakespeare not a biographical article, Xover? It covers his life from birth to death, with analysis and commentary, in as much detail as can be sourced within the limits of the article's focus. I'm slightly confused why you'd contest that, or are we just quibbling over semantics (a biography is different from a WP:BIO article)?

In my experience it's standard practice on Wikipedia to regard articles titled after a specific person as bio articles. At GA, the article title affects its assessment under criterion 3 (broadness of coverage), and specifically 3b (focus). If you look further up WT:GAN, you'll notice we've been discussing this very subject with regards to sportspeople, whose articles often concentrate in minute detail on their sporting career but omit even a minimal level of the sort of biographical information we'd expect to see in an article with their name at the top of it. The clear consensus is that such articles fail GA, as they are not sufficiently broad in relation to their stated intent as defined by their title. For example, if an article is entitled "Joe Bloggs (footballer)", I'd expect to see information about his birth, education, family, marriage, children, charity work, etc as well as what clubs he's played for and how many goals he's scored. If it's entitled "Joe Bloggs's football career", the focus of the article changes and I wouldn't expect (or want) the same level of biographical information. Hamnet Shakespeare is, by its title, defining itself as a bio article - if that wasn't the intent, then perhaps the title should be changed? EyeSerene^talk 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by "same level as other bios" you mean that it contains everything that the available sources have to say, I don't see the problem. William Shakespeare doesn't meet the descriptions at WP:BIO. Most of it is about his writing, not his life. That's just the nature of the beast. That's what most people talk about when they talk about Shakespeare. Similarly, when people talk about Hamnet, they talk mostly about his influence on his father's writing. The article reflects what the sources say. You can't apply one rigid WP:BIO standard to the lives of all of the millions of people in the world. Everyone is different. WP:BIO is just a guideline, meaning that it recognizes this and respects that there will be unforeseen exceptions. Please, then, stop applying a double standard to this article. The title is Hamnet Shakespeare because that is the subject of the article. There is no better title. The article is part of a series of articles on Shakespeare's family, so changing the title would also disturb the incredibly logical pattern of having each article in the set have the same name as the person it is talking about (what an idea!) If you think the article is violating 3b, let me ask you this: would you fail RMS Lusitania on 3b for getting on a tangent about the influence it had after it "died"? Would you demand the article be renamed Speculation on the influence of the Lusitania? If not, why then do you demand that Hamnet be failed because it talks about his influence after his death? How is that off the subject? Wrad (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another flaw in your argument is the connection to sports articles. Yes, people are agreed that if an article talk only about a person's career, and not about the rest of his life, then it fails (actually, your claim of consensus on this is very debatable, but I give it to you just for kicks). However, this article leaves no stone unturned biographically. It talks about Hamnet's entire life. It omits no portion of it. It has information about his birth, education, parentage, godparent, dwelling-place, etc. Wrad (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read that discussion, the more clear it is to me that a double-standard is being applied. Look at this quote from Geo guy: "Why do we have to describe people only in biography format? Why can't we have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y?" and Philcha says "Chess promotion apart, Geometry guy is right - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" makes influences on and influences of the subject more important than private lives, unless these became causes celebres (to put it politely) or influenced the career that made the subject notable." I particularly like one of your own quotes: "That's broadly true, of course, but we're in a bit of a grey area. I think part of the problem is that while many things are of note, they aren't documented in the highest-quality sources because they aren't of note to those sources. We wouldn't, for example, expect to find personal information about a footballer in a peer-reviewed academic journal or even necessarily a quality broadsheet - the audience for that information, by and large, is the readership of the tabloid newspaper, so that's where we'd look. I completely agree that such sources must be handled carefully, but that doesn't mean they have no value at all." So... why are you attacking an article that actually does have academic sources? Why don't you go back to attacking tabloids, where you're really needed? Wrad (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unind)Oooooo. Here's another good one from Peanut4: "You have to take each article on its own merits; however, the good article criteria particular 3a says "Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" Where the note states: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." To me, that does not say a biography of someone who is very rarely in the public eye outside of his/her main field, needs to go into much detail at all. Some detail is certainly preferable and not to be discouraged, but I wouldn't be demanding much more than that." Am I reading the same discussion you are? Where is the "clear consensus ... that such articles fail GA" that you mentioned? I'm not finding it. I'm finding the opposite. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent and bullet point for clarity) William Shakespeare is an article with biographical material, but it is deliberately and specifically, by consensus, not a biographical article. Shakespeare's life is the biographical article on William Shakespeare (ignore the fact that that article isn't very good yet, WP:BARD plans to remedy that when time allows). Additions of biographical material to William Shakespeare are usually reverted and moved to Shakespeare's life instead. Much like further detail on the plays are moved to Shakespeare's plays, &c.. If the GA process—and the folks who hang out there—has evolved some kind of rule that says an article located at First Last must ipso facto always be a biographical article (and more specifically, must always be a biography and nothing else!) then the GA process has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Both William Shakespeare and Hamnet Shakespeare are instances of a main article; the only difference is that there is not enough material on Hamnet to warrant actual sub-articles. In any case, if all the people arguing enthusiastically for merger or rename have somehow made the assumption that First Last equals Biography then I begin to understand why they're taking the (previously incomprehensible to me) positions they have been. Don't get me wrong, it's a fair rule of thumb for the daily grind of working through the GAN backlog, but it cannot ever be a hard rule (and, for that matter, WP:IAR).
Also, your example of the sports articles is apt, but does not lead to the conclusion you draw: the biographical information that was missing is important because the life of the person in question is one important aspect and as such should be covered; along with the material related to their sporting career (which is what makes them notable). If one were to apply the arguments made regarding Hamnet Shakespeare to these articles, once the biographical material was added one could as well say they should be renamed to Biography of John Doe (cricketer).
To me this seems like an uncommonly apt example of lacking common sense and an overabundance of bureaucratic enthusiasm (bikeshedding and wikilawyering, to apply the WP:SPADE). Where else would one expect to find information about Hamnet Shakespeare than at Hamnet Shakespeare? What possible gain could be had from renaming it when all that would be left behind is a redirect (as opposed to, say, two articles on different aspects of the same subject, or a dab page, or... pretty much anything at all except a redirect)? While I'm sure there's some truth to the assumption that both I and Wrad have some kind of emotional investiture in this article (as Wikipedia editors often do, and that is a sign of health; pride in your work) and would probably benefit from taking a step back and considering the question in a more clinical light (not more objectively, just more clinically); I rather think it's the rest of you who are in dire need of taking a big step back from the abyss of Wikipedia process (not just GAN) and consider where would a random Wikipedia visitor expect to find the article about Hamnet Shakespeare! --Xover (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. I would have thought you would have all woken up when your attempt at AfD failed so miserably. Most Wikipedians apparently do not think like you folks do. Get your heads out of the clouds. Wrad (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad you make very good points, but they would come across better without the "us-and-them" approach of "double standard" and "your attempt at AfD". Our aim is to improve the encyclopedia, not win or lose battles and arguments. The AfD was literally a procedural nomination (by SarcasticIdealist, who !voted "keep"): there was no concerted attempt to delete the article. My own contributions were aimed at clarifying the issue and exploring the boundaries: indeed, one could say I blew some of the arguments for merger or rename out of the water.

I think the arguments over whether the article on X is a biography are primarily definition disagreements, which are meaningless: you just have to find the right correspondence between editors' definitions. In my view any article whose title is a person's name is in some sense automatically a biography: it should cover the life, work and influence of the person, as described by, and in balance with, reliable secondary sources. This is why I argue that in articles on sports people whose private life is unreported and not notable, it is reasonable to focus on their professional life, with little mention of their private life. In the case of William Shakespeare noted above, his work and influence is obviously far more important than other aspects of his life, and it is reasonable that most of the coverage concerns that. Shakespeare's life is not a biography, in my view: it wouldn't even make a reasonable obituary, because of the inadequate coverage of his work. But others use the term "biography" to mean "life-story".

In terms of my quote above, a longer version is "I don't have a problem with [editor irrelevant]'s nominations of articles which refer to a person's contribution to a particular event. What is unencylopedic about that? Why do we have to describe people only in biography format? Why can't we have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y?" in a thread where I previously noted "I would encourage the option of page moves (renaming the article) rather than failing as a biography." In other words, I'm not arguing that biographies should be unbiographical, but that renaming is always an option and other types of articles on individuals can be GAs too.

In a case where the only notable aspect of an individual is their possible influence on another, one has to ask whether biography (in my sense) is the best format. An article with title "Hamnet Shakespeare" and lead sentence "Hamnet Shakespeare (baptised 2 February 1585 – buried 11 August 1596) was the only son of William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway, and the fraternal twin of Judith Shakespeare." is a biography. The biographical structure does not even draw the reader's attention to the main point in the first sentence. Good arguments have been made for keeping it as a biography, but I think it would be so much easier to write a cast-iron GA, using the material available, with a different slant and, probably, a different title. Geometry guy 20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss. Please explain exactly how this article should be split/renamed/mangled and why that would be better. All I'm seeing is the creation of some nonsense side article fork about speculation with a redirect in the actual Hamnet space, which makes no sense, since anyone looking for info on Hamnet Shakespeare is most likely to type in "Hamnet Shakespeare". Again, get your head out of the sand, please. This is a double standard, if we're going to follow WP:SPADE. I'm merely calling a spade a spade. Stop trying to force this article to fit your otherworldly idea of what an article about a person should be. This is reality. You an I are bound by what the sources give us. We can say no more and no less. Wrad (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's evident that you're too emotional to think clearly about this. Geometry guy has made some very pertinent observations and a few good suggestions. I don't entirely agree with everything he says, but wikipedia is all about reaching reasonable compromises. I fail to see how remarks like "get your head out of the sand" are likely to aid in that process, and I would encourage you to moderate your tone. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying get your head out of the sand because many of you are apparently too stuck on non-existent policy wording to have any common sense any more. Xover agrees with me on this. I'm not just being emotional. This is the biggest case of wikilawyering and nit-picking I've ever seen. It's crazy and it needs to stop. If moderating my tone means that I should stop calling this what it is, then I refuse to do it. Wrad (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Please see (and use) User talk:Wrad for personal discussion. Concerning non-personal statements, I have not stated that I think the article should be merged or renamed, only that serious thought is needed about it. What for instance, should the first sentence of this article say, whatever is its title? Geometry guy 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that this discussion has become unproductive, and I have no intention of listening to any more of Wrad's emotional hyperbole. I will say no more until this article is taken to GAR, where in my opinion it ought to be now, for not meeting criterion 3. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record?

The five oldest unreviewed articles are all by the same author/nom (me). A new record? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a pattern. Are they boring (just kidding)? All in the same category? You're just that badass? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the cricket folks have a bit of a policy of not GARing other cricket articles, and non-cricket people don't understand the sport, especially US people so it seems, so it never gets picked up. Same for swimming and VN, probably because the stuff I Write about, the WikiProjects are usualy dead...YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel your pain a bit. I've done a few noms in various categories lately, and the time-to-review varies widely. I'm finding Literature moves quickly, not so much for Theatre, TV, Movies stuff. I want to set up some sort of quid pro quo system that makes the whole thing faster, but it cannot be straight across, for conflict of interest reasons. Otherwise I'd offer to review one of your cricket players, in exchange for reviewing my Xena episode. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I have done three of your articles (a swimmer and two crickets - or maybe it was two swimmers and one cricket - and I have tried to do more of yours. It would help if, like the pro-wrestling articles, you had the obscure cricket terms wikilinked to explanatory articles. My first pro-wrestling review was hell, but since the editors back up everything with wikilinks, I am actually learning about pro-wrestling. Same with baseball and videogames. They have great links to all their obscure terminology. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about wiki projects, WP Tasmania has slumbered to it's death a long time ago, and there isn't any action on any of the articles really, which is a shame =( Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 23:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket's very simple. You just have to push to the off and on sides until your batters have amassed enough runs to declare, then hit the wicket hard and hope you get leg before wicket to take the batman's wicket (or when they run between the wickets), avoiding no-balls and dead-balls, get them all out and see if you can enforce the follow-on. Very simple. Aptery gial 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's one way at looking at it. Made the game sound very simple =) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biography question

I have seen statements on talk pages about what biographies should contain. However, I just looked through the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and also at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and do not see any guidelines as to the structure of a biography, nor much guideline about content. My current question is about PJ Haarsma which is a good article in my view, but seems to concentrate more on the author's work than on his life. The editor has cut some of the work-related material out to spin into another article. But still, I wonder if the article has enough about his life to be a "biography". Are there rules about this? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up above in relation to sports persons, and I have to say that this article has substantially more personal life (even if his charitable and educational work is excluded) than any of the articles I was concerned about there. I don't think it is inappropriate for an article to focus predominately on a person's notable achievements as long as it is not to the exclusion of every thing else in their life. At first glance the proportion of content in this article seems appropriate for GA (not speaking on other criteria however).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the opinion. I needed some confirmation and I appreciate your giving it to me. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do GA reviews, but I do review composer biographies. My opinion is that biographies should always contain personal details (formative family history, early home, marriage, children, death), assuming they are available (maybe not for public figures that keep their personal lives private). Friendships and other relationships that are relevant to the subject's notability should also be documented (e.g. Tchaikovsky's relationship with Nadezhda von Meck). A good bio will show whether or not such relationships exist; if there is no sign of any relationships, you should probably engage the article's editors on the subject.

I almost always rate down bios of living composers because they lack personal details and critical commentary (they're often basic promotional bios). My brief read of the Haarsma page indicates no critical commentary on his work (but it is definitely more than just a promotional bio). Where are the critical reviews and popularity indicators of his work?

- Magic♪piano 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to face the fact that personal details are sometimes unavailable or scanty, and often irrelevant. Some subjects take great care to keep their personal lives private, and the press don't intrude if they are not front-page celebs (mainly politicians, sports stars and movie stars). Some aspects of personal lives are relevant to the activities that make people notable, like Tchaikovsky's relationship with Nadezhda von Meck. Others are not, for example Adolf Anderssen had no personal life to speak of and the details of Wilhelm Steintiz first family are sad but relevant only to the extent that they illustrate the poverty in which he lived all his life. Rafael Nadal's uncle Tony is imprtant (Rafa's coach) but no sports article I've seen has mentioned his parents or any siblings. OTOH much of the family life of Venus Williams and Serena Williams is obviously relevant. Friends may be more important than family, as in the case of Johannes Brahms' friendship with Robert Schumann and Clara Schumann, and his support of the music of Antonin Dvorak. The real test is the impact on the career(s) that made the subject notable. --Philcha (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a confusion here between good articles and Good Articles? Surely an article can be "good" without meeting the GA criteria? Doesn't make it a "bad" article though. The job of a reviewer is simply to come to a decision about whether or not the article meets the GA criteria. Not whether it's any good or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why there is A-class, though not every wikiproject uses A-class.じんない 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The trouble is that "a confusion here between good articles and Good Articles" makes "Good Article" a Humpty Dumpty term - "a word means what I say it means". In any case the GA criteria say nothing specifically about personal lives. The nearest they get is "broad in its coverage", which is less than FA's "comprehensive". --Philcha (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To turn your Humpty Dumpty analogy back on you, just because you say so doesn't make it so. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you were just teasing me, Malleus. I mean that "Good Article" should bear a close resemblance to the ordinary-language meaning of "good", and that the GA criteria should just be a means to that end. --Philcha (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that biographies ought to at least bear a passing resemblance to biographies do you mean? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This process is broken

It is apparent to me that this project is broken. It has been hijacked by a bunch of bureaucrats who, rogue-admin-like wield their powers in order to change the 'pedia as they see fit. Meanwhile, reviews are not only lacking in quantity, they are lacking in quality. Many an editor is forced to wait a month or more for a review, only to have joeshmolamereviewer come along and give them a (as I have heard it called) "suboptimal" review. Any schmuck can take on the role of reviewer and hold an article hostage for up to seven days until it bends to his will, even if he has barely an edit to his name. Take a look at the reviews of one such reviewer in The Gold Bug which is passed with little comment, or Hamnet Shakespeare, were he refuses to recuse himself despite a request from an outside editor. And beyond that, how about this review of an article written by a kid as an experiment at a public school where students were given an assignment to make a GA out of a science article. Read what the teacher had to say here. Pretty sad. Wrad (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of what that teacher had to say was that it was a mistake to delegate his marking responsibilities to a wikipedia review process. Seems like a very sensible observation, not sad at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does Geo Guy apologize on behalf of the whole project in the same link, Malleus? The fact is, the review was lame. Wrad (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask Geometry guy? He and I don't always agree.;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're one to talk about tone. Wrad (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really feel that the increasingly personal tone of your comments is appropriate? I don't. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Or even EyeSerene, who was the one actually making the comment, not me. Please slow down Wrad.

All processes on Wikipedia are imperfect (AfD and the notability guidelines look more broken to me) but hey, it is easier to snipe than try to improve them. However, I prefer to apologize only for myself. GA, like the Wikipedia itself, cannot be held to account for the behaviour of individual editors. What matters is how things turn out in the long run. Wikipedia is doing pretty well, and GA considerably better than 2 years ago. Geometry guy 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wanted me to point out stuff, Geo, so you can't say you didn't ask for it. I'm glad to see that Matisse is actually trying to fix it, rather than just mocking my "emotional state". Wrad (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad is getting carried away by his / her irritation that, although Hamnet Shakespeare is well-written and well-sourced, some of us think the subject is not worth an article in its own right. Some of Wrad's commnents make little sense:

"It is apparent to me that this project is broken" is plainly false. Every day there are several "passes" and several "fails", an we agree about the great majority of them. As you can see, we quite often discuss cases that some of us find difficult to resolve.
"It has been hijacked by a bunch of bureaucrats who, rogue-admin-like wield their powers in order to change the 'pedia as they see fit" is nonsense at least twice over:
- If you think a GA reviwer's decisions are arbitrary, you have several options: this Talk page, WP:GAR, WP:RfC (indepedent of all GA reviewers, etc.
- "a bunch of bureaucrats"??? I avoided submitting articles for GA review becuase I'd had some poor experiences with some real arrogant bureaucrats and the impression they gave me was that review processes were an embodiment of their attitudes. Then 2 articles on which I'd worked were nominated for GA review and to my surprise I enjoyed the experience. So now I submit and review articles.
"Many an editor is forced to wait a month or more for a review" is true, but you fail to see the reasons: a lot of editors want to get "their own" to a higher status but don't care about those of others; and doing a proper review is hard work - read the GA criteria and try applying them to an article yourself.
"Any schmuck can take on the role of reviewer and hold an article hostage for up to seven days until it bends to his will, even if he has barely an edit to his name" is true in theory, but seldom happens, and we tend to notice problematic reviews - which is the ony reason why your'e involved in a discussion on this page. --Philcha (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stop the fact that it happens and it hurts when it does. GA used to be a place where articles were improved, now it's just a waiting area. The reviews that actually improve articles are getting farther and farther between, and if a project doesn't improve articles, what good is it? Why shouldn't I just skip GA and go straight to FA, where they actually make constructive comments every time? GA used to be the safeguard of the small article, but now it's grown inclined to the public execution of such articles. See the arguments used at the Hamnet Shakespeare AfD. Wrad (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About time you left your dreamworld and joined the rest of us here in reality[1]

Doesn't change the fact that no matter the wait, you almost always get constructive criticism at FA. That's what makes it worth it. GA's wait is worse and it isn't worth it at all most of the time. Wrad (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making no sense, your arguments are inconsistent and contradictory, and I'm getting bored with your continual whining. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, my perception is that you were never listening in the first place, so I completely understand why you don't understand. Wrad (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception is of no interest to me, as it is clearly coloured by your emotional attachment to the Hamnet Shakespeare article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. I beleive this process works fairly well. I have guided twenty or so articles through this process, and review some to return the favour. I beleive we have several dedicated reviewers who do a very good job! There a FEW reviewers who do not the best job, but i have only peronsally encountered one during my own article reviews. But I have noticed others. I think the only thing we need to do find such reviewers, and if they refuse to improve the qualify of their reviews, we ban them from this review process by whatever whatever action process is necessary, possible ANI or the like. Charles Edward (Talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly to you think is a "good job"? Wrad (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the reviews of William Henry Harrison or Indiana General Assembly or Indiana Statehouse, each were done by regular reviewers who do a good job, that is fairly thorough, and the articles are worthy of their status. Charles Edward (Talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address the perception that GA was once a wonderful place, here is a GAR archive from 2 years ago. Geometry guy 23:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to deliver a blanket apology for any hurt feelings here. I hope whatever good points I made here are taken seriously and whatever bad ones I made will be forgiven. In any case, no hard feelings but I'm convinced now that both the GA and FA processes are fundamentally flawed in that they too often give people a false sense of accomplishment and "finished-ness" which ultimately hurts Wikipedia and its editors more than it helps. How often have you heard "We should be able to do X like it is in Y because Y is a GA/FA." Flawed argument my friends, and the natural result of a social system like Wikipedia (or anything) unless carefully guarded against. The rules set up in the criteria here and at FA are mostly good, but when they become an unbreakable law, it gets dangerous. Wikipedia is going to lose its free thinkers if it gets too big for its britches. Wrad (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about lists and GA

I am not very familiar with lists. The article Septimus Heap seems to be a serious of lists more than a fully realized artice. Is the a Good List Nomination and Good List Criteria? I am not sure what to recomment to the article's author as the best way to procede. Or should it be failed because so much of it is a list? Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should become a full-fledged discussion. I've always wondered why lists can't be good articles, after all, there are list that appear to be A-class, even though they're not listed as A-class on the talk page. Anyway, I think that lists should be allowed to become GAs. Ceran^→//forge 22:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles containing fleshed out, embedded lists like Septimus Heap seem to me to meet the GA criteria. But straightforward "List of ..." articles are better dealt with at FLC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with good uses of embedded lists - in fact I probably use them more than most. But the lists in Septimus Heap are too comprehensive. I'd include only regular characters in an article about the whole series (so far), so for example I'd omit most of the "Other characters" - although I'd think Alther Mella, DomDaniel, Beetle Beetle and possibly Marcellus Pye have important enough roles in multiple stories to merit places in the "main" list.

I'm not sure the list of places in "Universe" is much use without a map.

The article says nothing about Septimus' Young Army days. The survival skills and tactical alertness he learned as Boy wyyz (can't remember the actual 4-digit number) are sometimes life-savers.

The "Reception" section looks very thin. Among other things, I'd expect it to include a Metacritic rating in order to present an exteranl selection of reviewers' comments for greater objectivity. I'd like, if possible, to see a comment that the Septimaus Heap books don't adopt older viewpoints as the series progressesm, which the Harry Potter books noticably do from Goblet of Fire onwards with all their teenage angst.

The prose is a bit shaky.

Bottom line: it strikes me as not quite a GA, but could be raised to GA standard in a week by a determined and resourceful editor. --Philcha (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuanately, I aready passed it. At first I thought the article was hopeless and left a long list of thisngs, but as soon as a learned it was a list, then my standards went down. I don't know what the GA requirements for a list are. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't a list, and even if had been that's no excuse to let your standards slip. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it was passed wrongly you can always bring it to a GAR. As for lists in general, I know for fictional works there would probably be a flood of entries. Most wikirprojects don't put character lists for GA nomination and usually just end up having most stall at B-class.じんない 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I expressed any opinion at all on this article's GA review? My comment was addressed to the attitude of the reviewer—"as soon as a learned it was a list, then my standards went down"—not to the result of the review. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was he not replying to Mattisse? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse was the reviewer who passed the article. Why would (s)he feel it necessary to take the article to GAR a few minutes later? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]