Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Do you think this article is GA quality?[edit]

When you have the time, could you take a look at the above and lmk whether you think it really deserved to be passed as a GA or not? I think it's B at best, but don't feel comfortable bringing up my concerns to the editors who submitted/reviewed it. Firstly, the page used/uses unreliable sources, and as both editors are active contributors to WP:KO they would have been fully aware of WP:KO/RS and what sources would fall under that. Secondly, the info contained in some sources was misrepresented in the article i.e. worded in such a way to make it seem like the reviews said a particular thing when they in fact did not. Thirdly, and this may just be me nitpicking so if I'm wrong that's fine, but the wording used is oddly phrased in places, a few egs:

• "The song possesses a "cool and crisp" nature..."
• The song's lyrical content consists of the group reflecting on the sentiments of self-doubt and romantic quarrels, at the same time providing a comforting and rejuvenating undertone.
• it was revealed that the song would consist of a emotional concept (I can't say I've seen many song articles, let alone GAs, talk about a song's concept and content like this)

The 2nd pgraph of the bg+rel section uses music streaming sites as sources, as well as as link to a commercial store to support the song's inclusion on an album tracklist, rather than rel secondary sources. For the music video release, it cites the video itself as the source rather than a secondary source. I don't think I'm wrong in my concerns, and thought the tweaks I made after it was passed+the comments left would have spurred either editor to fix the problems, but neither of them have, and I honestly don't have the energy to do all of it myself. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Carlobunnie: thanks for the question. First, I don't think there's any bad faith actions here—I've encountered -ink&fables before and found them to be pleasant to interact with, and they said that it was their first GA review. It looks like both nominator and reviewer tried their hardest to enforce a high standard for the article. That someone works in K-pop areas doesn't mean they can't forget some things on KO/RS.

I think the article is in good enough shape that the aim should be to improve it to GA standards, not to get it delisted. The prose doesn't strike me as horrible (and I don't think I understand your objection to it was revealed that the song would consist of a emotional concept); if you want me to look at misrepresentations of reviews you'll need to point me to specific instances because I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to check them all.

I get that it's not your job to improve the article if it's currently sub-GA, so I think the right next step will have to be contacting the nominator and reviewer or starting a discussion on the talk page (escalating to a WikiProject if it doesn't get attention). A GA reassessment (I'd recommend community reassessment) would be better as a last resort. — Bilorv (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Bilorv: I don't think the prose is "horrible" at all, but rather that odd phrasing choices are used in places throughout and it could be written differently. For eg. I've never seen anyone write that a song would consist of x or y concept, but I have seen it said that a music video/album will feature/features x, y or z concepts, or presents a darker concept compared to previous works etc. Or that lyrics consist of more mature themes, not concepts. That's what I meant by saying the wording is strange. Nor was/is it my intention to get it delisted. I just didn't think it was on par with other GAs and that more should have been done to improve it before it was passed. Yes I saw ink&fables say it was their first GA review, but is there no system in place to monitor reviews done by newer reviewers to ensure they are accurately assessing+passing articles? Otherwise more unreliably sourced articles would be made GAs, or ones that could do with a bit of copy-editing/peer review would never get it because the reviewer said it was up to GA standards.
Lord knows I make my fair share of mistakes at times, and I tried to fix some parts to help, but I really feel despaired sometimes that this stuff goes unnoticed by editors who should notice it. I'm sorry if I've taken up your time, but I couldn't think of anyone else as experienced as you to ask at the time, and you've graciously entertained my questions in the past. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I really feel despaired sometimes that this stuff goes unnoticed by editors who should notice it. – The simple reality of Wikipedia is that there are too many things going on for experienced contributors to monitor it all. There are tons of backlogs: thousands of unreviewed drafts, hundreds of thousands of unassessed articles and (at every assessment stage) an unknowable but large number of articles that should be deleted, and notable topics yet to have an article created. In the quality process backlogs, there are thousands of FAs (70%) that need to be reassessed, half of which were promoted over a decade ago when standards were at or below the current GA standard. I've looked at the situation and if I thought the article was uncontroversially nowhere near GA standard then I would be taking action (like delisting immediately), but as it is it's not my priority.

Being a Wikipedia editor is, most of the time, about channeling despair into motivation and a drive to make a dent in some backlog somewhere. This is the point of WP:SOFIXIT. When you see a problem, no-one else will fix it for you, because the site is too vast and the volunteers too few. I would recommend that you go through a rewording top to bottom yourself, because it could take you more time to explain the issues than to fix them (e.g. just change "consist of a emotional concept" to "feature an emotional concept"), particularly if the editors don't have English as a native language (no idea in this case, but it would often be true for K-pop editors for obvious reasons). I appreciate that you have done some of this already, which is appreciated. If you can't fix some issues yourself, you need to be the one to escalate it, and I've suggested some routes to this.

is there no system in place to monitor reviews done by newer reviewers to ensure they are accurately assessing+passing articles? – No. Issues are raised ad hoc in various venues, but we just don't have enough resources to do this. Repeatedly bad reviewers will get noticed, but doubtless some individually bad reviews slip through the cracks.

Your questions are welcome, and there's no need to apologise for asking. If I had more time then I'd be trying to improve the article myself, and if I had less time then I'd be answering more curtly or pointing you elsewhere. — Bilorv (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Carlobunnie and Bilorv, I just somehow happened to be here. Sorry Bilorv for taking some space in your talk page, I am not sure if this is the right place to reply. Carlobunnie, your concerns are legitimate and I would had acknowledged myself if you personally contacted or pinged me on article's talk page. "Blue" was not on my watchlist because I didn't feel the need. If it would had been on my watchlist, I must had taken some actions. I am just sorry that my shortcomings in the review process had caused unnecessary trouble. But I want the article to retain its status but I also expect some help especially on the prose part. I will also inform the nominator as they would be the most affected by this. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

As far as I'm concerned, -ink&fables, anybody is always welcome on my talk page. I'll let Carlobunnie reply to the rest. — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Bilorv: thank you for the detailed reply above. My anxiety makes me very nervous sometimes about being bold which is why I don't always just fix things myself, but prefer to ask someone else first (being potentially wrong if I make an incorrect "fix" stresses me greatly). Since my last reply to you, I already started looking for replacement sources, and decided to tackle the grammar issues as well. Apologies for not acknowledging your reply until now. I only just saw it as ink&fables pinged me in their comment. @-ink&fables: as I mentioned in a comment above, I didn't feel comfortable contacting you directly at the time because I wasn't sure whether my concerns were legitimate or if I was just being overly picky. I reached out to Bilorv first as a way to gauge that. You didn't cause "trouble" of any sort so please don't think so. There's no need to think the article will lose its status either as I didn't state at any point that I wanted it delisted. As Bilorv has confirmed, some additional cleanup/review should take care of the remaining problems, which I will do myself. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Carlobunnie: I really appreciate your help. Please feel free to ask for any kind of help. And also feel open to point out any of my mistakes or concerns related to me or my edits directly on my talk page. Thank you again. -ink&fables «talk» 20:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello Carlobunnie, thank you for taking your time to point out things that looked worrisome in the article. I also don't have the article in my watchlist, so my apologies for not addressing your concerns sooner. I will replace some of the sources that you mentioned and tweak the wording accordingly, as I was the one who rewrote the article in the first place.

I would also like to point out that the KpopStarz source used in the MV section may have been deemed generally unreliable at WP:KO/RS, however that article specifically consisted of an exclusive interview with the video's production team which had exceptionally valuable information that I couldn't find anywhere else. As the article were not making any contentious claims, was not user-generated content, were attributing the info directly from the video producers, and couldn't be found anywhere else, I didn't see how that specific article would be unreliable. But if you insist that because the source is found at WP:KO/RS#UR and should be barred from use of Wiki, then I'll have no choice but to remove it. Best, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Question from MohamedAbdelMohsen23 (21:18, 5 September 2021)[edit]

Hello, what if I'd like to add an article about myself? I'm a well-known blogger and an author to be .. How can I do this? --MohamedAbdelMohsen23 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@MohamedAbdelMohsen23: take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Help:Your first article. Because Wikipedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view, which necessitates editorial independence from our subjects, I can only recommend that you do not try to create an article about yourself. If you are "notable"—Wikipedia jargon meaning "the type of topic within our scope" (and not "successful" or "important")—then someone else may create an article on you. If you insist on creating an article about yourself, you must do this through the Article wizard, but I can save you a lot of wasted time if you present to me the reliable independent in-depth sources about you so I can say if you stand a chance of having the draft accepted. Creating a new article is, even putting aside concerns people will have over your conflict of interest, one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia and the majority of newcomers who try to do this fail. — Bilorv (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Question from MohamedAbdelMohsen23 (21:40, 5 September 2021)[edit]

Okay, I got it .. How can I share with you my sources? I'm not allowed to post external inks here. --MohamedAbdelMohsen23 (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@MohamedAbdelMohsen23: thanks for the reply. You should be able to post links freely. If a link is blocked then it's likely because it's an unreliable source, but you can still point me to it by omitting the http(s). — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Question from MohamedAbdelMohsen23 (17:44, 6 September 2021)[edit]

Hello Bilorv

HYG

Facebook profile with around 200K followers: facebook.com/MohamedAbdelMohsen85

YouTube channel with 12K subscribers youtube.com/MohamedAbdelMohsen

Featured on TV tinyurl.com/u5a67um

Featured on a local newspaper tinyurl.com/r5gbylt

And on other online news sources like www.alwasela.com/720533 tinyurl.com/324uemvu

What do you think? --MohamedAbdelMohsen23 (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

No, MohamedAbdelMohsen23, I'd expect this to stand less than a 1 in 100 chance. Facebook and YouTube are not independent of the subject (and 12K subscribers is 10 to 100 times smaller than the smallest notable YouTubers), and the TV appearance and local news sources are something but we'd really be looking for much higher-profile coverage for notability, like substantial national coverage in multiple independent sources. For the record, the reason these links were disallowed would be the URL shortener, as people can use these maliciously to redirect people to unsafe websites. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Question from Raaj Champia on Latin script (23:25, 6 September 2021)[edit]

English Is Angels Language world saying.But India Country Not Larnging Perfectly Not Spoken.English Language Is India's DAVIL'S Davil Language.Anyone perpectly not spoken. It's Devil Done. --Raaj Champia (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Raaj Champia: just to let you know, you asked the question twice, and both times it went through. I'm not quite sure what your question is here. This is the English Wikipedia and there are other versions maintained by other communities in many other languages. — Bilorv (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for accepting the ZooPhobia (webcomic) article and moving it from the draft area to an actual article![edit]

Bilorv, I was just unsure about it myself and kept grumbling that their weren't enough sources, but I'm glad to have it out there. Now, I'll probably try to find an image to go along with it, to go in the infobox. --Historyday01 (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the message, Historyday01. I did think it was a bit borderline but it's notable in my view; if it includes all the major sources that are out there then it might as well go to mainspace, and if anyone wants to challenge it then we get a firm answer one way or another at AFD. — Bilorv (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yeah, I can agree. Hopefully more people will write about it at some point, so more sources can be added, but we'll see what happens with that. Historyday01 (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Question from Bebe07 on Secondary Education Commission (07:29, 11 September 2021)[edit]

im lost on what to do --Bebe07 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Bebe07: thanks for reaching out! I'm guessing you've been pointed to this article by the suggested edits tool? Well the two issues tagged at the top of the article suggest the following:

1. Add more hyperlinks within the article. In the Visual Editor, there's a chain-like link symbol in the toolbar you can use to add links to text that you have highlighted. In the code editor, you link a page by using code like in this example: [[Rhode Island|the smallest U.S. state]] (producing: the smallest U.S. state).
2. Add links to the page from other articles. This would require you to search relevant pages, seeing if any mention the topic, and if not finding an article where you could add a mention and a link. Whenever you add a sentence to Wikipedia, you need a reliable source for that fact, but you could maybe re-use one of the sources from the article.

You could also make improvements with anything else that stands out: do any of the sentences look clunky or take you more than one read to understand the meaning of? The first thing I notice is that "This commission is also called Mudaliar Education Commission after the name of" isn't a full sentence—do any of the references following the passage allow you to work out how this sentence should end? If that fails, explore the page history to see who added it and when, because maybe they could work out what they were doing and how to fix the issue. — Bilorv (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks[edit]

Just wanted to thank you for including Graham Linehan's writing credits, must be the first time somebody asked for something on his work and not his views.165.73.228.154 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

No problem, thanks for the edit suggestion. — Bilorv (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for creating The Transgender Issue! fyi, there is a Women writers & their works edithon happening at WIR where you could add this lovely article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks, Beccaynr, I've added it there. — Bilorv (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

D1PD1[edit]

Dear Birlov, thanks for your comments on the page I made for the Oasis tour 'Don't Believe the Truth'. Regarding the comment "Some reviews/in-depth descriptions would help - the topic is probably notable but routine local announcements of the gigs don't show it" - the references I added to certain tour dates were actual reviews from various media outlets not 'local announcements'.

'What was the stage setup like?' There are no references to this because it was a standard state set. The other questions are answered in the various newspaper / media reviews which I linked to - newspaper reviews which were independent of the group. The page I have produced is at least as good as the one another Wikipedia user produced for the Heathen Chemistry tour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathen_Chemistry_Tour) and mine is far better referenced. As such I respectfully ask that you let it pass and complete the list of Oasis tours on the main band page. Fans would definitely like information about this tour since it is linked to the 'Lord Don't Slow Me Down' documentary which I referenced in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1PD1 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the comment, D1PD1. The questions in my comment were sort of rhetorical, in the sense that I'm not looking for an answer to be told to me, but for the answers to be made available within the article. If you incorporate all of the information from those references into the article then I'll be happy to take another look.

The article you've pointed me to, Heathen Chemistry Tour, is a particularly bad one: it was created in 2009 when standards were lower and has a tag at the top, "This article needs additional citations for verification." It would be a good candidate for you to work on improving, if appropriate sources exist (and if not then it needs to be nominated for deletion). We generally recommend against creating an article as your first major task on Wikipedia, because that's like trying to drive a bus before driving a car. However, you've not chosen a bad topic and your draft does look promising. — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ok thank you for the further feedback and comments about the 'Heathen Chemistry tour' page. I will amend the page in line with your suggestions when I have time. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1PD1 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Request on 21:33:01, 6 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kilitzianf[edit]

• Kilitzianf (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rotea Gilford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've submitted this article and resubmitted - and I do appreciate all of the requests you've made. I've made quite a few changes, which you've acknowledged. I just made a few more. You specifically requested that I revise the language in the Police Commendations. That's where I struggle. I quoted the language in the commendations that were provided from the San Francisco Police Commission. Maybe half of them are single sentence descriptions. I thought that they were already very concise, and not "flowery". If your objection is that there are too many of them - then perhaps you can suggest a different approach. Those commendations, time after time, are what made the SFPD brass sit up and take notice of this brash young officer. No matter how they tried, they couldn't ignore his performance excellence. It's how he "got over". As I wrote the article, once I got to the commendations I could so easily see why they just couldn't treat Rotea Gilford like all of the rest. There had to be something - something that would make them take another look - and another - and another. It's how he changed people's perception of black people. It's why they listened to him - and merely tolerated others. Rotea was not your average guy. When he talked everyone nearby stopped what they were doing and strained to hear.Kilitzianf (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Kilitzianf (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Kilitzianf: thanks for the comment. It appears to me that you have still not internalised all of the points that I made. On Wikipedia, we aim for a neutral point of view, itself a contentious phrase which can create lots of misconceptions. In the case of Gilford, it means that an article must not commend him for anything, or condemn him for anything. If you believe that Gilford is an extraordinary figure who has made major anti-racist and civil rights progress then that's great, and you're certainly allowed to share that with other editors. But the best way to show off somebody's legacy, at least we believe, is by letting the record speak for itself.

Phrases like "Rotea Gilford was frequently recognized with awards" and "... detail ten commendations for brave actions taken by Gilford ..." are indistinguishable from much marketing PR that we are spammed with. It does not impress anybody. Additionally, less is more: by including smaller achievements and less significant details, you ensure that readers will not actually find the most important facets of the subject, and instead glaze over or get bored and close the tab.

This goes for any topic I write about, whether it's a biography of the person I most admire, or an article on the worst book I've ever read. I let the facts speak for themselves—if I really believe that a person was great, it means that I trust other people to come to the right conclusion when presented with the facts alone. Sometimes a fact can be "Historian Joe Bloggs commented that Doe was 'the bravest person in human history'", but it cannot be "Doe is acclaimed for her bravery".

You can resubmit the draft when you are ready, and let me know if you don't know how to do that, but in its current state I'd be very surprised if the next reviewer didn't agree with me about the neutrality issues that still remain. — Bilorv (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]