Talk:Cara Cunningham/GA1

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I don't think that this is quite GA class anymore. It's well sourced, but the fact that it has a {{copyedit}} tag and a list of miscellaneous information have me convinced. (Furthermore, am I the only person who bothers to specify what an article needs copy editing for? It's not that hard, you know!) Overall, I don't think that the prose is up to GA standards anymore. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the copyedit tag as it is quite unhelpful - as I recall it was placed from an editor who was since been banned but if it's placed again we should get specific sections to be addressed. I'll work on cleaning this up a bit. Is the list of miscellaneous information regarding the post-career section? If so I'll look to see if that can be rewritten as well. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that part needs a rewrite, as does the list of other videos. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not cut the whole article after par. 4? Isn't that enough blather on this character? Drmies (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Drmies, that is an interesting proposal but falls under I don't like it. There is a lot more to Crocker, much of it I simply have held off as the non-stop badgering and vandalism were tiring. In essence he is, or at least was, on the vanguard of LGBT people, and young people in general, bypassing all forms of tradition media to embrace social networking sites and vlogging. His case is quite likely to start popping up in books so more thoughtful (and less scandalistic) content will emerge. Until then we have quite a few reliable sources that support the current content. -- Banjeboi 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions - not relevant here. Geometry guy 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, I'm unsure the best way to rewrite the videography section or if it needs a rewrite. To me it was the least expansive way of highlighting some of the, now 100 or so, videos he's done. This is what he does, If an author does 100 books but achieved international fame for #55 how do we treat the rest?

I do agree the post career section, which has been simply grown bit by bit, needs more coherence. -- Banjeboi 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a clean-up tag. I suggest moving the primary sources for the videos from the notes. Geometry guy 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes the whole "Post-meme career" section needs re-organizing. Will look to it when a have a bit more time to rework it. -- Banjeboi 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, thanks for your response. And you are right, I don't like it, and I know that that's very irrelevant here. But what I really don't like is that in essence we are complicit in turning nobodies into somebodies. I understand the whole vanguard of the movement and all--I just find it sad that America needs that kind of a vanguard, an airhead. But despite the many objective references and all, there is still not a lot of there there, and I do believe that the article is way too long. See, I've already wasted ten or twelve minutes of my life on this person, so over and out! Drmies (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol! Yes, I understand the concern but there is actually something there - I can't put my own synthesis to intuit his role but There are quite a few sources that have been stating what I thought was going on. He's very similar to a Tila Tequilla or one of the first Angelyne. What this speaks to is a younger generation's embracing and enmeshing with social networking and video diaries. Also the narcism related to such. He may not be the best example of a singer or celebrity but he's an example of a LGBT vlogger celebrity who's famous for being famous (because his fame was tied to Britney Spears). Arguably his notability had risen to a notable level without her but we'll never know what might have been. -- Banjeboi 18:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have pruned back the article considerably, mostly per WP:BLP. The subject is notable and there are secondary sources, even if some of them are less than stellar. However, even after my pruning, some of the writing is based on primary source material, opening it to the charge of original research by synthesis. We are writing an encyclopedia here, a tertiary source. We have to be particularly careful about this when writing biographies of living persons. The temptation, as soon as a subject becomes notable, is to add every snippet of information about them, no matter whether it is speculation or even gossip. That temptation must be resisted. Wikipedia is also not a source of external links, so we also have to resist the temptation to link to a plethora of primary source material (such as You Tube videos) just because we can.

I have probably not quite cut and tidied enough to bring this article within policy. I've certainly not cut enough to leave a good article. There's also plenty to do beyond cutting to bring the article to GA. I've marked a few issues in the article. Also the lead is not a summary of the article. I am delisting it. Geometry guy 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You have removed some perfectly helpful and sourced content that adds needed context for this vlogger and sourcing to relevant youtube videos sourcing what he himself and in context of his work is well within RS. Hacking away entire sections also didn't help nor was removing sourcing then asking for a cite. Sometimes a hammer and an ax aren't helpful. -- Banjeboi 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is closed and I have removed your comment to the talk page. Geometry guy 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.