Talk:Hillary Clinton/GA1

Hillary Rodham Clinton GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am reviewing this article for GA Sweeps. I almost passed this article. The images and refs pass. The prose is at a sufficient level for this rating. However, I realized that the article is 80KB of prose. According to WP:SIZE the article needs to be summariezed and shorttened to under 60KB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony - Readable prose using the "page size" link on the left column of the page, is actually 63K. I think, given the complexity of the subject with several notable careers, we can be forgiven the extra 3K. Tvoz/talk 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that link and am not sure what the difference is between the number you see and the number I cited above. If it is 63, please chop it to 60 and if it is 80 please chop it to 60. Either way, it needs some refining. You would have to ask someone like SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) about the different measures.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the size issue, I believe this article is not just of GA quality but of FAC quality as well. Regarding size, using the User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js tool, it is 63 kB (10176 words) "readable prose size". While this is slightly over the 60 Kb / 10,000 words guidelines of WP:SIZE, those are as Tvoz suggests guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Indeed per User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, there are 24 current FA articles longer than it and another 8 FA articles of the same size. Given that, I don't see the need to "chop" this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24 is fewer than 1%. Basically, you are arguing that it is only larger than more than 99% of the most closely-scrutinized and highly-regarded articles on wikipedia. That does not sound like so good of an argument to me. Your choices are 1. Cut the article down below 60KB and retain GA, 2. Don't cut the article and wait for me to delist it. If you do the latter, you have two choices A. fight at WP:GAR for a reassessment of whether the article was rightly delisted or B. reapply at WP:GAC. If it is only over by 5%, you should be able to chop it down. Doing so will improve its chances at future WP:FACs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, this is a long, complex biography that runs into balance and neutrality problems as soon as you start cutting it. Biographical subarticles get near-zero readership and are a waste of editors' time to create and maintain. Moreover, is this really the best use of your time here? There are lots worse GA articles that you could try to de-certify. Look at Ted Kennedy, which omits his entire career from 1994 to 2008 and has a woeful lead section. Look at Bruce Springsteen, which is lacking in citations throughout. And I'm sure a bunch of others. Why this? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Here are some example stats on biographical subarticle readership, for April 2009:

Hillary Rodham Clinton (including redirects): 128,833
Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton: 529

Sarah Palin: 200,122
Early political career of Sarah Palin: 413

John McCain: 96,681
House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000: 416

You see these kind of 200:1 or 500:1 or similar ratios throughout WP when you look at WP:Summary style as it applies to BLPs. It's because Google never returns first-screen hits on the subarticles and because readers don't see or click through the "Main article:" xrefs given in the top-level BLPs. I originally took BLP subarticles very seriously: for the John McCain set I got one of them to FA and two to GA, which I think is more than anyone else has done. But this effect has not been rewarded by readership. This is why I've become very resistant to splitting long BLPs of major figures (unless they become president, when of course you have to). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this is GA Sweeps in the initial statement. I understand how low the pageviews are for subarticles. That is not the point. The point is that in a bio article few readers will read the whole article on Hillary anyways. If they want to find out about her Senate career or Presidential campaign, they will skip to that section. If the detail in that section is not sufficient for their interest, they will go to the subarticle. Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 was once something like 100KB. The editors managed to edit it to a manageable level and that article is not nearly as important as the main bio. This bio is highly trafficked and needs to be succinct. The only relevant question is whether this article meets policy, which clearly suggests that 60KB is the cap. Can you please do a little editing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those readers don't go to the subarticles; our stats prove that. Moving something to a biographical subarticle is effectively the same as deleting it, as 199/200 or 499/500 readers will never see it. (The breakup of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 was done in violation of WP:Summary style, as no summary sections were put into the main article, leaving it all very difficult to follow; so that's hardly a good example of anything.) In articles where summary style is used you often see battles over relocation of material to the sub, as other editors aren't fools and realize that's equivalent to deleting it. This article has a well-structured table of contents and readers are quite able to skip or skim sections they are less interested in; that is a much more effective method of content selection than the subarticle splitout. I do not agree that there is any "policy" that "60Kb is the cap", and having put as much blood, sweat, and toil into this article as I have, I am not going to "chop" it to meet this arbitrary cut-off point. Go ahead and de-list it, I'll take it to WP:GAR and contest it there. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Clinton's life were complete, it might be O.K. to say 63 KB is not so bad. However, Hillary is still a major political figure engaging in national policy at the highest level. There will be more to write. The article will have more added. We need to call for pruning at times like these when articles are being checked up on. I don't mean to be nasty about the guidelines. I am just doing what I believe a participant in Sweeps is suppose to do. The choices are listed above already. I hope you choose to shorten the article. I oversee the WP:CHICAGO project and we have only had about five articles delisted in the history of the project. It is not like I am trying to get this thing delisted. In fact, I once nominated it for GA. I am just trying to follow policy here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say below, you're taking a "probably" guideline and elevating it to hard-and-fast policy, which I don't think is appropriate. As for the future, the article is growing very slowly. Almost all new developments go into Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration, which is growing much faster. And I don't know why WP:CHICAGO is governing this article; she left Illinois at age 18 and hasn't been back. But you gotta do what you gotta do. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO does not govern the article. We do count her in our stats and if I have to delist her, it will be a loss for the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the actual WP:SIZERULE language, it says "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". Consider me invoking the "probably" (not "policy"!) and "scope of a topic" parts of that guideline. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how do you get readership including redirects?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't (it's a limitation of the stats tool). I just get them and add them in manually for cases where I know there's a frequently-used redirect. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really find all the redirects in the "What links here" link or are these just the main redirects?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate issue, a Checklinks run reveals lots of problems with deadlinks. I'm starting to work through them, see which are real, which have moved, which are gone, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've run dabfinder and resolved the only issue it found. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking those things. I don't usually look at those as part of my Sweeps reviews and I should.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed about 20 problems found by the Checklinks run. I believe what's left (mostly "blue" CNN links) are all false reports, i.e. the link actually works. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the article for other MOS conformance issues. I fixed a couple of non-breaking spaces and measurement conversion items, but in general I think it's in good shape. Actually since the last FAC, the only significant changes have been to the 2008 presidential campaign section and the addition of the Sec State section. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of size discussion

In deciding whether to trim the article, fork portions, or leave it, I think we need to consider what we would be cutting. As I look at the article, I just don't see where the 3K would come from. Sure, you might be able to cut it some around the margins, but I don't think there's 3K worth of fat. As for forking, what likely candidates are that could reasonably stand alone? -Rrius (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning page size is like watching your weight or doing regular chores for a BLP. If everytime the article gets 5% over larger than more than 99% of all FACs we say that isn't so bad then what happens when it is 10% over and larger than 99.5% of all FACs. I am not an editor of the content. I will not be contributing tothe decision on what to fork and what to trim. I am just saying the article is likely to find itself delisted, if some action is not taken soon. When your wife or mother tells you it is time to trim the shrubs the point is not that it they look O.K. and don't need to be trimmed that much. Just take a little off the top and the sides and I will be happy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe either "chopping" or "pruning shrubs" is the appropriate model for article size in this situation. As I said above, I plan to appeal your coming delisting at community WP:GAR, and I believe I can put forward a strong case. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should all editors decide to take no corrective action, I wish you well at GAR, where the community can decide. I also welcome community input here and if the community feels that pruning is not necessary. I would take that advice into consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community GAR

As a part of sweeps, I have asked that this article be pruned back to 60KB of readable prose. The involved editors have argued against the necessity of such pruning and stated their preparedness for debate at GAR. Arguments have been presented that nearly 1% of FAs are longer than this article. Instead of delisting this article, I have decided to send it to the community for resolution on the necessity of pruning the article to less than 60KB. Hopefully we can achieve consensus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]