Talk:Hole/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WelpThatWorked (talk · contribs) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I feel like "Kinds of shapes" should be changed to "Types of shapes" as I feel it reads better. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done ^{~^\}\_\.r TG'{~ 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentence of the lead, the "construction" probably should be "engineering".
In the first paragraph of "Types of hole", a sentence uses "digging" twice, perhaps replace the first instance with "foraging"?
Merge last two sentences of "Holes In Math".

Done the first two. The last sentences are a copy/paste from Homology (mathematics). I'm not sure if I understand homology. ^{~^\}\_\.r TG'{~ 11:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhododendrites

Comment - Sorry to just jump in here, but I thought I'd leave this comment before (a) too much time went into this review or (b) it was passed. Saw this come up on the GAN talk page and was curious how a reviewer would handle such a subject, so watchlisted the review page. I have to say I'm a little concerned. It's an interesting article, but the reason I was curious is that the concept of "hole" seems like it will inevitably be the dictionary definition plus some collection of different kinds of holes that are covered in other articles. It seems like it comprises mostly a small subset of various concepts that use the word "hole" in its primary meaning. Any broad coverage of such a topic would also include cavities, pits, hollow places, excavations, caves, hiding places, trenches, ponds, craters, orifices, etc. (these all come from the OED's entry). In other words, it seems like a massive subject of the sort that, while I certainly wouldn't advocate deleting or something, it seems like it would be really really hard to make something like that "broad" in coverage. As an aside, there are also multiple unsourced paragraphs, an entirely unsourced section, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these is normally even referred to as a hole i.e. trenches? Never been an article for watering hole. ^{~^\}\_\.r TG'{~ 11:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RTG Rhododendrites, I feel the article is broad enough, and that some of the things you listed can't be considered holes. However, the article can probably be improved by adding more to the "see also" or hatnotes, and by providing more details on what are not considered holes. Do those sound like appropriate fixes? Thanks for the comment! WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could second some of Rhododendrites's concerns. Of course, this is a really curious and useful article, and deletion or removing content is squarely out of the question. But if it is to become a GA, it really needs to be clear on what it is about. One radical view is to keep to the most abstract idea of hole and aim for something of the same scope as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the subject. But the article as it stands now is much broader and most of its content is about various entities in mathematics, engineering, living organisms, etc. The only thing that these have in common is the fact that they can be referred to in English as "hole". An article built around that is more reflective of the wide range of uses of an English word, and less representative of what you would like to think of as a properly encyclopedic topic. – Uanfala (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree with the notion that the only thing that the topics covered have in common is the fact that they can be referred to in English as "hole". What they have in common is that they can properly be described as an opening in or through a particular medium, usually a solid body. I completely agree, however, that there is no basis for removal of content. This is more than a random collection of things called "hole"; this is a grouping of different concepts of what makes a hole, and what is their importance to human society. Compare plant, which describes both the biological diversity of plants, and the human uses of plants. This includes the fact that aesthetic uses of plants include the incorporation of "architectural designs resembling plants", which are themselves not actual plants, but we hardly call that article an extended dicdef because it collects diverse aspects of the topic. Basically, we all know what a "hole" is, and it is useful to know that this concept has precise meanings in certain fields (mathematics, biology, etc.). Like many topics about physical objects, there are edge cases where people question whether something that technically falls into a definition does so in actual usage. This is no different than the question of how tall a hill has to be before it becomes a mountain. bd2412 T 15:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really see a good analogy with plant. Plants have a reasonably clear definition. You can take something, test it, and determine if it's a plant. Plant isn't a potential characteristic of any solid piece of matter. If you work backwards to test material to see what it is, you can come to a conclusion that it's a plant. If you work backwards to classify something as a hole, what separates the result "hole" from a result of cavity, trench, recess, pit, crevice, etc.? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are organisms that people have argued whether they are really a "plant" or not. There are always edge cases. The question of when a trench ceases to be a "hole" because it is too long, or when a depression ceases to be a hole because it is too wide relative to its depth is no different then asking when a mound becomes a hill, or when a length of sand on the edge of a body of water becomes a beach. Can you test the length of sand to determine whether it is a beach? Could any such test be accepted uniformly, in different cultures, for purposes both scientific and aesthetic, or for purposes of both conservation and recreation? We do not write articles on abstract topics because they are easy, but because they are hard. We benefit the reader by giving them the breadth of available views on the topic, which in this case go beyond the physical, and into math, psychology, and even philosophy. Basically, if you look at the page image for this page, is there any question that it is a picture of a hole? Is there any question that anything shown on the page is a picture of a hole? bd2412 T 01:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chiswick Chap

I'm sorry to burden the reviewer with yet more thoughts, but (seconding the general air of concern), I'd not have thought the article was even close to covering "the main points" of this intriguing and complex subject.

No overall source is given for the topic as a whole (no pun intended). How do we know that the editor has not invented the categorisation shown in the table of contents? What other types of hole are not covered? Wormholes in science fiction, for instance, are not mentioned. Without such a source, the article is vulnerable to claims of WP:SYNTH, effectively original research in the absence of suitable sources, even if various fragments of the article are reliably cited, as here.

Black hole is mentioned very briefly, in an uncited paragraph along with other material. It deserves a section on its own, as can be realised when you consider that "black hole" has a literal meaning in Astrophysics, and a metaphorical meaning ("black hole in the company's finances"), showing that this is a major topic.

The engineering senses look as if they may cover "the main points" within that subdomain, but unfortunately nearly the whole of that section is uncited, which one might have thought grounds for a quick-fail under the GA instructions.

Electron holes are important in solid-state physics. This is a major subtopic.

The coverage of hole in Biology is also inadequate. For example, cell membrane holes are critical to life. As another example (there are plenty more), the immune system kills bacteria by making holes.

The 'Metaphorical holes' section is a start in the right direction, but does not begin to exhaust its subject. For instance, the matter is proverbial - "when in a hole, stop digging", the hole here standing for a problem of one's own making. That in turn alludes to a wider metaphorical meaning, "being in a hole", equating hole with difficulty, being stuck or trapped, whether or not you have "dug yourself into a hole". "Hole in their story" seems by the way to be uncited. "Doughnut hole" might also deserve a mention. So might Ace in the Hole. This is, I think, only scratching the surface; there is much more to be said on metaphors.

Other metaphors include the literary "rabbit hole" (a useful disambiguation page here), as in Alice in Wonderland; indeed, the place of holes in literature might merit an entire article. There's a novel called Holes, and a film based on it. There's a 19th century thing on Hole in the Wall (1866).

I see a discussion of whether a trench is a hole. A Foxhole certainly is a hole and a defensive fighting position, of which a trench is a different subtype. Foxholes and shell holes should certainly get a mention, including literary references such as the famous First World War cartoon in Punch "If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it!" It seems that wartime holes are yet another subtopic that deserve a subsection of their own.

The Ozone hole (hole = low concentration of this gas in a region of the atmosphere) is a major meaning not covered. I'm sure there are others.

The amount of uncited material (I do not suggest this is necessarily WP:OR) is disturbing for a "Good Article" - to a first approximation, every claim should be cited to a reliable source, and at the moment I see 8 entire paragraphs and numerous other sentences lacking any indication of their source.

The "Gallery of holes" is suggestive but does not exactly match the very limited categorisation of holes represented by the article's table of contents: the selection is attractive but comes with no justification or explanation of the reasons for selecting just these types or instances (WP:OR, in effect). It would be far more satisfactory to map images to subtopics.

To conclude, the article appears to be missing:

1. A satisfactory basis for its structure (a reliable source which covers the entire subject, indicating a structure).

2. Sources for many of the claims made.

3. Adequate coverage of the subtopics already identified.

4. Other subtopics, including use in literature and film.

In short, this seems to be very far from being a Good Article at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this article - wait for it - is full of holes? Note, by the way, that Wikipedia's article, Trench, specifically says: "A trench is a type of excavation or depression in the ground that is generally deeper than it is wide (as opposed to a wider gully, or ditch), and narrow compared with its length (as opposed to a simple hole)". If we describe a trench as a "hole" here, then it looks like we would be creating some inconsistency on this point. bd2412 T 18:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, well, it seems to be so, and we'd better note that "full of holes" and "as full of holes as a Swiss cheese" are metaphors (and a simile) about holes in an argument, legal case, or mathematical proof. On trench, no, it's not a hole; both trenches and foxholes are defensive fighting positions, that's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Black hole" and "wormhole" are forms of trivia as far as holes are concerned. Trivia is a valid topic and some expansion may make sense but they are not definitive to this subject.

There aren't many more like the ozone layer. It is worth mentioning there are holes in it for the article. As for a range of hole types in reference to gaseous layers. Is there? I invite you to visit ozone depletion and upgrade your idea of "The" ozone hole to "what ozone".

Biological holes, there may be some expansion possible along the lines of "sinus", "pore", and "stoma". A permeable cell membrane (Biological membrane) isn't considered to be full of specific individual holes. Have a look at the diagrams and you'll see.

You seem to be asking for a section on trivia and entertainment.

Rabbit holes and foxholes could be mentioned, but rabbit hole subject matter would be wholly off topic. Explosion holes caused by shelling seem as notable here as wall-holes caused by the same thing, though at a cursory glance it may be possible to add something about scars left over from WW1. A defensive foxhole is probably worth mentioning.

Summary: Mention wormhole, ozone hole, why a black hole isn't a hole. Expand toward sinus, Pore and stoma. Trivia and entertainment. Find a place to put an introduction to foxholes with a mention of WW1 craters i.e. Hill 62. I am adding to this caves and watering holes.

The gallery. When I consider the pictures from the rest of the article with the gallery, the only part not covered is biology. ^{~^\}\_\.r TG'{~ 15:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some pictures of shell holes. Are they really notable? Foxhole however, well I don't know. It conjures for me the spade with the hole in it for shielding a snipers face as he shoots out from the shell hole. Is construable as a focus of war industry? Hm... ^{~^\}\_\.r TG'{~ 15:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, these shell holes seem to be preserved as a monument. I like the third one if one of these is used somewhere. I think trivia and culture section or something out of these suggestions, big enough section and that third picture could be nice. ^{~^\}\_\.r TG'{~ 15:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't agree AT ALL with your response, which I see as a failure of analysis. You give the impression you are trying to skip over the, ah, porous nature of the article, which is your privilege, though GA reviewers may not agree with you. On the shell holes, I see no advantage in your images, and strongly suggest you simply use the Old Bill cartoon, which admirably and undeniably (given the famous caption) shows the relevance of shell holes to the topic.

Much more seriously, however, you have not addressed my main point, which is that the article has no basis in any book or similar source which spans the entire subject. Without such, the article *hopes* to provide coverage, scrabbling here and there when anyone points out a lacuna – and I easily found several. Even if you filled all of those (which you seem disinclined to do), the problem would remain that you had no theoretical basis for the choice of just these particular types of hole, nor do you as yet have any basis for arguing that you have identified all the major types (and the GA criteria require you to cover "the main points" of the domain), let alone covered them adequately. This, indeed, is a "hole" in the article's construction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are gaps in the see also and trivia and entertainment are probably good adds to this sort of subject. ^{~^\}\_\.r TG'{~ 15:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, you have absolutely no idea where the gaps are, since you don't have an overview of the subject; and anything you do is therefore WP:SYNTH (original research by synthesis). Talk of 'see also' and 'trivia' in such a context is "ignoring the elephant in the room". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The major aspects have major publications on them with some overlap I believe. ^{~^\}\_\.r TG'{~ 16:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope so, but that is not the same as having a source which lays out the structure of the subject. To understand the issue, imagine writing the article on Biology without having ever seen a textbook with that title. Yeah. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

I'm failing this nomination per the comments above, pointing out the gaps in broadness. Thank you all for your input. WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]