Talk:Joe Romm/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: found fifteen, repaired for and tagged eleven.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article could benefit form the addition of a suitable infobox (NOT a GA requirement)
I disagree. I think infoboxes are merely repetitive and that is why they are not required. For my money, the smart projects are those that do not use infoboxes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is one way of looking at it. If you broaden your perspective, you'll see that on the plus side, infoboxes offer the general reader (we are not writing for editors) a crude interface to facilitate chunking, and offer the potential for inhouse or external bots to collect and collate infobox data. The former is more what we are aiming at, while the latter has only been tested without any major rollout or adoption. Ideally, we would allow the reader more control over the view, such that one could use the preferences to control the infobox display in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said infoboxes are not a GA requirement, although I personally favour them, that is irrelevant to this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have 70,000 edits on Wikipedia, and I have been a primary contributor on 20 GA-class articles and several FAs. My perspective is plenty broad; I just disagree with you, Viriditas. Infoboxes take up space at the beginning of an article that is better used for a well-written Lead. There is no consensus to add one here. It is quite offensive for you to keep lecturing me on this page. Feel free to state your opinions, but stop trying to characterize my views as narrow, or my attempts to maintain the quality of this article as WP:OWNership. That is just name-calling. I see that you have been around WP for a long time too. Let's just focus on the work at hand. If you can do some research to add encyclopedic information to this article, by all means, please do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, but looking at things from one view only and only that view, is generally described as narrow. Also, you've said on this page and on the talk page of the reviewer that you are "the only editor who does any research and maintenance on the article" and that editors should be required to commit to all articles they edit. I explained below that this is not realistic, and instead of meeting me halfway on any points I've discussed, you've maintained that your view is the only correct way, and everybody else is wrong. So, I stand by everything I've said. Personally, I don't like infoboxes either, but I add them for the benefit of the reader, not to conform to my own personal preferences. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The section Recognition and personal life is an odd juxtaposition. Perhaps the personal life stuff could be incorporated into a renamed Early life and career section.~~Y
Well, I broke it into two sections. The personal life stuff does not go in early life and career - it is all stuff from AFTER his early life and career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise reasonably well written

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~Eleven dead links found and tagged~~Y
I dealt with the dead links. Thanks for pointing them out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Available sources check out OK. I assume good faith for off-line sources

I am concerned about the MSNBC [2] and Youtube [3], [4] clips. All posted by Romm's organisation, but no evidence that MSNBC or Fox News have released the copyright.
What's the concern? We are just linking to them to support the assertion that they exist. We're not displaying the clips in the WP article. The Fox News clip has been on the Climate Progress site for almost 4 years without any complaint from Fox, so I think it is unlikely that Climate Progress or YouTube will take these down. If they do take them down in the future, no problem, we'll simply give the date of the news segment without the link to the clip. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't "just link" to them, and as potential copyright violations, they need to be removed. It is reasonable to replace them with text-only references to the programs. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not copyright violations. They're fair use for Climate Progress, because they are brief excerpts of a non-fiction work used for a non-commercial purpose by a non-profit website. We could not post the video clips in the article itself because of WP rules, but we can link to them on other sites where they are used under the fair use doctrine. See: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice the word "potential" that you omitted. They are potential copyright violations. Per WP:LINKVIO we do not link to them. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINKVIO says just the opposite of what you are saying: "Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material." -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline here is WP:YOUTUBE#Linking to user-submitted video sites. The news broadcasts are copyrighted and the YouTube postings by Climate Progress are copyright violations. As Viriditas says, references to the programs themselves in text would be acceptable. I also note that WP:LINKVIO#Linking to copyrighted works says: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." If the vidoes were hosted on Fox News' or MMSNBC's official Youtube chnanels that would be a different matter. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Youtube clip and deleted one of the other clips. The only remaining link is to climateprogress, and we have no reason to believe that climateprogress "is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". So this should now be OK under WP:LINKVIO#Linking to copyrighted works. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Romm has confirmed to me that he displays news clips on ClimateProgress.org under the "fair use" doctrine, and he believes that that doctrine properly applies to each video posted, so there is no copyright violation. Romm says that in four years, no one, not even Fox News, of whom Romm is critical, has ever objected to his displaying a news clip. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take that point, but please don't be surprised if others dispute this. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~refs #3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 20, 24, 31, 32, 64, 85, 87 need publisher details and or author details, also access dates for consistency.~~
OK, added publisher/author/date details as available. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:
~~Are there no sources that criticise the views of the subject?~~
Lots of them, but none are from reliable sources. Editors have tried, on two occasions, to add such a section, and both times, after arguments, it was found to be devoid of reliable sources and removed. In the first case, I tried to rewrite the section, but the criticisms dealt generally with topical issues that were, in themselves, of little interest. One of the other editors deleted the section. Some time later, it was re-inserted, but filled with OR and again devoid of reliable sources. Again, the other editor deleted it, as you can see from the talk page and talk page archives. Often, Romm and the webmaster at "WattsUpWithThat" argue over current issues, but it's a he-said, she-said, with lots of unpleasant personal invective. In short, I don't think there's any really encyclopedic criticism available to discuss. Do a quick google search, and I think you'll see what I mean - lots of people blog about how Romm is wrong, and Romm replies that, no, the other guys are wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, point taken.

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Licensed and tagged
I had previously included some of the covers of Romm's books, under fair use, but they were deleted. See, e.g., Hell and High Water (book) and Straight Up (book). Do you think that at least one of these book covers could be included? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if adding them is going to cause disputes, it is probably not a good idea. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just the copyvio video links issue remains. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for second opinion on the video link issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for input at WT:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no input from from elsewhere so I will pass this this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To GA or not to GA, that is the question

I wonder why someone nominated this article for GA. I've done 99% of the work on it, and I had no ambitions to promote it to GA. This article is often the focus of attacks by climate change deniers, and bringing it to GA will just make it a juicier target. It seems unfair for someone to nominate the article who does not work on maintaining it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, I would like to answer your comment: I nominated this article for GA because I felt the quality of the article deserved to be recognized. You may have done 99% of the work on it, and you may have had no "ambitions" to promote it, but this is a collaborative project, and regardless of the work you've done here, nobody owns an article. In what may be considered an unusual approach, I sometimes nominate articles for GA, articles that I've had nothing to do with at all. I also participate in the work, if any is required, with or without the primary contributors. Since you've beaten me to the punch, I assume you've taken the bull by the horns and intend to complete the tasks at hand. As for your position that nominating an article is a Bad Thing, I have to strongly disagree with you on that point. This is an extreme form of risk aversion that is not conducive to a collaborative environment where we are trying to improve articles, not avoid improving them. The page history shows that this article has not been the focus of attacks by climate change deniers for some time, and its last major attacker left the project some months ago. I notice that this article does not have a climate change sanctions notice, so I'll be adding it now as a warning to anyone who attempts to disrupt this page. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I didn't say that GA is bad, I only feel that it is unfair to select an article that you have not worked on regularly for nomination, unless you plan to help maintain it over the long term. You say that "we are trying to improve articles", but nominating them does not improve them. I am very happy for anyone to help improve this article. So far, however, in the article's long history, no one has done any research to improve this article other than me. You should NOT "assume [that I] intend to complete the tasks at hand." This is exactly what is unfair here! However, I hope you do intend to help, as this article is periodically attacked by climate change deniers, and I would certainly welcome experienced editors to assist in improving the article and ensuring that all changes comply with WP:BLP and are based upon references that satisfy WP:RS. The only reason that the article has not been attacked lately is that its most recent attacker, User:FellGleaming, is currently topic banned. I expect that when his ban expires, he will be back here, because his MO is to try to degrade the articles of mainstream climate scientists and experts in order to introduce doubt throughout the encyclopedia that climate change is anthropogenic and to minimize the evidence that it is a grave threat. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but nominating an article for GA does improve it–that is the whole point of the process. I would be happy to collaborate with you on getting this article passed, but I would like for you to consider softening your position, as it could be misconstrued as ownership. Further, your personal criteria that stipulates that one who works on an article must also help maintain it over the long term is quite unreasonable. In an ideal world, that would make sense, but on Wikipedia, many editors play "catch and release", donating their valuable time to improve an article over the short term and then releasing it back to the community. Many editors who do this are often surprised at how well coordinated and protective the community can be of such articles, and when you watch the flowing waters of recent changes feeds, you will see a pattern of editorial roles emerging: one editor might fight vandalism, another BLP violations, and yet another might perform grammar fixes and gnomish copyedits. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall hearing something about GA and FA articles being watched on special priority watchlists for vandalism and disruption. If, however, this is not true, and I am mistaken, then it should be implemented. Please do not continue to think and feel you are alone here. We are all interconnected on this site and in the real world, and we will all do what it takes to help our fellow editors. Remember, it is always darkest before the dawn. The necessity and beneficial nature of conflict and dispute on Wikipedia only becomes apparent when you realize what it would be like without it. Your worry of increasing entropy, where all articles will degrade into penis vandalism and broken links is legitimate. But please, try to have faith in your fellow editors. The vast majority of us are here for the same reasons and have the same goals. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, look. I disagree with your opinions and your methods. It seems rude to me to nominate without notifying the editor who has done all the work on the article and asking if that editor thinks the article is ready for nomination. And, as I said above, I don't see why you are lecturing me and calling me names. Nevertheless, you have nominated this article, and there is nothing I can do about it, so fine. Let's just work on improving the article. I'd appreciate if you would just focus on the article now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any disagreement from you. I've only seen "I'm right and you're wrong". You've made it clear that you don't want this article to be a GA, and you've made it clear that you "own" this article and don't want other people editing this article or working on it. What you haven't made clear is your admitted COI and relationship with Romm, but that doesn't concern me. I just want you to know that your COI is reflecting badly on your position in regards to the good faith contributions of other editors. You've done nothing but assume bad faith in every interaction, so tell me why I should even spend a minute of my time here? Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I say that I have worked with Ssilvers on a large number of articles up to and including FA level, and always find him a pleasure to co-operate with. I do not recognise the picture painted of him in the above paragraph. I feel sure there must be a misunderstanding. Tim riley (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has previously admitted that he is a close friend of the subject. There is no misinterpretation. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made myself clear – sorry. (Ssilvers's friendship with Mr Romm is a matter of record, very properly available to all Wikipedia users.) I meant that supposing Ssilvers to be obstructive – let alone prone to asserting "ownership" of an article – is, in my four years of working with him as a fellow Wikipedian, the exact opposite of the truth. I know nothing of the technicalities of this particular article, I must stress, but I am sure that anyone editing it on proper WP lines, neutrally and with reliable citations, will not find our colleague obstructive – quite the reverse. Tim riley (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]