Talk:Stephen Fry's Podgrams/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Well written

According to WP:GA? a Good Article must meet the following standards:

   "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation."

I don't believe that the layout of the article meets any guidelines and there are tables used for the episodes, and from what I understand tables or even lists of podcast episodes are not to be used unless each individual episode is significant in some way and/or have their own article (however removing the tables would make the article extremely short). TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

According to WP:GA? a Good Article must meet the following standards:

   "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
   it contains no original research"

Five of the ten sources (after I added some reliable sources myself) are references to the podcast itself on the podcast host's own website, which I believe breaks Wikipedia guidelines that self-published sources are not allowed or at least discouraged (I'm not sure but they might also count as original research because it is a primary source). If those five sources are removed than there isn't a single source for the entire "Contents" section of the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

According to WP:GA? a Good Article must meet the following standards:

   "it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)"

The tables and the contents section in the article go into excruciating detail about the podcast's topics and format. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

According to WP:GA? a Good Article must meet the following standards:

   "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each"

There are statements such as "Stephen Fry's Podgrams have been well received by critics" and "The podgrams are one of the most downloaded podcast series on the internet" that have questionable or no sources to verify the claims, and not only are these statements practically unverifiable they read like an advertisement for the podcast. After searching for reliable sources I also was unable to find any positive reviews like the the one's the article focuses on. I added this bit for balance, but it still needs work:

   "Chris Maume of The Independent responded negatively to the podcast saying that it contains "amiable burblings" and has a "distinctly musty whiff about it."[9]
  Jo Roy sampled a rant of hatred toward dancing by Stephen Fry and used it as the soundtrack to a dance video.[10]" TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

According to WP:GA? a Good Article must meet the following standards:

   "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute"

This might be the only one of the six categories under the Good Article requirements that this article meets. The problem is that the reason it meets this requirement is because the article has so little notability and the podcast was so short-lived (with a grand total of nine episodes) that no one has made substantial edits since 2016. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated

According to WP:GA? a Good Article must meet the following standards:

   "media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions"

There seems to be some kind of issue with the infobox image regarding copyrights, but I haven't done much with images yet so it might be fine. The image of Stephen Fry in the Contents section, however, seems out of place and unnecessary to the topic considering the topic is his podcast not him (maybe an image of him in front of a mic recording the podcast would be more appropriate). TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

I don't believe the article meets notability requirements for Wikipedia and the article's contents seem much more like a level C, Start, or Stub whereas the article's importance seems more like a Low to Mid level. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me. I conducted the GA review 12 years ago, but I am not a contributor to the article. I agree that the article could use some work, but I disagree with your interpretation of some of the GA criteria. My thoughts: Well-written: There are no significant problems with the prose. As for whether a table should be used, I can't say that I know. It appears to be a good way to have the information clearly displayed, as simply giving the title of the episode would be of little use to a reader. Is there a specific guideline that says that a table should not be used for this sort of information? Verifiable: Primary sources are not a problem for this sort of information. Essentially, it's a plot summary rather than contentious information. This shouldn't be different from summarizing a movie or television episode, and it is unlikely that comprehensive plot summaries could be found in reliable secondary sources. As an example, I looked at a random article that seemed to be a reasonable parallel: Adventure Time (season 6). The only citations given in the episode list are for production codes and viewer statistics. If there is any original research, it should be identified specifically--for example, if a reader disagrees with the accuracy of the episode summary. Broad in coverage: Outside of the table, the article is 613 words, so I don't know that it should be characterized as "excruciating detail". Neutrality: I agree with your concerns. I think your additions helped, but the statements that you mentioned as concerns should definitely be fixed or removed. Stability: A lack of major edits is not a stability concern. Images: The image in the infobox has an appropriate fair use claim, and the image of Fry is a positive addition to the article, as it helps give the reader some sense of who Fry is.

Overall, I don't see that the article is far off from meeting the GA criteria. I agree that it is a short article--possibly the shortest of all of the GA nominations I ever reviewed. With that said, I haven't reviewed an article for years, and the criteria have changed, but I think it stacks up reasonably well based on the WP:GA? quotations you have provided. I suppose the biggest issue could be the notability. I think the reviews help support the article's inclusion in Wikipedia, as they give discussion in multiple secondary sources. Other people may disagree. I'm an unapologetic inclusionist in that regard. Having done little to no research in the field of podcasting, though, I don't have a good sense of major reliable sources for the topic. I think it could benefit from the inclusion of [1], [2], [3] to give it a stronger claim to notability, if this is a concern. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the reception section in response to your comments, and I added two more sources. Please get in touch if anything else needs to be done before this GAR is closed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GaryColemanFan, to be honest I wasn't expecting anyone to respond to this reassessment. I've seen tables containing podcast episode lists removed from multiple articles for being "unencycopedic content", but I'm not sure what the rule is exactly (An example would be in the Sawbones (podcast) history). It's not that the content of the table is formatted incorrectly as much as it is the content is unnecessary. I think WP:NOTDIR might be the rule in this situation because none of the contents of the table is linking to other articles, but I could be wrong. When it comes to the verifiability and notability I'm still unsure how it meets WP:GNG as there is clearly not significant coverage (When I search Google News for "Stephen Fry's Podgrams" I only get two sources), and the few sources that are available either contain very little information or are not explicitly dedicated to the subject (i.e. a list of podcasts). I've seen plenty of articles rejected for having as many or more sources, but I'm unsure how many sources is necessary for it to be "significant". Maybe I'm wrong about all this though because I'm fairly new to wikipedia. starsandwhales what do you think (you're the only other one who has expressed any interest in this)? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in the notability guidelines, since I usually stick to WP:TOL where every species is inherently notable. Is this podcast really notable? Not to the point where the article should be deleted, but to me, this article seems to be C class at best. It doesn't discuss the production, or parent company, and I don't think it would even be considered for GA in the first place if it wasn't made by Steven Fry. Much of the information in the article is outdated, still talking about 2008 metrics as if it was in the present day. I'm not entirely sure why the Sawbone's episode list would be deleted, since there are articles for things like List of Steven Universe episodes and every Simpson's episode has its own article.

At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means.

I agree with TipsyElephant's assessment of the article. It needs to be far more in depth with many more secondary sources to be a GA, and it can be improved or delisted. starsandwhales (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to focus on the GA criteria, which call for the article to address "the main aspects of the topic". To be a Featured Article, I agree that it would need a good amount of additional depth. What I would propose is posting at WT:GAR and/or WT:GAN and asking someone to take a look at the article, focusing primarly on WP:GNG and the GA criterion about breadth of coverage. Would you be open to that? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A GA still needs to be in depth (though not as much as an FA). I think posting this on the talk page would be helpful. starsandwhales (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Hi there. I'll be applying the GA criteria to give a second opinion.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The reality is that the standard for GA has risen a lot since 2008. As a result, what passed then does not necessarily mean it will pass now. I would not pass this if it were a current GA nomination. There are a few real issues.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Despite the series being a podcast, Fry's title is used to refer to the episodes ("Podgrams"). Regardless of what Fry calls them, they 'are' podcasts. There's a lot of generally clunky language, too: First made downloadable on [...].

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The article over-relies on extensive quotes to pad out its length. Were the content to be paraphrased, the article would lose a significant chunk of its size.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Footnotes are used.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
An over-reliance on primary sources. Just under 50% of all citations are attributed to Fry's website. These are used to describe things from an overly in-universe or fannish perspective, instead of providing neutral, third party criticism on the article's subject. To what extent do people visiting this page really care that Fry occasionally revisits previous topics?

C. It contains no original research:
I think that saying Fry repeats topics he's previously covered constitutes as OR, because that isn't what Fry is saying there in the primary source; the quote doesn't reflect that.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It’s written from a historical perspective. The main body and lead don't reflect that the series has been discontinued and is no longer being made. It needs to be rewritten with an encyclopaedic, retrospective slant.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
It does not go into much detail in any sense, so I'm not sure whether this is a pass or a fail.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I'm passing this for similar reasons to above. Going into so little detail, it does not provide a complete or comprehensive view of the subject, but also does not stray off topic (because what little writing there is does stay on topic).
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are not tagged with alt text for accessibility.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall, I would say this is a pretty clear de-list. It meets very little of the criteria, is not properly styled, reliant on primary sources that—more crucially—result in the article being bogged down by material that doesn't really need to be in it. The article has a 2008-slant, without reflecting that it’s been 12 years since it was made a Good Article.

There's no reason the article can't be fixed. If anyone is willing to spend the time on it, I recommend giving them that time—there's no rush for GA reassessment. That said, if they don't have the time or interest, then I recommend just a straightforward de-listing. If you have any further questions, please ping me. ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if no one plans on spending the time to improve the article it can be de-listed? Should I ping everyone who has ever worked on it and ask on the wikiproject talk pages or make a note somewhere else (i.e. the Teahouse, etc.) to see if there is any interest? Can we make the decision based on the four of us? No individual user has made more than three edits on the page since 2009, which I'd think would be an indication that there has been very little interest. I'm not really planning on spending much more time on it than I already have, and based on the edit history I'm one of only three major contributors. What would you recommend as far as determining if there is interest ImaginesTigers? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to delist, I will not object. The main contributor(s) have not responded to the notifications for the GAR in the past 20 days, so I think you've certainly done due diligence in providing and opportunity to have your concerns addressed. I appreciate and respect the effort that people have put into identifying concerns in this article, and I think they provide a good basis for other editors to improve the article and renominate it at GAN. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this was flagged at WT:GAN. Alt text is not currently a GA requirement (see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Alt text). Some of the other stuff is a little iffy (using primary sources is allowed, tables are acceptable, etc). As to the original "in depth" query it really depends. Usually it is up to the delister to show that information is available but missing. If there are no more secondary sources on the subject then it must be written using what is available. In theory as long as the subject is notable (SNG's aside) it should be possible to be a Good Article. I do agree with the overuse of quotes concern though. AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will just add that this is a common issue. Notability and GA quality are two separate issues. If editors don't think it is notable enough then deletion, merging or redirecting is the best solution. Delisting does not solve the notability issue as the article will still exist. By the same token the status of the article should not be a factor in deciding if it should exist in its current form. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this is supposed to work because I've never done a GAR before and I've never really ended up in any discussions that had such an ambiguous end. Are we delisting, merging, deleting, improving, or leaving it as it is? Does some kind of consensus need to be met and what does that look like? What was the final decision or who gets to make that decision if it hasn't been made yet? GaryColemanFan starsandwhales ImaginesTigers AIRcorn TipsyElephant (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I missed this; I don't remember seeing that first ping ever. You get to make the call as to whether it can be delisted. In theory, you reassessed it individually, not as a community reassessment (the difference is explained on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment), and then solicited further opinions. I wouldn't personally list this at AfD because the outcome would likely be merge and not delete—I might try uncontroversially merging it with Stephen Fry. If someone reverted it, I'd talk about it on the Talk page and try to get consensus to do that. But you are the one to make the call over whether or not this satisfies the GA requirement, and that's the full scope of this page. Sorry for not replying; I'll watchlist this page for a few days. What Aircorn said is pretty complete, though. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah pretty much what ImaginesTigers says. It's your call on closing this as delist or keep. No matter which way you close it you can still boldly merge it, start a merge discussion or send it to AFD (or even just leave it). AIRcorn (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To help save some time and, perhaps, frustration, I will proactively state that I oppose a bold merge, as I have made my position clear that this article meets WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. I agree with the above statements about the GAR. I appreciate you accommodating my request for an additional opinion, and you are welcome to close the GAR as you see fit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delist it then and leave the article as it is and because there was some disagreement I'll change the class to a B level instead of C. Maybe I'll come back to this sometime and improve it enough to reassess for a good article. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it'll have to be nominated again; you can't just promote it back. :p — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]