Talk:Thyon

Disagree with an article assessment

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Moved from Wikipedia:Help_desk#Disagree_with_an_article_assessment

– [1] Guliolopez (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently spent time greatly expanding and improving an article on a Swiss location I know well. (By no means the first edit I have made in Wikipedia). I now see the rubric: "This article is written like a manual or guidebook. Please help rewrite this article from a descriptive, neutral point of view, and remove advice or instruction." Furthermore two edits have been made ("citation needed") where I have explained something precisely because it needs explaining, not cross-referencing,as no such references exist in Wikipedia. Whilst I am happy to review what I wrote, and make one or two modifications, I simply disagree with the assessment of it being a "manual" (!) and I would argue that any article in Wikipedia that includes descriptions of a place used for recreation or tourism inevitably has overtones of a "guide-book" - and if so, so what? According to Wikipedia's entry "encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title." In the article I am referring to, Thyon, there is nothing that is not fact, and I have in any event tried to give references where it would be helpful. I am very willing to "improve" but I would like to know: who makes such assessments? how and where can they be debated? Divonnais (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Divonnais:. Thanks for your note at Wikipedia:Help desk. I have moved your note to this article talk page because, as Vexations mentioned, article talk pages are the places we discuss article content.

Thanks also for your efforts to improve the article. While the tag that I added was (obviously) not intended as a critique or commentary on your own good-faith efforts (reflecting, in several cases, pre-existing issues), if you got that impression, I can but apologise.

In any event, while you have asked a number of questions in your note, and I will be happy to address or answer them as best I can, I might first explain why I tagged the article.

In short I added this tag because:

Unattributed opinions, like the resort being "seamlessly integrated" and "easily connected" with the whole area, seemed at odds with the relevant ATTRIBUTEPOV guidelines,
Subjective statements, like the resort "enjoying spectacular views" are not typically appropriate to the relevant WTW guidelines, and
Guidebook style text, like that which talks about how to get there from the airport, or the opening times/dates of the local restaurant, seemed more in keeping with the Wikivoyage project than the Wikipedia's NOTGUIDEBOOK guidelines.

Anyway. To your other point, about discussing/addressing these issues (to the extent that there is consensus to remove the hatnote), if you're happy for me to do so, I can make a first attempt myself. If that works for you.

Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is addressed. Hatnote is removed. Thread is closed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]