User talk:Voorts/The spectrum of coverage

Feedback

First point: My initial thought is that this page is basically true but unhelpful. There's nothing that an editor could grab hold of, to say "Yes, this is very clearly and obviously SIGCOV even though I wish this subject didn't qualify for an article" or "No, really, even though I think this subject is super important and interesting, it doesn't yet qualify".

For example, while the raw number of words in the source(s) is not a perfect indicator, it is still true that there are limits to this. Ten words is never going to let you write a proper article, and ten thousand words (0.4 tomats long) pretty much always will. Editors generally align on a few hundred words of useful text that is "directly and in detail" about the subject itself (e.g., about the charitable organization itself, excluding any part of the source that is about hunger/health/an individual who benefited from the organization).

Another way to approach it doesn't measure the source, but measures what an editor can do with it: If you can write an encyclopedia article that is a couple hundred words long (DYK usually requires about 300 words) from that source alone, without any needless repetition or inappropriate verbosity, then that source contains SIGCOV. If you can't write even two appropriate sentences, that source (considered by itself) definitely doesn't.

Second point: Have you considered whether it's the subject that has to have SIGCOV, or the source? The GNG says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage...", which suggests that it's the subject that needs SIGCOV, and this attention could be found by considering sources in combination. This affects the first point above, because under the GNG's wording, we're looking for a collection of sources that let us write DYK-length article, rather than a single source that can do it all. The GNG puts some limits on this (no OR/SYNTH to create content that isn't actually in any individual source), but these are pretty minor limits.

The NCORP approach deliberately tries to exclude subjects by requiring each source to separately prove full SIGCOV when considered in isolation from all other sources. If that were the GNG approach, it would sound more like "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has written about in at least two unrelated reliable sources, each of which separately contains significant coverage..." It might help editors understand your ideas if you addressed this point directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll work on addressing it. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I think I've addressed your feedback, if you have time for another look. Thanks again, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the diagram, is there an underlying assumption that the source is a major one? Being the main (or even exclusive) subject of a trivial source does not demonstrate significant coverage. Tomorrow night's Ladies' Auxiliary meeting might be the main subject of a source, but the source itself is probably only two sentences long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Yes, that is an underlying assumption. I will clarify that in the body and think about how to fit that into the image. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About this paragraph:

The guideline defines significant coverage as being on a spectrum of coverage: it is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." A trivial mention is usually short, and discusses a topic indirectly or in passing. When something is the main topic of a source, it is addressed directly and with a lot of detail.

I'm not sure that the quoted sentence should be treated as a comparison or as setting up a spectrum. It's possible that what's intended is separate rules: It must be more than a trivial mention. Separately, you can't disqualify a source merely because this subject is addressed directly and in detail for only 8% of the pages in your thousand-page textbook, so it's not the main topic of your textbook (or magazine, or whatever).
I don't think the last sentence is entirely correct. I think it's more accurate to say that when something is the main topic of a source, most of the source is about that topic.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the first sentence to say that the guideline "can be read as defining" to make clear that it doesn't literally define a spectrum. I think the third point in the first bullet is what I'm trying to get at: there's a spectrum of sources, and so something in a textbook that is not the main topic can still constitute significant coverage. I've also clarified the meaning of main topic per your second bullet point. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My take

I've written several essay in use here (see my User page) and some of the basic principles that have guided me include:

Keep it as short as possible (you did fine)
Keep it so the average 8th grader can understand it. (needs work)

My reasoning is that the average person that NEEDS to read these essays may not be a college graduate, so you need to use examples and phrasing that are extremely basic, and harder to misinterpret. Also, many of the people that need to read these essays may not speak English as their first language, so keeping the language and examples as simple as possible is best. Doing this makes the essay ~~accessible to a wider audience~~ easier to understand for everyone. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: I've also found the simplicity to help me keep focused on the goal of the essay. I would have chosen a (working) title of "What is SIGCOV/Significant Coverage", for example, just to keep my eye on the prize. I do think your goal is very worthwhile, btw. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Wikipedia:What is significant coverage? is already taken, but your point is taken and I will simplify the language and phrasing. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The spectrum approach?

I would hope that later versions of the essay would be more clear that "the spectrum appoach" is one proposed framework for interpteting notability, and that it does not document an existing consensus.

The status quo of the GNG is that significant coverage must exist, but it doesn't disallow (as you do) the edge case where only a book provides "deep" coverage, and other independent sources are limited to backing up facts or aspects of the topic. It also doesn't disallow "many small sources", so long as the information they contain is of encyclopaedic value and does not require original development by editors to turn them into an article.

The tendency in your essay to lean into "two sources, each of which offers a specified degree of depth" certainly reflects what some editors believe, but it isn't what the GNG says nor does it reflect a widespread community consensus - the community being, in general, more tolerant of "lopsided" sourcing with one really good RS and lesser (independent) sources for triangulation than your NORG-like "spectrum approach" would allow. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Thanks for your feedback. That section (along with the whole essay) is a work in progress. I've removed the two sources part and changed the section up if you have a moment to take another look. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a question: do you think that the rest of the essay accurately documents consensus? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like what I see; I'm sure other editors will bring other perspectives. :) Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've drafted another one if you're interested, @Newimpartial, @Dennis Brown, and @WhatamIdoing. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this new essay strays further from commonly-held understandings of WP:N than does the "spectrum" essay. Newimpartial (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular part of it? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to say that the presumption is rebuttable; I was splitting hairs on the meaning of reubttable vs. conclusive presumptions (a moment of lawyer brain). voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]