Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Broken-Hearted Girl/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept. Thanks to the efforts of several editors, the article has been improved since the GAR nomination, and no subsequent GA concerns have been raised. Geometry guy 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
At first, I thought this was well reviewed, and was good enough to be a GA article, but now after seeing how her other GA articles don't compare, I'm positive I made the wrong decision in promoting this to GA. ℥nding·start 07:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- In which respect(s) do you believe the article does not currently meet the GA criteria? Geometry guy 13:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note I am one of the two editors who notified Endingstart about how this article doesn't match the prose quality, MOS standards and referencing expectations that other recent GAs or even other Beyoncé articles like Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) have. I made a series of comments/recommendations at Wikiproject: Beyoncé so rather than copy them here I'll link to them instead. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link, and your efforts to improve article quality. I have commented there and invited comments here based on whether the article meets the GA criteria, rather than comparisons with other GAs. Note for example that only a small portion of the MOS is part of the GA criteria. The criteria are also silent when it comes to infoboxes, except that WP:EMBED is a criterion, which favours presenting material to readers in prose where possible, and that is a consideration even if the material appears in an infobox.
- Suggestions for improving the article that go beyond the GA criteria are best made on the article talk page, rather than here. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note I am one of the two editors who notified Endingstart about how this article doesn't match the prose quality, MOS standards and referencing expectations that other recent GAs or even other Beyoncé articles like Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) have. I made a series of comments/recommendations at Wikiproject: Beyoncé so rather than copy them here I'll link to them instead. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Apart from minor tweaks to prose and lead (which are easy to fix), identifying deviations from the GA criteria here is pretty hard. If pressed, I would say that possible issues are the incongruent prose in the "Composition and release" section, and the list-like material in the "Credits and personnel" and "Release history" sections. Both lists could be incorporated as prose in a "Production and release" section, leaving a "Composition" section free to talk coherently about the composition, avoiding the jumps between composition and production. Geometry guy 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree.... even FA's have release history and personnel/credit sections. The major issues were with prose qualities e.g. poor sentence structure, repeating the same sentence starters and a lead section which did not conform to WP:LEAD. My main objection was that the article was not wide-reaching until I showed Adabow a list of reliable sources he/she could use to expand the article. It has since been greatly expanded and improved however there are still concerns that the lead does not cover all aspects of the article. Small tweaks will fix this. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is not FA, and comparison with other articles does not apply. Repeating sentence structures is not a problem at GA level, as long as the prose is clear and concise with correct grammar (1a). While release history and personnel/credit sections are acceptable, it is a pity to miss the opportunity to integrate the production into prose, and formulaic ideas about article structure should not obstruct such improvements.
- That being an aside, if small tweaks to the lead are all that are now required, then we should be able to keep this article as a GA. Geometry guy 01:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said I've encountered a number of GA/FA articles and participated in a number of reviews as the reviewer or nominator and its never been an issue before. While I appreciated your comments and you've done a good job of actively getting involved in helping improve the article there is something about your comments worries me. You seem to have no issue with putting a limit or ceiling on the improvements that should be made to an article for GA purposes. Now of course I accept that article quality is a scale and GA sits below FA but that doesn't mean that we should let articles reach GA with a poor standard of prose. Prose should be of good quality, varied in structure and style as well as reliably sourced and easily readable. I don't agree with the view that "its on GA so its good enough". Achieving GA status is no small thing and it shouldn't be treated lightly. When any such review is done editors shouldn't automatically stop because they've reached a fictional ceiling on the quality standards. This GAR reassessment is a chance for the community as whole to get involved and recommend changes for the improvement of the article. Although according to the rules each article is assess individually that doesn't mean that other GAs shouldn't act as a guide. I proved that with a bit of hard work this article could be as good as other Beyoncé GAs but it required more work than some of the editors who first worked on the article were willing to put in. My whole purpose to highlighting the issues with this article were the need to slow reviews down and look more closely at the intricate details such as prose quality. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- You worry easily. And have no clue about what I believe. If you wish to discuss either matter please do so on my user talk page. Meanwhile, this GAR has not received a single substantial comment from "the community as a whole", nor has any significant case for delisting the article been made. GAR does not exist to further the agendas of individual editors, however noble they may be. If you want further help with your prose, I recommend WP:peer review. Geometry guy 10:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said I've encountered a number of GA/FA articles and participated in a number of reviews as the reviewer or nominator and its never been an issue before. While I appreciated your comments and you've done a good job of actively getting involved in helping improve the article there is something about your comments worries me. You seem to have no issue with putting a limit or ceiling on the improvements that should be made to an article for GA purposes. Now of course I accept that article quality is a scale and GA sits below FA but that doesn't mean that we should let articles reach GA with a poor standard of prose. Prose should be of good quality, varied in structure and style as well as reliably sourced and easily readable. I don't agree with the view that "its on GA so its good enough". Achieving GA status is no small thing and it shouldn't be treated lightly. When any such review is done editors shouldn't automatically stop because they've reached a fictional ceiling on the quality standards. This GAR reassessment is a chance for the community as whole to get involved and recommend changes for the improvement of the article. Although according to the rules each article is assess individually that doesn't mean that other GAs shouldn't act as a guide. I proved that with a bit of hard work this article could be as good as other Beyoncé GAs but it required more work than some of the editors who first worked on the article were willing to put in. My whole purpose to highlighting the issues with this article were the need to slow reviews down and look more closely at the intricate details such as prose quality. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree.... even FA's have release history and personnel/credit sections. The major issues were with prose qualities e.g. poor sentence structure, repeating the same sentence starters and a lead section which did not conform to WP:LEAD. My main objection was that the article was not wide-reaching until I showed Adabow a list of reliable sources he/she could use to expand the article. It has since been greatly expanded and improved however there are still concerns that the lead does not cover all aspects of the article. Small tweaks will fix this. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)