Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dan Cocoziello/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dan Cocoziello

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Listed This article was originally failed due to 3a concerns. However, it seems the 3a concerns stem from a lack of information that is not available in any reliable sources. Failing an article for 3a when a source does not seem to exist is not consistent with the GA criteria. Making a good-faith assumption that the article would have otherwise passed per the review and minor fixes, there seems to be no compelling reason not to list. Aaron north (T/C) 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the debate at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/B. J. Prager/1, this debate focuses on the comprehensiveness of a biography article for a professional lacrosse player. Lacrosse is a professional sport that gets minimal press. The professional career part of Cococziello's Google News search consists of three articles.

I will repeat the arguments made for Prager here. The average lacrosse player is very difficult to build a substantial article for because there is sparse secondary source coverage after college. I believe that there is adequate comprehensiveness given the subject matter. In my experience in sports bio GAs, a comprehensive professional career summary includes major records, all-star and award summaries, important playoff performances, notable statistical accomplishments, significant injuries affecting performance, notable transactions and extraordinary single-game performances. Unfortunately, I don't think anything is missing from Cocoziello's article. Thus, although the professional section is brief, it is comprehensive. This article is even more problematic because he is a defenseman and there are no scoring stats to speak of. We need to evaluate its comprehensiveness based on knowledge of and expectations of information availability. In this case, Cocoziello passes WP:N easily and we need to determine where the bar is for him in terms of comprehensiveness. Does anyone expect that his missing personal and background information will ever be available in secondary sources? I am seeking a relisting of this article at GAC with the original date priority.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I failed this on WP:GACR#3a as the article really contains very little information that gives a broad picture of the player. Tony has added a little more detail, but as he has only played 8 professional games there is, as Tony says, little information out there. I welcome debate amongst other editors here as I feel that we have differing views on the interpretatiion of criteria #3. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that he has only played in 8 games makes this argument stronger than the Prager argument. There is no encyclopedic content missing from the article based on all reasonably identifyable WP:RSs. Even if he had played a lot of games (like Prager), what is relevant is whether significant encyclopedic content is missing. This isn't a local fan site where every goal is news. This is an encyclopedia charged with the responsibility of summarizing notable career accomplishments. All are duly noted in this case so saying it fails comprehensiveness makes no sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and List IF the infobox is corrected per the GA review under 2a. (His weight appears to be incorrectly listed?) I am presuming the other criteria check out as noted in the GA review. The objections seem to be related to notability more than anything, but the subject is probably notable due to his college career. So, given notability, then for coverage we have to look not only at what would be expected in a sports article, but also what is available. Lacrosse is beyond obscure in the United States, it is virtually uncovered, other than some limited coverage of college players of elite college teams in the northeast. Looking at WP:WGN, I note that one "mistake to avoid" under criteria 3 is "Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources." I'll definitely change my mind on this if it can be shown that his professional career is covered beyond the bare statistics by anyone, or if it can be shown that there is a lack of coverage in his college career. Aaron north (T/C) 19:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Dan_Cocoziello/1&oldid=1251205313"