Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Glenn & Viola Walters Cultural Arts Center/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Listed. I made a mistake with my initial review, so therefore will personally make the article a GA. Wikipedian2 (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This nomination was failed by User:Wikipedian2 after a superficial one line review at Talk:Glenn & Viola Walters Cultural Arts Center/GA1. The review reads: "Please add far more information to the article, and ensure that all information is fully referenced. After you have addressed the issues, you can resubmit. Thank-you, Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)". Examining the article, it is reasonably well written, well referenced to reliable sources, complies with key MoS elements, is neutral, covers the subject in reasonable detail, stable and is illustrated by correctly licensed and captioned images. The reviewer left no detailed information on what was lacking and I have listed it here to determine if the community agrees that this article meets the GA criteria. I am notifying both reviewer and nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that to reach the Good Article criteria, the article must include further references (especially in the introduction) to ensure the article fully supports its own facts. That is why I failed it. I apologise for not being detailed enough. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Might I suggest that you read WP:Lead#Citations, which makes no requirement for citations in the lead: only material that "is challenged or likely to be challenged" would need citing in the lead. The lead summarises the article where adequate referencing is provided. Are there any other statements that need citations? If so, please elaborate. It is expected that specific instances of shortcomings be provided in reviews. What additional information do you feel should be added to the article? Please give details. I note also that you made no obvious attempt to contact the nominator to provide feedback, or even inform them of the fail. I don't think that that is helpful behaviour. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedian2, thank you for the review, but as Jezhotwells has shown, your objections are without merit. Having gone through FAC several times, including two articles promoted to FA (plus a featured portal), and having gone through GA about 35 times (with 34 passes) I think I am fairly familiar with the criteria, and I only nominate articles that I think are there. Now, I don't expect a simple pass based just on my track record, as I can sometimes miss a period or comma, or what reads fine to me really does need a tweak because it is hard to copy edit your own work as what you have in your mind may not match what you wrote. But a quick fail is in this instance is highly improper (unless the quick-fail criteria has been re-vamped). As Jezhotwells points out, and has been debated extensively before at FA (and I think GA) that we generally do not do citations in the lede/lead, as it is just a summary. Controversial statements or details would be one such instance, and specifically in cities we usually cite the population - but that is more to prevent simple vandalism and because the figures change so often. As to sourcing in general, without looking, I would find it very suspect if more than a sentence or two does not have a source for the entire article. I generally have a citation for every-single sentence, and often more than one citation per sentence. I tell the reader where I got. To re-iterate another point brought up by Jezhotwells, what more information would you like? This arts center is less than ten years old, and I think the article fairly and adequately represents the coverage the article has received by reliable sources. I cannot just make stuff up. The one and only area I thought might need work, and a proper review might shed some light on it, is the coverage since it has opened as to what goes on there (as to the history section). The problem being that there are just so many events that you cannot fit them all, but how do you properly summarize everything without getting close to OR, if not crossing that boundary. Personally, I think what is there meets the GA criteria, but certainly not FA standards. Anyway, please re-consider your initial assessment, at least provide far more specific details, or excuse yourself from the process completely. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just checked, and every-single sentence has at least one citation, as to the body of the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I think the best thing to do would be to put this back in the nomination queue with the original timestamp, so that it can get a fresh review. I hope another uninvolved editor see this and confirms this is the best course and closes this discussion, so that i can put it back in the queue for you. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just checked, and every-single sentence has at least one citation, as to the body of the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedian2, thank you for the review, but as Jezhotwells has shown, your objections are without merit. Having gone through FAC several times, including two articles promoted to FA (plus a featured portal), and having gone through GA about 35 times (with 34 passes) I think I am fairly familiar with the criteria, and I only nominate articles that I think are there. Now, I don't expect a simple pass based just on my track record, as I can sometimes miss a period or comma, or what reads fine to me really does need a tweak because it is hard to copy edit your own work as what you have in your mind may not match what you wrote. But a quick fail is in this instance is highly improper (unless the quick-fail criteria has been re-vamped). As Jezhotwells points out, and has been debated extensively before at FA (and I think GA) that we generally do not do citations in the lede/lead, as it is just a summary. Controversial statements or details would be one such instance, and specifically in cities we usually cite the population - but that is more to prevent simple vandalism and because the figures change so often. As to sourcing in general, without looking, I would find it very suspect if more than a sentence or two does not have a source for the entire article. I generally have a citation for every-single sentence, and often more than one citation per sentence. I tell the reader where I got. To re-iterate another point brought up by Jezhotwells, what more information would you like? This arts center is less than ten years old, and I think the article fairly and adequately represents the coverage the article has received by reliable sources. I cannot just make stuff up. The one and only area I thought might need work, and a proper review might shed some light on it, is the coverage since it has opened as to what goes on there (as to the history section). The problem being that there are just so many events that you cannot fit them all, but how do you properly summarize everything without getting close to OR, if not crossing that boundary. Personally, I think what is there meets the GA criteria, but certainly not FA standards. Anyway, please re-consider your initial assessment, at least provide far more specific details, or excuse yourself from the process completely. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Might I suggest that you read WP:Lead#Citations, which makes no requirement for citations in the lead: only material that "is challenged or likely to be challenged" would need citing in the lead. The lead summarises the article where adequate referencing is provided. Are there any other statements that need citations? If so, please elaborate. It is expected that specific instances of shortcomings be provided in reviews. What additional information do you feel should be added to the article? Please give details. I note also that you made no obvious attempt to contact the nominator to provide feedback, or even inform them of the fail. I don't think that that is helpful behaviour. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this process, and still learning as to the criteria of good articles. Everybody makes mistakes, especially when new. After reading your above comments, and reviewing the article and the GAN specifications, it is more than fair to say that I made a huge mistake, and your article does appear to meet what is necessary for Good Article status. I must apologise for wasting your time, and will personally make the article a GA. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that Wikipedian2. I have fixed the talk page templates and will get this reassessment archived. If you want to do another review, then just ask me or another experienced reviewer to mentor you. And I suggest taht you use one of the templates such as {{subst:FGAN}}, {{subst:GAList}}, {{subst:GAList2}} or {{subst:GATable}}. I find them useful in organising the review and most importantly making sure that I check each aspect. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank-you, that helps a lot. Have a nice day. Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I thank you as well Wikipedian2, it takes a lot to admit a mistake, but you have made amends and you will do just fine. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)