Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Justin Bieber on Twitter/1

Justin Bieber on Twitter

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Withdrawn without prejudice to re-open this discussion after AFD discussion is over.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

In this community reassessment, voting is not allowed because this discussion is not a vote. In other words, "delist", "keep", or any other is not allowed here; moreover, (non-)administrator is allowed to close as either "kept" or "delisted" with rationale. If you make one vote, try to either ~~strike~~ or take it out. You are welcome to give your opinions about this article's Good Article status and GA qualifications. As for this article, FA nomination was attempted but failed. Also, this article is nominated for deletion. As I am reading this article, there are too many references that are not easy to read, and there are too many numbers. I sense recentism weighing in on this article, and excessive material of what may already have been included in Justin Bieber article prevails. Per WP:IINFO, this article lacks any significant viewpoint on Bieber and his Twitter activities. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This process deals specifically with the GA criteria and nothing else. It would be best to relate any comments on this article back to this criteria (the above case appears to be criteria 3a and 3b - broadness and focus). The way it usually runs is that editors will say how the article does or does not meet this criteria and then allow interested parties the opportunity to fix those issues. The aim is always to get the article up to GA standard, not to delist it. If you are happy that the article meets the criteria you can add a bold keep along with your rational. If your comments have not been addressed adequately you are allowed to add a bolded delist along with an explanation. Also an administrator is not needed to close this, in fact most of the closes done here are from non-administrators. It needs to be someone who is not a significant contributor to the article or not the nominator, although in this particular case it might be a good idea to get someone who has not commented on the article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... here, this is not a majority vote. If criteria is met, they can say that a criterion is met, not "keep". If criteria is not met, they can say that it fails one criterion, not "delist". Get it? I don't allow voting stuff because it might invite atrocious arguments here. --George Ho (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't a majority vote. They never are. One valid delist reason will outweigh any number of invalid keep reasons. But you still don't get to dictate how people can express their opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of bringing this here while the AFD is still ongoing. If it gets deleted or merged then a reassessment is not needed. I would suggest that participants wait for the result of the AFD before deciding on what this article should be assessed as. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article talk page, there's also a complete re-write of this article ongoing at the same time. The intent is apparently to replace the existing article with the re-written version. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stability is also a criteria. A complete rewrite would most likely cause it to fail in that regard. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the stability of the article at the moment, which may be exacerbated by public interest in the article's editorial process. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how about we close this discussion now, and then reconsider after any AFD closure, or rewriting has completed. As it stands this discussion will achieve nothing much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... can this be reopened after AFD? I don't want another reassessment, unless I have no other choice. Also, the bot is not working, so it may be reopened at anytime after AFD is closed, unless article is deleted. --George Ho (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that is the best situation. This can be reopened at anytime; if the article is deleted nothing more needs to be done, if it is kept then this process can run its course. The least drama filled way would be for the nominator to withdraw the reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; a GAR right now, with discussion about the existence of the article ongoing and relatively heated, isn't the best way to go and might attract reviewers interested only in deletion. Let's table this for now and revisit if necessary--but that a review is warranted is clear from various comments at the AfD from editors whose ability to judge this I have faith in. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I was thinking more about a personal reassessment, but, ok, here we go! – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA

1:

1(a):

Fail

The prose is dreadful. You can't begin an article with "As of June 2012, Justin Bieber's Twitter account (@justinbieber) was the second most popular Twitter account, after that of Lady Gaga.".
The article is bloated, hard to read and overly detailed. Half of 'Twitter usage as a communication platform', according to me, should not be in the article. Just an overview of he subject, not going into the smallest details...
The first paragraph of 'Followers and fans' should be half smaller as it is overly detailed with figures...

1(b):

Fail

The lead needs to be rewritted in accordance with MOS:LEAD.

2:

2(a):

Pass

I must say that the article is nicely referenced, though...

2(b):

Pass

2(c):

Pass

3:

3(a):

Fail

There is no section about the content that he posts on Twitter, it is stuffed into other sections.

3(b):

Fail

Per 3(a) and 1(a).

4:

Fail

Per the tag on top of the article.

5:

Pass

6(a):

Pass

6(b):

Neutral

I do not know what Beaver performing has to do with his fans and followers... I suggest removing that picture...

Those are comments from just reading the article, I didn't go in depth, just checked it quickly against WP:WIAGA. Hope it helps! – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]