Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Stormfront (website)/1

Stormfront (website)

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

Result: Delist. The article does not approach the subject in an encyclopedic way: it should describe the website rather than tell the reader what to think about it. The latter approach has resulted in multiple GA problems (noted by reviewers) with stability, non-neutrality, the failure of the lead to summarise the article and misuse of language. Geometry guy 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to recent events, the overall tone of the the article, and the fact that the article is not stable at all, I recommend the article be delisted, at least temporarily. Enigma^msg 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been unprotected one day and there have been no sequences of reversion in over a week; you haven't given it a chance to be stable. Tone is not a GA requirement. The neutrality criterion specifies that a GA "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias". If you have a specific viewpoint that is not represented fairly to what the reliable sources say, or statements that introduce bias to sourced content, please be forthcoming with it. At present, this GAR is premature and the objections underspecified and unactionable. Skomorokh 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's been full-protected for a week two different times within the last month is a cause for concern unto itself. I view this as overdue rather than premature. Enigma^msg 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've seen that one bone of contention is whether the lead needs to be rewritten.

In my view, it does. It labels before it describes, which is not a good way to achieve NPOV. I recommend looking at the lead of Holocaust denial for an exemplar. Notice that the labeling phrase ("an antisemitic conspiracy theory") does not come until the final paragraph: before reassessment, this was in the first sentence. Notice also how effective this structure is. Once the reader reaches this point, they are not likely to be surprised by the labels, because they have been informed about the nature of the movement in neutral terms.

On the other hand, starting this article by saying Stormfront is a "white supremacist, neo-Nazi" organisation may cause readers who do not already know about the organization (or are not hostile to it) to switch off ("yet another sanctimonious WP article"). You lose precisely the audience that an encyclopedia article could educate. The key to NPOV is "show don't tell" and let the reader decide. Geometry guy 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Geometry guy. Compare the current version of the lead with this version. I have argued against including labels in the lead and in favour of making the lead a summary of the article, but other editors have disagreed and thought that the subject ought to be characterised more forcefully in a negative manner early on. I am in agreement with your analysis here. Skomorokh 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well cited and attributed labels can appear in the lead, but I recommend saving them for later, not the first sentence. Please direct those who have disagreed to my comments. The forceful negative characterization of the subject in the first sentence is actually counterproductive to their well-intentioned aims. Geometry guy 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Directed, thanks. Skomorokh 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was recently, and in my view tendentiously, rewritten. I hope it's a long way from stable, because a number of issues remain to be sorted out. User:Gwen Gale is supervising the talk page and has put in place a limit of one revert per person per day. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Tom. I would also urge any participants not to take "pronouncements" from this page as a reason to override editors consensus at the relevant talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page only concerns whether the article meets the GA criteria or not. Content disputes are a matter for the article talk page. If there is no interest in addressing the GA criteria, I will delist the article shortly. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well as to the matter at hand, i feel it falls well short of GA. It's been rewritten to have a Stormfront friendly, apparently pro neo-nazi point of view. A problem that extends far beyond the lede. There are walls of obfuscatory, irrelevant text, efforts to favor the sites self-description rather than those of other parties, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can surely be delisted. I'm just very disappointed that you don't realise that describing the site in factual neutral terms is the best way to discredit it. Let the site discredit itself by its own descriptions. That isn't so difficult to do. Geometry guy 23:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is not in discrediting or editing based on what "tactic" would best achieve some (incorrectly as it happens) assumed goal of mine. My interest is having the most factually accurate, neutral (not neutered) reflection of what Stormfront is. Current article falls well, well short of that. It's unfortuntate, but it's true. And don't be condescending and tell me what i don't "realize" when we disagree.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm happy about that. Now reread the "pronouncements" on this page, and explain how you would address them. Geometry guy 23:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "It can be surely be delisted"? No specific, actionable instances of the article's failure to meet the GA criteria have been raised here. The stability criterion is a concern, but I'd argue that there has been no edit-warring recently and editors are discussing proposed changes on the talkpage. Skomorokh 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We both agree it fails WP:LEAD. Most editors seem to think it fails WP:NPOV. Geometry guy 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the former does not speak directly to GA? and actionable evidence of the latter has not been forthcoming. Skomorokh 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in 1b, Skomorokh: "it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation". Also, I know FAC is has an "actionable" requirement, but at GAR, the only question is "does it meet the criteria or not?" The article can always be renominated at a later date. Geometry guy 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for failing criteria 4: "it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias." The opening sentence is not balanced. Wikipedia is not about making people's minds up for them, it's about presenting information in a neutral and balanced manner. Alexa has: "White supremacist organization seeking to advance Western culture and ideals, and freedom of speech and association. Also serves as a forum for planning strategies and forming political and social groups." I find that quite neutral and balanced, and I understand what the organisation is about. Is it left to me as an individual to then make my own mind up. On a personal level I find the information quite chilling, but I can see that some might be attracted to the organisation. So be it. We are not political - that is one of our founding principles. SilkTork *^YES! 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the article can be reassessed when it has become stable, and the lead has been sorted out. SilkTork *^YES! 02:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that point. My argument is that it should be delisted now, and it can be reassessed at some future point in time. Is it time to close this? Enigma^msg 04:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is stable and very little of it has been assessed (though the assessments are appreciated). It would be good at minimum to have experienced outsiders investigate the charges made on the talkpage that the article is biased in favour of the subject and is insufficiently broad. Skomorokh 07:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]