Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Uncyclopedia/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uncyclopedia

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted. Arguments not about the GA criteria have been given much less weight, and it is thus evident that there are still significant issues with this article being a GA. The lead is far too short, the referencing is poor (when citing a wiki (if you must) you should at least use permalinks), and the prose could do with work. Please renominate when you think it's ready (or ping me and I'll take a look). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Uncyclopedia, as funny as it is, should have its article delisted from GA for multiple reasons:

1. The lead is too short, as mentioned on the talk page. It should easily be two paragraphs.

2. The history section consists of a ton of one-sentence paragraphs.

3. {{Fansite}} tag on the "Uncyclopedia in other languages" section.

Mostly criterion 1 of WP:WIAGA is what it seems to fall short on.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Fails 2c, about 80% of citations are from the site itself. The site includes intentionally false information, so this is like shooting yourself in the foot.

2. Fails 3, goes into unnecessary details about the site in other languages. Which is why Fansite tag is there.

It is a very difficult article to main, and as it is edited by many users from the site, fansite-like details are commonly added but are debatable.

--Otterathome (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per above. Majoreditor (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Someone could close this now, the article even uses user pages at Uncyclopedia as references.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The {{Fansite}} tag should never have been applied, as the languages listed are just the major ones - not all of the (currently fifty-two) Uncyclopedias in existence. Many of the references are from mainstream media and, if the effort expended in burying this page in maintenance tags to further some agenda were instead exerted more constructively, the intro could've been rewritten long ago. --carlb (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole article should be tagged with {{fansite}} how is this:"The websites also invoke various spoof languages such as « Portuñol » and " English But Louder "" notable or encyclopaedic? how is the Pee review system notable or encyclopaedic? The article is filled with WP:CRUFT.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You know, I actually thought everything was just gonna return to a nice good article equilibrium for this page. Apparently not. At any rate, I agree with Carlb on the issue of that language section; although some of the information given seems a tad trivial to me, when I skimmed it briefly, it seemed to have been all sourced thoroughly and properly(I don't speak much of any of those languages, of course, but doubt you do, either.). Don't like the links to the userpages? What links to userpages? I don't see any links to any userpages on this page, do you see any links to any userpages on this page? My point is that something as small as that can easily be fixed, in 30 seconds or less(or your money back!). This page isn't perfect. Far from it. It is, however, in my humble opinion, far from any kind of snowball clause closeout, and even further from simply removing the template yourself, without discussion. - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My reasons are based on looking at the edit histories of some of the people involved here, and the page itself. MrN9000 (talk)
    None of the above have said why all these primary sources are acceptable which make it fail criteria 2. They sound more like WP:ILIKEIT votes instead of actual justifications.--Otterathome (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you familiar with the Good Article criteria? I ask this based on your edit history and the page itself.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I am familiar with WP:GA. What kind of question is that? Why would I vote if I did not know what I was voting for? My main reason for discussing edit histories was to draw attention to the fact that some of the people who wish the status of this article to be changed have been regular contributors to it. I find this strange. Why not address your concerns about this article when editing it? MrN9000 (talk)
  • Comment: There are more than two dozen non-wiki sources cited in this article. Uncyclopedia, Desciclopédia, Inciclopedia and Ansaikuropedia have all had mainstream media coverage, WP:IDONTLIKEIT considerations aside. That the original poster on this thread has been blocked twice from Uncyclopedia after a page-blanking spree (same username as here, reversed sdrawkcab) does not lend this much credibility, at least in context of edits to Uncyclopedia's article here removing valid sources (Chilean newspaper Las Últimas Noticias and Madrid's TV Cuatro) from the section on other languages. --carlb (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The background of users involved has nothing to do with this, if their take on their article is correct explain why.--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a question of merely the "background of users", it's a WP:COI question if banned users or vandals on another site are coming here to demand that articles directly relating to that site be delisted or deleted. The topic is notable, the page has already been endlessly reworked and re-edited to meet the GA criteria and there are more than two dozen WP:RS cites to back up the statements within it. Any links to Uncyclopedia itself are within the narrow range of use permitted by WP:V and are not the sole or primary source for the article. I am concerned that the removal of information from these articles by those who want them delisted or deleted is not contributing constructively to the encyclopædia but merely disrupting its operation to make a point. --carlb (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree -- even if I did goof around on Uncyclopedia, that doesn't mean I've got some sort of hidden agenda to get its page delisted. It's because the page here that is poorly written -- too many one-sentence paragraphs, listcruft, too-short intro, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this article does have valid issues, I don't think anyone would seriously argue that vandalizing Uncyclopedia and getting banned from Uncyclopedia doesn't present a conflict of interest. --Syndrome (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, a user wanting to recreate this mess based on one source while claiming that a GA on Uncyclopedia cannot be constructed with the more than two dozen external sources currently in use does seem a bit like the application of an arbitrary double-standard. --carlb (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What do Uncyclopedia, Wikipedia, and everything in life have in common? You have to take it with a grain of salt, and not just believe everything word for word. Yes, there are inexactitudes on Uncyclopedia, but anyone can look past them and see the real message as long as they have a decent command of English and a sense of sarcasm. The same is true with Wikipedia; not every POV is N and not every fact is sourced, try as you might to make it so. My point is, having an article about Uncyclopedia cite Uncyclopedia does not lower the value of the article. About Uncyclopedia. --Syndrome (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, it does.--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't. --Syndrome (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia's article on itself has many other wikipedia articles as its source. It just make good common sense when it comes to wikis. For instance, to point to the existence of other uncyclopedia projects, just as wikipedia's article on itself points to other wikimedia foundation projects. Carlb also made some very strong points, specially on his last comment, really, the sole reason for this nominarion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Rataube (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So using a website which has editable-articles that are all intentionally fictional is ok?--Otterathome (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends what the links are used to support. To support a claim that Uncyclopedia has a subproject named UnNews by linking to http://unne.ws makes sense, to base your nation's foreign policies on the news contained therein may not make any sense. See WP:V as it addresses this distinction quite clearly. --carlb (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The primary sources do not necessarily make it fail 2c. Using uncyclopedia as a source is not always wrong - as long as you're following the rules for citing any primary source, primary source ≠ original research. For example:
Uncyclopedia describes itself as a "content-free" encyclopedia. [1]
Uncyclopedia has two rules, "be funny and not just stupid," and "don't be a dick." [2]
are both correct uses of a primary source, according to the original research policy. Even if the primary sourced material were false, it wouldn't matter, because wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, not true. And if the primary sources (assuming they're used correctly, there may well be some that aren't) are the only acceptable-by-wikipedia-standards verification available, removal of such sources would make the article less good, unless you find a better secondary source. Spang (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has other problems as well. The lead is underdeveloped. And many sections are choppy, list-like collections of material, such as "Criticism" and "Other Languages". This article can be brought up to GA standards with some work, but it's not quite there at the moment. Majoreditor (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed criticism section. --Syndrome (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. TenPoundHammer, please stop reverting my edits. You claim this article isn't good and yet you resist any attempt to improve the article. First you say my edit is unnecessary and then you say that it violates NPOV; it looks like you're just desperately grasping for an excuse. Your conduct does not make it apparent that you are holding Wikipedia's interests paramount. --Syndrome (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I agree with the uncyc vandal on this one. Saying stuff like vanity pages are deleted because "they're simply not funny", while true, lacks sourcings, I think. Besides, it just sounds fancrufty. Sorry Sydrome, I know your intentions are the best. - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I find this kind of funny, but the editor who nominated this article for a reduction in rating also wrote an essay penalizing Uncyclopedia as a source of Vandals, claiming that edits to Uncyclopedia are vandalism as per Wikipedia guidelines, and is resisting legit attempts from multiple editors to increase the articles quality. Javascap (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap this whole thing/Keep

  1. . The lead is too short, as mentioned on the talk page. It should easily be two paragraphs.

There are multiple other articles that are "Good" quality, with "Short" openings

  1. The history section consists of a ton of one-sentence paragraphs.

You seems to be a bit dramatic here, a "ton" emphasises the entire thing is a series of single sentence, one paragraph, when that seems a bit invalid. The sentence structure goes as so, 1 3 3 4. Those four numbers tell how many sentences (as of this edit) make up the "History" section

  1. . {{Fansite}} tag on the "Uncyclopedia in other languages" section.

What fansite tag? This section seems to work by emphasising the popularity of Uncyclopedia and its global appeal.

Other:

  • POV pushing - " The site has gained some negative press over some of its articles which mock certain places and people." Your userpage that states "Discussing or linking to Uncyclopedia can: Cause or incite vandalism", you removal of an Uncyclopedia reference form the article on Oscar Wilde, and you seeming hatred of Uncyclopedia abounds.
  • Reverts of HELPFUL edits - (Just look at the article history to see the history of reverts)

My belief is that you are TRYING to get this article demoted because of a personal vendetta against Uncyclopedia, with help from Tenpoundhammer. Why don't you just admit it so we can be over with this whole debate, and while you are at it, read this. Javascap (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Repeat comment. The lead now has 5 sentences, which is an improvement by one sentence. There's no point in considering this article for GA until it has a decent lead. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a famously invalid argument. Geometry guy 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin There are far too many amboxes for the article to pass in its present state, too-short intro notwithstanding.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The mess of Article message boxes which are being used to deface this page and another related topic were put there by those who wanted the articles delisted or deleted. They are not part of a legit attempt to improve the article text in this case. To spam a pile of message boxes onto a page, then come here and demand that the article be delisted because it is suddenly a mess of message boxes, is disingenuous at best and disruptive at worse. Let's not go there. --carlb (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Uncyclopedia/1&oldid=1138137213"