Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/White Horse (song)/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

White Horse (song)

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Consensus favours keeping the article listed as a GA due to further editing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This article is not at all worthy of GA status. I personally edit the artist's articles and think this article is of start material. It's awful. The prose is minimal because there is certainly more about the song out there, it uses unreliable sources like blogs (Allheadlinesnews.com and the1935.com), and uses video countdowns as charts (not accepted by WP:CHARTS). It should be taken down immediately. I will later revamp the article myself, but right now it's not anywhere near GA. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article is not in a pretty state. Yes, I do think its far from GA status. Here's what I noticed:
    • The lead is too short. I don't think it summarizes the whole article.
    • I may have re-sized the music video screenshot, but I don't think it passes the Non-free media usage criteria.
    • I believe a consensus was reached regarding the usage of Succession boxes, that they should not be used. I'm not sure.
    • The Publisher and Work fields of some references are not correct.
    • Swift performed the song several times live. So, why isn't it included?
    • The description of music sample does not justify why it is included.

—Novice7 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In a blunt way, I don't see how anyone had the audacity to pass this filfth. I was going to review it myself, but I didn't now I wish I had. This is not GA status. Candyo32 12:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think perhaps we should assume a little more good faith on the part of the nominator and the reviewer. It certainly has the potential to be good enough for GA and it doesn't look like it would require months of work. Certainly three editors as experienced in bringing music articles up to GA as those above could make light work of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-list - References are in shambles. Not good quality or sufficient prose etc. And Candy, I know its frustrating and a bit shocking, please lets not insult the work or anything else. It could be hurtful to the nominator. Calling it "filth" is a bit harsh.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do apologize to the nominator. I just get a bit frustrated when the GAN is so backed up, and then we have subpar articles that are continually being nominated, and even more frustrated that a reviewer would lead them on in thinking that the article was good quality. Candyo32 22:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On my part, I also apologize to the reviewer and nominator, as it was obviously in good faith. But, as sorry as I am, I cannot say this article is worthy of GA. The reviewer should have contacted someone who has multiple GAs, an administrator, or someone - IDK who, but someone. I could've been of help myself. I promise that I will revamp this article as soon as I am completed with my current project. It won't take long, provided I work on it continuously. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I'm sorry for being rude. Novice7 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's close now by help from other users, but the nominated and passed version of the article was in no way GA status. Candyo32 23:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better by far, but should be delisted because of the use of contractions, blogs as sources, the music video screenshot not adding anything to the article, text could be expanded, composition and background sections are confused, uses video countdowns. Does that seem like enough? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it should be keeped, since it's much more improved now. However, the blog references and review should exchanged or removed, so it would definitely meet the good article criteria. Otherwise, the article will be de-listed. -- Sauloviegas (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I had promised, I revamped the article and I think it is now worthy of inclusion as all reasons I had given for it to be demoted were fixed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 15:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, "they" did comment here, but how did "they" get here? I believe that there is a logical explanation for all of the initial "demote" sentiments expressed in this discussion. About 19 days ago, Ipodnano05 notified five users on their talk pages about this reassessment. A (rather impolite) message[1] was posted on my page, presumably because I was the one who originally nominated this article for GA. That seems fair enough. However, Ipodnano05 also left (rather polite) messages[2][3][4][5] on the talk pages of only four other users: Novice7, Candyo32, HJ Mitchell, and Petergriffin9901, all of whom have posted here. These users seem to have been notified mainly because of their prior interactions with Ipodnano05; no other users or WikiProjects were notified. Therefore, Ipodnano05 may have acted in violation of WP:CANVASS. - PM800 (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is canvassing. He didn't ask oppose or support the Reassessment. He just asked to comment, if possible. Novice7 (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those four users seem to have been notified mainly because of their prior interactions with Ipodnano05; besides the original GA nominator, no other users or WikiProjects were notified. Therefore, Ipodnano05 may have acted in violation of WP:CANVASS. - PM800 (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASS says it is okay to notify "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". I've edited this article before, and most of the users who posted here are known to work on music related articles. Also, I don't think notifying users acquainted with the nominator is against rules, unless there is excessive posting, biased, or other secret communication. Novice7 (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Novice7 has indeed edited this article before; however, many other users have also edited this article, and none of them were notified of the reassessment. The original GA reviewer, Felixboy, was not notified either. In addition, there are many editors who "work on music related articles". Only four were notified of this reassessment. These four users appear to have been notified based on prior interactions with Ipodnano05. For example, Ipodnano05 and Novice7 have had several positive exchanges on their talk pages. I believe that Ipodnano05 was wrong in notifying these four users based on previous communication. Ipodnano05 has apologized to me once during the course of this reassessment, for not assuming good faith. I would appreciate another apology from Ipodnano05 before this discussion is closed. - PM800 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have exchanged comments indeed. I apologize if I hurt your feelings in any way. Sorry PM800. Novice7 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's OK, Novice7. Your comments were constructive, not insulting, and you have apologized twice, which is very admirable. It is also not your fault that Ipodnano05 violated WP:CANVASS. When I first got a message from Ipodnano05 notifying me about the reassessment, I was fine with it. I thought that, since it was a "community reassessment", that the community could decide whether or not White Horse (song) was a Good Article. I would have gladly gone along with the consensus. But when I checked back on the reassessment, I was really surprised to see the mean-spirited comments that were posted by Ipodnano05 and Candyo32. It wasn't until weeks later that I looked at Ipodnano05's contributions and realized that some friends had been recruited to post in the discussion. To me, White Horse (song) deserved its Good Article status. If it did not, then that's fine, but I would have liked a fair discussion to take place. My GA nomination was made in good faith, and I did improve the state of the article. And when fellow editors then start criticizing for no good reason - using words like "awful" and "filfth" - it's a little disappointing. Anyways, it doesn't matter now, as there do not seem to be any more objections to this being a Good Article. I would just like another apology from Ipodnano05. After all, it is just the article's class; there was no reason for Ipodnano05 to resort to canvassing in this discussion. - PM800 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I am truly sorry for disdaining your work. I know it must have been disappointing, but I must make it clear that I do not think I canvased. I asked a few editors to comment, who I know have worked on multiple GA music articles, that way they could add constriuctive critism, agree to demote the article, or disagree and keep the article as a GA. I never told them to lend me support or nothing of the sort. All I did was ask for comments. And how could I have asked someone else who I did not know. Also, four editors are more than enough. I didn't ask more because I didn't see the need to ask 20 editors. I was ready to inform anyone who was a main editor here, went through the articles' revision history and only saw edits by you so I informed you because you deserved to know. I had no idea that my message on your talk page come off as mean-spirited, but I left it with good intentions. So, that you (the main contributor to the article) was aware of the circumstances. Now that I read it, it does sound hasty, but I did not mean for that. I guess I might have let steam get the best of me. Again, I'm truly sorry and hopefully this has clarified any doubts about my intentions. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And how could I have asked someone else who I did not know." - OK, so you admit that you knew all of the editors that you contacted. How can you say that's not canvassing? How can you say that, even though you had a positive relationship with four of the five users you notified, that you did not violate the spirit of the canvassing rules? There are many, many other people who have worked on GA music articles. Yet you only posted an announcement on the talk pages of four users who you already knew. As for your message on MY talk page, it was quite different from the messages you posted on the others'. All you wrote to me was: "White Horse is being reassessed since it does not belong on GA." ... Jumping to conclusions much? It sounds like you were already deciding the result of the discussion before the discussion had even taken place. That is not the way things work around here. However, if that was all you had said, then I might not have gotten so upset... but then you went even further and called my work "awful" in your first comment of this reassessment. Seriously, there is rude, and then there's what you did. I honestly thought for a couple of weeks that my work really was "awful", because everyone said it was, until I discovered that you had recruited everyone here based on your prior interactions with them. That is canvassing. - PM800 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm so sorry that I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to. Your work is not awful. It just needed a lot of furthering. You could have had more. And I am kind of becoming offended because you are accusing me of canvassing and other editors of complying with it. I did not convince these people of saying anything. We had not talked about the article priorly. Their response was not because of our past relations. They just voiced their opinion. I asked for comments, which is perfectly allowed as I have seen on FAC. And, as I previously said, I did not recruit them because I thought they would support me. I recruited them because I know they have gotten many music articles to GA, making them fit to comment and add more to the review. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You could have had more." - What is that supposed to mean, exactly? Of course the article could have "had more"; every article on Wikipedia can "have more". Every article on Wikipedia can be improved because nothing is perfect. Let me reiterate that for you: No article is perfect, not even Featured Articles or Good Articles. White Horse (song) met the GA criteria, and even though it "could have had more", that was not a good reason to bring it up for reassessment. As for your repeated denials of canvassing, I believe you when you say that you had not talked about the article previously with the other four users. However, you did have positive relationships with them before you asked them for comments here; you admitted that you knew them. And since you knew and respected these editors, it is likely that you had many of the same viewpoints as them. And if you had agreed with them in the past about certain editing decisions, then it was more likely that you would also have the same viewpoint on this particular issue. I believe that, on a certain level, you know what you did now. I would still appreciate it if you apologized to me and the rest of the community for canvassing. - PM800 (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I will not apologize for something I did not do. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/White_Horse_(song)/1&oldid=1080988022"