Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mark Speight/archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oppose as per 2b

[edit]
  • Does not have "a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents".
  • It does not have "a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents" because it has little real content. It has little real content because it is ephemeral and trivial. No real content exists to be added.
I think you're misinterpreting the TOC. I could, quite easily remove the top-level biography, and simply use the other sections as level-2 headers. Problem solved.
  • Like a blancmange, this article has coherence, but no content.
  • We've got only one top-level heading (biography)... the first section contains some nondescript childhood bio junk information... the second sections gives a resume' quite characteristic of some second-rate actor-wannabes all over the world, plus some praise from some TV critics (who are paid to do praise) for some shows that will be forgotten in a year or three, and we have an arrest, and we have a tragic death. Five years from now, who cares? How many in-depth analyses of the work of this individual will appear in refereed journals? Even among lighter fare, how many books will do more than mention his name in passing at best—in fact, how many will do even that? We could end up, on the second or third nom, FA'ing an article that no one will read or care about simply because its prose is grammatical and its references are well-formatted. Look again: "simply because its prose is grammatical and its references are well-formatted." The battleground that was Notability has largely (though not entirely) been won by inclusionists (as always and everywhere is the case), because Notability is just so darned hard to pin down to a precise definition. But FA should be different.
Junk eh? Thanks for the compliment! This is what I have gotten from the sources (and I'll expand on that later). There is simply nothing else to include about him that's available. I assume you aren't a Brit, but you clearly don't realise how much this actor meant to a lot of people. He may be forgotten by you, but to the millions of fans he won't. FAs are not supposed to be expert peer-reviewed publications. There's tons of FAs without references that aren't news sources. Same goes with books. I recently supported Age of Empires at FAC, and that had just one book reference. What's the deal with you and this article, and why have you forum shopped your posts to get people to come and oppose it? – How do you turn this on (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single reference is a link to some online article about a then-current event. All online. What does that imply? It implies that event was ephemeral and trivial (not trivial to Speight's family, of course, and all apologies to those... but Wikipedia is not MySpace or FaceBook).
Wrong. There's a few that aren't a current event; there's an interview, for example. I could very well get the "real" newspaper, but what's the point? Why don't you oppose every other FAC that uses online sources? Are online news articles suddenly bad? Don't be ridiculous. – How do you turn this on (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks. Thanks a lot. I've slaved over this article now for weeks and weeks, despite not even having my own computer for the past few; I've gone out of my way to get it a free image, made over 200 edits to it, and you simply come here and call it "high school level"? So incredibly offensive. And are you saying all the other people who reviewed it are wrong? – How do you turn this on (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right, of course. The only purpose that this article would serve as a featured article would be to, potentially, reward the editors for their work. It should not appear on the front page of this or any other encyclopedia. But I know you know there's a more general point at work here. I dare say that close to a majority of FACs accomplish precisely the same result. I'm all for the more reasoned approach to what kind of articles should be featurable, and always have been, but I'm not fighting that fight. Are you? Is your chosen method to pick one FAC and say "here's the problem"? Maybe because discussions that start out considering general principles never get anywhere? I don't know what else you could do. Well....
How about implementing the ability for the Wikipedia community to "top out" an article at Good Article status? If this type of article hits FAC, then a consensus of "reviewers" can say, no doubt in a form shortened down to an acronym, "the choice of subject matter precludes the inherent depth of research and (usually correlatively) broad enough applicability that our best work must contain." Such ideas scares people a priori and so they won't think about them any more. They think these ideas open the door to subjectivity and "censorship" running wild. But I don't believe it for a moment. It's about stepping back and admitting that many wikipedia articles are small and trivial; you may be able to make them larger with web references and such, but they'll still be trivial. And how can we feature the trivial? We're an encyclopedia. Now, the decision to top at GA would be by consensus, and consensus ideally means input from a broad swath of the community. We need to ensure the broad swath. As a reviewer, if I had this keep-at-GA option, I would wield it with the utmost care. No need to worry about advance "formalization" of my idea either; if the option to say "keep at GA" is made valid, the community's consensus response in each case will define the idea for us. Why don't we implement this idea at this FAC, as a test? Rules should not prevent improvement in the workings of the encyclopedia, they say. –Outriggr § 06:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a test case. That's why I moved the thread to Talk. Note however that just because this is a test case doesn't mean my Oppose is spurious; it simply means it's debatable. I stand by my Oppose.
As for a solution, many options are available, but have always been shouted down:
  1. We could strengthen WP:WIAFA, so that FAC reviews could be given a more tangible reason to fail FACs such as this.
  2. We could have two levels of FA.
  3. Your idea, which may be the most doable...
  4. Other solutions.
Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sort of annoyed Ling.nut didn't bother to bring any of this up earlier (this has been on FAC for over 2 weeks, had 2 peer reviews, and a previous FAC - he hasn't at one point ever bothered to bring anything like this up, so I could, you know, work on it). I'm also annoyed he's using my FAC to test his "agenda". This article is fine, as shown by the large support from many experienced FACers. – How do you turn this on (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi HDYTTO—I'm really sorry I offended you, but it.. is an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm also sorry I didn't speak earlier, but I've been considering quitting Wikipedia, and my contribs have dropped steeply.
  • Absolutely no one doubts that you've worked hard on this. You do deserve some sort of reward. My question is whether FA is the appropriate venue for that reward. As for "high school level", well the readability tool says it's written at an 11th grade level, for an avergae reader age of 16. I averaged the results. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I'm not here for the reward. Just some recognition for the article. You'll notice that unlike a lot of people I don't decorate my userpage with stars/badges/decoration etc - I write for the encyclopedia, not for me. If this fails, I won't be bringing it here again. It is quite disheartening for this kind of thing to be brought up at this stage in the proceedings. You had ample opportunity through the peer reviews you were aware of, and the last FAC, where you opposed for prose reasons. There's no excuse for doing it this way. "Not being active" doesn't cut it with me I'm afraid. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're interested in judging me, that's your personal choice. I don't see the lateness as an issue for two reasons: First, everything is fair game at every time when it's in a forum such as this. Second, even given the fact that I am very well within my rights, there is still nothing sneaky or unethical or even vaguely questionable about it. Do you really believe I sat back and schemed something like this: "Ooooh, I'll wait 'til the last minute, then I'll smack him pow! right in the kisser, bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!" I must be a pretty dastardly guy. I sure hope you don't think that way of me. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I just wish you'd had better judgement than to spring this on me after the article has been up 2 weeks on FAC, had 2 peer reviews (which you knew about) and another FAC which you participated in. I'm interested, why didn't you bring this up in either of the peer reviews or the previous FAC? Why wait till now? – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point with the "high school quality" is also rather unfortunate considering we had Joe Sakic on the main page the other day, which has an almost identical rating using the tool for readability. I'm sure there are many, many others. I wasn't aware there was a rule that articles had to be a certain reading level. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Niel Stuart is even lower than Speight, 11.1. Will you be taking that to FAR because it doesn't meet your expectations? – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already explained the delay. Besides, this is not about me. Really. I'm sorry.
  • I didn't forum shop. Forum shopping is going from place to place looking a different answer other than the one originally received.
  • You unnecessarily brought attention to this FAC (which has been up for an unusually long time) to push your agenda against it. Before you came along, it was 7/1 in support (with others disagreeing with the only oppose).
  • I don't see how the article could be fixed. There just isn't enough info about his career. He didn't actually do very much. He hosted a couple kids' shows that were somewhat popular. He did some mime stuff and a little charity work. That pretty much describes every local TV semi-celebrity. There just isn't enough info. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep making this about me, which it isn't, but I'm not upset by that. I understand your frustration. You probably felt you were cruising to an FA. You still might get one, actually...
  • I waited because I was so burned out on Wikipedia that I was barely able to log in. I didn't want to argue with anyone, actually.
  • I also offered you additional sources a long time ago. I spent... maybe a couple hours... trying to dig up additional info on Speight. I searched LexisNexis News, AcademicSearchPremier, Google, etc. As far as I can recall, the only thing I found was an admission of remorse because he had introduced his girlfriend to drugs. That would have added only one additional sentence, and it would have been in the place that was already full of info anyhow (the tragedies surrounding the two deaths).
  • That's about all I can think of at the moment. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you doing Ling.Nut? There's no need for this type of hostility and insulting comments on an article someone has worked hard on. Constructive comments are always valuable but it is clear to anyone that the tone of your comments with words like junk and high school is not constructive. If you can't make constructive comments, don't make them. FAC is already a difficult enough process, it doesn't need to be made more contentious and more difficult. Instead we should all work to make it as collegial as possible so we can enjoy the work of improving the project, which is after all, why I think we are all here. To the specific point, I think Wikipedia articles should be at a high school readability level at most. Perhaps that's even too high. Most newspapers are claimed to be at an 8th grade level. As to the specific point of material in the article yes the extra space given to certain topics should be justified by their importance to the subject. Unless something is more important it shouldn't get more space. - Taxman Talk 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand Ling's oppose, because I don't think the article has great balance with so much on his death in comparison to his career. Still, I must ask an important question: Who are we as reviewers to determine what is "interesting"? Different people are interested in different things. I tend to review the sports candidates exclusively, and question how many current FAC are considered "interesting" by most reviewers. The Muppets' Wizard of Oz was a made-for-TV movie. Why is that interesting? The Teen Idles were a short-lived punk rock group. Why are they interesting? Faith Leech swam in an Olympics. Why is she interesting? That's ignoring the roads, tropical storms and video games. Where would the line be drawn between a substantial and non-substantial topic? If substantial topics are at a disadvantage at FAC, which I believe they are, than fix the system. There's no need to come down on the shorter, "less-interesting" articles. If they aren't good enough to be featured, I have faith in the FAC process to reveal that. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Good to see you, Taxman. The hard work on the article is definitely and sincerely appreciated. But as I said earlier, hard work should not be a rationale for passing an FA.
  • My comments are valid. The article is grammatical and well-formatted, but lacks other merit. It's not the fault of the editors. The subject lacks depth. There simply isn't enough to write about.
  • As for hostility, I assure you it is nothing personal. I am hostile to the concept that FA is an entitlement owed to any and all articles which are grammatical and well-formatted. The concept needs to be rejected at a fundamental level. Addressing the article's problems point-by-point will not accomplish the goal of saying "The problem is that there are not enough points". Macro-comments are called for, indeed required, to raise awareness of the fundamental issue. Adjectives like "blancmange" and "junk" might reflect my frustration, but they are hardly out of line. I gave a clear explanation for the figurative language with respect to "blancmange". As for "junk", well, I meant that the early info was nondescript stuff that adds little or no value to the article. But if "junk" is considered insulting (noting that I do not agree it should be), I will retract it. Striking through now.
  • As for "interesting", I was speaking to the ephemeral nature of the info.
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting is in reference to this discussion, which I meant to comment on but never did. From my interpretation of the above, this is an extension of that. When you say "ephemeral", are you trying to make the point that much of the coverage of Speight was due to his death? If so, that's more understandable to me. One more thing: the readability tools give Speight a higher grade level than most of my favorite FAs that I reviewed. The tools tell you how long sentences are; they can't judge the quality of those sentences. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say your points didn't have some validity. My point is that you can have valid points but say them in such a manner that saying them makes Wikipedia and WP:FAC specifically a worse place. If you make other editors want to quit then you have done that. And in any case I would disagree with you when you say you weren't out of line. It can be challenging to give criticism of articles without being harsh but the effort is well worth it in reducing the tension involved in the FAC process. This is particularly important since the FAC process involves some of the best writing on Wikipedia. If this type of thing stresses you out so much walk away and find some aspect of article improvement that you find more enjoyable and less stressful. The other side of course is that people do need to try to take criticism with an extra grain of salt. It goes both ways. Ok, so back to the point at hand. There is nothing that says we can't have FAs on topics that don't have huge amounts of information on them, just that unimportant parts of a subject shouldn't be given undue weight. If no more information exists about an important part of a topic, then that part can be short and the article can still reach FA. The rest of it just needs to be appropriately balanced and the article may be short. That's ok if that's all the information there is. - Taxman Talk 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Mark_Speight/archive2&oldid=1252052479"