Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brenda Song/1: Difference between revisions

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

Result pending

The GA Review of this article (though it involved two reviewers) has caused some contention, and in this contention at least one editor has been blocked. Given this, and per request, a GAR would seem to be in order. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From SandyGeorgia

I preface my comments by saying I don't understand why this article is here. The instructions at WP:GAR say:

If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it.

I've examined the article and can't decipher any reasons for it to be denied GA status, yet when Gimmetrow tried to relist it at GA, he was reverted. So, I don't understand these processes or instructions, but here we are.

The first issue seems to have been some past edit wars from IPs and new accounts, which seem resolved.

Both GA reviews refer to issues which I can't detect. WP:OVERLINKing is not part of WP:WIAGA as far as I can tell, nor does GA have the same requirements for fully formatted and consistent citations as FA does, so several of the issues raised don't seem to apply to GA.

The reviews also refer to an allegedly "listy" Career section, which I don't see. Everything that was raised in the reviews appears to have either been addressed or not been there to begin with or is not part of WP:WIAGA.

In summary, looking over the issues raised in both reviews, either I don't see the issues there at all, or they are not items of WP:WIAGA. This looks like a GA to me, it looks like it was a candidate to be relisted at GAN, and yet someone ended up blocked for trying to bring a perfectly good article to good status. Sad, particularly since GAs inferior to this one regularly appear at FAC, so I'm more and more confused about just what a GA is, and if some reviewers are now applying FA standards at GA.

I believe this article is GA. If it's not, many GAs appearing at FAC daily aren't GAs either, and something needs to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be here as a result of a dispute over the recording of the article's history. There is indeed no minimum time limit between nominations, but a renomination is always new nomination. When Gimmetrow renominated, he also removed the fail history. Only the removal of the fail history was reverted. Gimmetrow seems to believe that this renomination counts as the same nomination. I'm amazed that a maintainer of ArticleHistory could believe that, but he is not the only person who's head is not particularly clear about GA issues at the moment. Why this had to escalate into a block baffles me.

Anyway, that seems to be why we're here, but not what we're here for. Instead, lets focus on the article. Geometry guy 09:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I think it should go to GAN, where a different reviewer can decide pass/fail question. Ruslik (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Promote. Let me say, first, that I hadn't looked at the article in any detail before putting it up for GAR. And (in response to SandyG as well as for the record), it seemed to me useful to put it up for GAR even though the GAR rules don't require it, both because the GA Review had caused sufficient controversy and conflict for a valuable editor in good standing to flout 3RR and subsequently be blocked, and because said editor also indicated he wanted a GAR.
• Now that I have looked at the article in further detail, I believe that it satisfies WP:WIAGA. It is certainly well-referenced, and mostly well-enough written.
• I have some sympathy for the comment (by Mattisse, the editor brought in for a second opinion) that at times "The prose is choppy with too many short sentences." It's true that the section on "Endorsements and public image" is rather listy, and as a whole the article tends towards proseline. Some general assessments of Song, her career, and her significance would be useful. On the other hand, the article doesn't suffer from such defects much more than similar articles that have been adjudged of GA standard.
• On the other hand, I do not agree with the final judgement that "this article would appear to need significant restructuring" or that "the article [is] still plagued by containing far too much information about her more minor roles which made the career section long and confusing." I don't believe that any particular section is either too long or particular confusing, and I don't see what restructuring is needed.
• So, in short, yes some work on prose, on topic sentences, and on introductions to the sections would help reader comprehension. But these are very common faults on Wikipedia, and are not in my view sufficiently severe in this case to prevent listing at GA. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've changed my !vote because, now that Gguy has pointed me to it, I agree that the lead should be improved. I have no time today, but may have some tomorrow if nobody else has gone in and fixed it already. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. Issues remaining from the review seem to be the fair use image (per criterion 6a) and the structure of the filmography (per criterion 1b list incorporation and criterion 3b focus). I disagree with the fair use concerns ("as there are three other images in the article"): this image is illustrating something quite specific, and is not replaceable by any of the other images in the article. However, there is another image, Image:Brendasong20071.jpg, which ElCobbola (on commons) believes is a copyvio. This needs to be checked. Concerning the list issues, I would suggest that the subsection on guest appearances is not particularly helpful to the reader. This could be cut or converted into prose. Geometry guy 09:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Re. the images... I also felt that the fair use image was fine. I've dropped ElC a note about the other one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is an issue, then it probably also affects Image:Brendasong006.jpg: this was almost certainly taken by the same photographer; see this very similar photo. The question is, who copied whom? If in doubt we have to err on the side of caution, I think, and remove the images. Geometry guy 11:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed both images, which in any case have now been deleted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Promote - Seeing how well the career section has been restructured, I would say that this article now does meet the good article criteria. I should have perhaps placed the article on hold, but I did not realise such a significant amount of work would be completed in such a short amount of time since I failed the article. The recommendations editors have made above I agree with, and these could be done as future improvements to the article. Million_Moments (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Promote and close this GAR. Since the initial reviewer indicated that the article should be promoted I propose to close this GAR and promote the article. At the moment there is no conflict that need to be resolved by this GAR. Ruslik (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The outcome was extremely disillusioning. It was incorrect for SandyGeorgia to say: "someone ended up blocked for trying to bring a perfectly good article to good status." (Although I and the other GA review end up being criticized for trying to do the same thing.) The article in GAR because the article editor of Brenda Song, rather than using appropriate channels, choose to repeatedly vandalize the article history so the article history would be incorrect, thus getting blocked for four reverts in a few hours time, after several well intentioned editors tried to intervene.

The editor of Brenda Song, an admin I believe, engaged in a revert war. This is same editor who maintains article history for FAC; further that editor received an extremely short block for the four reverts. By SandyGeorgia's defense of this behavior, I can only image any editor reverting an FA article history four times in as many hours would be tolerated also and defended by SandyGeorgia.

To go through a GAR, where the editor's behind-the-scenes supporters will come in from the outside and weight in (throwing their hefty power around), expressing inadequate knowledge of the facts behind the case, putting GA reviewers in a bad light and casting a partisan vote is corrupting the process. I see everyone in the GAR fell nicely into line. I will keep in mind for the future that vandalism is rewarded here. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've set out my thoughts on the GAR process at my talk page. But the article is not here because of the 3RR violation. The article is here because there was conflict regarding the GA review result. The history is really not at issue. At GAR, we are called to look at the article as it is now. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And thanks for your talk page remarks and encouragement: this is how I view GAR as well.

I think it is important to note that the article was much improved between the time of the fail and the opening of this GAR, and this is largely a consequence of Gimmetrow following the good advice of the reviewers, who are to be thanked for their efforts.

However, the last paragraph of Matisse's comment is a mischaracterization of this GAR. Sandy may well have "weighed in" early with a long comment, but she didn't check her facts and has been pulled up over it. Most editors commenting here have judged the article as it is now, which is what GAR does. Resolving conflicts is secondary: the resolution process is to apply the criteria to the article. Oh, and GAR is not a vote. Geometry guy 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have looked more closely at the article (I didn't have time before). I realise now that my concern over the filmography section is probably a new one. The section on "Guest appearances" is not only a list of minor facts, but I could verify very little of it from the rest of the article. I'm not an expert on GAs for film and television, but is this really acceptable? One thing I am sure of, on the other hand, is that the article does not meet WP:LEAD, in that there is only one word ("singer") on her music career. Also, arguably, the image law-suit could be mentioned in the lead. I would fix it myself, but it would be better done by someone who heard of Brenda Song before today :-) Geometry guy 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I resent that you reverted my two comments. You did not even put them on the talk page. That is not a right thing to do. I will remove the rest of my comments from this page. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added your comments to the talk page. Please don't fight or resent. I'm up to here in crazy things going on right now, and am trying my best to provide a stable steer. Please fix the talk page to express your views as you think appropriate. Geometry guy 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]