MarcusBritish (talk | contribs) |
MarcusBritish (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
By following GA-criteria I was led, with no uncertainty, to a sound conclusion and made the reasonable request that all references be made consistent. They are currently a mixed bag of <ref>s and {{tl|sfn}}. Per WP:CITEVAR this is avoidable and unhelpful, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion it failed the GAN requirement to follow MOS:LAYOUT closely enough. |
By following GA-criteria I was led, with no uncertainty, to a sound conclusion and made the reasonable request that all references be made consistent. They are currently a mixed bag of <ref>s and {{tl|sfn}}. Per WP:CITEVAR this is avoidable and unhelpful, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion it failed the GAN requirement to follow MOS:LAYOUT closely enough. |
||
For reference, the first use of "sfn" was made by the nominee, Poeticbent, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_occupied_Poland_during_World_War_II&diff=589340096&oldid=589269589 here], his edit summary even stating "introduced {{tl|sfn}} template". Therefore, GregJackP's claim that "Initial reviewer applied incorrect standards, violated [[WP:CITEVAR]] without consensus to change style used" is a proven |
For reference, the first use of "sfn" was made by the nominee, Poeticbent, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_occupied_Poland_during_World_War_II&diff=589340096&oldid=589269589 here], his edit summary even stating "introduced {{tl|sfn}} template". Therefore, GregJackP's claim that "Initial reviewer applied incorrect standards, violated [[WP:CITEVAR]] without consensus to change style used" is a proven unfounded lie, de facto. I should be demanding apology from him for passing the GA based on a fallacy and an assumed position, but it isn't worth my time to remake such a request to a lair who can't see the black and white past his own sheer pride. To other editors I leave proof of how I came to a ''reasonable'' conclusion that WP:CITEVAR should be requested on a nominee over the likes of a mere non-consensus-based ''essay'' such as [[WP:WGN]] written by two editors which has not entered into the more formal territory known as "guidelines" which serve to assist editors and reviewers to greater effect and from which we draw out determinations, not from essays. Clearly there are polarised views on what is "wrong" and what is "right", but I feel the second "review" was more disrepectful of the GA process than my own initial review, which at least holds water compared to one based on what an essay presumes to state without consensus. The lack of [[WP:AGF]] assumed by GregJackP was also dishonest and pretentious, editors who reassess GAs should do so transparently and impartially with respect for the nominee and previous reviewers. This was not the case there and the second reviewer took it upon himself to declare himself "victor" based on a review purely aimed at assaulting and disgracing the first length and highly detailed review, rather than to present a convincing application of WP:GACR. The reversion by uninvolved editor is welcome and I hope those now involved in developing the article the best of luck. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px DimGray">'''[[User:MarcusBritish|<font color="#001C56">Ma<font color="#B40000">®©</font>usBr<font color="#B40000">iti</font>sh</font>]]'''</span><sup>'''{[[User talk:MarcusBritish|chat]]}'''</sup> 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Very minor question == |
== Very minor question == |
Revision as of 19:30, 11 January 2014
Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | Backlog drives | Mentorship | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
February GAN Backlog Drive
@Chris troutman, Diannaa, DragonZero, Edge3, and J Milburn: See below (could only ping 5 people at once)--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
@Khanate General, Lemonade51, Moswento, MusikAnimal, and Quadell: See below--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
@Royroydeb, Ruby2010, Sturmvogel 66, Taylor Trescott, and TonyTheTiger: See below--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
@Wilhelmina Will: See below--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
With what I think was a successful Backlog Drive, do you think we could hold another one in February or should we take a longer break (March?). Also, any feedback on what could be improved in the next drive would be extremely helpful!--Dom497 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would say we should wait a bit longer to avoid reviewer fatigue, but this is just one person's opinion. Thank you for helping out with the last one! Ruby 2010/2013 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- March would work better for me. (Thanks, all, for a successful drive!) – Quadell (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I like March! Though you might see me reviewing sooner than that @Dom497: What about those of us who pledged donations? What are the totals that we should pay, etc.? Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 15:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: I am going to wait until all reviews listed on the totals page are reviewed. Articles that have the red "X"'s beside them will not count toward the final total so we got to wait it out to see if any other reviews are quickfails before making the final calculation. I will let all the pledges know once I get the total amount (this will hopefully happen before the end of January).--Dom497 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I like March! Though you might see me reviewing sooner than that @Dom497: What about those of us who pledged donations? What are the totals that we should pay, etc.? Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 15:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- March would be better than February for me. I'm an undergrad and can only take advantage of this break between Fall and Spring semesters. I'll have a week-long Spring Break in March but I wasn't planning on doing a GA drive during that period. I'm glad this December drive was conveniently scheduled. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You asked for feedback to improve the next drive. I'd like to propose an age bonus be added for GANs. What I mean is, if an article had been waiting less than a month before someone agreed to review it, it's worth 1 pt; if it had been in the queue up to 2 months it's worth 2 pts; etc. The oldest nomination right now is 4 1/2 months old, and would be worth 5 points. That encourages it to be an actual "backlog elimination" drive, and not just a "snatch up the easy ones quick" drive. Would that be workable? – Quadell (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The easiest way to get a bot to work out the total, I suspect. I agree that this would be sensible. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- +1 to User:Quadell's idea. Some people may still chose newer, shorter articles as they are new to GA reviewing, but any means to motivate reviewing older submissions is a very good thing. As you could imagine it must be very frustrating to see a one week old article get reviewed while your 4+ month old submission lay idling. — MusikAnimal talk 20:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Quadell and MusikAnimal: I proposed the exact same idea back when we held the RfC (which turned out to be a massive failure). No one understood what I was talking about so I withdrew it. If you guys want to give a point system a shot, I'm all for it. We just need to come up with a reasonable point chart (how much articles are worth) :) @J Milburn: I don't quite understand what your talking about. --Dom497 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think we should make backlog drives semiannual. Three months apart is a bit close.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
(Reviews: #)
This may be a stupid question. I'm assuming that the "(Reviews: #)" before each nominator's name is a bot generated number of reviews the nominator has completed? If this is the case, I'm curious to know if the bot is able to match up my previous username with my current username. I believe it said I had completed 17 reviews when I first listed Josh Hutcherson as a nomination. I had my username changed a few weeks later, and the "Reviews" bit went away. Anyone know of a way to get the bot to recognize the name change or is that impossible? Gloss • talk 07:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- It just counts /GAx pages you have created. There is a page somewhere you can change as needed, let me look... Courcelles 08:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (That was easy. User:GA bot/Stats. You should be able to make the changes necessary to consolidate your usernames there! Courcelles 08:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC))
On that same note, there were cases where the original GAN reviewer dropped out, and I took over and performed the GAN. Since I didn't created the page, GA bot doesn't count those. (This is the primary reason for the discrepancy between GA bot's count and my list.) If I edit User:GA bot/Stats manually to add these, will that work? It won't break the bot, will it? – Quadell (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Should be fine, looking at the page history, quite a few people have done it. Courcelles 18:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The bot overrode you, Quadell. I was wondering about the counter, too, because one of mine is missing. I've created nine GA review pages, but the bot is saying I've done eight. It's a minor thing, but I was wondering whether there's a way to fix it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Filmography at GAN?
I just noticed that Audie Murphy filmography is nominated here and already has a review open. The article does have a lot of text, but surely it is still considered a list, thus making it ineligible for GA? Or perhaps the article should be renamed "Film career of Audie Murphy"? Pinging the nominator and the reviewer: @Maile66: @Chris troutman: --Loeba (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- There are a lot of these quasi-lists. The seasons of Spongebob, for instance, are often deemed "list class" by wikiprojects on their talkpages. After I passed one, I changed its quality rating from class=list to class=GA, but I wasn't really sure if that was the right move or not. – Quadell (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I would probably put that up at FL just to be consistent with pretty much every other filmography article. Some have a bit of text but are still considered FLs; example Ronald Reagan filmography. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's an embedded list. I think the amount of prose makes it eligible to be a GA but I'll think about making it a GA class list instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- "GA class list"? I'm surprised to hear that exists, isn't that an oxymoron? Personally I think the best solution is to rename the article "Film career of Audie Murphy". --Loeba (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, I did not get this ping - there's nothing in my notifications about this. I just happened to run across this thread. My ultimate goal is taking this, and two related articles to Good Topic and/or Featured Topic. Main article Audie Murphy is A-class and being worked on for FA status. Second article is Audie Murphy honors and awards and is a list that passed A-class review at WP Military History. I would like the filmography to get GA, but perhaps you all can advise how to do that. I've had a considerable amount of conflicting advice on these three articles over the past year. Everybody with good intentions, and everybody with their own opinion. So, how do we work this out to reach my goal? Also, if it passes GA, then I can nominate it over at DYK, which I think would be a good thing.— Maile (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- And by the way, I have no problem renaming the article to Film career of Audie Murphy. That actually sounds better to me. Would Chris troutman move it? I'm a little unsure about moving it in mid-review, but I assume you all know how to make that happen correctly. — Maile (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't need to be GA to be part of a Good Topic or Featured Topic - you could still achieve that by bringing it to WP:Featured list status (which you'll surely have to do with the awards article?) But then I'm not sure what FLC would think of the filmography article's structure...yes, probably best just to rename it - and probably best to do that once the review is finished? --Loeba (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- And by the way, I have no problem renaming the article to Film career of Audie Murphy. That actually sounds better to me. Would Chris troutman move it? I'm a little unsure about moving it in mid-review, but I assume you all know how to make that happen correctly. — Maile (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, I did not get this ping - there's nothing in my notifications about this. I just happened to run across this thread. My ultimate goal is taking this, and two related articles to Good Topic and/or Featured Topic. Main article Audie Murphy is A-class and being worked on for FA status. Second article is Audie Murphy honors and awards and is a list that passed A-class review at WP Military History. I would like the filmography to get GA, but perhaps you all can advise how to do that. I've had a considerable amount of conflicting advice on these three articles over the past year. Everybody with good intentions, and everybody with their own opinion. So, how do we work this out to reach my goal? Also, if it passes GA, then I can nominate it over at DYK, which I think would be a good thing.— Maile (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- "GA class list"? I'm surprised to hear that exists, isn't that an oxymoron? Personally I think the best solution is to rename the article "Film career of Audie Murphy". --Loeba (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Probably worth pinging the FL delegates about their opinions on this too (@Giants2008:, @Hahc21:, @NapHit:, @Crisco 1492: and @SchroCat:). Would be worth getting a decision on it one way or another since it's probably going to come up every now and then (I'm currently working on a prose-intensive list which could benefit from going through both, too). GRAPPLE X 22:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- My opinion, and which is longstanding practice, is that filmographies are to be placed at FLC, not GAN. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 22:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I have no experience for Featured anything and don't know if this filmography is close to Featured criteria. Can you give any insight on that to me? Because I sure don't want to abort the GA idea just to find out Featured isn't interested in this.— Maile (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, lets first explain some things: FLC is a process where interested editors take a look at the candidates to become feature lists, leave comments and reach consensus whether to promote or not the list to featured status, which is significantly different from GAN, where a single editor assess the article against the criteria. So, all lists have a chance to become featured lists, provided that they meet the FL criteria, which is decided by consensus. Actually, this filmography does not meet the GA criteria because is a list, and lists are an immediate quick fail. My recommendation is to abort the GAN and go through FLC. I'm not going to promise it's going to pass at first try (specially if this is your first ever FLC) but if you follow the reviews and comments swiftly, you will have your list promoted. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 22:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then if it's going to FLC, would you recommend renaming it to Film career of Audie Murphy? I do actually like that title better. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I actually think after a read that this would do well at FLC. Yeah, some technical changes would have to be made, esp. as the tables relate to WP:ACCESS, but that is hardly insurmountable. Reasonable minds could differ here, but , IMO, this is too listy, and I would have failed it as a GA based on that. (A third option. Run the awards list up the flagpole at FLC now. If nothing else, you'll gain a valuable perspective on what goes on there and know better what to do with this one -- that's what I'd do if I were you, let this GAN play out while taking the other list to FLC.) Courcelles 23:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- All right, then. Based on your Third Option suggestion, I have just nominated this at FLC. Here comes another learning curve for me. — Maile (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Erm... well, I rather agree with Wizardman... but I guess I'll be posting my opinion on the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever the outcome, I also just nominated Audie Murphy honors and awards at FLC, since A=class alone won't make it eligible for Featured Topic. — Maile (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- All right, then. Based on your Third Option suggestion, I have just nominated this at FLC. Here comes another learning curve for me. — Maile (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then if it's going to FLC, would you recommend renaming it to Film career of Audie Murphy? I do actually like that title better. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, lets first explain some things: FLC is a process where interested editors take a look at the candidates to become feature lists, leave comments and reach consensus whether to promote or not the list to featured status, which is significantly different from GAN, where a single editor assess the article against the criteria. So, all lists have a chance to become featured lists, provided that they meet the FL criteria, which is decided by consensus. Actually, this filmography does not meet the GA criteria because is a list, and lists are an immediate quick fail. My recommendation is to abort the GAN and go through FLC. I'm not going to promise it's going to pass at first try (specially if this is your first ever FLC) but if you follow the reviews and comments swiftly, you will have your list promoted. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 22:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I have no experience for Featured anything and don't know if this filmography is close to Featured criteria. Can you give any insight on that to me? Because I sure don't want to abort the GA idea just to find out Featured isn't interested in this.— Maile (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- My opinion, and which is longstanding practice, is that filmographies are to be placed at FLC, not GAN. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 22:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Probably worth pinging the FL delegates about their opinions on this too (@Giants2008:, @Hahc21:, @NapHit:, @Crisco 1492: and @SchroCat:). Would be worth getting a decision on it one way or another since it's probably going to come up every now and then (I'm currently working on a prose-intensive list which could benefit from going through both, too). GRAPPLE X 22:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, I disagree with the consensus here big time. When I think filmography, I think a list of films. This is most certainly not a filmography. It's a biography of a man with an emphasis on his film career. As a result, this should be moved to a Film career name, as it is an article and not a list at all. This isn't even a borderline situation like the season articles are. Wizardman 00:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I really dislike the idea of things going through GAC before FLC. The good article criteria are quite clear that something's being a list is enough to disqualify it, and if something's enough of a list to become a featured list, it's certainly too much of a list to become a GA. J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
LivingBot
LivingBot seems to be running but has not updated Wikipedia:Good articles/recent in the last 46 hours. I have had three articles pass GA in that time. I have contacted Jarry1250.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- (TonyTheTiger) Just some teething trouble after I moved the bot over to Wikimedia Labs from the Toolserver. Should be fixed now, we shall see. Apologies to the authors of the 29 good articles missed in the meantime. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The reviewer (a newbie) hasn't responded to the my comments at the GA review in 4 days. Can someone else take over the review? --Jakob (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- @King jakob c 2: Why don't you try contacting the reviewer?--Dom497 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Requesting quick second Op for 3a
There is a disagreement on main aspects of 3a here. Seems like a quick yes or no. I will concede my argument if I am wrong. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, this will be the last time I re-note this. Requesting quick opinion still. If nothing, I'll just let it fail. Thanks for the time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In 2010, a group of Nanyang Technological University students wrote five articles about language use in Singapore. The nomination of Speak Good English Movement was passed by Goodmami, whose contribution history raises alarm bells. The article has obvious stylistic problems and goes into excessive detail, but is nevertheless quite close to meeting the GA criteria. Instead of filing a reassessment request (where the article would be delisted but not improved), I would like to invite experienced writers and reviewers to help clean up the article. I am also copyediting and cleaning up the other four articles, namely Languages in Singapore (nomination failed), Language education in Singapore, Language planning and policy in Singapore and Speak Mandarin Campaign; any assistance would be most appreciated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Process is opaque
I noticed that Andy's Play is now a good article, but (from the point of view of a naive reader) there's no discussion on its Talk page, nor any straightforward one-click way to locate the discussion which resulted in the good article review and improvement process. I'm asking for one thing:
- A change to the {{tl:GA}} template to provide a direct link to (see discussion)
I'm asking here for feedback before going to the GA template Talk page. --Lexein (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Surely there's already a link to the relevant GA review in the GA template - it's the "Review" link at the left hand end of the third (bottom) line, isn't it ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Bot error? (more likely my error)
I just passed David Jewett Waller, Sr., but the bot edited this page with the edit summary "Failed David Jewett Waller, Sr.". Did I do something wrong? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
No way out
Please help me save my nomination Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1 from being destroyed only, because the GAN review process is out of control. I don’t want to withdraw my nomination, but there is a line I will not cross as nominator. I've been groundlessly accused of “playing the victim”, “making unfounded accusations”, “being rude”, “personal attacks”, “being wrong”, “wasting editor’s time”, “belittling his hours”, “manipulative words”… all in a rant by this article’s first-time reviewer. I was advised to “tuck my tail between my legs” if I want to… Some of you call it the Russian Roulette of the GA system, but I've had enough.... I want to make this article better, however, if it isn’t possible with GAN help, I will try somewhere else. Thanks in advance for your feedback, Poeticbent talk 23:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Poeticbent, I understand that you feel all of MarcusBritish's accusations are unfounded, but you have told him that "you don't know what you're talking about" and greatly insulted his ability as a reviewer. I understand that you are upset with the things he's said about you, but at the same time, you have said some unkind things to him as well. Please consider the possibility that you may be at least partly at fault. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I accept no blame and make no apology for following GA critera. Section 1b of the GACR states, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." Refering to MOS:LAYOUT we are drawn to section 3.4 Notes and references. It begins "For how to generate and format these sections, see Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources" Wikipedia:Citing sources aka WP:REF includes section 6.1 Variation in citation methods aka WP:CITEVAR. Extracted guidlelines of note from sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2:
- To be avoided
- Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another
- Generally considered helpful
- Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent
By following GA-criteria I am led, with no uncertainty, to a sound conclusion and made the reasonable request that all references be made consistent. They are currently a mixed bag of <ref>s and {{sfn}}. Per WP:CITEVAR this is avoidable and unhelpful, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion it fails the GAN requirement to follow MOS:LAYOUT closely enough. I will be failing this part of the GA nomination should the article remain a mixed bag, per WP:GACR which is built upon consensus that affects ALL of wikipedia and ALL GA nominations. A local consensus cannot seek to make an exception for one-off nominations, WP:IAR does not apply here. Poeticbent has repeated stated his dislike of such referencing; I'm not reviewing a GAN as "pass" based in his WP:IJDLI motives and won't be coerced into accepting blame for reading the GACR properly. Poeticbent is completely at fault here for seeking to pass a GAR under false pretences. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Aside from the references, check the lede again. A 40,000 character article should not have a single paragraph for a lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- That isn't the issue being discussed here.. the lead is something to worry about once the main body is developed, not now. Can we stick to the current problem at hand instead of worrying about new and unrelated ones, please. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The issue being discussed here is people being unable to see the forest for the trees. Take a look at the general picture as well. I would not have expected something so blatant to get through the first steps of a review, let alone be ignored while two editors of good standing bicker about references. Now, as for no way out... it's simple. Fail the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, MarcusBritish, you are entitled to your opinion, and I thank you for respectfully stating your point of view. I would ask that you would continue to stick to the specifics of the disagreement (that is, how to interpret these particular Wikipedia policies) and refrain from posting anything that could be perceived as an insult. Focusing on your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies rather than your interpretation of Poeticbent's conduct, like you are doing here, is, in my opinion, the more productive way to deal with this dispute. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I was not the first to make untowards accusations. Poeticbent did that by misquoting WP:CITEVAR [1]. Note his underlining of "personal". Bearing mind that he was first to switch some refs to "sfn" in the first place, I believe this places the onus of making changes to the refs against the standing format firmly on him and therefore my request that he finish the job by converting all refs to a similar standard was a natural response that any sensible reviewer would raise, which is not "personal" but a matter of me doing my job properly without being accused of bad faith, as he implied. Furthermore, I believe his confidence in my ability to review "his" article was always in doubt, per his remark to you: "you know how hard it is to get someone like MarcusBritish commit themselves to a difficult subject"[2]. Now you tell me, how comfortable would you feel trying to do your first GAR when the nominee has openly expressed doubt on your ability before you've even began it and who doesn't even know you? Pre-judgement is not only pretentious, it represents assertiveness from someone feels that following the GACR is beyond them and was always prepared to challenged his reviewer. I would also suggest that his changing the GAR to "second opinion needed" [3] (something a reviewer is supposed to ask, not a nominator) amounts to WP:FORUMSHOP, as clearly he only want the answer he wants to hear and wasn't even prepared to wait for consensus. So far it is not the "subject" proving difficult, but the nominator. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I admit that I am not pleased with Poeticbent's handling of the situation, particularly his "please save my nomination from being destroyed" and "you have no idea what you're doing" comment to you. I think we can all agree that some work needs to be done with the references; I think the dispute is over how much work needs to be done with the references. Anyway, I think some outside input will help clear things up, at which point I will likely step in to help make the necessary changes. I appreciate your detailed GA review of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II and your comment to avoid doing a "rubber stamp" review, but I think the way in which you have asserted your interpretation of the GA criteria has not been well received. I'm not sure how much of that is your fault and how much of it is Poeticbent's, but I will do everything I can to help solve this dispute and get the article to GA status. Again, if you have any advice on how I should conduct myself, I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am forced to conclude that I feel inclined to "fail" this GA based on my interpretation and/or withdraw from seeing it through. I do not think I can continue working with someone so inclined to cry "crocodile tears" after his display of self-interest. I spent 5 hours initially reviewing the GAN and several more since, as well as a number of hours actually helping make the changes I suggested. I have lost faith in the GAR process from the POV as a reviewer and do not feel inclined to take up the role again anytime soon. I won't say I fell at the first hurdle, I feel more like I was tripped. As much as I want to help with the GAR backlog, I don't suffer fools gladly, and especially won't perform reviews for editors who don't value the standards set out in the MOS. As far as I'm concerned the MOS is a consensus.. this matter of seeking another consensus to clarify it feels deranged and challenged my ability to take on a GAR without being held to account for my comprehension of the guidelines. The lack of WP:AGF I've felt since his first "someone like MarcusBritish" remark is far from reassuring, and this tagging to "2ndopinion" is enough to push me over the edge. In short, fuck it, bye. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I admit that I am not pleased with Poeticbent's handling of the situation, particularly his "please save my nomination from being destroyed" and "you have no idea what you're doing" comment to you. I think we can all agree that some work needs to be done with the references; I think the dispute is over how much work needs to be done with the references. Anyway, I think some outside input will help clear things up, at which point I will likely step in to help make the necessary changes. I appreciate your detailed GA review of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II and your comment to avoid doing a "rubber stamp" review, but I think the way in which you have asserted your interpretation of the GA criteria has not been well received. I'm not sure how much of that is your fault and how much of it is Poeticbent's, but I will do everything I can to help solve this dispute and get the article to GA status. Again, if you have any advice on how I should conduct myself, I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I was not the first to make untowards accusations. Poeticbent did that by misquoting WP:CITEVAR [1]. Note his underlining of "personal". Bearing mind that he was first to switch some refs to "sfn" in the first place, I believe this places the onus of making changes to the refs against the standing format firmly on him and therefore my request that he finish the job by converting all refs to a similar standard was a natural response that any sensible reviewer would raise, which is not "personal" but a matter of me doing my job properly without being accused of bad faith, as he implied. Furthermore, I believe his confidence in my ability to review "his" article was always in doubt, per his remark to you: "you know how hard it is to get someone like MarcusBritish commit themselves to a difficult subject"[2]. Now you tell me, how comfortable would you feel trying to do your first GAR when the nominee has openly expressed doubt on your ability before you've even began it and who doesn't even know you? Pre-judgement is not only pretentious, it represents assertiveness from someone feels that following the GACR is beyond them and was always prepared to challenged his reviewer. I would also suggest that his changing the GAR to "second opinion needed" [3] (something a reviewer is supposed to ask, not a nominator) amounts to WP:FORUMSHOP, as clearly he only want the answer he wants to hear and wasn't even prepared to wait for consensus. So far it is not the "subject" proving difficult, but the nominator. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- That isn't the issue being discussed here.. the lead is something to worry about once the main body is developed, not now. Can we stick to the current problem at hand instead of worrying about new and unrelated ones, please. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II: Request for mediation
This request applies to the section directly above as well ("No way out"). Two established and competent editors are involved in a protracted dispute over referencing in a GA review. I tried to mediate the argument as best I could, but I am neither familiar enough with the GA criteria nor referencing on Wikipedia to be able to give a definitive opinion on the matter. I ask that any long-term GA reviewers, as well as anyone familiar with referencing on Wikipedia, to comment on the GAN page and help us reach consensus. I am sad that this dispute has so soured the relationship between these two editors, and I think we need several members of the community to step in and help resolve this dispute. This is an urgent matter, and the sooner other editors step in, the better. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can give us in the matter. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, if there is anything other editors believe I am doing wrong in attempting to mediate this dispute, please let me know. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and I am willing to consider any criticism you have of my conduct. If you have any advice on how I should conduct myself on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate you sharing it with me. Thank you. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The reviewer has decided to fail the article, so there is no longer any need for mediation; the nominator and the reviewer will go their separate ways. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The reviewer failed the article, then another user passed it within 24 hours, without opening a second review. Can an independent review check this over, several members of WPMILHIST have expressed doubts over it meeting the GA criteria. Being a member of MILHIST I recuses myself. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The reviewer has decided to fail the article, so there is no longer any need for mediation; the nominator and the reviewer will go their separate ways. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted GregJackP's "promotion" of the article. This is not meant to endorse any side of any dispute, it is merely because it clearly did not follow the procedures, which have been established for good reason. The reviewer (who seemingly had every right to be the reviewer) closed the review for reasons which are potentially perfectly reasonable. Any dispute should be taken to the article talk page or to GAR. Unilaterally "overturning" a legitimate closure is not at all appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a reason for your use of "scare" quotes in your comments? I would suggest that you look to the actual policies governing GA reviews and criteria before you unilaterally support MB. A number of very experience editors have pointed out how MB was trying to use standards which were not included in the GA criteria. Unless you can explain how those arbitrary requirements are in the GA criteria, I will revert you. Or, should you prefer to do a GAR, and state your reasons why the article is not a GA, we can do that, but it will be by the actual criteria, not by standards made up by MarcusBritish. GregJackP Boomer! 16:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- A number of very experienced have pointed out that the article was not GA standard, and is still not.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Greg, I used scare-quotes because you did not promote the article. In order to promote an article, you must follow the procedure laid out here, which you clearly did not do. I am perfectly aware of the policies surrounding the GA procedure, and the fact that you believe that your addition of a template on an article talk page constitutes "promoting" an article reveals that you are not. As I made quite clear, I did not "unilaterally support MB". I have no opinion on any dispute you may have with any other user, but I've ever opinion on your abuse of the GA procedure. If you believe MB was not following the GA criteria, so be it- start a discussion here or with the user in question, or open a GAR. Those discussion would probably lead to the suggestion that you renominate the article. It is not, however, your place to overturn GA reviews made in good faith. Your demand that I open a GAR is laughable- there is no review to discuss, as you promoted without one. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- A number of very experienced have pointed out that the article was not GA standard, and is still not.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
For your information, from my statement to MilHist, which has received several supportive remarks:
Section 1b of the GA critera states, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." Refering to MOS:LAYOUT we are drawn to section 3.4 Notes and references. It begins "For how to generate and format these sections, see Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources" Wikipedia:Citing sources aka WP:REF includes section 6.1 Variation in citation methods aka WP:CITEVAR. Extracted guidlelines of note from sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2:
- To be avoided
Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another
- Generally considered helpful
Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent
By following GA-criteria I was led, with no uncertainty, to a sound conclusion and made the reasonable request that all references be made consistent. They are currently a mixed bag of <ref>s and {{sfn}}. Per WP:CITEVAR this is avoidable and unhelpful, and therefore unacceptable, in my opinion it failed the GAN requirement to follow MOS:LAYOUT closely enough.
For reference, the first use of "sfn" was made by the nominee, Poeticbent, here, his edit summary even stating "introduced {{sfn}} template". Therefore, GregJackP's claim that "Initial reviewer applied incorrect standards, violated WP:CITEVAR without consensus to change style used" is a proven unfounded lie, de facto. I should be demanding apology from him for passing the GA based on a fallacy and an assumed position, but it isn't worth my time to remake such a request to a lair who can't see the black and white past his own sheer pride. To other editors I leave proof of how I came to a reasonable conclusion that WP:CITEVAR should be requested on a nominee over the likes of a mere non-consensus-based essay such as WP:WGN written by two editors which has not entered into the more formal territory known as "guidelines" which serve to assist editors and reviewers to greater effect and from which we draw out determinations, not from essays. Clearly there are polarised views on what is "wrong" and what is "right", but I feel the second "review" was more disrepectful of the GA process than my own initial review, which at least holds water compared to one based on what an essay presumes to state without consensus. The lack of WP:AGF assumed by GregJackP was also dishonest and pretentious, editors who reassess GAs should do so transparently and impartially with respect for the nominee and previous reviewers. This was not the case there and the second reviewer took it upon himself to declare himself "victor" based on a review purely aimed at assaulting and disgracing the first length and highly detailed review, rather than to present a convincing application of WP:GACR. The reversion by uninvolved editor is welcome and I hope those now involved in developing the article the best of luck. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Very minor question
In the big green "List of good articles nominations, arranged by subject" box on the main GAN project page, the link to "Media and drama" links to the top of the "Media and drama" section (which includes a subsection within it of the exact same name). Is there any way to link it to the actual "Media and drama" nominations instead? Sorry if I lost you, wasn't too sure how to word this. Gloss • talk 02:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I made a crude adjustment to force the link to the correct place, but one line below the desired location. It'll have to do, I think, unless anyone can tweak it to the header. Adabow (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- That works. I just noticed that in the "Music" section, there is a subsection Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Other music articles - what about changing the heading of the "Media and drama" subsection to "Other media and drama articles"? Gloss • talk 06:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)