On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

Good article review would be a hassle for anyone. It can bring you up against Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources in a nasty way.

I don't know if you read the Good Article Review but I don't think he has mentioned sources once. The closest the reviewer has come to mentioning sources is adding a {{fact}} tag in the article.

Strict application of reliability guidelines can result in being unable to maintain a decent article, let alone a featured article.

I have no idea what the relevance is to my issues... because I don't have a sourcing issue at all as far as I know. The closest the reviewer has come to mentioning sources is adding a {{fact}} tag in the article.

The same sort of thing can happen if you subject the article on your home town to the process; most of the interesting information has not been published and if everything is not perfectly sourced you would be left with nothing but census statistics and GPS coordinates.

This is more of a case that most of the information that the guy has suggested just doesn't exist period. Beyond that, his suggestions feel like they are similar to suggesting that you write a history of Asia, where most of the Asian history that is relevant involves Chechnya, India and Oman. They are similar but not similar enough that you can write a coherent narrative involving all three countries. The information that does exist is being stripped in many cases. Which, yeah, trivial possibly but the reviewer has never really said: The section on Northern Ireland includes trivial information.

You're running into an underlying policy problem which should probably be addressed better than it is. However, as in the case of a small town I would turn to local papers or governments, there might be some netball newsletters, or a blog or mailing list which arguable could be considered a reliable source for this subject.

Except the reviewer has never once mentioned reliable sources. He has not once mentioned sourcing as an issue in his review.

If you're referring to following his advice regarding having the total number of players by continent, it seems absurd that I would need to run down the total number of players by each country, then add them up together by continent. "There are an estimated 500,000 netball players in Africa. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]" is what that would look like because that isn't how the subject is treated.

The review appears to be treating this sport like it is a male dominated sport, with male dominated obsession with statistics, access to the same amount of funding that men's sport have... and that just isn't the case because this is a female administrated and female participation sport relying on female spectators.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

...

This is more of a case that most of the information that the guy has suggested just doesn't exist period.

...

The review appears to be treating this sport like it is a male dominated sport, with male dominated obsession with statistics, access to the same amount of funding that men's sport have... and that just isn't the case because this is a female administrated and female participation sport relying on female spectators.

I see my suggestions addressed my concerns, not yours,

I feel like you're again not addressing my concerns. I've read that and I've read all the articles I could find on being a good article. My issues were with the particular reviewer and his feedback. I don't feel like you've actually 1) read the netball article, and 2) read the feedback left by the reviewer. It would be tremendously helpful, if you changed your approach, read what I actually wrote and stopped of pointing me at resources that you think are helpful in a general sense and that I've already read. It would be much better if you could read the article, its GA review and offer context specific examples to address the concerns I listed in my original e-mail to the list.

Because honestly, I feel like you're behaving just like male reviewer I am having problems with. Despite repeatedly being told that the sources don't exist for X, Y, Z and asking the reviewer how we address that, we get back well do Y, Z, A... which are basically regurgitation of the exact same thing. It feels to me like you've both got your own agendas and world view. You both appear to want to be helpful but you're not willing to work with others to help work towards a shared agenda. In this particular case, getting an article about one of the most popular women's participation sports in the world to Good Article status. It's rather frustrating that a male on this list would, because of the appear of his own agenda which appears to involve sourcing in general for articles suffering notability issues, end up providing information that hinders working towards an important goal of getting more female related content from being featured.

Back to my reviewer, I'd rather he had failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/GA1 the article like the reviewer failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1because while the Cook Islands one was a quick fail, the reviewer offered clear examples, good feedback than can be worked towards improving based on the examples, didn't drag it out and followed the procedure.

It would be of great assistance if you could actually step in to that discussion, examine what we said and actually help improve the article to get it to good status based on the criteria that the reviewer provided.

Good observation, Kath.

I've been wondering whether to point out this detail -- the phrase "good article review" has been used a little inaccurately in this discussion. A "good article assessment" is what Laura is currently going through, as distinct from a "good article review" (what Kath has just pointed out) which is essentially an appeal of an assessment that is believed to be problematic.

Good Article Review is an option *after* the assessment and related discussion is complete. It's sort of like appealing a court decision; you identify the specific thing that you think was done wrong, and somebody will take that into consideration.

While the assessment's still underway though, I think the approach Laura is taking (seeking out additional perspectives) is the right way to go about it.

-Pete

On 3/11/11 6:54 PM, Kath O'Donnell wrote:

I don't really know how this all works, but I noticed in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1 page you linked it mentioned this: "If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAR. "

is that an option? do/could they have another person review it who might have more ideas to help you get it to GA? (or if not this link is there another)

Back to my reviewer, I'd rather he had failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/GA1 the article like the
reviewer failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1
because while the Cook Islands one was a quick fail, the reviewer
offered clear examples, good feedback than can be worked towards
improving based on the examples, didn't drag it out and followed
the procedure.

It would be of great assistance if you could actually step in to
that discussion, examine what we said and actually help improve
the article to get it to good status based on the criteria that
the reviewer provided.

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap