On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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. -- mobile: 0412183663 twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: 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. -- mobile: 0412183663 twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com

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: