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.