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