Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 25:
Line 25:
==Reviewer notes==
==Reviewer notes==
The policy is actually pretty clear and I do not believe I am being unreasonable or endangering the integrity of the GAN review process. By guidelines: '''The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. ny registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required'''. The original concern raised included non-criteria such as talk page discussions and unfounded assumption of bad faith and a personal interpretation of ''"significant contributions" to it "prior" to the review''. No specific, detailed definition exists to define what Significant is and "prior" is there for a reason, so that a reasonable amount of time could pass and still allow a contributor to review. I believe 7 days prior to the review with a single edit is NOT a significant contribution a clear week PRIOR. Before that my entire editing history on the article only amounts to 53 total edits. I have not edit warred or disrupted the page. I believe I am a neutral editor and a reasonable candidate to review this article as having previously reviewed biographies of a similar nature and have not held any bias towards any figure for any reason in any of these reviews. There is no consensus, no vote and no committee to a review. As such I am not bound by discussion to withdraw. The nominator may withdraw the nomination, but has weighed in and believes "a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits". I concur. This could be a reasonable point of reference. 1 week-1 edit as minimum prior editing and no more than approximately 50 edits total in the article history to not be significant.--] (]) 11:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The policy is actually pretty clear and I do not believe I am being unreasonable or endangering the integrity of the GAN review process. By guidelines: '''The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. ny registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required'''. The original concern raised included non-criteria such as talk page discussions and unfounded assumption of bad faith and a personal interpretation of ''"significant contributions" to it "prior" to the review''. No specific, detailed definition exists to define what Significant is and "prior" is there for a reason, so that a reasonable amount of time could pass and still allow a contributor to review. I believe 7 days prior to the review with a single edit is NOT a significant contribution a clear week PRIOR. Before that my entire editing history on the article only amounts to 53 total edits. I have not edit warred or disrupted the page. I believe I am a neutral editor and a reasonable candidate to review this article as having previously reviewed biographies of a similar nature and have not held any bias towards any figure for any reason in any of these reviews. There is no consensus, no vote and no committee to a review. As such I am not bound by discussion to withdraw. The nominator may withdraw the nomination, but has weighed in and believes "a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits". I concur. This could be a reasonable point of reference. 1 week-1 edit as minimum prior editing and no more than approximately 50 edits total in the article history to not be significant.--] (]) 11:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
:I personally have no opinion on whether you are biased. I can, however, say that your hairsplitting and wikilawyering over the meanings of "significant" and "prior" are red flags, and thus I have '''no confidence''' in you as a reviewer. Though your willingness is commendable and I suspect you'd do an excellent job, I still '''strongly''' believe you should step aside. I understand that it's harder to find someone to do the work if we eliminate those most interested, but that's the process that we have to live with (or formally change). ] (]) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) ps. If someone else formally takes the title of reviewer, I would have no problem with them leaning on amadscientist to do much of the actual work, if that was what they wanted/decided to do.
Amadscientist, I recommend you withdraw as the reviewer. WP:GAN states that "you cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review," and the count tool identifies you as a top contributor to this article. —Eustress05:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have only been editing the article since the 15th or 16th and count 23 edits, not amounting to a significant contribution to the article in my opinion. Edits are not additions of content and are edits to the lede for brevity, one header title that changed a few times before it settled and a few edits concerning the return of content since removed. It does not say that an editor that contributes to the article cannot review and most of my contributions are on the talk page where my main activity here has been discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The edit counter referenced above says you have made 54 edits to the article and a whopping 276 edits to the article's talk page (the most talk page comments of any editor). Please step aside and let an uninvolved editor conduct the GAN review. —Eustress06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well thank you for that. But please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the definition of what "significant contributor" for a GA review is outlined.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the definition of a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits and more than 275 talk edits. Just my 2♮. – Sir Lionel, EG06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"Significance" is a relative measure, not an absolute one. Amadscientist ranks #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. That is significant in my opinion. Please don't misinterpret my point... I applaud Amadscientist's zeal, but an uninvolved editor is needed to ensure the integrity of the GAN review. —Eustress07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. There is no mention of "uninvolved editor" in the criteria to review for listing to GA. There is no criteria mentioned at all for talk page discussion limitation. Integrity? So this is assuming bad faith on my part? I don't see being one of ten editors as significant. I am not the major contributor to the article. My contributions are a small percentage of the overall history of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where I am being directed to any guideline to show this as an integrity issue. I am being point blank told my integrity is in question. If this is so and I am to withdraw, I need this to be directly stated in direct terms and how I violated these terms. What I see on Misplaced Pages:Reviewing good articles only states "..any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required.". It says about reviewers "A reviewer should be able to read the article critically and apply the Good article criteria fairly." yet no one is demonstrating how I would not be applying criteria fairly or how guideline for reviewer is being violated. I can't help but wonder if this is just a sort of misinterpretation of the guidelines that has simply been fostered for some reason or another for a while, but I don't see the violation or line I am crossing to have my integrity questioned...or worse, that I am damaging the integrity of the GAN process.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the policy as it is stated on the main GA nomination page: "ou cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review.
I read this policy to mean, literally what it says. "Prior to the review", limits further what "significant" means. In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit . That is NOT a significant amount.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No, actually probably less days and not 50 (Edit:that was exactly correct, yes) but that seems close going by the above information. However 7 days would be a reasonable amount of back look for the article itself, it's history for stablity, edit warring etc.. Some editors use even less days then that. As few as 3 days with no major edit warring and I haven't engaged in edit warring or disruptive behavior to warrent any concern. But lets look at it. From the history, 10 edits on the 12th. 13 edits on the 13th. 8 edits on the 14th. On August 16 I made 4 more edits that day. 10 edits on the 17th (that was a very high traffic day). 4 edits on the 18th. 2 on the 19th. 1 on the 25th.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That looks like 53 total edits and 50 edits from the 12 to the 19th. So yes. Starting out with the greatest amount per day when I began and dwindling down to almost nothing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Reviewer notes
The policy is actually pretty clear and I do not believe I am being unreasonable or endangering the integrity of the GAN review process. By guidelines: The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. ny registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required. The original concern raised included non-criteria such as talk page discussions and unfounded assumption of bad faith and a personal interpretation of "significant contributions" to it "prior" to the review. No specific, detailed definition exists to define what Significant is and "prior" is there for a reason, so that a reasonable amount of time could pass and still allow a contributor to review. I believe 7 days prior to the review with a single edit is NOT a significant contribution a clear week PRIOR. Before that my entire editing history on the article only amounts to 53 total edits. I have not edit warred or disrupted the page. I believe I am a neutral editor and a reasonable candidate to review this article as having previously reviewed biographies of a similar nature and have not held any bias towards any figure for any reason in any of these reviews. There is no consensus, no vote and no committee to a review. As such I am not bound by discussion to withdraw. The nominator may withdraw the nomination, but has weighed in and believes "a significent contributor for starters would be more than 53 article edits". I concur. This could be a reasonable point of reference. 1 week-1 edit as minimum prior editing and no more than approximately 50 edits total in the article history to not be significant.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I personally have no opinion on whether you are biased. I can, however, say that your hairsplitting and wikilawyering over the meanings of "significant" and "prior" are red flags, and thus I have no confidence in you as a reviewer. Though your willingness is commendable and I suspect you'd do an excellent job, I still strongly believe you should step aside. I understand that it's harder to find someone to do the work if we eliminate those most interested, but that's the process that we have to live with (or formally change). Homunq (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) ps. If someone else formally takes the title of reviewer, I would have no problem with them leaning on amadscientist to do much of the actual work, if that was what they wanted/decided to do.
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Undetermined
5
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Undetermined
6
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Undetermined
Result
Result
Notes
Undetermined
The reviewer has no notes here.
Discussion
I will begin later this evening. The editors could use the time to begin running through criteria and begin collaboration with things that are obvious like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately. Run through references and take out non-reliable sources. Check the claims being made to the source. Format all references as inline citation and not bare urls. Other common things overlooked, copyright concerns for text. Besure there isn't anything that paraphrases too closely to the source and check the license, author and source of all images. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Additional Notes
Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Undetermined