Talk:Orson Scott Card/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Review
Long overdue. Let's make sure that unlike twice before this is not lost. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As always I like to leave the LEAD for last.

Life

 * His notable Mormon ancestors certainly deserve inclusion but right now is getting more coverage than the personal life subsection. Could this be narrowed to a sentence or two (we might not need detailed descriptions of who they all were for example, if readers are interested they can always click the link)
 * I removed the short descriptions of his ancestors, leaving a bunch of wikilinks. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me, in the paragraph that begins "In 1964" if all of this was while he was at the BYU lab school or if some of it happened while he was in college.
 * I did find a source that says he graduated in one year, but it's from Card's own site. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Does "Influences from Portuguese and Brazilian Catholicism are evident in his Shadow and Speaker novels." belong in personal life or influences and style?
 * I slipped it into the influences section, but I haven't figured out a great place for it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Are we sure Kristine Allen should be a redlink (i.e. a notable article could be written about her)? I really don't know which is why I'm asking.
 * I don't think there are enough sources to redlink her. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This seems more like trivia than worth 1 of 5 sentences in personal life "Card often played Civilization II; in 2007, he had to stop playing it to focus on writing."
 * He made kind of a big deal of it in an interview, but it does bring up a good point that his personal life section is a bit lacking. I know that his son with cerebral palsy inspired Lost Boys. He described the book as representing his mourning for the child he was expecting his son to be. I think the main source I had on that connection was from his expository material about the short story in Maps in the Mirror. Would that be worth including? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that there's a clear connection to the work, I would say yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a tiny bit of info on that. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's been more than 9 years since his stroke. There must be RS about how much he did or didn't recover so we don't need to write what's expected.
 * I can only assume he fully recovered since he has written works since then.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I've since found a source for this.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The wired article is definitely sufficient to source this fact. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Works
I swear I had already started this section but since I can't find it, here we go again.
 * I can guess why it happened this way but the Ender Series section really interupts the narrative flow of the rest of Works. Can it be tied together better?
 * Are you asking me to break up the section and make it more chronological? Or to add more context (i.e., allude to the series's popularity to explain the continued sequels and spin-offs)? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't connect to the section before or after. It also shows a "written by committee" element that some Wiki writing (when done by many editors over a long timeframe) can show. It's these two elements that I was getting at. I think the changes you've made in response to some other comments get at this well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we update to 2020 Card's Hugo/Nebula accomplishment?
 * I changed the wording to reflect what's written in the latest article on him in the SF Encyclopedia, which doesn't require and "as of" statement: "the first author" to receive both awards in consecutive years. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It feels like Alvin Maker, and to a lesser extent Homecoming, gets short shrift compared to Ender.
 * True. I added a description of Seventh Son ' s origin and synopsis. I'm still working on this part.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a few more critic statements about the first three books. I was able to dig up two reviews of Crystal City, but summarizing them seems better suited to the page for Crystal City. There is a paragraph on Homecoming in the "Influences" section, which I could move into "Works." Thoughts? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The first three sentences of Video games are formulated pretty similarly. Could this be varied some to make it more interesting reading?
 * I changed the wording a bit. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The Ender's Game movie paragraph shows that it was constructed as news came out over like a decade and could probably use a rethink to make it more encyclopedic and less newsy.
 * I tried to improve this section, including information about the film's production most relevant to Card's involvement. I could add in a sentence about the film's reception if that would improve the paragraph. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I like it. I think a sentence on how it did critically/commercially is called for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Returning to this, it feels like the Later writings section is a little sparse compared to the rest of this.
 * Yes. There is less critical material on his later writings, which makes it difficult to say anything about them, but I'll keep looking. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Influences

 * Do we have any RS (whether Card or a critic) discussing how his reading impacted his writing? If so let's incorporate. If not I feel like that section could be cut down because it is basically "here are a lot of books" right now. The last two sentences of the second paragraph of more what I'm thinking (I do think the Brazil move here works FWIW)
 * It hurt a little to cut that list of authors down, but you're absolutely right that it doesn't really contribute to our understanding of Card without further discussion. I may be able to add more on Colling's perception of CS Lewis's influence on Card. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if it's any consolation the revision works well so the hurt was worth it :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Reid needs to be introduced rather than just using her lastname only in this section. Same for Collings.
 * done Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * probably needs its own source (guessing it can be traced back to England but even so)
 * done Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice it but since you quote England directly that sentence too needs a cite. Sorry for the repeated cites there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * right. I think I got them all this time. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Described by who?
 * the source simply said "many critics." I changed the sentence to include that information. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk)
 * I revised this. Make sure you're ok with the change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, I have no issues with your revision. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * seems like a strong claim. I'm not able to see the original source but am skeptical that one source would be sufficient for that strength of claim even in a best case scenario.
 * You should be able to check out the source from archive.org for an hour, if you are willing to make an account there. I changed the sentence to more precisely paraphrase Westfahl's description of Card's early stories. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * could an example of this be used?
 * unfortunately the SF encyclopedia doesn't give an example, nor does the entry on pulp fiction in the same encyclopedia. Finding my own example would probably be original research. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed it would. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Themes

 * I would suggest that a section needs some sort of introductory sentence rather than jumping into Ender's game.
 * To this end I think actually flipping the first and second paragraphs addresses this nicely.
 * done Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Views

 * So I think this section (including its subsections) is both necessary and a bit of a coatrack. I'll get into specifics below but wanted to note that I think some reframing/reorganizing of this section might be for the best. It's necessary because there is definitely enough coverage of his views as to be encyclopedic but a coatrack because it doesn't seem, in my reading, to put this into an understandable whole and is instead a grabbag of factoids.
 * It feels like his his revival meeting stuff is interesting but maybe more trivial than encyclopedic.
 * I don't have very much information about Card's activity in the science fiction community in the late 1980s. I moved the sentence to the section about his works in the late 1980s. I think that his making personal connections to SF fans, along with his editing the Nebula Awards Report, were probably more important to his career than his biographies let on, but maybe I'm getting into OR. The Locus interview mentioned he was "leader of the popular secular humanist revival meetings" in the first paragraph of their article on him. Do you like it better where I moved it, or should I just take it out? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it works in its new location. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Could the columns be incorporated into the Works section rather than listed down here?
 * Yes. I was just verifying some of the sources and ran into a bit of a snag. In a 2018 column, Card states this was his last column for The Rhino, but his 2019 column appeared in search results on the newspapers. I tried to word it so that the words are factual but not misleading. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Think how you did it works. We can only do what we can verify after all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the political liberal and moral conservative is a bit misleading. The liberal stuff, for instance, comes in the context of Card saying that while he uses that label for himself others disagree with it. He's definitely using liberal in the more traditional sense of Liberalism which at minimum should be made clear.
 * In both sources he basically says he's a 1977 Democrat. I mean that's interesting on the one hand but also not useful for someone wondering what he's like today. The sources supporting the political liberal and moral conservative are 7 and 11 years old some more contemporary acknowledgement is called for or his views should just be placed in their proper historical context. Especially because later on he is clearly endorsing republican candidates for president.
 * On that note I question whether his specific endorsements need coverage in an overall biography (as opposed to say a List of endorsements page). But if we're going to cover it, what did he do in 2016 and 2020?
 * On the above three bullet points, I've tried to give a little more context to what he's said about his beliefs. I kept the 1977 democrat thing because it is still how he describes himself politically. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * He's been labeled as more than just a communitarian. I think DUE requires some acknowledgement of those other views - which Card himself alludes to in those interviews.
 * More recent interviews are audio-only, so it is taking me a while to listen to the most recent ones. I did get some good information from the Shapiro interview about why Card doesn't think he meets the criteria to be considered a Republican. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what I was able to add from the Shapiro interview gives more depth to his political views. The vindyarchives interview gave a little more info on his personal life (but not much in politics). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Does the Obama short story really merit a whole paragraph?
 * Probably not. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with that. Maybe I can combine it with some criticism of Empire. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think based on later conversations the answer was yes and the present version does support this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the homosexuality subsection is well done in terms of balance and sourcing, if perhaps a bit long on the whole. However, if a reader were to only read about his works and themes the reader would have no idea of this line of Card's work (or like the criticism given for Empire). On the one hand it makes sense to group all this content together, on the other hand it does make the themes feel positive, while the criticism of Card is then lumped into this section.
 * Hmmm. Yes, that is a problem. I wish there were a more scholarly source on homosexuality in his works, because there is definitely enough material in his books for an article! The length of the homosexuality section was my attempt at trying to include everything that people put there if I could find good sources on it. Would it make sense to have a paragraph on Card's politics in his fiction in the "themes" section? I could try to make a paragraph that mentions the Obama dystopia and Hamlet's Father. Other editors rage-quoting Card in this section has died down a lot since I redid it, but that could also be because of Card not being in the spotlight as much (currently). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that could work nicely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've started a subsection on the theme of homosexuality in his works. I remember there being an essay about homoeroticism in Ender's Game that I can add if I can track it down. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * criticism from who?
 * I specified the author of the NY Times opinion column. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Awards

 * I am skeptical of including book awards that aren't on their own notable (i.e. have articles about them).
 * I removed the award that didn't have a Wikipedia page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Other activities

 * This also seems like a hodgepodge. Maybe there's not a better way but just noting it.

Legacy and influence

 * Could this be merged with awards rather than being a 2 sentence section?
 * Yes, done. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Adaptations

 * I think this definitely should be a subsection of Works rather than its own section (especially because the Ender's game movie is covered there and that is also an adaptation)
 * this is now a subsection of the works section Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

LEAD

 * is all true but is quite a list (and not even totally inclusive) and I'm wondering if it can't just be accurately summarized as "American writer"
 * The way the lead incorporates his political views into the whole of the work is what I am getting at with my comments above about the views section.
 * I modified the first sentence to just call him a writer and combined it with the second Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

12/21
, I have just completed a re-read of the article and I think this is close to being ready. Current thoughts:
 * I'm not sure how much adds other than to show that the furor didn't die down quickly. Wondering if either of these sources   might make more sense to tie that together? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is the right summary of that element of the article. It does need inclusion, given the amount of writing below, I'm just not sure that's accurately conveying/summarizing what's there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you feel like you've exhausted sources for critical analysis of his later works? It's improved from where it started but wanted to make sure that this feels "as good as it can get" at the moment for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * checking in on whether you're going to return to this before you leave your role. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
So I have been a bit slower in getting to this but here we are. can you confirm you're still interested? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be most grateful . My response may be slower than usual due to COVID-related work situation changes, but my enthusiasm remains. 17:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Slower is fine just wanted to make sure there would be responses. I will endeavor to start this soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * : Sorry to jump in here, but it's been (*counts on fingers*1...2...3) Over three? months since this was last edited? Xtools says 108 days. Do you still intend to review it? Figured you might have forgotten. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I had actually done substantial parts of this review twice and lost them both times and been frustrated enough not to come back. I've bumped this to near the top of my to do list. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind if I respond to what you've reviewed so far. Sorry the page is so long! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

, my review is complete and I think I've responded to everything you've done so far. No rush (obviously given my dillydallying) but wanted to make sure we're on the same page with where things stand. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! I took last week off but should be able to start responding more this week. Apologies in advance for my slow pace. My home responsibilities have increased with the pandemic. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Rachel Helps (BYU) could you make clear which review points you've addressed and are waiting on me to look at? I think I've kept up with everything that has been finished, which you'll know because I've struck-out my original comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, I've been kind of doing a little bit on some of the things. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 I think I've taken care of everything except 1) reducing the paragraph on the Obama story and 2) reducing the section on homosexuality views. I'm taking next week off but will be back to continue work on the 30th. I haven't been able to find more criticism on his later works, although I did see the absence of such criticism noted in the Oziewicz book.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm holding off on some of the items in Views until I can do a comprehensive re-read of that entire section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 I ended up adding more information on Empire in the American politics sub-section of themes. I also made a sub-section on homosexuality in themes, including the information about the Hamlet's Father novella. These sections are not as strong because the sources are reviews rather than more academic articles, but I couldn't find many academic articles on these aspects of Card's work. I decided to keep the three paragraphs on Card's views on homosexuality, because I couldn't decide what to take out. Let me know what you think. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to need to do a fresh reread of the article but I suspect we're close to, if not ready, to pass. I hope to do that reread today but apologize if it slips a day or so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

has raised some concerns on Rachel's user talk page: The subject has exceptionally contentious views, but only some of them are dealt with in the article. For example, about Obama he wrote: "Having been anointed from the start of his career because he was that magical combination—a black man who talks like a white man (that's what they mean by calling him 'articulate' and a 'great speaker')—he has never had to work for a living, and he has never had to struggle to accomplish goals." You don't mention that. You mention some of his other negative views about Obama in a section called "American politics". But that racism doesn't have anything to do with American politics. The word "racism" isn't in the article. There's a New York magazine article about his views that isn't used as a source. You've added BYU to the lead. You've made his views of gay marriage slightly less prominent in the lead than before. They should probably be addressed before promoting the article. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, links to the discussion going on on Rachel's talk page and COIN, just to be thorough and make sure any concerns raised in either place are addressed here before promotion. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to the New York article mentioned above, there is also "Orson Scott Card Is Officially the Most Racist Sci-Fi Author". Vice. The primary source for the Obama remarks—that is, when Card writes "a black man who talks like a white man (that's what they mean by calling him 'articulate' and a 'great speaker')"—is at ornery.org, which is cited once in the article.I feel uncomfortable about this GAN review. If it's passed, it could be nominated for DYK. Putting someone on the main page with these homophobic and white-supremacist views would be unfortunate, and arguably harmful to BYU. I also wonder why Rachel moved a link to the university into the lead if BYU didn't request this and knows nothing about it, as Nihonjoe has said. It isn't standard practice to include in the lead of a BLP where the subject completed their undergraduate degree. SarahSV (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi SarahSV, in including BYU in the lead, I was just trying to summarize the page, which includes Card's education at BYU for part of his high school and university education. I agree that it isn't a requirement for a lead section. However, since his writing career started with him writing plays that were performed at BYU, I felt it was relevant to his background as an author. I frequently referenced Ursula K. Le Guin's page when organizing this page, and I noticed that her lead section doesn't reference her undergraduate education. However, her writing career started later in her life, which is one possible reason it's not in her lead section. To be perfectly transparent with everyone involved in this page's review, I am quitting my job and will stop working on Wikipedia at some point (though I hope to train my successor). I don't want to nominate it for DYK if it's just going to cause a big argument and then a bunch of "helpful" edits on the day it's on the frontpage. The essay you mentioned is actually mentioned on his page under "themes - American politics." A previous RfC concluded that the page should not use the word "racist." See Talk:Orson_Scott_Card/Archive_5 Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, this would be a difficult article to write well. The views he expressed in the 2013 essay are very offensive (particularly "that magical combination—a black man who talks like a white man (that's what they mean by calling him 'articulate' and a 'great speaker'"). It was first published in the Rhino Times; see issuu.com. He says he's just kidding about the Hitler scenario, but he also says "like a good fiction writer, I made sure this scenario fit the facts we already have—the way Obama already acts ..." etc. So was he being ironic, was it parody? Hard to know how to summarize it. The writing and structure could use some improvement. The lead is poorly structured. Early life and education would probably make more sense in the next section. There are two "homosexuality" subheadings. The writing is odd in places, e.g. "Card read texts that included historical novels .... He credits Tunesmith by Lloyd Biggle Jr. as having a large effect on his life. "Read texts that included" should be rewritten. "Large effect on his life" should be clarified. He is not a professor of English. He teaches creative writing and may have been given "professor" as a title, but he's not an academic.His name is repeated too often: Card did this, Card did that. Make more use of pronouns. Also too many subject-verb-object sentences. Mix your sentence structure up a bit more.I want to say something about your training your successor, but I'll post this for now. SarahSV (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I added another two sentences about the Obama essay. Does that address your problems with that paragraph? I restructured the lead in the way I think you described. We created another "homosexuality" section because it made sense to us to discuss homosexuality in Card's work under "themes". Do you think this should be combined with discussion of his stated views? I'm aware that the sentence structure is a bit boring, which is why I submitted the page to the guild of copyeditors (the copyedit was completed before the GA review). While it would definitely improve the page for me to vary the sentence structure, this isn't a criteria of GA. If you would like to discuss ideas of how to train my successor, I recommend using my talk page. 17:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging SarahSV, since the previous post didn't have a complete sig and the ping might not have worked. Also pinging reviewer Barkeep49, since they are the one who will ultimately need to decide on the review result, and they haven't posted since this thread was started. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been monitoring but was trying to avoid a too many cooks in the kitchen situation. Thanks for fixing the ping though. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thanks for the ping. I've asked around about which pages are authoritative descriptions of the WiR programme. Apparently it's understood that WiRs should not promote the institution or staff (or, as in this case, alumni).See Wikimedian in residence/Creating a Wikimedian in Residence position: "Typically WIR positions should not be writing content, such as Wikipedia articles, for the institution as their main activity. Instead these roles focus on integrating existing content from partner institutions (i.e. datasets and digitized collections) and facilitating volunteer engagement with institutional materials and topics of interest."Also WP:GLAM/About: "GLAM editors should be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline, and should not use their editing privileges to promote, but rather to bring the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public."As for the writing, it's not just a question of varying the sentence structure. Re: the quote about Obama, it should be quoted properly, including "that magical combination".I'm going to leave it there. WiRs are not supposed to promote their institutions. Trying to have people connected to BYU appear on the main page via GAN then DYK is promotional. SarahSV (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to promote an article about BYU, but about Orson Scott Card. Yes, he is an alumnus, but my main interest in his page stems from the fact that we hold his manuscript collection. In doing so, I believe I "share the knowledge of [my] institution" as described on meta. In using library databases and ILL privileges to improve the article, I am bringing "the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public." The WP:GLAM/About page was originally written by a WMF employee, Alex Stinson. However, he alone does not decide what my job description is or how I am allowed to interact with Wikipedia. I believe that the contributions of WiRs to Wikipedia through editing are for the most part, very positive and aligned with WMF policies. As I mentioned on my talk page, I'm resigning my position. I have one other page I would like to finish before I leave (in my sandbox2 on Mormon foodways). I won't be nominating the OS Card page for DYK, if that is any comfort to you, however, I believe that WiRs should be able to nominate their new pages for DYK as they have in the past. It provides more rigorous review of new pages than the new page patrol. Of course, if there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors about restricting my individual editing or those of WiRs in general, I will participate in the discussion and abide by its conclusions. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rachel, editors have expressed concern since 2016 about the editing of you and your colleagues (one example). You kept brushing people off, and for the most part they couldn't be bothered to pursue it (because they weren't being paid to do so), so the situation continued as though nothing had been said., please consider closing this GAN. It has been open since June, which is highly unusual. The subject has expressed contentious views about same-sex relationships and about black people or racism. This is a BLP, so these issues ought to be written up and placed by editors with no dog in the fight. It is difficult to know how to do that well (in the lead or not? where in the article, how to express it, etc). SarahSV (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I were to close it now I would be more likely to pass it than fail it. I see no consensus the Rachel, as a WiR, should not be editing this article. I see you and several others expressing concern for sure but I do not see a consensus. As to this article, I share your concerns about appropriate balance being paid to a prominent person who has made controversial (and, speaking personally, several times distasteful) comments. This is why I took the backseat to see if you could offer specific suggestions, in the spirit of GA, which would improve this article. If you're not interested in doing so, fair enough. But in that case I will be attempting to finish this up soon as I think Rachel has just about addressed the points I made and has done so in a way that suggests this article meets the GA criteria, including criteria 4 (. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish I had thought to ask for your views on COI/PAID editing when I saw you standing for ArbCom, but I took my eye off that ball a few years ago and didn't even think to ask. Your response is disappointing in several ways. On 2 December you wrote: "I'm going to need to do a fresh reread of the article but I suspect we're close to, if not ready, to pass." This was the "American politics" section at the time. Read it, then look at the actual essay and the sources. Google them, rather than looking for them in the article. Would you say that paragraph is a fair summary of how (there is no word) that essay is and the sources' response? Should the views about gay sex be in the lead and not the racism? That's a tricky question and I can't see you discussing it anywhere. Why are there two subheads called "homosexuality"? Is that the right term to use even once, never mind twice in a heading and once in the lead? Those are just a few of the issues. SarahSV (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns about me, I would welcome a discussion on my talk page, but I have been trying to keep things focused on the content of this article here and so I have refrained from expressing my views about you or others here. As to the content concerns you bring up, I had rather hoped that you and Rachel, in the spirit of GA, would be able to work together to resolve them and thus had been holding off the re-read. As that seems off the table I will indeed do my re-read in the next day or so, keeping in mind your thoughts expressed here, as well as the concerns I've previously raised about presenting a neutral point of view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)