Talk:Paul Ryan/OldGA

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I will begin review shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. —Eustress talk 05:58, 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. —Eustress talk 06:26, 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, EG(talk) 06:54, 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. —Eustress talk 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that Amadscientist should step aside as the reviewer. --Rschen7754 07:21, 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 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: "[Y]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)
 * Um, am I right in thinking that in the week before that seven day period you made 50 edits to the article? Fayedizard (talk) 09:02, 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)
 * Amadscientist, thank you for doing this. We're lucky to have a reviewer at all: has anyone here made a GA nomination that languished for lack of reviewers? Wikipedia used to have an interminable backlog. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:30, 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. [A]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.
 * I am disapointed that I have lost your confidence over an issue you see as a red flag. I am correct in the "prior" having meaning of narrowing the "significance" but, that is to make the distinction between the reviewer's work during the review, as to make it clear the reviewer may contribute to the article to make changes themselves. It is not a designation of a period of time before the review, but the overall contribution of the reviewer. However, I do not feel 54 total edits is significant in this case. I cearly have backed away and edit count is not what this is about but, "Contribution". My overall contributions to the article before the review began are not significant. I am not an "involved" participant in what goes on the page and I am not engaged in a contentious discussion. I have not begun the review, even though I feel I have strongly demonstrated that I have not violated even the spirit of GAN process or the guideline. I am not refusing to step down. The discussion just hadn't persuaded me that I should withdraw voluntarily yet and I believe this should be given some time. The nominator has not objected and no one has actually even come forward, volunteering to take over the review. I realize this has become a concern. I am here to do a good faith review of the Paul Ryan article for Wikipedia. That's all. I will not start the review until this has been decided one way or another.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've got to say that "prior" implies "anytime prior" not "recently prior" though I agree it could mean either in context. I don't think you doing the GA review is appropriate. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. If you're going to reply, at least read the post before yours when you click save.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you planning on getting this decided some way other than asking for folk's opinions? I supplied mine. I don't think you doing the GA review is appropriate.  If you had another way forward for this decision to be made please explain.  Hobit (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Amadscientist, you may be an excellent editor with incisive views on how to improve the article. But if nothing else, you are demonstrating that you lack the listening skills to be a good reviewer. Multiple people are telling you that they don't feel it's appropriate, and you keep responding essentially "that's just your opinion". Even if you were 100% right about policy, your personal blind spot about how you're looking to others would hamper your ability to lead this review. Step down. Now. Your stubbornness is not helping this article get reviewed any faster. Homunq (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think this was handled in the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe it was a crucible and demands were made on my talkpage for me to submit to consesus for a GAN talkpage complaint that had not yet had time to be fully decided. If there was to be a consensus in the true spirit of Wikipedia it would NOT have been rushed and would have had the patience to wait until enough time had passed to say that the discussion should close and then we would see what the consensus was regardless. With such unclear guidelines I find it odd that people are allowed to use their personal opinion to form the basis of the argument, but my just defending my actions was just another excuse to template an editor. Remember, I didn't file the complaints, it was one editor. This might well have been handled in a completely different manner but all that happened is one editor got impatient and just moved the page to delist it himself against policy and guidelines after admitting there is nothing in place to remove an editor from reviewing. Didn't even wait to make a closing on the complaint at the GAN talkpage and, funny that I am accused of not understanding policy but even after being told some three seperate times that AN/I was not the place for the issue...some editors kept trying to vote me out in some public display of shame. I know that many of those editors voting at the GAN talkpage were aware of what I expected. Just a closing of the talkpage discussion with a formed consensus....but that was too much to expect.


 * I encourage everyone to support the new reviewer and contribute to improving the article. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify a few points, as the editor who dealt with this: I specifically said there is no "set in stone" procedure as to how removing a reviewer is generally done. I never said that there was no procedure at all. Look in the WT:GAN archives, specifically Oakley77 and TeacherA; Wizardman has had to step in a few times and G6 some pages. Secondly, ANI is not an AFD. It has no minimum time limit. Once a consensus is obvious, the decision is enacted by an admin. You don't even have to wait for the purple closing tags; those generally were not used that much before January of this year. You refused to listen to consensus here, and unfortunately, drastic measures had to be taken. --Rschen7754 04:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. You just couldn't wait and let a consensus happen. You had to make sure your truth on the issue was the final say regardless of the discussion. What I didn't listen to was the undertone of hostility and demands that I submit to an unofficial battle of wills. A complaint was made to the GA talkpage. A consensus was forming, but a AN/I was also made. There was no administrative action taken or felt needed and it was also stated that the ANI was not a jury. The AN/I was a secondary report and was not a basis for me not withdrawing alone. It was simply kicked back to the original talkpage and I was simply waiting for them to make the closing on consensus. What...you don't think there should be a closing on a controversial situation? You think nothing of taking such a drastic measure before consensus was formed and then accuse the other editor of it being "their fault" by not listening to consensus? I just need to live with consensus, I don't have to submit to intimidating and hostile talkpage demands. And nothing I did or expressed indicated I would not withdraw once the decision was made.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick, everyone. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

===Criteria===

 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

2
<li>:</li>

3
<li>:</li>

4
<li>.</li>

5
<li>.</li>

6
<li>:</li>

</ol>

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)
 * You see! This is precisely why an uninvolved editor is needed for the review. You say here that expanding the lead is a major issue, when we (you included) already discussed this at length and arrived at a consensus on the current version. —Eustress talk 21:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "begin collaboration with things that are obvious like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately" is not stating that i think it is a major issue and does not demonstrate an issue. The suggestion is to collaborate on things that are obvious. Uhm, obviously the lede can use more collaboration to expand it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional Notes
,