Talk:Román Oyarzun Oyarzun

of interest to specific audience tag
Have removed the "interest to specific audience" tag. I think history is one of the most popular topics searched on WP, there are few subjects of WP which are of more of interest to "general audience" than history (like entertainment, sports, celebs, politics). But this is not the point. The point is that there are no quantitative criteria as to what makes an article "of interest to specific audience" and "excessively detailed"; hence, the decision is made on a relative basis. And this is where some minimum consistency when gauging what is „of interest to specific audience” is needed.

I have compared this article to a number of others, presented on the WP front page as featured articles, „the best articles Wikipedia has to offer”, having in mind the question of „excessive detail”, „inclusion policy”, „relevant information” and „interest to specific audience”. Most of these featured articles are double and some are almost triple the size of Oyarzun, almost all (perhaps except Poulens) refer to hardly known subjects and contain passages hardly understandable to anyone not familiair with the area in question. Please note that I am not comparing the Oyarzun article to any non-tagged article. I am comparing the Oyarzun article to „the best Wikipecia has to offer”, the cream of the cream. These featured articles demonstrate how a good WP article should look like. And I would invite you to inspect these articles, gauge their level of detail and reflect whether extensive passages from these articles are of interest to general audience.

I do not expect to get the Oyarzun article splashed on the front page as a featured one and „the best WP has to offer”, which would probably indeed require a lot of polishing. What I expect is applying some minimum consistency. Please note that I do not object to inserting detailed information quoted below in featured articles; actually, I enjoyed this „excessive detail” about pyjamas, magnetic flux and rococo divertissements; it was both a pleasure and an informative experience to read that sort of entries even though I do not belog to a „specific audience” which developed interest in 12th-century history of Scotland, US basketball, Yugoslav army dispositions, sub-breeds of metal rock or properties of stellar photosphere. This is fine with me. But I am uneasy about splasing as a featured article a 4,400-word entry on a North American basketball player (one of hundreds already in WP) and tagging a 3,100-word article on perhaps one of the 3 best known historians of a 200-year-old political movement.

--Dd1495 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think a major problem with this article is that many references (if not most) are from Oyarsun himself : No_original_research. CaféBuzz (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)