Talk:Toilet paper orientation/GA1

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

Reviewer:  SilkTork  *YES! 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This should be good. My second wife had a thing about hanging the loo paper the correct way (dropping away from the wall), which I've picked up! Be good to read some analysis and history of this social absurdity!  SilkTork  *YES! 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * In my experience, it's the norm to refer to the columnist as Ann Landers. It's not a universal convention, but it's easily in the majority. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , "Ann Landers column" - 845,000 results - "Ann Landers" - 170,000 results - "advice columnist Ann Landers" - 207,000 results. Not an exhaustive search, but indications are that it may not be majority usage. Where appropriate it can be useful to give more information, and to clarify where there is potential for mistakes - I think it's more useful to clarify for those who haven't heard of this column that the name applies to the column not the person. Not a big issue, just something that would be useful.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The name refers to both. If it's not a big issue it's not a big issue, but if necessary I'll go through the cited references and offer quotes. Melchoir (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have concerns over WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA regarding the inclusion of celebrity preferences, particularly those that can't reasonably be considered "expert opinions" as well. Triona (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the topic of toilet paper orientation, there is no privileged class of "expert opinions". Everyone is an expert, and I just added a citation saying so. These are simply the people whose opinions have been published by the media. Melchoir (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * The double reference section is a relatively recent change; this is what it looked like before. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is easier to use and more helpful for readers.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree:
 * It artifically increases the number of footnotes, which makes the prose harder to read, and artifacts like "[20][21][22][23]" just look silly.
 * It makes citations to Burns or to Poretz & Sinrod after the first citation choose between a short citation and a full citation. But a short citation is inconsistent, which is bad, and a full citation is redundant.
 * The old format conflated the page range of the footnote and the page range of the source.
 * The lack of alphabetization made it difficult to tell that some authors were cited mulitple times in separate works.
 * Finally, the large amount of inline markup made editing the prose difficult, which is important when you consider that most people who hit the Edit link are trying to edit the prose, not the references.
 * The double references have their own disadvantages, but these are less serious:
 * It increases space, but space in the endmatter is less important than the formatting of the body. And we can afford the pixels.
 * An extra click isn't great, but it doesn't make it harder to follow a citation; it makes the process take a couple extra seconds. Melchoir (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * I have free access to Factiva through my local public library's website, using a number on the back of my library card (which was also free). You might be able to get in through a library yourself. Or WikiProject Resource Exchange might help. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Celebrities I could see in a daughter summary-style article. Related issues is tricky... the original idea was for it to take the place of a "See also" section with verifiable connections. It is similar to "Context and relevance". One difference: the first section makes connections to issues that are related in their social function, while the last section makes connections to issues that are related in their physical form. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Or, come to think of it, the detail for each celebrity could be moved into a footnote. The body of the section would then be a couple paragraphs of comma-separated names. Melchoir (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the celebrities' views would make an appropriate stand alone article, so I am not supporting that. I also remain unconvinced why we need the opinion of any celebrity on the matter, let alone a whole bunch of them. A summary that people have a difference of opinion on the matter is appropriate, and a reliable source that has looked at the different views and produced that summary would be what we should be looking for. A subject in which people have a difference of opinion is God, and that article deals with the matter in an appropriate manner. A series of quotes from celebrities in that article would be as inappropriate as it is here - it is reducing this topic to something humorous, which would be an individual point of view. Let us have the views of sociologists not Marge Simpson!  SilkTork  *YES! 10:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The section provides more information than the celebrities' opinions. It also provides information on how they phrase their opinions -- which is not a trivial matter for a topic with no unified language -- and what reasons they give. And it provides information about the media: who is likely to ask this question, and whom do they ask? We can and do summarize the mere existence of different opinions, but we cannot summarize this additional data without performing a synthesis and violation WP:NOR.
 * I don't understand the comment that quotations make the treatment humorous, or that coverage of celebrities and sociologists are somehow exclusive. Melchoir (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that regarding related issues, that Morton Ann Gernsbacher's comments in Context and relevance cover quite adequately the main principles of Related issues, and so the Related issues section is not needed, and like the celebrities section, is likely to pull the article in an inappropriate direction. While there is clearly a light-hearted aspect to the topic, the treatment should in itself be neutral and sober.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Related issues" wasn't intended to assert any principles; it's like a "See also" section but with explanations and citations. In lieu of such a section, I suppose the material currently there could be integrated elsewhere: possibly other toilet practices into "Survey results", domestic strife wherever that's discussed (currently "Solutions"), and other everyday objects into the geometry in "Preliminaries". Again, though, I don't understand what's not "neutral and sober". Melchoir (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and that's what I did in these edits. Melchoir (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial read through and I found the article quite entertaining and reasonably informative. I did, however, find it lighter both in tone and content than I had hoped. While there is much here in terms of wordage, I find some of the content - such as the related content and the list of celebrities' opinions - to be not essential. There is also the tricky question of OR, as I have just done a quick search for "Toilet paper orientation" and found nothing significant on the topic. The best source appears to be Burns' article in the Teaching Sociology magazine. The topic does have enough general commentary to pass GNG - it is the question of how the material is to be assembled that I am raising as a talking point. I would have thought that there would be more material on this topic, and will continue to do some research. I can remember reading articles on this matter some years ago - I'll see if I can find them. I remember reasonably serious discussion on the toilet paper orientation being linked to class and to matters such as U and non-U English. I'll do a bit of research and background reading, and in the next few days give clearer indications of what I feel the article would need to pass GA.
 * Yeah, unfortunately, there isn't exactly a coherent body of literature on this topic. One symptom of this problem is that the topic itself doesn't have a common name, as far as I can tell. The phrase "toilet paper orientation" is meant as a succinct description of the topic, rather than a claim that the phrase is widely used.
 * I don't think the sources are synthesized to advance a position. It's certainly a danger in such situations, but I think the danger has been avoided to this point.
 * Reasonably serious discussion -- sounds promising! Good luck! Melchoir (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes "toilet paper position" is also used, and then there's "toilet roll" and "lavatory paper" as alternatives. However, I feel that Toilet paper orientation is clear and neutral, and appears to have wide use. But the naming issue aside, it is gathering information on the topic that is problematic without existing reliable sources that deal with it directly as a topic rather than in passing. The topic is known, so is appropriate to be dealt with on Wikipedia, what is not known is how to deal with it as an encyclopaedia entry. We don't have a model on which to base the presentation of information about the topic, and so need to be careful that we are not creating a bigger notability for the subject than it already holds. There are issues to think about given Wikipedia's influence.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If readers try to infer notability by counting an article's footnotes, then they will be confused. Is that your concern? Melchoir (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime some thought could be given to:


 * reducing the celebrities' opinions,
 * incorporating the related issues into the first section,
 * increasing readability and flow,
 * and to perhaps making the reference sections more user friendly and compact.

Everything is open to discussion and negotiation, and I welcome nudges on my talkpage for matters that I may be neglecting. My views on the GA process and how I usually proceed are here.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A few interesting books I turned up when researching:


 * Which Way Do I Hang the Toilet Paper???
 * Unfortunately that book is self-published. Other self-published sources I rejected: . Melchoir (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ladies and gents: public toilets and gender
 * Toilet Paper Origami
 * Toilet Roll Covers

There's a fair bit of information on where to position the toilet paper holder, and types of holder as well.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is there any information on over/under in the last three? Or are you suggesting background material on the kind of holder that creates the issue? Melchoir (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a category for toilet paper - Category:Toilet paper - which contains this cute article Hotel toilet-paper folding.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On hold
I like the article, though there are a couple of issues which need to be dealt with before it meets GA criteria.


 * Focus. The article needs to be more clearly focused on the topic. The views of celebrities, and related issues could be cut, and a general tightening so that material such as that on Tilt-A-Roll and the Amundsen-Scott research station is reduced.
 * MoS - the lead could be built up per WP:Lead
 * The presentation of the references is a matter of taste, and the current presentation is not against GA criteria; though the previous method used by the article may be more helpful to the general reader.
 * There is a strong reliance on newspaper items. I would like to see, if possible, better quality sources. I am uncomfortable passing this as reliably sourced at the moment. Some solid sources treating this topic more directly would be very helpful.
 * What action would you like to see taken to address this concern? Melchoir (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stable. I feel the dispute is over, though waiting a little longer doesn't hurt.

I'm putting the article on hold for seven days to allow the above matters to be addressed or discussed.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm suddenly a little busy this week... I've left a few comments, and hopefully I'll get to the rest soon. On the article itself, I would like to try improving the lead and changing some of the bullet lists, but I can't promise any particular timetable. :-) Melchoir (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll extend this to the end of the month, and pop back then. Give me a ping or email me if there's something you'd like me to look at in the meantime.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A few comments
I've superficially checked all the references and they mostly check out (i.e. the links go where the citation suggests they go, the resulting source is or appears to be the one cited, and the cited information plausibly appears to be supported by the sources). The only exceptions were the following, one of which had been removed from Factiva and the other seems to be a different article than what is intended?
 * Elliott, Carson (11 June 2006), "The proper thing: Position places so that meat is closest to diner, unless dishes display pictures", Augusta Chronicle: p. G02, Factiva AGCR000020060809e26b00004
 * That's really strange. At least I saved a copy. Melchoir (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeld, John (31 March 2010), "SMS feedback – March 31, 2010", Cape Argus, Factiva MEWCAP0020100401e63v00011, "A British loo paper manufacturer investigated whether it was more economical to run loo paper over the top or draw it from below. From below was the verdict."
 * That's the right ID, although it too seems to have been removed. Melchoir (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

For GA criteria my assessment would be that the lede needs work, and it fails the guidelines on list incorporation in the Noted preferences section; which seems like a trivia section in disguise. As a first cut on the lists I'd suggest removing all the listings for people who didn't say anything interesting enough to bother quoting, and then to further prune fictional characters (i.e. Marge Simpson). For the remainder an attempt should be made to incorporate it into the prose (not necessarily in that section, but possibly spread around where it makes sense); and leave at most 3–5 items in each list, and each entry in the lists should represent some unique point or view. Ideally the lists should be eliminated altogether. Note though that with relatively minor improvement to this area I would say the issue would be sufficiently borderline, and the GA criteria sufficiently lax, that this would not, in my opinion, be enough on its own to preclude the article from passing GA.
 * Minor updates: Marge Simpson was removed from "Noted preferences" here and re-added to "Context and relevance" here. Melchoir (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

For FA on the other hand, I would have wanted significant improvement to the prose—phrasings like “What surprises some observers, including advice columnist Ann Landers, is the extent to which people hold strong opinions on such a trivial topic” just make me shudder—and I would be quite concerned about the direct links to specific services (specifically Google Books and Factiva). The latter are convenient for verifiability, but I am skeptical of such “preferential” (for lack of a better word) treatment of specific services, particularly ones with direct or indirect commercial interest. In that more stringent process I would also be somewhat worried about the potential for original research and novel synthesis, but nothing specific that I can put my finger on right now. Not that any of this is at all relevant for GA.

Anyways, just a few drive-by comments since I happened to have a look at the article. Hopefully you will find them useful in further improving the article. Quite a good read, a wonderfully whimsical topic, and perfect for Wikipedia. Kudos! --Xover (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those views which mainly echo mine. I am however still rather concerned about the sources, which, though they may support what is said in the article, are not in themselves either sufficiently reliable or deal sufficiently significantly with the topic. I have just been looking at an agony aunt opinion column of a local newspaper (Vernon Record) as a reliable source, which by itself is debatable; my main concern however is that the source is being used in conjunction with several others in order to create support for a generalised statement in the article. This is now knocking on the door of OR. Rather than the editor saying that some people hold one view while others hold another, I would like a source which says it. One reliable source which gives the summary, rather than the editor using what become several primary sources to make an interpretation.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a definite risk of novel synthesis here, but one would need to conduct a fairly thorough review of the sources versus the article text to determine whether such is in fact the case. Problematic synthesis is usually discovered in content disputes over specific points or passages, when such problems become fairly obvious. Discovering them in general for an entire article is… quite a bit of work. Perhaps the nominator, who is far more familiar with the sources, could take a critical look at the article with an eye towards finding any potential trouble spots? --Xover (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SilkTork: the Vernon Daily Record reference is from Annie's Mailbox, a nationally syndicated column. And the statement "Over is generally the intended direction of viewing for the manufacturer's branding, so patterned toilet paper looks better this way. " isn't a synthesis or interpretation; those four sources all make the same point. I beg of you, for similar concerns in the future, please open the discussion by asking a question rather than delivering a judgement. It turns out that I'm a human being, and accusing me of policy violations takes a toll on my health that is (1) quite unnecessary and (2) harsher than I suspect you realize. Melchoir (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me Melchoir, I was making an observation on the article in relation to the GA review not making any accusations of you. I'm sorry you have been hurt, that was not my intention at all. I do try to word my observations in a neutral and often indirect manner, and to balance any negative points with positive ones. I would prefer that the process is an enhancing one, and to that end I encourage discussion on points, as I am aware that there is a fair degree of interpretation. I am having difficulties with some aspects of the article, and one of those is that an accumulation of individual sources to deliver an overall viewpoint makes it appear as though Wikipedia (better word than editor) is delivering that overall viewpoint rather than the sources. The term "editor" wasn't meant to reflect on any individual, but on the entity behind the article - which is all of us working here at Wikipedia, myself included. I appreciate how you could have been hurt by that remark, and I again apologise and assure you that was never my intention.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that! :-) Melchoir (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

End of the month
Well, August is ending. I've come around to agree with some of the principles expressed above, so here's what I think could be done before the next GAN:
 * Juggle the material in "Arguments" to remove the list style. Possibly incorporate quotes from the sources attesting these arguments. Add a short discussion of friction. Incorporate the last remaining external link to CurrentConfig.com.
 * Move details on methods in Georgia-Pacific surveys to footnotes; take the opportunity to remove list style.
 * Expand Themes with Burns as much as possible.
 * Expand on marriages in "As a problem".
 * Expand Rocky Hutson to be closer (but not equal) to Curtis Batts. If necessary, consider splitting out Batts into a new article.
 * Rearrange "Noted preferences" by type, starting with advice columnists; discuss professions asked by the media; export uncategorized opinions to other relevant areas of the article. Find another home for Klorolle, perhaps a new article.
 * Expand lead section to reflect above changes.

Please feel free to fail the article. When the above items are done, likely by me, it'll be renominated. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I love the CurrentConfig.com link! (I'm probably biased anyway, as I am an over person.)
 * I think this can be made to meet GA criteria, though, as you note above, there is a bit of work and thought involved. There is also a temptation to be flippant and trivial because of the nature of the topic, and I feel that should be resisted as there is an interesting sociological aspect to this topic that could be diminished. Over reliance on tongue-in-cheek sources such as CurrentConfig.com, on magazine opinion columns, and on quotes from celebrities, reduces the topic, as does using cute images of kittens pulling on toilet paper.
 * I will close it as you suggest. Good luck with future development.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)