Talk:Tony Parker/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article is in general a very good piece of work, but there is one issue that needs to be addressed.
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is OK, perhaps 6/10.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I hate to bring this up, but I believe there was a big furore in certain magazines earlier this year discussing whether Parker had had an affair. I do not know or care if the stories were true, but as the incident recieved widespread coverage, it should be reflected in the personal life section of the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks for the review. I've left the reply on your talk -- in a nutsehll, I don't think the lack of mention of the purported affair per se warrants a fail. Secondly, I look forward to credible sources that mention the affair. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussion

 * The following is a talk page exchange between Chensiyuan and jackyd101 discussing this issue

Hi. We've met before, re: GAR for Cesc Fabregas. I notice you failed the Tony Parker article in one of the GA taskforce sweeps. As far as I can tell, the sole basis of the failure is the zero-mention of his purported affair. I cannot agree to this as a basis for failure on at least two counts.

First, nobody has ever come forward with a credible source. Sure, WP may say it's not concerned with "truth" and as long as a verifiable and credible source says he might have had the affair, we're good. But nobody has even come forward with a credible source -- you can see that from the article's edit history. To my mind, the fact that reputable news agencies and other legitimate sources of news have not made a real issue of it tells me that the evidence is thin (see also google results here andhere). In other words, I don't think WP should facilitate rumour mongering. If not, every single allegation against a celebrity that is picked up by a couple of mags has to be reported by WP.

Second, how can an article fail just because it does not mention what is, comparatively, a minor aspect of the biography? Even if someone can find a legitimate source that talks about his alleged affair, it was really a tiny ripple in the pond, a hoo-ha that came and left in a matter of weeks (cf. maybe someone like Beckham's). I will imagine that if the affair is true his wife would have come out and responded. But that is not WP's business anyway. I'm just talking about weight here.

Overall, I appreciate the fact that you reviewed the article again as part of an project seeking to keep GA standards. But the overall fail, absent of legitimate reasons, showed poor judgment. Regards, Chensiyuan (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * jackyd101's response

Hi, thanks for your note on my talk page. Firstly, I'd like to point out that the article has not failed. I have reviewed it and placed it on hold pending improvement or discussion. This hold is scheduled to last seven days, but could last longer if required. it would only be failed if the issue I raised is not satisfactorily dealt with by then. Secondly, if I had failed it, you could take it to WP:GAR to appeal my desicion and gain wider consensus, so my word is far from final.

To address your specific points, this story (in Britain at least) was covered by a wide range of tabloids and gossip magazines. These publications are, you are correct, hardly the most reliable but they are widely read. People will come to wikipedia seeking information based on what they read in these publications precisely because Wikipedia can provide a neutral account of the event. Thus I am not for a second advocating that Wikipedia accuse Tony Parker of having an affair, but instead the biography include something like "In December 2007, stories emerged in tabloid newspapers that Tony Parker had been having an extra-martial affair with Alexandra Paressant, a French model. Both Parker and Longoria vehemently denied these allegations through their spokespeople, saying 'All high profile couples fall victim to these sorts of things in the course of their relationships. It appears that this is not the first time this woman has used an athlete to gain public notoriety.' Parker began a $20 million dollar lawsuit against the website that first spread the news, which later issued a complete retraction and an apology, saying 'X17online.com and X7 [sic], Inc. regret having been misled by Ms. Paressant and her representatives and apologize to Mr. Parker for any damage or inconvenience this may have caused him or his wife.'" This type of brief coverage clearly illustrates the facts of the case (including the all important fact that the allegations were invented) in a neutral way so that when people curious about the story come to Wikipedia they will be able to find out what actually happened. I strongly believe that coverage of this event is important in the context of the article - sports stars are as much celebrities as television actors and thus their personal lives are very much in the media spotlight. This means that these stories will attact people to Wikipedia eager to discover more about this incident and in presenting a sourced, neutral version of what actually happened, wikipedia can fulfill this audience in a simple and factual way. Hopefully this has answered your questions and please note that I haven't failed the article, I've just posted notice that I do not think it is comprehensive. Given that someone is interested in discussing this issue, I am unlikely to fail it at all (I never have yet). I will post your query to me and this reply on the review if you have no objections.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
The above suggested section is now in the article and thus I am happy to pass this immediately.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)