Talk:Wildwood (novel)/GA2

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

Procedural close: Nominator meant to request a GA reassessment, rather than open an individual reassessment. GA request has now been added and the page will soon be listed at WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for reassessment
The most serious problems with the GA status of Wildwood (novel) are: 1) It was promoted by an editor who is the primary author of the article. 2) The article now fails WP:Verifiability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are confused, as I have only copyedited this article as a reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The ugly long version
It's the right of any editor to boldly overhaul any article. But you can't be a major contributor to an article and simultaneously be an impartial reviewer. Either commit to see through the review process to the end, and then once done (pass or fail) you could, if you wish, boldly edit away. Or request a second reviewer take over, and edit to your heart's content. Since it was promoted to GA by the same editor who wrote most of it, Wildwood (novel) should be delisted, and an uninvolved editor should carry out a new and independent GA review.

started out in the role of GA reviewer, making suggestions for small edits and judging whether the article met the GA criteria or not. Near the end of the process, almost all criteria were met, except for the plot summary and the lead. I made revisions in those two areas as suggested, and as of this version of Wildwood the article met Viriditas's criticisms and more than met the GA criteria. Any reasonable person should have passed the article at this point, completing the task of GA reviewer. Viriditas even commented that the review was nearly ready to close, within 12 hours.

Without warning or explanation Viriditas undertook a total revision of the article. The result was a different article whose primary author was Viriditas. Had the new article at least met WP:V, that would have been acceptable, even if it was unnecessary. But at that point Viriditas should have quit being the reviewer and asked somebody else to pass or fail the GA.

Besides this subversion of the GA review process, the new version of the article fails verifiability. I will refrain for the moment from a point-by-point criticism, but essentially the problem is that the new version is all style, with no regard for the sources. Viriditas has not read the book, and I strongly suspect has not read and listened to the third party sources (text, audio and video), even though most are online. For example, the lead now ignores the fact that every substantial review had major reservations about the book. All but one review was positive, on balance, but the consensus was that there are significant flaws. Anyone who was thoroughly familiar with the sources would make this clear in the lead, where it belongs. Viriditas's reasons for this deletion are apparently only stylistic; a need to make the article fit some imagined template for what good Wikipedia writing looks like, and delete words he has a peevish dislike for. That's not totally unacceptable, but verifiability is more important than style.On style grounds, it makes no sense to utterly disregard Manual of Style/Novels and restructure the article sections in a way that is different for the sake of being different. It certainly wasn't necessary to meet the GA criteria. Why do that?I have to emphasize how baffled I am by what has happened here. Viriditas is clearly a seasoned editor and must have a grasp of how to check facts, and must understand the spirit of independent review. Yes, one may rewrite articles based on one's whim; that is allowed. But why, in this case? Why subvert a GA nomination in this way? And even worse, why change an accurate article into a misleading, inaccurate article for no clear reason except 'I just don't like it'? It's great to revise according to rote formulas like Writing better articles, all else being equal. But fact-checking must take precedence: WP:V is a core principle of Wikipedia, and pleasing style is not. If you are unfamiliar with the sources, you should edit lightly and AGF that the editor who read the sources chose their phrasing because it was accurate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's ridiculous. I explained my edits on the review page.  Sounds like you are very upset that someone edited "your" article. Your continued accusations are both unfounded and silly and show continuing issues with ownership. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could have predicted that WP:OWN would have been trotted out as the catch all justification for "let me do what I want and if you complain, you're acting like you own the article." The core problem is not that you edited the article. It's that you didn't recuse yourself as reviewer once the article became more your work than anybody else's. Everyone has a right to edit. But not everyone is qualified to review every article -- I'm not qualified because of my involvement with Wildwood. You disqualified yourself once you rewrote the entire article. Your right to edit is distinct from your fitness to be a GA reviewer of your own writing. The verifiability questions will resolve themselves once fact-checked by an independent editor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. You wrote the article.  I cleaned it up and moved content around.  Could you please point to specific issues with verifiability and fact checking?  Is there something you wrote that doesn't hold up? By asking for a reassessment, you are asking that the article should be failed, not passed. I'm open to revisiting the review, and I've previously responded to your concens by changing it.  Can you please be very specific, here? I have a feeling you are going to ask questions I've already given you answers to, and you will keep asking them until you get the answers you prefer.  Please assume that editors are here to help, not to harm.  I passed the article after making numerous copyedits to the lead and plot section, and resolving issues with the content focus and layout.  Please point to specific issues in the current article that demand attention.  Number them in a list if you have to, but be clear about the problem.  Don't keep talking about me or your anger with me for editing "your" article.  Just address the content. And please do that on the article talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't ANI, and I'm not here to prosecute you for your conduct. I want to ensure that the GA review process isn't subverted by editors who act as self-reviewers. If you're right then an uninvolved editor will no doubt agree with you that the article should be listed as a GA. All I can do is ask that they do a careful fact check, and then I leave it up to them to decide. I'm not sure there is anything for you to object to -- the GAR process is automatic. An editor requests review, and a new reviewer carries out the review. What is there to debate? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read closer. If you have identified any errors, inaccuracies, or issues that need addressing, discuss them on the talk page so that interested editors can fix them.  You are also welcome to edit the aricle to make any needed changes.  Wikipedia is a revision control system, not a personal website or blog. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment
I received notification of this GAR with this edit. I don't recall doing any editing on this article. Please enumerate specific reasons why this article does not meet the GA criteria - there is nothing that seems to be amiss with it. IO don't think that a nominator can conduct an individual reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, I added the GAR template here. It now has this code at the top: . Is there something else needed to make the bot work right? I don't want to conduct the reassessment myself. I'm trying to request an uninvolved, third party editor to reassess the article. For reasons stated in far more detail than should be necessary above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you have two options:
 * request a community reassessment
 * place a GA request template on the talk page.
 * At present you have opened an individual assessment, and if you don't wish to proceed with it, the existing template should be removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I added GA request. Thanks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)