Talk:William Bedle/GA2

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

Conclusion: Fail
The bulk of this article is about cricket in England and the Dartford Club—an attempt to inductively elucidate the life and notability of Bedle. It may be frustrating that not much info about Bedle has survived, but that's no justification to pass this to GA. Plenty of articles don't attain GA status, not because info can't be found, but just because no independent sources can be found. Parenthetically, obituaries are historically overly gracious and quite subjective, so your claim that Bedle was "the most expert cricket player in England" is very suspect, and the fact that so little information about him can be located brings his notability into question.

You may feel this is another review that failed the article too easily, but when reviewers (especially two experienced reviewers) fail an article quickly, it's usually because something is fundamentally wrong with the article that prevents it from attaining GA status. I hope this is reasonable. --Eustress (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is not reasonable at all. May I ask some questions?
 * Why have you changed "inter-county" to "international"?
 * Sorry, thought it said "inter-country" -- reviewers aren't perfect, so don't get all worked up about it, just change it back. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why can't you spell "athletic" and why use this word instead of "cricket"?
 * Your first questions (why I can't spell) is a personal attack; regarding your second question, I believe cricket is a sport, an athletic event. If you want to argue that, fine, but that's not why you failed GAN. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What does "the which result" mean?
 * I don't recall, but it looks like you already took it out, so why ask? --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why have you requested a citation in the lead when this will duplicate one that is correctly given in the main body of the article?
 * Per WP:LEADCITE, citations may be duplicated in the lead if the text is controversial. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking for a citation about the five matches when these are outlined with citations in the very next paragraph?
 * This is personal preference (moving on to a new paragraph), but nothing to cry about. Just change it back. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that it is "my claim" that Bedle was "the most expert cricket player in England"?
 * I already explained this when referring to the nature of obituaries. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is your review based upon your opinion that the cited sources are "suspect" when in fact they are reputable and impeccable?
 * This is a loaded question, so doesn't merit a response. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you use obscure words like "inductively" and "parenthetically" which do not "elucidate" anything?
 * WP:PA again --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should the article not discuss cricket as it was played in Bedle's time and why should it ignore the club he played for?
 * It's not that it shouldn't but it's that it is the focus of the article since hardly anything about Bedle can be found. Does not meet GA criterion #3. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that "obituaries are historically overly gracious and quite subjective" when in fact they are verifiable sources that are no more "gracious" or subjective than autobiographies? What exactly is "suspect" about the cited statement that Bedle was "the most expert cricket player in England", bearing in mind that the original source is a contemporary newspaper?
 * I might be persuaded to agree with you on this point, but such a sensational claim should probably be supported by more than one source. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would the survival of more information justify passing the article to GA?
 * It wouldn't, nor would the fact that it has not survived. My point in stating that was to address your response to the first review: "The point of nominating this article was that WP:CRIC has a host of short articles on account of limited surviving data and I wanted to test the GAR process to see how it would cope." So are you doing this GAN as some kind of psychological experiment? --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that "no independent sources can be found" when the article cites no less than six? (Seven, now, as I have just added another).
 * I wasn't referring to this article, just drawing an analogy. Reread what I wrote. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you consider yourself to be an "experienced reviewer"?
 * Obviously you disagree. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The main purpose of having an article reviewed is to not to bag some prize but to seek improvement. If the article ends up getting a status award then all well and good.  Your review fails pitifully to help me improve the article and the silly errors you wantonly introduced, especially changing inter-county to international, actually made the article worse.  ---BlackJack | talk page 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm appalled at such a brazen, non-good-faith-assuming response from a senior editor. I'm sorry if I made minor errors in my altruistic edits (reviewers aren't perfect); however, I still feel that my review (and that of the first reviewer) were on the spot. --Eustress (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly I, as both a senior editor and (in the real world) a professional reviewer of technical material, am appalled that anyone can set themselves up as a reviewer on WP. There are many reasons why the site has a bad reputation in some quarters and cannot retain membership; certainly I know at least one ex-member who has commented that the review processes are a joke.
 * You have made no attempt to understand the scope or scale of the article and these must be your primary tasks as a reviewer. The scale is determined by the available data and the scope by what is relevant.  You have come on board with pre-conceived ideas, particularly the point about obituaries.  In your answer to my question about the obituaries issue, you have indicated that you have not looked at the list of reputable secondary sources which all agree with the primary source and have expanded the topic by reference to their analysis of the wider picture, which is what the article also attempts to achieve.  Instead, you have dismissed the primary source as "sensationalist" and have ignored the secondary sources.  I wonder what knowledge you have of the subject that enables you to adopt such a position?
 * I'm very interested in your response to one question that it is "loaded". Why not answer the question?  Why are the sources "suspect"?  Who are you to question the sources and use that as the basis of your refusal to perform a proper review (i.e., you have not used the GA criteria) and provide a reasoned rationale that may help to improve the article?
 * I seriously suggest that you should take time to learn how to perform reviews objectively and forget your pre-conceived ideas. In particular, you need to understand concepts like scope, scale and sourcing.  Until you can do that, you are not qualified to perform reviews.  In addition, you need to learn how to provide a reasoned rationale in simple, objective terms without using unnecessary verbiage such as "parenthetically" which impresses no one.  Above all, you need to understand that your task as reviewer is to help the editor to improve the article; not simply say, "I don't like this because the primary source has made a sensational claim".  You need to ask questions: e.g., if you don't understand a term like "inter-county", ask the editor; don't just assume that it is a clumsy mistake and change it regardless.  Your worst failing, and the one that has really annoyed me, is your "brazen" and untenable assumption that the sources are unreliable and, having adopted that mindset, you have effectively dismissed the article. ---BlackJack | talk page 07:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)