Talk:William Bedle/GA3

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

Derek.cashman's comments
The nominator quickly renominated this article at WP:GAN after only a day or two of failing GA review. The proper channel for this is to go to GA reassessment, so that the broader community of more experienced GA reviewers can have a say in whether this article meets the criteria or not. I am therefore removing this article from WP:GAN and listing it at WP:GAR. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This does not comply with WP:GAR guidelines and your action has been reverted, especially as (a) you did not consult either the main editor or the active reviewer; (b) the process you tried to implement has failed completely (e.g., no transclusion to GAR page). In any case, the review was already well-advanced and must be allowed to stand. However, given that the reviewer has a couple of concerns around GAC3a (not unexpected) and a minor question arising from GAC1b, I will personally see to it that the article goes to GAR as soon as the reviewer declares that he has completed this review. ---Jack | talk page 07:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary
On balance, I've decided to fail the article on a technicality because I do not have enough experience as an editor to say if it should pass criterion 3(a). I think it deserves to pass but I have noted an offer by the main editor to go to GAR over this question and I think that would be the best course of action.

I would be most interested to read what others might say about point 3(a) and ideally I'd like a non-English reviewer to confirm that the terminology is okay for point 1(b). Otherwise, the article meets the grade. It is very important to remember that is bound to be a short article and it is to the editor's credit that he has been able to do so much with so little, really. Having seen what the editor has written on the GA talk page, he is obviously using this minimalist item to "test" the GA process because the cricket project has a store of other short articles that they want to promote and this one is their "pioneer". It is certainly a very interesting test for the GA process in terms of its stated aim to welcome short articles. --KenKt (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Final comment
The object of this exercise was always to get a thorough review done against some agreed criteria with the sole aim of improving the article and establishing a formula for developing similarly short articles. The surviving data about the subject in primary sources amounts to no more than a couple of sentences but it is clear that he was the best player around in his day and was remembered long after he finished playing. As such, he is more deserving of a decent article than 99% of other cricketers who have got 30k-plus written about them. Now that it has had its thorough review and been suitably improved, I'm not doing anything else with it. I'm certainly not putting it through the so-called reassessment procedure.

It did not surprise me in the least that the review process failed to do justice to a short article because there is a mindset on this site that an article can only be good if it is a long article. Then there are the inevitable disruptive elements who obstruct progress and waste everybody's time and certainly there was an abundance of that.

I have decided that this review process is itself a waste of time. It is no better than the inane CfD process. Whenever you enter any process on this site that involves administrative procedures you end up playing politics and getting stressed about it all. And that's before you even think about the ubiquitous IP addresses and their infantile drivel.

Frankly, enough is enough. Especially as I have much better things to do. ---Jack | talk page 16:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Review summary: marginal Fail
Well, I don't know if I'm coming or going here and I think the least that the administrator could do is provide a proper explanation for his action. I have left him a message and he has not responded. What he has done is inconsistent with a scenario described on the WP:GAR page.

It would seem that everything I wrote on this page when it was a review will be stored in the log records so it can easily be recovered. For now, though, I am deleting it all and will address this matter from a different angle.

I started a third review in the genuine belief that I was in order to do so. I studied the article, I studied the two previous reviews and I began to form my own views. First of all, I looked at the five quickcheck pointers and was satisfied that the article passed all of these without problem. This includes point 1 which is about the reliability of quoted sources and I wish to stress, in the light of the second review, that the sources are all reliable and reputable.

I then made comments on the two earlier reviews and concluded that the first was fair enough, especially as it was done against the GA criteria. That reviewer failed the article because he believes there is insufficient available information and this brought the meaning of GAC3 into question because I believe, as does the main editor, that this must be about ample coverage rather than broad coverage. If coverage must be "broad" then short articles are subjected to a handicap from the outset and yet, in real terms, a short article may be much broader in its coverage than a long one.

The second review was not completed properly as the GA criteria were not utilised and the reviewer based his verdict upon an unfounded opinion about the sources to the effect that he considered them "suspect". There are no grounds whatsoever for this view which does not assume good faith re the citation of those sources. As that review was effectively aborted, I personally can see no reason why the editor should not renominate per the GAR page mentioned above. He did renominate and I picked up the baton. I was well into the review and had left some interim suggestions for the editor while I researched the site review processes in more detail. At this point, the administrator intervened and now it is not a nomination but a reassessment. And I would still like to see a rationale for that.

Meanwhile, I see that the editor has taken on board my suggestion that he make more use of the Rowland Bowen book and I believe this has improved the article somewhat. I see he has added something about batting and bowling techniques in Bedle's time which is useful too.

In my view, the article should be rated against the good article criteria as follows:

1. Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * The prose is written to a high standard and there are no spelling or grammar mistakes. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * As a new member, I have not yet had time to familiarise myself with the manual of style but I trust it is a matter of common sense. There is a lead section which is concise and I believe it adequately summarises the body of the article. The layout is acceptable and headings have been introduced. I am English and familiar with cricket so the terminology presents no problems for me but an American, for example, might question some terms; so it's possible that a few minor changes might be necessary there. There are no objectionable words, it is not fiction and there are no listing problems. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout
 * All points made are cited to a reliable and reputable source. There is a very well presented reference section including footnotes, cited works and external links. Just one tiny suggestion here: I notice a lot of articles incorporate a further reading list of works that do not add directly to the subject but provide useful background or cover the big picture; I wonder if such a list might help if the editor can think of suitable entries? [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons
 * As for (a) above. It is very thoroughly referenced. There are several quotations and some have two references while all have at least one. The article is very strong in this respect. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

(c) it contains no original research
 * There was a minor problem here when GA/1 was done, owing to an inappropriate reference, but it has been sorted out and there is no original research now. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

3. Broad (i.e., ample) in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * This is the difficult one in terms of article length because there are few main aspects given the shortage of surviving data about both the man and the sport during his career. I'm not sure myself but there may be enough here to qualify especially as a good rationale has been given about why Bedle was so highly rated, particularly the point that he remained famous for forty years after he stopped playing. It is good that we read how the game was played then and what the Dartford club achieved while Bedle played for it. There is a fine line between providing just enough detail without unnecessary padding and I think the editor is very close to that line, assuming he is right about the surviving data and that there is no more that could be utilised. But, on balance, I think I would like to see this point discussed by editors more experienced than myself and so this is a very marginal [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|18px]]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
 * In this respect it does very well because the ancillary material about batting and bowling in one paragraph is relevant to Bedle and similarly the Dartford/Kent match information in the next paragraph. These paragraphs nicely round out the subject and give us a glimpse of the wider picture that is most useful. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias
 * No problems. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
 * No problems. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * The image is a photograph taken by a site member and granted to Wikipedia under the GFDL so there is no problem. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * The one image used is appropriate and so is its caption. It is relevant to the batting paragraph and sits immediately beside it, which is good. The information box is a useful addition to the article too. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]

Summary
On balance, I've decided to fail the article on a technicality because I do not have enough experience as an editor to say if it should pass criterion 3(a). I think it deserves to pass but I have noted an offer by the main editor to go to GAR over this question and I think that would be the best course of action.

I would be most interested to read what others might say about point 3(a) and ideally I'd like a non-English reviewer to confirm that the terminology is okay for point 1(b). Otherwise, the article meets the grade. It is very important to remember that is bound to be a short article and it is to the editor's credit that he has been able to do so much with so little, really. Having seen what the editor has written on the GA talk page, he is obviously using this minimalist item to "test" the GA process because the cricket project has a store of other short articles that they want to promote and this one is their "pioneer". It is certainly a very interesting test for the GA process in terms of its stated aim to welcome short articles. --KenKt (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Final comment
The object of this exercise was always to get a thorough review done against some agreed criteria with the sole aim of improving the article and establishing a formula for developing similarly short articles. The surviving data about the subject in primary sources amounts to no more than a couple of sentences but it is clear that he was the best player around in his day and was remembered long after he finished playing. As such, he is more deserving of a decent article than 99% of other cricketers who have got 30k-plus written about them. Now that it has had its thorough review and been suitably improved, I'm not doing anything else with it. I'm certainly not putting it through the so-called reassessment procedure.

It did not surprise me in the least that the review process failed to do justice to a short article because there is a mindset on this site that an article can only be good if it is a long article. Then there are the inevitable disruptive elements who obstruct progress and waste everybody's time and certainly there was an abundance of that.

I have decided that this review process is itself a waste of time. It is no better than the inane CfD process. Whenever you enter any process on this site that involves administrative procedures you end up playing politics and getting stressed about it all. And that's before you even think about the ubiquitous IP addresses and their infantile drivel.

Frankly, enough is enough. Especially as I have much better things to do. ---Jack | talk page 16:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)