Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Charlie Sheen/1

Charlie Sheen

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist per comments below, which raise multiple issues and suggestions for improvements. Geometry guy 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Article has serious neutrality issue, in that it far overemphasizes personal life and political positions over career. Should be delisted per criteria 4. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: an objection has been raised by an uninvolved editor about this GAR as premature. I think that's the threshold question at the moment. If it is, I'd have no problem withdrawing this for the time being. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-classify as B or C class article I support the GAR, as I think that the deficiencies of the article are serious, and their severity outweighs the added work of removing the GA status and maybe reassessing the article in three weeks. WP should not indicate to its readers that it would consider this article a GA. Major problems are: Cs32en 21:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Imbalance of information in the Personal life section.
 * Wording of the Personal life section.
 * Length of the Personal life section, especially in relation to the length of the article overall.
 * Lack of structure (sections, subsection).
 * Few indications about what aspects of his career are most important, this is mainly a list converted into full sentences.
 * Improvement of the article is not restricted by to external factors, such as lack of coverage in reliable sources.
 * Lack of consensus on how 9/11-related statements from Sheen should be covered (although the consensus on this may be achieved in a few days or weeks).
 * Lack of consensus on the further development of the article (although not everyone who has introduced the information that others now - rightly - consider undue is currently participating in the debate.
 * Various issues related to style.


 * I also support a review, the article gets a lot of edits and reverts and is in need of an assessment. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reclassify per Cs32en; in addition, the lead section needs a lot of work. Should give the reader a good understanding of what's significant about Sheen. Specifically, the fact that he's the highest-paid actor in (American?) television needs to be mentioned. -Pete (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GAR can only decide on whether the article meets the GA criteria or not: WikiProject classifications, while important, are beyond our remit. Geometry guy 21:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's a WikiProject assessment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Delist, this article is clearly does not meet Good article criteria and I see no valid reason to delay the GAR because of an on-going issue. The issue's resolution is not going to fix the article. It fails 4 of the 6 criteria:
 * 1 - it is not well written and does not comply it WP:MOS with the horribly short lead, the bad layout and organization, and several malformed references
 * 2 - this is a WP:BLP with unsourced claims - just not acceptable in a GA article; further, what makes "BiggestStars.com" a WP:RS? Is InfoWars a legal distributor of its video clips from the Alex Jones show?
 * 3 - far too focused on his personal life, with a bare minimal of career information - he is an actor with a 30+ year career, summerized in a short 3 paragraph section, while there are three personal life sections spread over the article
 * 4 - tagged for neutrality

I won't even add stability because of the current issue. For anyone interested in improving the quality, why was List of awards and nominations received by Charlie Sheen split? It isn't that long and I see no reason it couldn't be in the main article. His filmography would be a more appropriate split. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I support delisting, i.e. not assigning any class, as a temporary measure. (infowars.com says it is under copyright by Alex Jones, so it seems to be a legal distributor.) Cs32en  02:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Alex Jones wrote a book called infowars; it's part of the same beast for sure. -Pete (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. The most significant problem are the glaring ommissions in the career section. The references pose another serious problem, as some of them represent less than reliable sources. There are a number of minor issues; for example, the lead is a poor encapsulation of the article. Majoreditor (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I want to mention this. The initial GA nominator, from Talk:Charlie Sheen/GA1, appears to have worked very diligently to meet a continually-shifting set of critiques. While the current tenor of this discussion reflects that it doesn't meet GA standards (correctly, I think) it's worth acknowledging that hard work has in fact gone into this article, and the foundation it provides is certainly a strong one. I'm still in favor of delisting, but I shudder to think what this review would look like from the perspective of someone who once put a lot of effort into the article. -Pete (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if there is a lot of information available on an article's subject, it's quite difficult to sort out what is most important, how to organize the stuff etc. Compared with some earlier versions of the article, the GA reviewed version is a significant improvement. The first GA review focused too much on the details (resulting in a lot of work) and was not thorough enough with regard to the overall structure and balance of the article. The work on the details is very useful, however, as this is the stuff few editors would want to work on rigorously. I'll inform the editor, Music2611, about the current GA review.  Cs32en  09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, to be fair, much of the 9-11 publicity has been of Sheen's own doing, generated by him, and his various other escapades have gotten ample coverage in the media. It's only natural for editors to give that significant attention. I don't really fault the editors who gave all that so much space. Still, it just doesn't seem proportional and the article should be delisted until these issues are sorted out. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, Peteforsyth and Cs32en. With additional work this article can meet GA standards. For the moment the best course of action is to delist it, allow editors the time they need to imrprove the article, and then re-nominate it at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this before -- this article had a very pointed peer review shortly after its GA nomination, by one of the most diligent Wikipedians I've encountered. He had strong statements, most significantly about the article's compliance with WP:V. It does not appear that the peer review was met with any response at all. Just thought this should be pointed out. -Pete (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per the above comments. I got this article up to GA status last year I believe. It was the first GA I ever wrote, and my knowledge of the Good Article criteria was minimal back then. The article was already a bit questionable when it was promoted, but along the way, a lot of cruft has been added. At the moment I'm not really interested in getting this article (back) in shape, as I have moved to editing other types of articles.-- Music 26/  11  15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest closing this discussion on September 20, unless significant new information is posted here. Cs32en 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming the unanimous consensus continues, I agree that this coming weekend would be a good time to consider a close. Geometry guy 21:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. Falls far short of GA status. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist. Per above. As someone pointed out, the personal life section is not necessarily too long, but the filmography section is much too short. As such, the article can not be said to be broad in its coverage of the subject. The significant expansion and cleanup required, along with the fact that no editor has explicitly expressed willingness to do the required work, makes it very unlikely that this can be brought up to GA standard within reasonable time. decltype (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)