Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Every Sunday/1

Every Sunday

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: No action. Article has been renominated, as suggested here, and is now a GA. Geometry guy 11:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article is being assessed properly because of its length. It was initially quick-failed basically for being too short. This is an article for a short film, and there is no length requirement for Good articles other than they not be stubs.

The second assessment again basically said the article was too short. Again, there is no minimum length requirement. It also says the prose is "confusing." I'm stumped as to what about the prose is so difficult to grasp. It says that the lead is not detailed enough but gives no indication as to what details from the article are not summarized in the lead. Nor do I understand critiques like "As for the next paragraph, the two sentences seem to be lacking details. Just to clear things up, they do not need more details...." How exactly can a paragraph be lacking in details yet not need more details? It makes no sense!

As for the reference critique, I really wish everyone who reviews GA nominees would get on board with one idea on the way to write references. One reviewer says to use the Author, page number format and fails articles without it and another fails articles that use this format. Casablanca (film) uses Author, page for a number of its references and it's a featured article! Are we holding good articles to higher standards than featured ones now? And speaking of references, the reviewer states that two sentences seem "opinion-y" but in each instance they are referenced by citations in the following sentence. Does there really need to be a separate citation to the same source and the same page for each of them? Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose listing per my review and my comment below this.
 * Comment Let me just explain some things that you questioned about my review. I apologize for the confusion as when I write on talk pages I tend to write colloquially and it gets very confusing. Addressing your concern about the article's failing due to length, it is not the length that I failed it for. An article cannot be failed for length if it cannot be expanded, but if it can be expanded, then it fails criteria 4a by not providing sufficient coverage of the topic. If you can prove that there are absolutely NO more possible details or sub-topics that can be included, then that aspect of my review will become invalid. For your next comment about the lead's details: that was not a major item that I focused on. I was mainly concerned with the topic sentence since it starts to give context on what the plot was ("...tells the story of two young girls and their efforts to save a public concert series."), but then cuts short. All it provides is that there are two girls and a concert series. The minimum that would need to be added would be maybe be this: "...to save a public concert series, which had been degrading due to low attendance." As for the prose, there are some parts that are confusing. I explained as much as I could in the review but I will try to provide some examples. Here is one from the plot section: "Edna (Deanna Durbin) and her friend Judy (Judy Garland) are upset because Edna's grandfather and his orchestra have been fired by the town council from the free Sunday concerts they play because of poor attendance." I separated all the different clauses by bolding every other clause. This sentence is way too long. Maybe some advanced readers like you and me may read this sentence and say, "This is good." But inexperienced users that may visit the article might find themselves looking back to remember what the main topic of the sentence is. As for the exteremely confusing sentence I put in the review, that was a fault in my prose. What I meant to say was that the sentences do not necessarily need details, but they should have more details. Finally, as for the reference section, you can choose whichever style you want, but if you choose the "Author, Page Number" style, you must list what the references are in a separate Bibliography or References section. For instance, as per the example you gave (Casablanca (film)), the article uses the "Author, Page Number" style in their footnotes. If you look below the Notes section, though, you will see that any reference that was cited using that style was listed in full form in a separate "References" section. If you have any more questions, please ask and I will be happy to answer them. This page should also get comments from other authors if you want to see what they think. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Criterion 3a (there is no criterion 4a) asks if the article "addresses the major aspects of the topic" and has a footnote that explicitly states that the requirement is "significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." Suggesting that I prove that there are no possible additional details that could be included indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the good article criteria on your part.
 * Neither is there a requirement in the criteria that references be in the format that you're demanding. Criterion 2a requires a reference section and links to Citing sources which is a guideline and is to be approached using common sense. This article has nine footnotes. Do you really think that anyone reading the notes section is going to look at, say, note 4 "Clarke p. 76" and not be able to figure out that it's the same source as note 1, mandating that all of the information from note 1 be repeated in a separate bibliography? Or that note 7's "Juneau p. 27" is so distant from the information in note 2 that it will stump them? This supposed requirement for a separate bibliography before listing a GA is not borne out by the reviewers of any of the ten articles that I've gotten listed already. I suppose it's possible that all ten of those reviewers are wrong and you're right but isn't it possible that it's the other way around?
 * If you thought that a couple of the sentences were awkwardly written, you could have placed the article on hold to give me the chance to work on them instead of failing the article. I have broken the offending sentence down and rewritten it, and have also added the detaill you wanted to the lead. Otto4711 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I am just giving you my opinion. If you really feel that my judgment it wrong, then just request another nomination. It is not necessary to search for ways to negate my review. As for the first bullet you had, you are probably right and I am just holding the article's coverage to a standard higher than it should be. As for the references, the change that I suggested is very trivial. If you want I could fix it. The statement on the form of the references was just my own opinion that I adopted when an article I nominated got such an opinion and was failed because of it. I apologize if the such opinion is not used in practice, but still I think that it is not that big of a deal that we need to argue over whether a citation needs to be copied and pasted into a section at the bottom of the page, which could take a maximum of five minutes. Finally, as for your third bullet, I would have put the article on hold if the prose was the only reason I failed it (the other reasons happen to be the ones you disagree with). In conclusion, though, whether I am right or wrong with any part of my review, there is no minimum time between nominations (as you probably know from experience), and it only takes about five minutes to renominate the article. And if you do renominate it, I guarantee I will have the common sense that you want a second opinion so I will let somebody else review it. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am simply following the instructions laid out at Good article reassessment. I responded to your review here (which, I'm sorry, I found very confusing to read; I would suggest that if you review GA noms in future you use bullet point as seen here or better yet copy and paste the GA criteria and respond to each as is seen here) and I responded to your comment about this reassessment. This is an attempt to build consensus about the article by involving a wider array of editors. Personally I don't like GAR because it seems to generally take about a month to get one completed but if I think the article isn't being reviewed reasonably because of its length then it doesn't make much sense for me to keep putting the same short article back on the list.
 * Suit yourself, but I guarantee that since the previous reviewer seems like he had no idea what he/she was doing and my review was just withholding too high a standard for the article, that you were just unlucky. Maybe if somebody who reviewed one of your previous GA nominations might be helpful if you nominated it again. Either way, maybe other editors will comment on this page sometime soon and we can reach some sort of consensus. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you a little more closely at WP:CITE and at Harvard referencing, you will find that the extra referencing section is necessary. If you decide not to use that style of referencing, then if you read the previous sections of WP:CITE, it says that you must provide full citations. If you can find some sort of exception or something that I missed that allows otherwise, please tell me so I do not criticize it again. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I changed the photo to something much better-looking than the extremely low resolution advertisement that was previously in the infobox. If you do not like, please revert it. I just wanted to see if there was any better image. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored the original image. The one inserted isn't from the film. Majoreditor (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Sorry about that. I was not sure. Oh well, the article needs a better image. Maybe if there were any screenshots of the film or something. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article is close to GA standards but falls short in some areas. There are minor issues with the referencing. Two or three of the sentences are a trifle long. Some phrases should be sharpened for clarity's sake. The plot summary section could be better developed. And I'm surprised there's not more references to available on-line resources, such as this one on the New York Times website. A better image, while not required, would be nice; there are several you'll find through gsearch which, I believe, pass muster.
 * While the lead could be better developed, it complies with WP:LEAD standards. And I'm perplexed by the reviewer's remark about proving that "there are absolutely NO more possible details or sub-topics that can be included", as I'm unaware of GA articles needing to clear such a high hurdle.
 * Overall, it's is a pretty good short article with no major problems -- just some small concerns. I doubt there's much more material to incorporate since the film is a tiny topic. That's fine, as short articles can qualify for GA status.
 * Otto, the best route may be for you to fix the few small issues that have been raised and then re-nominate the article at GAN. Many GA reviewers would have placed the article on Hold, allowing you time to address concerns. However, different reviewers have different styles, and the decision to employ GA-Hold is subjective. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you let me know which phrases specifically you think are problematic? Otto4711 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I apologize for holding the article to such high standards during my review. Hopefully this article will be able to pas GA and maybe even go further than that. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This looks to me like a case where the article could have been put on hold rather than failed (I emphasise "could" rather than "should" because this is a matter for the reviewer's discretion). However, it seems to me that both nominator and reviewer might be happy if this article were put back on hold as a current GAN: in which case this GAR could be closed and discussion about listing the article as GA could continue on the article talk page. Geometry guy 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. If you would care to weigh in on the article itself that would be appreciated. Otto4711 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)