Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Impalement arts/1

Impalement arts

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delisted. There are still numerous unresolved issues. When you believe the article meets criteria, you can renominate at GAN. —Giggy 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was recently listed by a reviewer who, at the time, had fewer than 200 edits. I believe the listing to have been a mistake. The article suffers from poor sourcing and too much of the content is in list format. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist per the following:
 * 1A: Poor grammar. Sentences should not start with "Because", "This" or "And"; subject should be properly reintroduced.  Don't editorialize (e.g. "Perhaps the most notable...", etc.)  Missing punctuation (e.g. "The precise origins of the impalement arts remain unknown but there are", etc.)--Nemonoman (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1B: Heavy use of weasel words (e.g. "It has been asserted by several sources", "some point to overtones", etc.)
 * 2A: First paragraph of "Noted impalement artists" section is unsourced and "Disciplines" section is unsourced. ibid, et al. should not be used (WP:FOOT)
 * 2B: Numerous unreliable sources, e.g.
 * http://www.painproofrubbergirls.com/ - what makes this reliable?
 * http://www.knifethrower.com/ - what makes this reliable?
 * http://www.ikthof.com/ - "club" website - 132 members - what makes this reliable?
 * http://www.xtremebehavior.com/ - what makes this reliable?
 * Note 5 of "Extensive evidence of the debate on this topic is to be found in various online forums including the Dangerous Circus Acts groups on Yahoo!" is entirely inappropriate sourcing.
 * IMDB is used heavily - this is not a reliable source for anything other than basic release dates, etc.
 * 2C: Concerns related to lack of sourcing (see 2A). Numerous other instances (e.g. "In some ways the Tell legend can be seen as one of the earliest inspirations for the impalement arts" has no source; "Another important aspect" - important to whom?)
 * 3B: "Noted impalement artists" and "Fictional or artistic representations" sections are unnecessarily long; the latter, especially, is essentially nothing more than a trivia section. Why is such detail and minutia necessary?  Does knowing, for example, that two henchmen in a Bond movie were knife throwers really provide any substantive contribution to our understanding of the topic.  Given that these sections comprise more than half of the article by length, WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems to be a concern; see also list incorporation requirement of 1B.
 * 6A: WP:IUP requires verifiable sources. Claim that copyright holder has allowed free license needs means of verification/substantiation (e.g. OTRS ticket).
 * 6B: Period should be used (see WP:CAPTION) and we shouldn't be using an external link. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: point 6A, I've added attribution text to the license template for that image. This includes a link to copyright holder's website, which provides a means to contact him should anyone need to verify he licensed the image. I will look at other points as and when I have time/inclination.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * Not bothered either way Delist : While I disagree with some of the criticisms made above there are others that I concede. Clearly the article requires work. One of the problems I faced in the discussion preceding GAR nomination was that critics were unhelpfully imprecise about what needed to be done where. The comments from User:elcobbola are at least a bit more specific. Addressing all these issues will take time (especially as, having been the main contributor so far, I may now be devoting much less energy to Wikipedia). It seems the best way forward is for the status of this article to be changed to an appropriate category and for work to proceed as and when possible with a view to returning to GA status once appropriate .10:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
 * Thanks to Nemonoman for balancing things up a bit. My vote to delist was made in a moment of depression and frustration at the sort of criticism that was occuring. It's difficult to judge how to defend one's work in this situation because I feel these reviews ought to be objective processes. For that reason I had nothing to do with GA nomination and review (which was one of the few pleasant surprises I've had while working on Wiki). However, given the nature of criticism, it would have been remiss of me to let it go unchallenged. Nemonoman has now said much of what I was feeling. I will now shut up and go away and return to the article from time to time to make what improvements I can. I leave it up to others to express views on whether the article is best developed at GA status or some lower designation.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * Keep: This is a good article when measured against the Good Article criteria as stated. There is a tendency by some editors to demand near-FA quality for a GAR. I advise them to follow the GA criteria more exactly. There is no doubt that this article could be improved by tighter writing as suggested. But the writing is at this point Good (and it is a rare article indeed where the writing is perfect.) I disagree that the article is too listy or trivia prone. The editor(s) provided an abundance of examples (with references) that demonstrated (to me) that this unusual topic, which I assumed would be sort of dead end worthy of speedy delete when I turned to it, was in fact a fascinating and pervasive part of popular culture. The critics who complain above about unreliability of sources beg the question: Given the breadth of examples and the arcane topic, a bit of latitude should be accepted. The critics appear to be challenging some cites provisionally based on the name or nature of websites. They Can't or Won't name specific examples of doubtful content. The article's discussion pages show no challenges to facts as presented. The editors provide numerous examples article, with citations -- the large number included appears to be the basis for 'list' or 'trivia' critiques above. Clearly these elements are not notable enough for individual articles and would be speedy deletes; but as components of this comprehensive article, they provided through their number and variety an unexpected and fascinating glimpse into an area of entertainment that I personally had not considered. I think this article deserves to be on any list of Good WP articles. My very sincere compliments to Circusmagicfan, who very much deserves praise. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist. This interesting article failed to convince me even that its title is more than a neologism. There's plenty of unsourced opinion too e.g., "It is arguable that some sharpshooting acts fall into the category of impalement arts when they involve a performer holding up targets for a marksman". So who is doing the arguing? Geometry guy 22:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I concede there are aspects of the article which need improving, I have to take issue with any suggestion that the title is a neologism. The term "Impalement arts" might not be much used outside the business but, as stated in the article, there are sources dating back to at least 1871 which support its use as the technical or umbrella term for these types of act.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
 * May I apologize for my rather terse and unhelpful assessment. I normally try to provide more thorough and helpful review contributions than this. I'm going to be away for a few days, and won't be able to make amends until the weekend. I appreciate the reassurance that the term is not a neologism, but this is not very clear from the article. The 1871 quote does not say what the feat is, as far as I can tell, and use of the word "impalement" is not the same thing as demonstrating that "impalement arts" and "impalement artist" are well-established umbrella terms. It is important that WP articles clearly demonstrate that they are reporting on a notable topic and are not original research (e.g. synthesis). I do not wish to doubt at all what you say, but could you find a way to make the article demonstrate this more clearly? That would help a lot. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Nemonoman. The points from ЭLСОВВОLД are applying very stringent criteria beyond whats called for. I'm not saying Wiki shouldn't be thorough but that's too much. Grammar in the article is actually pretty good in most parts, theres loads of sources and ones like IMDB aren't used to justify anything contentious, in fact nothing really contentious in it (and I speak as a knife enthusiast). OK it needs work if its gonna develop to the very highest class of article but its a fine and comprehensive read as is.Kid Zed (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Kid_Zed
 * My points cite precisely the GA criteria that are not satisfied. Good articles need to meet the GA criteria; please identify the "very stringent criteria beyond whats [sic] called for" I am supposedly using.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist per Elcobbola and Gguy. The makings of a good article (in the GA sense) are there, but there are too many issues with prose and referencing for me to be comfortable retaining this as a GA. To take perhaps the most significant example, the Noted impalement artists section seems to be a directory of names, with little indication as to why they are notable. The inline citations often direct to the performer's own websites - this is not adequate in referencing terms, which requires non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources (and gives the unfortunate and unintended impression of spamlinking). This section should probably be drastically trimmed or removed altogether, with perhaps a few truly notable artists written about in well-referenced prose. My concern about inappropriate external links is a general one: the External links section could also do with a trim; per WP:LINKS, only links that further expand on content are really necessary. I see no reason to include a promotional link in the opening image caption either. I could go on, but I really don't want to contribute further to Circusandmagicfan's demoralisation. Please don't take these assessments personally - you've produced an interesting and informative article, but not GA standard yet. EyeSerene talk 13:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right -- for further advice, see Illegitimi non carborundum--Nemonoman (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've often thought that should be on the front page. I think sourcing is going to be the biggest issue here, but if you'd like a prose copyedit from one of the illegitimi (in this case at least), and don't mind my often sporadic editing pattern, just shout ;) EyeSerene talk 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)