Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mimicry/1

Mimicry

 * Article (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Article talk (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Watch article &middot; Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. Substantial arguments have been put forward that the article does not meet the broadness/conciseness criterion. No counterarguments have been put forward. Geometry guy 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article I've contributed to a lot myself last year and hope to continue with. It was listed as a GA while I was away from Wikipedia over the summer and I was pretty surprised to see it listed. I had rated it myself as a start, and while I wouldn't necessarily object to a B class rating I don't feel it's GA material yet. There are a few areas that are missing in terms of coverage, and others that are probably covered in too much depth. Most of the article is on classification and only a little deals with evolutionary and theoretical aspects (signalling theory, modelling etc). I think we need to get a stable set of daughter articles first, then prune off some of the content and expand on other areas. After that a peer review would be desirable, then it might be reasonable to seek GA status, but I don't think it lives up to its current assessment. Richard001 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This one is a difficult one to call, as it depends on a certain amount of subjectivity to determine how high the standards for GA are, particularly with regard to broadness and focus (#3). It seems to me that some evolutionary and signalling aspects are discussed within the classification, as well as in the separate section on evolution, so I'm inclined to say the article is more-or-less broad enough for GA. However, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, especially if other subject area experts comment here. Alternatively, if the classification were spun off as a daughter article, then that daughter article might reach GA standard quite quickly. Geometry guy 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With classification, my personal intention was/is to create a daughter article on classification, because the subject is quite technical. There are a lot of classificatory aspects not currently covered (read the Pasteur article if you want the details), and some are covered but are probably too technical for a general article (hence the need for a daughter article, compare with say the current Britannica article by Wickler). I doubt we have any biologists here who specialize in mimicry (there are few who do), but there are some that would know a little about it. Because it's quite a narrow area most won't know much, but it's possible to become reasonably knowledgeable with enough reading. I think User:Dyanega would probably be the most knowledgeable Wikipedian on this topic. Richard001 (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another comment: There are also still a lot of bullet pointed lists, which are sort of a vestige from the articles earlier days which have no yet been prose-ified. Richard001 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Richard, I'm really sorry that GAR is not proving to be much help deciding what to do with this article. I intend to close this discussion fairly soon with a "No action" result unless that changes. Note that if you feel strongly that the article should be delisted, then once this discussion has closed, you just need to find an independent editor to look at it: if they agree with you, they can delist it by following the delisting guidelines. Geometry guy 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard, I'm glad that you're working on this article and that you feel it is too short, because you seem to be pretty well-versed in the subject matter. However, there is no such thing as a perfect article. GA is supposed to be about 60-80% as good as a featured article, which still isn't a perfect article. Is near enough good enough? -Malkinann (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article just has too many problems to be GA material. I've had a look at an article at the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences and it has a much better coverage of different aspects; only a small section is devoted to classification. It's not a great article itself, being focussed mainly on the two 'classical' forms of mimicry and often oversimplifying things, but it has a better balance of topics. And balance and underdevelopment aren't the only problems; some sections are too detailed, there are surely some errors or at least things that need citations... I just don't feel it's GA. I know this is a difficult one because anyone unfamiliar with the topic (though I'm not a specialist by any means) will find it difficult to assess the article's quality. I think this is one of those rare cases where I should just ignore the rules and delist it myself. I've given people ample time to object to the delisting, after all. Richard001 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think we should go with the article author on this and delist as requested. GA is, after all, voluntary; there's nothing to be gained by forcing an unwanted status on this admittedly very good article. If reasons (other than those already given regarding coverage) are needed, there are possibly one or two prose and organisational issues, but that is really just nitpicking. I expect when the article is ready, GA assessment will not be too difficult ;) EyeSerene TALK 10:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist. As a non-expert I was open to be convinced that this needed delisting, and for me the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences article has swung the balance in favour of delisting. That article is an imperfect treatment of the subject, but it clearly reveals inadequacies in the balance of our article. My own comments above that "some evolutionary and signalling aspects are discussed within the classification" are irrelevant: in a broad and focused article, these issues need fuller separate discussions. I had been concerned that this article was close to the borderline on criterion 3. I am no longer so concerned. Geometry guy 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to see there's some agreement. Do you want to do the honours then, Geometry guy? Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As few have commented, I'll follow the archiving guidelines and wait until 7 Feb. Why the rush to delist? Geometry guy 12:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As you wish; I'm not very familiar with the process myself. Richard001 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from WhatamIdoing:

Richard001, I understand that this article isn't all that you hope it will eventually be. The official six GA criteria are:
 * 1) It is well written.
 * 2) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * 3) It is broad in its coverage.
 * 4) It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * 5) It is stable.
 * 6) It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.

In your opinion, which of these criteria are not met by the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe Richard's objections are that the article is not sufficiently broad, and that the portion of the article dealing with classification is overdetailed - criteria 3a and 3b, although he hasn't put it like that. -Malkinann (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 3 would be the main one. It could also certainly be written better, and I have no doubt a specialist could find at least a couple of factual problems with it. It's also not very stable, though recently I haven't been editing much so I guess right now it's fairly stable. The images are good enough for GA, though we could still improve the media more (video and audio would make it excellent). Richard001 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)